|
Well I agree, FRB is pretty awesome and definitely improves the game-play. The things in this thread should be used to make FRB maps better, because they need this type of thing more than 8m maps. At least I think that's what Barrin is getting at. If FRB were bad, this thread wouldn't be too useful because 8m (according to the OP) isn't in need of this type of thing. Positioning-based terrain development compliments FRB.
I think we all knew that FRB maps would sort of be a reset on the mapping "metagame" as much as it is on the actual gameplay. In this way, it's expected for the first FRB maps to suck pretty bad, because no one knows what's good yet. I think Barrin is looking for ways to start helping improve the maps to fix some of the possible issues in current FRB maps (lack of positioning and control,) in addition to complaining about the lack of high ground advantage in SC2.
Of course these concepts can apply to 8m maps as well, but they aren't as important because they don't have as many points of interest.
I don't think SC2 needs a high ground advantage. I think it can be okay as is, and with the proper designs we can make a game that's even more action packed because it isn't so easy to defend certain ramps, so aggression is more possible. It's a complicated issue. On one hand, making it easy to lock down and defend an area allows that player to do more things with his other units, giving him more options. On the other hand, if it's harder to lock down, the opponent can attack more easily there so he gets more options. I don't think there's an ideal amount for this, but a lot of it's in Blizzards hands so we can take what they give us and bend it one way or another (even for each individual point on each map) to get something good. Personally I feel that in BW it's too easy to lock down areas and in SC2 it's too difficult.
FRB adds the need to control more space, but not the means. Of course both players are affected by this so it's still fair, but it would probably cause a lot of base trades and things like that. The things in this thread could help out a lot when trying to improve upon that. Luckily it seems like Blizzard wants to add more positional and zone control units in HotS, too, so I'm sure we'll be fine.
|
I wish "being liberal with forward chokes" was more.. straight forward. I'm not sure if you want less chokes, more chokes, or better chokes. The provided TvZ example doesn't help much, as I can't tell if you're supporting the claim that Terran should be allowed to defend through a choke, or that Zerg should be allowed to attack with much less hindrance.
|
On April 18 2012 13:04 Chargelot wrote:
I wish "being liberal with forward chokes" was more.. straight forward. I'm not sure if you want less chokes, more chokes, or better chokes. The provided TvZ example doesn't help much, as I can't tell if you're supporting the claim that Terran should be allowed to defend through a choke, or that Zerg should be allowed to attack with much less hindrance.
I personally don't quite understand what Barrin is saying about using chokes liberally. There are really two types of chokes in my opinoin. The first is a choke that fits into the map concept; examples of this are the tiny choke on Blue Storm and the highground choke w/rocks on Cloud Kingdom. The second type of choke is a balance choke; examples of these are chokes at expansions and chokes in otherwise open areas. Balance chokes are completely based off of balance, and stay true on most maps: the main choke is a 1x ramp, natural is 3 gateways (9hexes), third has to be pretty tight to wall off, and the middle is the most open part of the map.
One thing I'd say that could be improved is the use of 1x ramps and tiny (I mean tiny) chokes. Imo a small ramp, like the size of a main ramp, is really cool in a lot of situations. It encourages pre-positioning units so they don't get caught out of position. It encourages harass from Protoss (if used at expansions) because they can FF off the ramp. It also really strengthens picking your battle locations or strategically advancing your army. I'll be experimenting with 1x ramps as the entrance to the third on Afterglow 
|
|
|
Fewer resources per base: Breadth of Gameplay in SC2
I guess an example of a liberal forward choke would be something like the small ramp on the platform outside the natural on Crossfire. Seems a little weak since it's only really used to protect the natural and doesn't really cover the third, but it's still sometimes used to defend rather than fighting down in the natural itself. At least that's the best thing I can think of that would act as that.
|
I think the issue is definitely a unit-design problem.
Personally my theory is that armies are too competent at engaging-- they smash into each other and obliterate each other with insane efficiency. Whereas if you look at BW (or, say, total annihilation) the whole ordeal is a mess, and it takes a masterful level of control to sort it out.
Map control, I think, is about your ability to stall an opponent's movement. The longer you can stop an opponent from moving through a path (or the slower you can make your opponent move), the more time you have to pull your forces to protect it. In SC2, it is very hard to stall an opponent, which is why Xel'naga towers are so crucial-- it's too late when the opponent is on your doorstep, so you have to know about it before it happens. It's partially why forcefields are useful for the protoss-- they can stall the attack and prepare for it, although too often this turns into indefinite stalling.
The situation currently is one where, if you break up your army to try to control parts of the map, the separate 'squads' are simply singled out and crushed, and the enemy army is gone by the time your main force gets there, and then you lose because you've thrown away too much of your army for unequal trades. The deathball, then, is the most efficient army-grouping. Everything needs to be in one place at one time because you won't get a chance to reinforce. The battle is over too quickly and there aren't many good ways to delay it, especially when you consider that retreating is costly when the opponent has marauders, forcefields, or fungals. It is, with these things, even difficult to just turn around and regroup.
My point is, spreading out is bad because if the opponent doesn't spread out they have an advantage over your spread. It should be the other way around, I think. Spreading out should give some minor advantage without being less effective than a deathball (or at least, the advantage should make up for the efficacy difference).
One more thing, there comes a point where your army is too large, where units past a certain point won't engage at 100% efficiency. This becomes more obvious with maxed armies and in smaller places, some units get stuck behind the front line. Right now, this point is too large of an army. Gathering your forces all into one army is the best tactic because they'll stack without an efficiency drop. This is because units clump so well and also because they move so well-- moving the line up slightly so all of your units can engage isn't difficult.
If we compare to BW, the units are much worse at getting into position, and so this effect is greatly increased-- your units that aren't engaging will be much harder to get to engage. If the opponent is constantly repositioning himself, he can keep your excess troops from engaging. A smaller force with control becomes just as strong as a large force. This is in terms of damage output, not longevity, but it means the stalling potential is vastly increased. Suddenly your army would have a higher damage output with the same longevity if it was more spread out.
Breaking up the deathball first needs to be feasible in the unit design before it is feasible in the map design. Maps can be changed and changed and changed but as it stands deathballs are the natural order of things, and they will find a way back in. I think the crux of the matter is tweaking things so forces become less efficient as they become larger, and making retreat less costly. I could (easily, in fact) be wrong, but right now I don't think there's much the map can do.
|
As something that might provoke some ideas/thoughts, I used to play a little Battle for Middle-Earth 2. In that game resource collection was done by a building that in essence gathered based on the area covered by its "aura." Overlapping auras only produced for the area they individually controlled. In essence your resource collection rate = the area you had controlled
As for the strength of zone control, I think this would really require an analysis of the various "zone controllers" and the various "siege breakers." Just off the top of my head based on things I've heard, chargelots and immortals would be two examples of "siege breakers." Bunker, PFs, and siege tanks are examples of "zone controllers."
Part of the reason "zone controllers" appear to not fully perform their role is the disparity of damage based on numbers. A "deathball" absolutely obliterates small defenses because they cannot do enough damage below critical mass. As an example unless you have 10+ siege tanks pouring fire into an approaching immortal line, the immortals will likely overrun the tank position. Chargelots take around 5 direct hits from siege tanks to die, thus any mass of chargelots could easily charge an exposed tank line with fewer than 10 tanks with minimal losses. 10 tanks (30 supply if i remember correctly) would be a massive investment for a single area of zone control.
Now the problem of zone control has some readily apparent solutions that have been discussed to degrees. Chokes force the deathball to spread out if only momentarily. High ground gives the defender some advantage as long as there is no spotter.
Some solutions that may be under exposed might include an "artificial choke." These actually happen alot in specific situations. Terrans almost always wall in their ramp. Protoss will near-wall their expand on a FFE. During some of the earlier experimentation with mech tvp, PFs provided some almost broken choke points that Protoss were considered fools for engaging at.
Summary: This discussion is in essence one of zone control. A detailed analysis of existing "zone control" vs "siege breakers" should be the foundation of this discussion. From their tactics and mapmaking can then research how to create and exploit zone control to create an "anti-deathball" metagame that may at least offer an alternative.
|
Just a brief thought on the subject of zone control. One big difference between BW and SC2 is how many units can clump together. I am not just talking about only moving 12 units at a time, but also about how closely units group up. This makes marine balls more effective, since they can get more surface area, it also makes it harder to micro zerglings against siege tanks. Think about colossi and how units can walk underneath them, and sentry forcefields and how it makes sense to keep all you units in a blob underneath them.
A possible solution might be to increase the "footprint" of each unit, thereby forcing them to spread out. It would maybe help to alleviate the zone control problem a bit, since it would limit the amount of units that can attack into any given space at once.
Another option, from a more map maker perspective, might be to spread out the chokes. I think this is kind of what blizzard had in mind with the natural expansions on Arid Plateau though I'm afraid to even bring that map up.... What I mean in simplistic terms is for example, instead of having a single 10 square choke at the natural, maybe we have two 5 square chokes. Just some food for thought
|
On April 18 2012 15:08 Rkynick wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the issue is definitely a unit-design problem.
Personally my theory is that armies are too competent at engaging-- they smash into each other and obliterate each other with insane efficiency. Whereas if you look at BW (or, say, total annihilation) the whole ordeal is a mess, and it takes a masterful level of control to sort it out.
Map control, I think, is about your ability to stall an opponent's movement. The longer you can stop an opponent from moving through a path (or the slower you can make your opponent move), the more time you have to pull your forces to protect it. In SC2, it is very hard to stall an opponent, which is why Xel'naga towers are so crucial-- it's too late when the opponent is on your doorstep, so you have to know about it before it happens. It's partially why forcefields are useful for the protoss-- they can stall the attack and prepare for it, although too often this turns into indefinite stalling.
The situation currently is one where, if you break up your army to try to control parts of the map, the separate 'squads' are simply singled out and crushed, and the enemy army is gone by the time your main force gets there, and then you lose because you've thrown away too much of your army for unequal trades. The deathball, then, is the most efficient army-grouping. Everything needs to be in one place at one time because you won't get a chance to reinforce. The battle is over too quickly and there aren't many good ways to delay it, especially when you consider that retreating is costly when the opponent has marauders, forcefields, or fungals. It is, with these things, even difficult to just turn around and regroup.
My point is, spreading out is bad because if the opponent doesn't spread out they have an advantage over your spread. It should be the other way around, I think. Spreading out should give some minor advantage without being less effective than a deathball (or at least, the advantage should make up for the efficacy difference).
One more thing, there comes a point where your army is too large, where units past a certain point won't engage at 100% efficiency. This becomes more obvious with maxed armies and in smaller places, some units get stuck behind the front line. Right now, this point is too large of an army. Gathering your forces all into one army is the best tactic because they'll stack without an efficiency drop. This is because units clump so well and also because they move so well-- moving the line up slightly so all of your units can engage isn't difficult.
If we compare to BW, the units are much worse at getting into position, and so this effect is greatly increased-- your units that aren't engaging will be much harder to get to engage. If the opponent is constantly repositioning himself, he can keep your excess troops from engaging. A smaller force with control becomes just as strong as a large force. This is in terms of damage output, not longevity, but it means the stalling potential is vastly increased. Suddenly your army would have a higher damage output with the same longevity if it was more spread out.
Breaking up the deathball first needs to be feasible in the unit design before it is feasible in the map design. Maps can be changed and changed and changed but as it stands deathballs are the natural order of things, and they will find a way back in. I think the crux of the matter is tweaking things so forces become less efficient as they become larger, and making retreat less costly. I could (easily, in fact) be wrong, but right now I don't think there's much the map can do.
You, sir, are deserving of a cookie.
|
I think it's worth noting that a lot of great BW maps are actually rather flat. There could be a lot to learn from them that would apply more to SC2 than a lot of the maps with a lot of highground.
|
On April 20 2012 13:23 Gfire wrote:
I think it's worth noting that a lot of great BW maps are actually rather flat. There could be a lot to learn from them that would apply more to SC2 than a lot of the maps with a lot of highground.
Fighting Spirit for example is based mostly on openness and chokes and distances. The high ground 3rds are defensible because of the ramp, but it's more of the ramp itself (narrowness) than the high ground advantage.
|
On April 18 2012 09:40 DoDonPachi wrote:I wanted to try an experiment with High Ground and Line of Sight Blocker. There is the representation of what i have done: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ix89h.png) The Blue and the Red square represent the location of a line of LOS blocker In the Case of the Red location, nothing change really. The marine cant attack the tank until he is on top of the ramp. In the Case of the Blue location, something really strange happen. It basicly create a Low-ground advantage. It is not drastic, but the tank can't attack the marine until the marine is on top of the ramp. A map using this feature will be a completly retarded map, with all the pvp 4gate problem and etc. When both LOS blocker are set, the result is the same as the Blue case. In conclusion, i believe that high ground in SC2 is just a big illusion. High ground can be replaced as a path blocker and a one way sight blocker and you will have the same result gameplay wise. I forgot to mention that air unit ( and the Collossus) completly nullify any high ground advantage that sc2 have. I want to high my sentence : An High ground is just a path blocker and a one way sight blocker ( it negate vision from low to high, but not from high to low). So the only positionnal feature in a map that the mapmaker can use is the choke. If we want a positionnal game, mapmaker should go crazy with any choke. What is regrettable in the game atm is that a single unit that have vision give it to everyone else.
What else would it supposed to be? Damage or range increase, anything like that would be just stupid.
That blue losb is actually really useful if you want to negate a ramp.
|
This was really good. Really enjoyed reading it
|
On April 20 2012 17:11 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:40 DoDonPachi wrote:I wanted to try an experiment with High Ground and Line of Sight Blocker. There is the representation of what i have done: The Blue and the Red square represent the location of a line of LOS blocker In the Case of the Red location, nothing change really. The marine cant attack the tank until he is on top of the ramp. In the Case of the Blue location, something really strange happen. It basicly create a Low-ground advantage. It is not drastic, but the tank can't attack the marine until the marine is on top of the ramp. A map using this feature will be a completly retarded map, with all the pvp 4gate problem and etc. When both LOS blocker are set, the result is the same as the Blue case. In conclusion, i believe that high ground in SC2 is just a big illusion. High ground can be replaced as a path blocker and a one way sight blocker and you will have the same result gameplay wise. I forgot to mention that air unit ( and the Collossus) completly nullify any high ground advantage that sc2 have. I want to high my sentence : An High ground is just a path blocker and a one way sight blocker ( it negate vision from low to high, but not from high to low). So the only positionnal feature in a map that the mapmaker can use is the choke. If we want a positionnal game, mapmaker should go crazy with any choke. What is regrettable in the game atm is that a single unit that have vision give it to everyone else. What else would it supposed to be? Damage or range increase, anything like that would be just stupid. That blue losb is actually really useful if you want to negate a ramp.
Adding LosB to a ramp in any configuration is just adding redundancy. With blue + red the ramp has no purpose, you might as well just have lines of LosB. So it's not really useful for producing a new terrain situation.
However, you could use LosB to negate a ramp for a situation on a map where you want the high ground to be beneficial at one end (normal ramp) and no benefit in another location (LosB top of ramp). This would only come up if your cliff levels dictated you needed a ramp level-transition somewhere that you didn't want a ramp advantage, so you could cancel it with LosB, which itself is not really a racially neutral feature.
|
I saw a great post on high ground on TL that does make high ground give an actual advantage because you can attack your enemy for a while before they can attack you. This advantage is still destroyed by air, perhaps we can put air LOS blockers over the cliffs? This post has inspired several maps for me, so thank you
|
Excellent Idea Barrin!!!
But how long will it take to do? :\
Oh and I loved that match!!!
REMAKE BLUE STORM!
|
|
|
I feel like chockes strongly favor Terran and Protoss over Zerg because:
-1 Zerg has the weakest standalone Areadefense Units.
-2 Zerg Units need a lot of space to attack
-3 All of the Zerg units need to apear in mass and together to accomplish enything against Terran and Protoss
thats atleast what i know from 8M but i am open to change my mind!
However i strongly hope Blizzard implements it in the HotS beta =3
Crypto
|
I tend to disagree, I don't think "highground + chokes", the way good maps use it right now, is too weak in SC2. In my opinion, there is simply the problem that the races profit too differently from it, to consistently use it in a map.
As written in the OP, Cloud Kingdom is a great example of such a map, but even this map can only live with a bunch of routes that allow you to circumvent set up positions.
To adress it more directly: without useful hydras in ZvT and ZvP, and without tanks in TvP, I can't see maps working, that force you to attack into positions with highground advantages. But if those units were strong, I don't think highground should get buffed, because those units (or rather their "strong concepts") do really profit a lot from highground.
*Maybe* there is room for some buffs, like a +1/+2 armor, +1sight/+1range increase when fighting from highground to lowground, but I do believe, that in a lot of circumstances such things might rather enforce turtling and aiming for "perfect engagements with perfect compositions", rather then less deathballish play. (though this will greatly depend on the exact "buff" and the exact map)
|
Dear Blizzard, fire DB, hire Barrin, problem solved, you are welcome.
Really, another great insight and possibly a step in making SC2 better. Did I see a discussion about making maps non-melee in this thread as well? Wonderfull!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
