|
UPDATE November 24, 2012
This discussion has now been rendered moot, with Blizzard's inclusion of the "unbuildable rocks" and "unbuildable debris" neutral units in Heart of the Swarm, which provide a ladder-friendly version of what the neutral supply depot did. Feel free to read through if you're interested anyway, though. 
------
UPDATE August 9, 2012
I've refined how the alternative solution works, to better accommodate FFE and anti-"ling run-by" walls.
------
Feedback from the thread
(Discussing outdated version) ESV's Diamond weighs in, and my response:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 16:18 Diamond wrote:
ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it. Regarding walls, I think this is more of a terrain development issue. Why is there an assumed requirement for walls to connect right against the ramp? Why not just in front of the ramp, or some other solution? Regarding visual indication, this is building pathing; this is shown as a grid for people who have building grid turned on, and for those who don't you still get the visual indication that you cannot place a building there when attempting. It's more than just a temporary fix; it's about re-adjusting pathing behaviour at the bottom of a single-width ramp. Perhaps the best argument against it in terms of confusion would be that building pathing at your main base ramp would behave differently at the bottom than any other ramp on the map. I'm not sure if that's a really big deal, though, as who tries to deliberately construct buildings at the bottom of any other ramp to block it off? ----------- Also keep in mind that small adjustments can be made -- I just posted what's in the OP as an example. Here's an alternate example that reduces how far the unpathable terrain extends by 1 unit, and a demonstrative Protoss FFE wall at the ramp, without the need for any major terrain adjustments. Pardon my sim-city skills; I cooked this up in 2 seconds. I'm sure a sturdier wall could be devised.
-----------------
Hey there. So the point of this thread is to discuss a possible alternative solution to using neutral supply depots in tournament maps. Before I get into that, let's review exactly what that problem is, and what the current "tournament standard" solution happens to be (and why).
The Problem
The way single-width ramps work in StarCraft 2, it's possible for a Protoss or Terran to completely block the bottom of a single-width ramp with just two or three structures. This is particularly painful when the victim happens to be a Zerg player, as they become unable to get that early expansion they need to remain competitive -- or worse, find themselves walled off from their natural hatchery, and helplessly watch as it is destroyed, putting them irreparably behind their opponent.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aQcZc.png) The cries of Zerg players could be heard echoing across the Koprulu Sector
The Current Solution
To prevent this from happening in tournament-level matches, mapmakers came up with the creative solution to add neutral lowered supply depots at the bottom of single-width ramps which lead into a main base. The cheesy tactic is no longer viable, and the neutral depot can be later destroyed so it no longer has any impact on the game.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0rnoS.png) The great saviour of Zerg, ironically of Terran origin.
For all practical purposes, this solution works well. However, it can have the negative aspect of confusing the uninitiated (I mean, we have a random Terran building sitting at the base of your main ramp -- and it's especially out of place if neither player is Terran), whether they be players or spectators. For this reason, we don't see this solution implemented on the ladder, much to the detriment of everyone who ladders 1v1 competitively. You can't entirely blame Blizzard for this. They have to take into consideration even the people who are still in the practice league, let alone Bronze.
Like I already mentioned, it can also be confusing to newbie spectators watching these tournament-level games. So, what do we do about it?
An Alternative Solution
So if we can't use neutral race buildings as a universal solution, even if it works well enough for tournaments, what could we do? It's obvious the standard single-width ramp on its own is fundamentally broken if left on its own. I figure, why not use our old friend the pathing tool? There is a specific options for painting unbuildable pathing onto the map. Making use of it opens up some creative possibilities.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eDiyEl.png) A modified single-width ramp, courtesy of the pathing tool.
Adding unbuildable pathing in this manner completely shuts down the possibility of blocking the ramp, while having minimal to zero impact on gameplay. As a bonus, it also doesn't require use of interactive objects like racial structures that create visual noise and confusion to the uninitiated. Because of this, it might even be possible to convince Blizzard to adjust their ladder maps in a similar fashion, fixing the ramp block issue for the ladder as well.
Behold, no more 2 bunker or 3 pylon blocks:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vQ0Wjl.png) Bunker blocks work so poorly, a depot has to come in to pick up the slack
![[image loading]](http://f.cl.ly/items/2P0v1X380E2S333U3z20/Pylon%20block%20with%20fix.jpg) If you're a Protoss and you find yourself actually trying this, you might want to rethink your PvZ
And of course, minimal impact on current FE trends for Terran and Protoss vs. Zerg:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RkdFQl.png) A Terran anti-ling wall
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QWOxOl.jpg) A Protoss FFE wall
+ Show Spoiler [Protoss FFE on Antiga Shipyard] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ms0Ppl.png) The weird top-right spawn: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/airAHl.png) Compare to the FFE example given in Liquipedia for this spawn: ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/30/Antiga_2.jpg/800px-Antiga_2.jpg)
Thoughts and/or opinions?
|
I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs.
I think the solution needs to be temporary. Something we see the importance of in the early game, but loses it's relevance in the mid-late game. I think the depot fits this purpose perfectly.
|
On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote:
I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs.
To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered.
The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue.
|
On August 08 2012 12:46 SigmaFiE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote:
I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs. To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered. The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue.
I don't know about this - BW maps are full of random unbuildable terrain, often with almost zero visibility (you can usually tell if you look closely enough that the tiles have been specifically chosen and edited to be unbuildable), but this doesn't really hurt players at all.
In fact, it might be interesting if it became accepted for certain textures to be associated and used only with unbuildable terrain - it might make for some interesting map design, such as limiting the possible locations for proxy pylons, etc.
|
400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer.
Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer.
|
What about another lowered structure, such as the Zhakul'Das library? It can be resized to be 2x2 if necessary. It would remove the feel caused by a known structure like the Supply Depot and have the exact same effect.
|
China5960 Posts
Simply change it to something more fitting the map's athetics, i.e. supply depot on daybreak or antiga is acceptable since the map itself is a human space station, and on whirlwind or ohana, rocks works just fine.
|
Frankly this seems it would cause more confusion than a depot. At least a depot has a visual indicator of its presence. I think what is really needed is a new model of the blocking object, something which is not connected to any race but makes sense in its context. What does that look like? not really sure yet.
|
This idea would hurt Protoss Forge Fast Expanding on some maps, as well: Note the gap that stops you from blocking off your own ramp with a building. I like the idea of finding an alternative, but this isn't it.
|
On August 08 2012 13:22 Ktk wrote:
400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer.
Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer.
This seems like the best idea so far. Just make it destructible rocks instead of a supply depot. Problem solved.
|
ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it.
|
You have to be kinda stupid for people to think that with this new advanced map editor that people haven't thought of better ways to block things than a lowered supply depot.
Unbuildable pathing is a problem because it's PERMANENT. The purpose of the depot is so that it's destructible, so that it's still possible to wall later on.
I think the best solution would be a small and/or short doodad placed in the middle of the area that would vary depending on the map (such as a bush, crystal, small boulder bones, tree, or debris).
That's not all; The doodad would have 1 health, and be unselectable, untargettable, and invulnerable for the first 3 or so minutes of the game. It would either have a small movement-blocking footprint (static doodads can have very small footprints) that wouldn't hinder unit movement much, or even no movement-hindering footprint at all (which would be less realistic to have units moving through them though). Regardless, it would still have at least 1 square blocked for building placement.
By doing it this way it:
• would not distract new players. As the OP pointed out, new players may get confused at the sight of a neutral building, especially with the name "supply depot"
• would not be permanent, making for less impact on the game than it's intended purpose
• would not waste any significant amount of time for the players to get rid of once it's timer is elapsed.
Problems: It kinda goes against "standard melee rules", but I don't think this is an issue? At least the only people who might have a problem with it is Blizzard, since they may not like having custom units or triggers in ladder maps. Aside from that I don't think it's an issue because as far as I know unlike in SC1 melee maps can have all sorts of special units and triggers.
|
On August 08 2012 13:21 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:46 SigmaFiE wrote:On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote:
I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs. To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered. The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue. I don't know about this - BW maps are full of random unbuildable terrain, often with almost zero visibility (you can usually tell if you look closely enough that the tiles have been specifically chosen and edited to be unbuildable), but this doesn't really hurt players at all. In fact, it might be interesting if it became accepted for certain textures to be associated and used only with unbuildable terrain - it might make for some interesting map design, such as limiting the possible locations for proxy pylons, etc.
This was along my line of thinking as well. I don't think enough time has been spent on these sorts of alternative possibilities, despite there being a lot of precedence in Brood War. Kind of strange IMO.
Most of the arguments against seem to be along the lines of "but it won't work because players are used to X and some maps will lose the ability to wall like Y". However, what players are used to is dependent on what's currently out there -- if this were to be implemented across the board, suddenly this would be what players become used to. As for wall-offs, we need to ask ourselves the question: do we make maps assuming ramp-to-townhall walls, or do we adjust the terrain to encourage/make possible wall-offs in a different manner?
|
On August 08 2012 16:18 Diamond wrote:
ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it.
Regarding walls, I think this is more of a terrain development issue. Why is there an assumed requirement for walls to connect right against the ramp? Why not just in front of the ramp, or some other solution? Regarding visual indication, this is building pathing; this is shown as a grid for people who have building grid turned on, and for those who don't you still get the visual indication that you cannot place a building there when attempting. It's more than just a temporary fix; it's about re-adjusting pathing behaviour at the bottom of a single-width ramp.
Perhaps the best argument against it in terms of confusion would be that building pathing at your main base ramp would behave differently at the bottom than any other ramp on the map. I'm not sure if that's a really big deal, though, as who tries to deliberately construct buildings at the bottom of any other ramp to block it off?
|
On August 08 2012 16:08 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:22 Ktk wrote:
400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer.
Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer. This seems like the best idea so far. Just make it destructible rocks instead of a supply depot. Problem solved.
Why is there a requirement to design maps to FFE off of the ramp? Why not design terrain to allow FFE without the need of the ramp (like on BW maps)? I do, however, agree that this wouldn't be a viable solution for some current maps in the ladder/tournament map pools, such as Antiga Shipyard. There are plenty of problems with maps like that anyway though, and should probably be rotated out of pools.
|
On August 08 2012 16:56 Xapti wrote:
You have to be kinda stupid for people to think that with this new advanced map editor that people haven't thought of better ways to block things than a lowered supply depot.
Unbuildable pathing is a problem because it's PERMANENT. The purpose of the depot is so that it's destructible, so that it's still possible to wall later on.
I think the best solution would be a small and/or short doodad placed in the middle of the area that would vary depending on the map (such as a bush, crystal, small boulder bones, tree, or debris).
That's not all; The doodad would have 1 health, and be unselectable, untargettable, and invulnerable for the first 3 or so minutes of the game. It would either have a small movement-blocking footprint (static doodads can have very small footprints) that wouldn't hinder unit movement much, or even no movement-hindering footprint at all (which would be less realistic to have units moving through them though). Regardless, it would still have at least 1 square blocked for building placement.
By doing it this way it:
• would not distract new players. As the OP pointed out, new players may get confused at the sight of a neutral building, especially with the name "supply depot"
• would not be permanent, making for less impact on the game than it's intended purpose
• would not waste any significant amount of time for the players to get rid of once it's timer is elapsed.
Problems: It kinda goes against "standard melee rules", but I don't think this is an issue? At least the only people who might have a problem with it is Blizzard, since they may not like having custom units or triggers in ladder maps. Aside from that I don't think it's an issue because as far as I know unlike in SC1 melee maps can have all sorts of special units and triggers.
Of course it's permanent. This alternative is more than just a band-aid fix, it's about re-thinking the behaviour of pathing and terrain between the main and natural bases. As a number of people in the thread have mentioned, certain solutions for openings like FFE utilized on some current maps (such as Antiga Shipyard) would not work with this. However, if we're looking at a modern solution to a problem, is it reasonable to expect it to fit perfectly within old maps for it to be a true solution? Or rather, should we consider that perhaps a slight adjustment to terrain design might be more reasonable?
It's like in software development, if you create a new feature or update underlying concepts, you can't possibly make it 100% backwards-compatible. With patch 1.5, there was a recent controversy over Blizzard dropping support for Mac OS X 10.5.8 despite it being part of the original minimum requirements.
Perhaps we can't use this method for some current/older maps, but what about maps that are made going forward that take this concept into consideration?
|
Also keep in mind that small adjustments can be made -- I just posted what's in the OP as an example. Here's an alternate example that reduces how far the unpathable terrain extends by 1 unit, and a demonstrative Protoss FFE wall at the ramp, without the need for any major terrain adjustments.
Pardon my sim-city skills; I cooked this up in 2 seconds. I'm sure a sturdier wall could be devised.
|
It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall.
|
On August 08 2012 20:23 XenoX101 wrote:
It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall.
For maps made by random amateur mapmakers, yes this could be an issue. However, for premier tournaments and mapmaking teams I'm not sure why a de-facto standard can't be agreed upon; everyone seems to have agreed upon the neutral lowered supply depot pretty easily.
Frankly, I don't see it as too difficult to figure out and agree upon a specific pathing setup. In this regard it'd only be 1 pattern to be had, rather than the 3 possible placements for the neutral depot. The trick is just coming up with what pathing pattern is the best solution.
|
On August 08 2012 20:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:23 XenoX101 wrote:
It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall. For maps made by random amateur mapmakers, yes this could be an issue. However, for premier tournaments and mapmaking teams I'm not sure why a de-facto standard can't be agreed upon; everyone seems to have agreed upon the neutral lowered supply depot pretty easily. Frankly, I don't see it as too difficult to figure out and agree upon a specific pathing setup. In this regard it'd only be 1 pattern to be had, rather than the 3 possible placements for the neutral depot. The trick is just coming up with what pathing pattern is the best solution.
We still don't even have a universal map pool that all tournaments agree on, so the chances of every single tournament adopting the standard are slim to none. It will only cause further complications about map versions if one version has un-pathable terrain and another has a neutral supply depot, hardly worth the slight visual improvement of not having the depot. And you can always tell when a map has been modded with a neutral supply depot, not so with unpathable terrain. It's a nice idea, but it's far too ambitious for the map framework or lack-thereof that we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vRogY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A2pb3l.png)
