|
Edit: Please put content in your responses.
Hey everyone. So after I beat Butcher so many times I realized what made his boss fight so fun. For those who aren't into D3, during the fight, you have to constantly move around because fire erupts around different sections of playing field. Stage Hazards.
I never really understood why this same concept couldn't be extended to Starcraft 2. Right now, the only Stage Hazards are Destructible Rocks and Xel'Naga Towers (and Neutral Creep Tumors recently). Both of these are fine, and they are extended and played with to the fullest extent. There are timings to take down rocks, there are timings to take towers. It's cool. They can add a lot to the maps (although we all know Blizzard is far too liberal with their rocks).
It made me think of a Lava Rising level. Certain lower sections of the map would be covered in lava and do extreme damage to the units within. Most would just call it far too gimmicky, but let's think about it for a second. Now clearly at first people would just die hilariously to the lava because they wouldn't understand it. But then people would get good at it. They'd get used to it, like the starcraft metagame gets used to everything. They would have timings specific to the lava rising. Whoa. That might actually be kind of cool.
Lava Rising might be too gimmicky (it also might be too graphic intensive for people). I get that. Okay, fine. Well, you know apparently they're scrapping the Shredder in Heart of the Swarm. Seems like kind of a waste in my opinion. So what about the Neutral Shredder?
This might seem a little weird at first, but it could actually be kind of fun. Rather than put Destructible Rocks blocking a tower, why not put a Neutral Shredder at the tower, preventing anyone from taking it? What if Shredders were placed in locations that made it frustrating to move around freely? People could possibly get pushed into taking damage from the Shredders.
It could force more play from air units, if there were small islands with Shredders on them. It would force more maneuvering and change the way drops/air units would work on the map.
I don't know, these are some fun ideas. I'd like to see how pros and skilled players deal with stage hazards. It could really invigorate some of the maps, honestly. What do you think? Are there other ideas for Stage Hazards?
|
Bad idea. You'd have to completely re-balance the game around it.
|
I don't see how this would add to the game rather than detracting from it honestly.
|
edit: I actually read your post now, nvm
|
I like to see pros play with stuff like that, it's also a terrible idea to try to get that stuff into competitive play. Two of the only "stage hazard"-type things that were in the game from the start were Destructible Rocks and gold expansions, how much fun does everyone think those are?
|
I'm sure there would be sick timings with medivacs/warp prisms in a lava rising type map which would basically force the game into going for certain builds on certain maps, something I do not wish to see.
Even if currently maps and metagame 'force' fast-expanding I think thats a lot better for the game than something really gimmicky like lava or whatever rising on the lowground or neutral units positioned somewhere on the map. Fast expanding adds variety to the game, forcing certain builds (eg. fast medivacs) takes it away.
|
Probably because D3 is more of a casual game, while StarCraft 2 is played as a competitive e-sport. Having a random factor possibly affect the outcome in a game you're playing by yourself or with friends is fine and dandy, but when it starts messing with match scores and tournament results (especially when the result is a fan favourite or superior skilled player getting knocked out), it's not so cool.
|
One of the Blizzard-made maps (Burning Tide, I think?) does this, though it's a greed map rather than melee.
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to try. From the old stuff before release, I thought they were going to put these mechanics into competitive maps, but evidently that wasn't the case, either never meant to be or they realized it was a bad idea at the time.
EDIT: Requires a lot of refinement to minimize the randomness factor while still influencing the gameplay enough. The frequency of lava level changes on Burning Tide is probably too high for any competitive play.
|
There would be so many epic opportunities to force field peoples armies into the lava. Im or it ;D
|
How could you siege or hold a defensive line across that position?
You couldn't have these stage hazards in bases (or else you couldn't mine there) and you couldn't have them right outside of bases (because then containing your opponent would be too dangerous).
Where else is there? The center of the map? So during the major engagements everything turns red and the unit composition and final engagement becomes pointless and even harder to micro (not to mention see, from a spectator's perspective)?
|
they should have just made every ladder map into survival UMS
|
On May 29 2012 06:14 Navillus wrote:
Two of the only "stage hazard"-type things that were in the game from the start were Destructible Rocks and gold expansions, how much fun does everyone think those are?
People complain about destructible rocks?
|
I don't like the idea of introducing things on the map that starts doing damage. The stage hazards in the game today are all about map control. The only damage you should be taking is fromthe opponents army.
|
Its a shame so many people shoot this down without really knowing much about its potential. I for one would love to see this tested by some skilled players. Never know untill you look :D
|
This would be bad for competitive play because it would mess with balance way too much.
|
While it could be cool to have part of the map be consumed by lava randomly, I think this would be imbalanced. I feel like if you made a mistake that could swing the game in the other players control, and thats not fair at all.
|
Not a good idea. A neutral shredder would ruin the game imo. Imagine accidentally walking by it and losing half an army. Keep the Stage Hazards to ums and campaign.
|
Right away, I can see problems with air units having a large advantage, 3-4 sentries changing the entire outcome of a game, etc
It takes away the neutrality of maps imo
|
Is is really necessary to reitarte the negative opinions so many times in every single thread about somthing funky? There are people that are against anything non-corservative, they are quite numerous. We get it. I do not see the need to hear from every single of you!
Anyway, I think that a particularly good idea is the "neutral shredder" part - because I have thought about it already a lot. It does not have to be shredder, it can be siege tanks, cannons, whatever causes damage. The point is, exactly, to make army movement more difficult. They don't even need to control a significant part of the map. It is enough if they control the shortest path to your enemy. They don't have to be particularly strong in DPS, neither (but could be very well invincible). This way, if you simply a-move or blindly rally reinforcements on such a map, it could be a very bad idea, if they go in a single file around a couple of siege tanks.
It is probably not something that SC2 really desperately needs right now, but it could add a little bit of extra skill required.
|
|
|
Since we seem to mostly be focusing on the lava or shredder, just going to toss another idea out there, which isn't terribly creative at all imo. Destructible rocks/debris are used a lot for narrowing or blocking paths (or, in some cases, never letting you expand ever), and can be destroyed (geez who would have thought) to open up paths. If there were destructible bridges or something like that, they would basically be the flip side of that. idk coming up with random ideas
Damage-dealing hazards are going to be pretty tricky to implement in order to prevent them from being a massive swing factor while still being relevant. Lava as implemented by Blizzard on Burning Tide is an instant-kill and the shredder from the previews appears to do too much damage too fast to be neutral. Toning down the damage output might work.
|
On May 29 2012 06:19 MCXD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 06:14 Navillus wrote:
Two of the only "stage hazard"-type things that were in the game from the start were Destructible Rocks and gold expansions, how much fun does everyone think those are? People complain about destructible rocks?
Seriously?
|
Thinking about it, it sounds like an interesting concept...
I'd like to see some good mapmakers make a melee map in the editor to utilize some of these features and throw it out there to see how people react to it.
And while we're here, I have to mention that I'm a little bit underwhelmed with how conservative the SC2 melee maps are. I understand that balance is the biggest factor, but I definitely think that at least some cool things could be added that don't wreck the balance. (Like mineral patches blocking a path to an expansion like they had in Brood War sometimes, ect)
You know, just something that you don't really see everyday, that changes the gameplay of the map ever so slightly and is unique to just that one specific map. You may have to build your strategy around it, similar to how you tailor certain builds to certain maps. Don't know if I'm getting off-topic or not, but it's just something I'll throw into the discussion pot.
Like, I just had an idea while typing this, say that in the center of the map there was a lava river that had low-tide and high tide. At all points in the game, there would be bridges(ie. standard attack paths) that the players can use, but at regular intervals additional flank paths would be revealed. I think some really cool tactics could be built around that.
Like some people in this thread have already said, I definitely think that this should at least be tested by mapmakers/good players to see if it could ever be a playable idea, instead of just knocking it right away.
|
On May 29 2012 06:29 opisska wrote:
Is is really necessary to reitarte the negative opinions so many times in every single thread about somthing funky? There are people that are against anything non-corservative, they are quite numerous. We get it. I do not see the need to hear from every single of you!
Anyway, I think that a particularly good idea is the "neutral shredder" part - because I have thought about it already a lot. It does not have to be shredder, it can be siege tanks, cannons, whatever causes damage. The point is, exactly, to make army movement more difficult. They don't even need to control a significant part of the map. It is enough if they control the shortest path to your enemy. They don't have to be particularly strong in DPS, neither (but could be very well invincible). This way, if you simply a-move or blindly rally reinforcements on such a map, it could be a very bad idea, if they go in a single file around a couple of siege tanks.
It is probably not something that SC2 really desperately needs right now, but it could add a little bit of extra skill required.
So you don't want to hear any ideas/opinions opposed to the one you hold? How are we going to have a discussion then (hint: this thread is tagged as [D] as in discussion.
|
It's an interesting idea and they should probably test some things and find ways to make the game more dynamic but i'm not sure pros would like something like that.
|
Wow, that's a lot of no-content posts for the first page. Eek! Let me try to address some points:
Randomness: What randomness? The lava would be timed. There's nothing random about lava or shredders. If you're chilling in a lava spot when it goes up, that's obviously your fault. The big flashing red lights should warn you. Sheesh.
Balance: What Balance problems? If you're going to say something like this, could you please clarify? You can't just shout "BALANCE!" and have that be a post. This is TeamLiquid, guys.
Noncompetitive: Again, could you clarify? Why are stage hazards not allowed in an competitive environment? Any pro that would be caught would either be an idiot or be forced into bad positions, which would be cool.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
Maybe bring it into a custom map, but leave it out of competitive play and ladder, doesnt really fit.
|
Starcraft 2 is a competitive game, Diablo single player is not. Albeit there may be a time when pvp becomes relevant, but i guarantee you there wont be any "stage hazards" in those games.
Just look at SSBB, great fighting game, loads of fun, but the biggest problem with the game is that the maps are too gimmicky which makes competitive play very random and frustrating.
EDIT: also lava would greatly favor terran because of the synergy of medivacs and the fact that they can lift their buildings up/salvage them.
|
On May 29 2012 06:46 PlacidPanda wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a competitive game, Diablo single player is not. Albeit there may be a time when pvp becomes relevant, but i guarantee you there wont be any "stage hazards" in those games.
Just look at SSBB, great fighting game, loads of fun, but the biggest problem with the game is that the maps are too gimmicky which makes competitive play very random and frustrating.
...
SSBB's biggest problem was not that the maps were too gimmicky. Anyone who knows about SSBB knows that.
|
Lava mechanic would make turtling stupid easy.
|
well, it would create timings, but it would also force players into those timings, making games predictable. Would be good for a custom game though
|
I've been tentatively hoping for something like this to start showing up. Granted, balance issues would be quite difficult to deal with and the majority of these maps would never end up playable, but having the occasional map with a subtle hazard would be a lot of fun.
EDIT: A few simple examples of how balance can go awry:
-What happens to creep in the lava area, does it die? Zerg mobility is severely reduced.
-Terran sometimes relies on siege tanks and creating fortified positions. Having lava rise could force Terran to move far more often then they want, exposing them for attack at clearly announced intervals without the opponent even having to scout.
These are very superficial too, the issues get deeper when you start talking about certain timings no longer being possible, etc.
Lava rising sounds a bit extreme to me, but maybe regions of the map where units move slower (maps with traversable water come to mind) so that holding on to critical regions is more difficult, encouraging different gameplay styles would be fun to try.
Don't know if it would work, but I'd be willing to give it a shot as long as the focus was still on traditional maps.
|
This is a good idea, but it's not an idea for Starcraft.
I'd love to see more of this stuff in a different classic / skill-based RTS though.
|
On May 29 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 06:46 PlacidPanda wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a competitive game, Diablo single player is not. Albeit there may be a time when pvp becomes relevant, but i guarantee you there wont be any "stage hazards" in those games.
Just look at SSBB, great fighting game, loads of fun, but the biggest problem with the game is that the maps are too gimmicky which makes competitive play very random and frustrating. ... SSBB's biggest problem was not that the maps were too gimmicky. Anyone who knows about SSBB knows that.
For competitive play? Yes it was, it caused problems because of different maps being legal in different parts of the world and the fact that almost all of the maps were banned because they were too gimmicky.
|
On May 29 2012 06:45 Targe wrote:
Maybe bring it into a custom map, but leave it out of competitive play and ladder, doesnt really fit.
Nobody really knows until it's tested, either the specific things the OP mentioned or other stage hazards (doesn't even have to be stage hazards). I would agree up to that the testing probably should not be done in major tournaments or ladder. Maybe MotM?
|
|
|
On May 29 2012 06:51 PlacidPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:On May 29 2012 06:46 PlacidPanda wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a competitive game, Diablo single player is not. Albeit there may be a time when pvp becomes relevant, but i guarantee you there wont be any "stage hazards" in those games.
Just look at SSBB, great fighting game, loads of fun, but the biggest problem with the game is that the maps are too gimmicky which makes competitive play very random and frustrating. ... SSBB's biggest problem was not that the maps were too gimmicky. Anyone who knows about SSBB knows that. For competitive play? Yes it was, it caused problems because of different maps being legal in different parts of the world and the fact that almost all of the maps were banned because they were too gimmicky.
And even after that it still had awful issues in competitive play.
|
It would definitely have to not be random. A timing-based event that players have to memorize and keep on a mental "clock" in order to use it to their advantage (much in the sense of tracking power-up timings in Quake) definitely has real competitive potential.
But it's just not Starcraft.
|
Destructible bridges like in C&C.
Would force rerouting of armies and have map controk
Or force crazy stuff like air t/v/z
As cool as it sounds I doubt this would be good in the competitive aspect
|
I don't see why everyone is so opposed to this saying it's not competitive. There were lots of kespa maps for BW with different gimmicks. Most of them were stupid like DMZ and Demon's Forest, but some like Outsider and Triathlon were really cool.
Another idea that's not a hazard but still might be cool is a watchtower that gives vision of a different area of the map. I'm sure something like this would be easy to make with the map editor.
I think people are imagining a map where lava would randomly kill all your units. Realistically it would be something like a map where there's a path between the 3rd and the 4th expos that becomes unpathable every 5 minutes. There's an in game clock that you can see so there would be no excuse for you losing units by surprise.
|
The reason why I (and most people) would not like these to be implemented is because stage hazards do not add to the skill level of the game. Playing SC2 should not be about having events decide how the game will turn out, it should be about two players playing a game and the better player (or person who played better) winning. Adding in rising lava creates a mechanic that would also nullify some timing pushes, prevent harass or counters, and prevent contains from being set up. This is just one example, as you can probably see it would be interesting but it would not make the game require any more skill, it would only make it possibly more frustrating. Don't fall into the trap of "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE".
|
United States22154 Posts
|
I think destructible/reconstructible terrain such as bridges which can be destroyed and repaired could be good. And before anyone decides to shit all over the idea, it worked in broodway (several maps had chokes which were open while assimilators were built, and became closed once they were destroyed but reopened if rebuilt. For example battle royale(?))
These could add dynamics which change the battle field and add all manner of sneaky timings and clutch moments where you have to destory the whatever to close the choke before the enemy army arrives.
Of course it would have to be implemented properly, and not just added everywhere, but it has potential.
Also terrain which debuffs units, such as area's of the map which are always under a dark swarm, or which slow movement speed. Things like this make controlling space MUCH more important, and cause battles to revolve around controlling space. Something which has been brought up quite often as a flaw in sc2 compared to broodwar where space control was much more prevalent.
|
All of this are way to extreme there are a few things that would make the game more interesting, but all of this suggestions are way to extreme you have to think the way kespa did when it added their features. Like chokes that only allow certain units through, invisible debris etc etc.
|
On May 29 2012 07:00 BrosephBrostar wrote:
I don't see why everyone is so opposed to this saying it's not competitive. There were lots of kespa maps for BW with different gimmicks. Most of them were stupid like DMZ and Demon's Forest, but some like Outsider and Triathlon were really cool.
Another idea that's not a hazard but still might be cool is a watchtower that gives vision of a different area of the map. I'm sure something like this would be easy to make with the map editor.
I think people are imagining a map where lava would randomly kill all your units. Realistically it would be something like a map where there's a path between the 3rd and the 4th expos that becomes unpathable every 5 minutes. There's an in game clock that you can see so there would be no excuse for you losing units by surprise.
I very much agree with BrosephBrostar here. Yes I very much think that people do not have some experience from the Broodwar days. NOTE: this is not saying that Broodwar is better or more intelligent.
There are ideas that SC2 can use from BW's 10+ years of experience to enhance the awesomeness of games and making maps more varied is something that BW tried to do a lot. Yes, sometimes there were garbage maps, for instance Tears of the Moon in an OSL which Protoss won I think one game out of about 14 in the entire OSL when versing Zerg.
But there were some great ones too. Of course, SC2 is in its infancy in the map-making department. The way to tell is to look at how few gimmicks we have. Very few, most of them are very standard with a decent number of bases. Few back door entrances or island bases or other map-specific features (like that Xel'Naga watchtower that expired after a set number of minutes). Though people are not used to these ideas and often have a gut reaction to them, as is displayed in this thread - I think as people become accustomed to them people will LOVE the idea of them and LOVE the variety they bring.
Stage hazards might not be where things end up, but I think its a great discussion to have.
FYI: For people unfamiliar with Broodwar, some of the most popular maps of all time were Destination which was quite balanced and had a backdoor entrance to the main blocked by a mineral patch which could be mined out if you weren't watching. Also there was Python which had low-ground island expansions and was also quite balanced.
Then there were some maps that had very memorable games on them such as Heartbreak Ridge featuring a backdoor entrance to the natural that had neutral buildings blocking it that could be destroyed. This led to a path behind the natural that was high ground and taking control of it allowed for some very interesting play. This doesn't mean games always went bananas because of these features, but it certainly allowed for the play which was very exciting as a spectator.
Please don't take this post as saying Broodwar is better than SC2 - it really is not that. They are different games, but I think many reasonable people can agree that maps in SC2 could use some work, and the Broodwar pro-scene is a great place to take inspiration from.
|
This could be kinda good, if you'd not make it to big.
Like a small crater with rising lava around the size of a destructible rock as a backdoor entrance into the natural. Even steady lava that damages units slowly while the pass it would work.
|
On May 29 2012 07:03 GMarshal wrote:
moved to maps
I feel like you dumped out a garbage bag on the porch
but on topic:
There's no reason why sc2 maps couldn't involve more active terrain elements. Sky's the limit. But it muddies the gameplay. And right now there's really no reason why they are needed. Maybe in the future, used judiciously by geniuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
