EPT[D] High Ground & Positional Advantages
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
| ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On April 18 2012 04:44 Aunvilgod wrote: Is there already a (recent) remake of match point? It looks damn sexy, I really want to copy it. There is. Day[9] did a daily on SC2 Match Point quite some time ago I believe. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On April 18 2012 04:13 Barrin wrote: [list][*]there is really nothing that can replace what a strong high ground mechanic brings to the table. This for me is the most important point. While chokes are nice and give you positional advantages, they are the same in BW and SC2 regardless of highground advantage. So while using chokes more and better is indeed also important, there really isn't anything that replaces the highground advantage. Just look at Match Point, those highground pods are quite open yet give an advantage, which obviously isn't the same as using chokes. Really sucks that Blizzard felt the need to change this. I never played BW so when I started playing DotA 2 recently I really felt how much a real highground advantage means and I can only imagine how many possibilites it would give us mapmakers for better and more interesting layouts, and how much more positional and interesting the game could be. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
Thanks for the great post. I got like 3 new ideas off this. | ||
|
Phried
Canada147 Posts
On April 18 2012 05:47 Ragoo wrote: This for me is the most important point. While chokes are nice and give you positional advantages, they are the same in BW and SC2 regardless of highground advantage. So while using chokes more and better is indeed also important, there really isn't anything that replaces the highground advantage. Just look at Match Point, those highground pods are quite open yet give an advantage, which obviously isn't the same as using chokes. Really sucks that Blizzard felt the need to change this. I never played BW so when I started playing DotA 2 recently I really felt how much a real highground advantage means and I can only imagine how many possibilites it would give us mapmakers for better and more interesting layouts, and how much more positional and interesting the game could be. I'm sure you could replicate the effect with triggers in the editor. Maybe we could do a similar experiment to FRB? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
As for the 33% cover on high ground, its definitely replicable with triggers and/or the data editor, but ideally we would keep the maps "melee"... | ||
|
Phried
Canada147 Posts
On April 18 2012 06:50 TheFish7 wrote: ideally we would keep the maps "melee"... Probably impossible. Originally I was thinking upgrade modification but at the moment I'm messing around with trying to reduce attack range when attacking up as per ArcticRaven's suggestion. I'm not an expert with triggers so if someone else wants to take a crack at it, please do. I'm having trouble  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think the good pathing of SC2, which allows you to get through chokes and such, combined with a lack of high ground advantage, can make it really hard to defend multiple points in SC2. I'm torn as to whether or not to have a high ground advantage, but it's not up to me so I fortunately don't have to form an opinion. High ground advantage is good for making areas stronger but it's limited in the way that, physically, high grounds work. It's in layers, and you can't make Escher style terrain in a map. If there was a way to add the positioning of certain areas being at an advantage which isn't tied to terrain height, I think that would be ideal, although potentially a bit complicated or difficult to understand. Creep is a good example, but it's not very strong. Choke Points: These do need to be used more. One thing I was thinking about was creating stronger contrast between the tightest chokes and the openest areas in maps. Entombed valley is the best example of this right now, and it also makes for (imo,) most of the best games in the GSL. It's got some flaws but the basic idea is there. People complain about too small of chokes for whatever reason, saying that tanks will be imba, etc. This has been the case whenever I've really tried anything like that (though I can't say I did a great job at it.) I think one issue is that a chokepoint can at least appear to be good for certain army compositions, rather than being good for the player whose units are in a specific place (that is, the defender.) PvP will turn into 4gate vs 4gate without a ramp no matter how small you make the main choke, won't it? It's difficult to use chokes in a way that helps one player over the other, based on position rather than army composition. Maybe this is a misconception, or maybe it's a side effect of SC2's pathing. As you said about high grounds on Korhal Compound, it might not be something which inherently gives the defender an advantage. It could give them an incentive to control a point so the attacker can't abuse it. This is kinda what I was headed toward when I made (2) On Rainy Days although my understanding of things was considerably worse then. I don't think it plays out well on that map, but it might work in some cases. A Zerg player, for instance, might want to control the space beyond the choke point, so a Terran can't set up tanks there in a place where the Zerg would have to funnel units through the choke in order to attack the tanks. However, this isn't a purely good thing for the Zerg to do because it makes it harder to pull back through the chokes to the main or natural or whatever to defend another attack, maybe a drop. This makes it a risk-vs-reward scenario, rather than a "try as hard as you can to control this space which it's always good to control scenario" putting the focus on decision making rather than execution, which is a general trend when moving from BW to SC2. Then again, going through a choke doesn't slow down an army that much when it comes to getting to another point (unless the army is big enough,) but it does make it diffucult to get all your units attacking, and so it might always be a good decision to move your army out there. Of course this example is more for a choke which isn't all that forward. The forward chokes are good because they give you space to get your units in between the choke and the base you need to defend, or whatever, and you'll have time to do so after spotting some army on the move or whatever. Generally it's good for more passive or space controlling defense, as well. It definitely has a lot of potential mappers can explore. High Ground: Generally you have a lot of points here and I agree with them. For a while I've tried with different designs to make use of all the layers of terran. Generally making higher ground in more forward positions is good for positioning. I started a map this morning with this type of concept, although I need to work on it some more. High Ground is something I want to learn more about and come up with better ideas. Generally map makers have to get better overall. It felt there in the post-daybreak era that what was left to explore in map making hit a bit of a halt. FRB of course opened up to more bases and thus more creativity, but what was good to put in those maps was yet to be figured out. I think this is the first real advancement in that area, and should, for lack of a better term, raise the skill cap in mapping. Thanks for writing the thread, it helped me understand a bit more. I will use this knowledge to adjust some things about the map I'm working on. | ||
|
Sisyphos
Sweden13 Posts
In almost any map thread I visit there's something along the lines of: "There's high ground in location X, terran with tanks will be imba on this map" This really bugs me, it seems like no amount of high ground is acceptable to some people. I hope this thread will make map-makers less scared of high ground. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
"In SC1, there was a chance that units on the lowground would miss enemies on high ground. We removed this percentage since we do not like chance elements. The players ought to know exactly what advantage they have. And how to counter it." - Dustin Browder (source) Anyone actually capable of rational thought could have realized that the 50% miss chance could be easily replaced with 50% damage from low to high ground, achieving the same effect but with no randomness. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
That being said, I will be releasing an update for Afterglow w/ 6m and 8m versions. I hope the changes will improve it ^^ | ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
![[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. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I do think the use of more losb is something we need, as well. The psychological side of high ground is funny. It so often feels like such a huge advantage while, if they have spotters it is no advantage at all. Of course the high ground still has some advantage even if it's only vision-related. There aren't always air units around and they can be killed, and scans are costly as well. I do support the high-ground having little to due with positional advantage, but we might need something (hopefully in addition to chokes,) that actually does give more positional advantage. -- I do support trying maps like 8m2g on the main and nat and 6m1hyg on further expansions. This was the original method to get rid of the 3-base deathballing issues, which were pretty problematic a year or so ago, and are still poor for gameplay even if they are racially balanced. | ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
Also, i think it's stupid to have a low-ground advantage, it's counter intuitive | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Now, I won't argue with you at all if you want to say "FRB didn't work as well as we wanted it to." OR "8m is improving despite its problems, and given the marginal gain of FRB it's not worth it to push it any harder." However, you are guys are seriously confusing me by denying the fundamental efficacy of the inherent purpose of FRB. It doesn't matter if shitty players also play deathball games on FRB because that says nothing about cutting edge competitive play. It's simply a fact that FRB offers greater opportunity for harassment and multi-engagements. Positional play, as this article outlines, is hard to achieve despite mythic-status mapping due to the game mechanics (or lack thereof), regardless of FRB or 8m. Because I know you are wondering if you should argue with me, I'll present it clearly here and save us one iteration if you still so choose to comment: It takes 4 bases in FRB to achieve the same "maximum" economy as in 8m -- which we call "maximum" and benchmark based on how many bases you need to max out your supply and reach late game tech, in an 8m game. (To digress briefly -- a 4th mining base has minimal utility in 8m because you decrease your army supply by adding more workers, and you gain nothing by spreading your workers to more expansions, unlike in BW which is what Lalush's thread was all about. If you're not going to fully saturate a base, it's not worth the liability of creating and defending it.) FRB doesn't change the mining dynamic at all, but it does require you to have more mining locations. By the time you have a 4th mining location, your main is almost done, so you really need 5 bases in FRB to be in full swing. This means you have 4 mining locations, at least 2 of which will be "out on the map", and all your infrastructure in your main which is also up for harass. This is 5 places where the enemy can damage you, compared to 3 places in the same "full swing" scenario in 8m. How is this not more opportunity for harassment? Interestingly, the increased number of location of vulnerabilities actually decreases the severity of the damage from successful harassment, because you have less eggs in any one location-basket. This means players are far more likely to suffer setbacks -- not lose the game -- in FRB. That's as far as I want to go. I could list many more observations and conjectures about how FRB promotes desirable game traits more than 8m, but that would be anecdotal and hypothetical. My intent was simply to rebut this notion that FRB is not doing it's job, when that is necessarily not true. ------- About highground, I don't think you can pin so much on this one mechanic, in terms of whether its existence would significantly alter how SC2 plays. In terms of the utility of ramps and height differences as part of a mapper's arsenal, it would certainly make a huge amount of difference in how we are able to reward map presence. It would be one step towards greater breadth, just like FRB is. ------- I hesitate to bring it up because the topic deserves a thorough treatment, but I don't want to leave it out. There are various factors centering around unit AI that lead to the discrepancy in breadth and engagement dynamics between SC2 and BW. SC2 unit AI being the way it is, you can only "recreate" BW so much. I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, but this piece of the puzzle should not be discounted, and it has deep ramifications on how the game works. High ground advantage and whatnot can only access so much potential for change. I guess my main point here is to warn you that you shouldn't think about adjustment goals as "more like BW" but instead as "a different kind of SC2". Needless to say, duh, but it bears repeating. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
By the time you have a 4th mining location, your main is almost done, so you really need 5 bases in FRB to be in full swing. This means you have 4 mining locations, at least 2 of which will be "out on the map", and all your infrastructure in your main which is also up for harass. This is 5 places where the enemy can damage you, compared to 3 places in the same "full swing" scenario in 8m. I have mentioned this before, too. To play well, your play needs to become more dynamic because your opponent is going to be more dynamic. Regardless, while I generally enjoy reading these articles, I can't help but get the sense that you are trying to find a new "silver bullet" that would fix SC2 gameplay. While I don't necessarily disagree that there needs to more use of ground level disparity, forward chokes, etc., I don't think you can simply pin any one aspect on "what's ruining SC2 gameplay as far as maps are concerned". I think you came really close to doing that with FRB -- I'm really unsure that there is another single aspect that is just going to make deathballing stop. Even with forward chokes, someone who has a large ground army is just going to figure out a different way to engage their deathball in those chokes. You can't force someone to do multipronged attacks, even if it might be better that they do. Deathballing happens -- should be a bumper sticker. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
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. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
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  | ||
|
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
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. | ||
|
Rkynick
85 Posts
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. | ||
|
Sc2eleazar
United States70 Posts
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. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
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 | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
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. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
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. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ero-Sennin
United States756 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 20 2012 17:11 Aunvilgod wrote: 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. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
But how long will it take to do? :\ Oh and I loved that match!!! REMAKE BLUE STORM! | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Also posted on BNet. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4768329249?page=1#0 | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
-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 | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
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) | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
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! | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
Hachrt
United States5 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
banelings will be worse. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Maybe part of the problem is that back in beta Zerg was weak, and it was fixed a lot by making better maps for Zerg, but these more open maps tend to have less positional value. I saw a bit of the YOMT by IPL and the games were actually great, with a ton of positioning. Zerg always lost to Terran on maps like Stepped of War, but there was a lot of positional play. As was mentioned by someone before, having stronger Hydras and things like that would let us make maps with tighter chokes without making it too bad for Zerg. It's possible Hydras are already strong enough, though, and making more chokes would encourage Zerg players to use them instead of Roaches and then it would all turn out alright in the end. | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
With regards to highground/chocks- I feel that peppering in aspects of it here in many maps would be better than making a map revolve around the concept. Cloud Kingdom is amazingly well designed, but I would like to see aspects of it present in most maps, rather than have 10 more maps that use the same ideas. Also something, I feel that mastering the art of the defensive chock/highground is more important at present than mastering the art of the offensive highground (like in Korhal Compound). Not necessarily to mappers, but to players themselves. As an area right now, I don't feel that players know how to react properly to it (see any discussion about how hard it is to take a fourth on Cloud Kingdom/third on Korhal). So good ideas, would like to see them implanted slow and steady, giving players a chance to learn and play on them. | ||
|
KazaDooM
Austria32 Posts
I think you could try to simulate some kind of highground advantage by for instance using neutral sentries that cast Guardian shield. Drawback is that it also effects all units negatively even if they all stand on the highground. | ||
|
Trotim
Germany95 Posts
Also you really need to implement bigger unit collision circles. That alone would alleviate a lot of the deathball concerns. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 02 2012 23:11 Trotim wrote: You'll have to embrace FRB needs data changes, not just terrain changes. The SC2 editor more than likely can do high ground advantage, you'll just have to change the gameplay and unit stats to be different on 6m maps compared to 8m maps to make it work. And why not? And if you don't want the chance element maybe there's a way for a flat 33-40% damage penalty? I don't know, I just know you should experiment more. Also you really need to implement bigger unit collision circles. That alone would alleviate a lot of the deathball concerns. If you increase the collision circles you still limit micro. Visually they will look spread out, and it will take longer to get in range, but they won't allow you to pull units through between each other very easily. In BW the collision circles were pretty small, units just spread out more on their own. I've made a mod which adds passive unit spreading. A group of units will spread out while moving naturally. It's a concept I've been pondering since shortly after release, actually, and several months ago I started to figure out the ways of doing it in a mod technically. Still working on it, it requires a lot of mindless busywork now that I've refined the process, but I'm nearly to the point of some type of release. Of course it may also need a slight increase in collision circles as well to be completely optimal (units are still pretty good at getting through chokes and such.) As far as high ground advantage goes, I'm not %100 sure it's needed, but it's something worth looking into. Is there a way that it can be applied by data and not triggers? You can probably check height with a validator somewhere in the weapon effect, right? | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
First of wall: We need good map with a lot of hightground. The problem with the protoss: 1. The protoss can ignore your defence because he can blink in your base with collosus. Remove the ability to go in the hightground and the collosus to climb. 2. With the collosus or templar the protoss is enought strong to engage in the ramp. Make a upgrade that make defense static more strong in the midgame. For exemple hightlife bunker/spine should be enought to stop storm and big lategame protoss army, and hightrange turret/spore should be the perfect anti-collosus building. 3. The protoss use the archon toilette. infestor should have more range for neuroparasite again ``mothership unit``. The problem with zerg: 1. Broodlord nullify the hight ground avantage because they are flying. Make static defence anti-air(turret/canon) more strong and more range. Make the phenix/thors more strong again Broodlord, it should be a kind of viking. The problem with the terran: 1.midgame terran timing attack are very good again any defensif position. Make static defence structure canon/spine better and Increase the duration of defensif spell like fungal/forcefield in a rampe. 2. They can drop in your base. Give back Khaydarin Amulet. Make zerg static defense more strong and more cheap. Because bunker rush and canon rush are very good in the early game, bunker and canon should have a Buff upgrade and that way they become stronger again mid and lategame situation and not too strong in the early game. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I was thinking that if Brood Lords and Colossi only had 8 range, then range upgraded turrets could shoot them down. It would be kinda cool. I've always thought the Thor should do more damage to non-light air units so it could be decently effective against broods and such, and give mech a decent anti-air attack. The Archon Toilet is really a unit design thing and can be removed with the mothership in HotS, although I kind of like it as-is. If you just had less income or whatever and made it so it took longer to get a maxed army, you'd only get it occasionally and in that case it wouldn't be a problem. (I'm not of the mind that the game should be balanced around 200/200 armies, but rather designed so getting 200/200 armies is much more rare, and the 200/200 army engagements are more skill-based.) I've also thought that Medivacs should require a tech lab so that Terran can't get so many. That might be beneficial. Generally it's also annoying when there are so many medivacs you can't see the units under them, as well. I wouldn't mind better upgrades for Static Defenses. Right now Terran has some, and technically the shield upgrade helps cannons, but it isn't significant enough considering unit clumping and many units can be produced. Generally FRB, smaller chokes and unit spreading are all things which can help a lot with that. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
Is OP some pro I'm unaware of? | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
On May 03 2012 05:21 SarcasmMonster wrote: Without defender's advantage, it's too easy to overwhelm your opponent with a slightly bigger army. Very insightful read. Is OP some pro I'm unaware of? No, he's just a mapper that really gives alot of thought into the game proper. Read his "Fewer Reasources Per Base" for a really deep look into the nature of the game (if you haven't already). | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
On May 03 2012 05:20 Gfire wrote: Well, even in BW there were a lot of drops and air units, and no one complained about those. In BW you can't drop all your army like the mmm in sc2 because nobody make more than 10 dropship. On May 03 2012 05:20 Gfire wrote: I've always thought the Thor should do more damage to non-light air units so it could be decently effective against broods and such, and give mech a decent anti-air attack. The Archon Toilet is really a unit design thing and can be removed with the mothership in HotS, although I kind of like it as-is. If you just had less income or whatever and made it so it took longer to get a maxed army, you'd only get it occasionally and in that case it wouldn't be a problem. Yea I think thors and phenix should be better anti-air. I hate the archon toilette. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
There'd be a bigger emphasis on positioning if you could only bypass the terrain with weaker and harrass-based units, or super slow, somewhat easily countered units like BCs and Carriers. I guess doom drops did get brought over from BW. There must be more to it, because they don't seem particularly broken. Reapers are a great example of a unit that sucks in a fight but can bypass terrain and be used to harass. Unfortunately, their rush potential is too great and they had to be nerfed a bunch. If you made them higher tech or required at upgrade to hop cliffs, then buffed them somehow, they'd make a great harass unit. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
On May 03 2012 05:20 Gfire wrote: I was thinking that if Brood Lords and Colossi only had 8 range, then range upgraded turrets could shoot them down. It would be kinda cool. I wouldn't mind better upgrades for Static Defenses. Right now Terran has some, and technically the shield upgrade helps cannons, but it isn't significant enough considering unit clumping and many units can be produced. Generally FRB, smaller chokes and unit spreading are all things which can help a lot with that. In my solution, I said that increase static defense is a way to control more space. But sincerely I would prefer to have a unit that can control space rather than a building. I like the shredder idea. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
The goal with space control would be that a unit could hold a position cost-effectively, which lets the player do more stuff with his other units without risking being caught out of position. You can still make it require some attention from the player, because attention won't mean that the player needs to keep his other units close by. A unit which can control space well, but still requires a little attention, or one that can be made even better with some micro, is imo even better than something that just sits there and controls the space without you doing anything. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
I like spellcaster controlspace. Blizzard should add bonus when a defensif spell is in a ramp or something. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Generally, though, using more single-sized ramps in forward locations on maps will allow a ton more control when it comes to spells. Storm, Fungal and FF can all be a lot more effective on a single-sized ramp. Blizzard seems to want to add more abilities like that in the future. | ||
|
Syphon8
Canada298 Posts
On May 04 2012 05:26 Gfire wrote: Hmmm... What about slowing down units while they are walking up a ramp? Generally, though, using more single-sized ramps in forward locations on maps will allow a ton more control when it comes to spells. Storm, Fungal and FF can all be a lot more effective on a single-sized ramp. Blizzard seems to want to add more abilities like that in the future. That first suggestion is amazing. It makes sense, it would work, and it'd require very little alterations of what we know about maps already. Back on topic, other things I think is hurting positional gameplay are mapmakers EXTREME opposition to using cardinal ramps, when they enable different sizes, and the radius that Xel'Naga towers cover. If the radius on XNTs was reduced they could be used much more liberally for positional advantages. Also the game needs tiered static defenses. It's not going to happen, but it will always need it. | ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I have more maps in progress with the use of high ground and chokes, experimentally. I was planning on posting some of those today but I got distracted starting a new map. I'll likely post them tomorrow. | ||
| ||
