|
I'll make this OP short and hope to expand it as the thread develops.
The topic of stronger high-ground advantage and how it could immensely improve the game by encouraging positional gameplay and reducing the prevalence of death-balls has been brought up many times.
This thread is the most recent:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=394845
The important point however is that high-ground advantage can be replaced by any other ground advantage. Strategically putting dark swarms / disruption webs / other spells on the map or covering certain areas by fog / glow / other (hopefully not very obtrusive) visual effect that gives +armor or -range would do the job just as well. Don't forget that some BW pro maps had permanent spells on them, and it worked great!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HCgloBu.png)
I personally believe that it is up to mapmakers to introduce various ground advantage zones on new maps, so that we and pros would be able to test them and determine which ones improve the game while retaining the balance.
What do you guys think?
Poll: Would you like to see new types of ground advantage in SC2?Yes, I encourage mapmakers to experiment! (110) 91% No, it does not do any good. (11) 9% 121 total votes Your vote: Would you like to see new types of ground advantage in SC2? (Vote): No, it does not do any good.
(Vote): Yes, I encourage mapmakers to experiment!
If you think it's a good idea, please share your suggestions on what particular kind of ground advantage (and corresponding visual effect) would you propose, and how you think it could enhance the gameplay.
EDIT: Some nice points and my answers
On January 25 2013 19:43 [F_]aths wrote:
I think, we have to consider esports. This means, there should not be too many exceptions to the standard rules.
Definitely! I think there should be no more then 1 ground advantage zone type per map and not more than 2-3 in the map pool.
On January 25 2013 18:52 JOJOsc2news wrote:
I think this is a great idea.
The plea should go towards tournament organizers and Blizzard though. They are reluctant to include these maps into their map pools. I'm hoping that, with the Pro League, organizers will start to be less conservative about their map pools. What does Pro League have to do with it? I think they would be the first ones to experiment with that and could set a good example. They have brought in some new aspects already like the sand animation on one of their maps.
I Agree. However look at the voting here. Overwhelming majority of viewers would be happy to see pro players playing at such maps. If mapmakers make good balanced maps with interesting ground advantage zones, then small local tournaments will pick them up just to attract the viewers. I myself would definitely watch such a tournament. Bigger guys like Pro League will follow eventually.
On January 26 2013 01:29 Qikz wrote:
I missvoted, I meant to say yes, but clicked no. Still, more experimentation is a good thing! ^^
On January 26 2013 01:40 Alpino wrote:
I missvoted as well. I meant to say yes, but clicked no ):
On January 26 2013 01:53 Barrin wrote:
^--- lol @ putting "yes" second and not clicking "always display results in this order"
On January 26 2013 01:56 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 01:53 Barrin wrote:
^--- lol @ putting "yes" second and not clicking "always display results in this order" Yeah... I realized that just before clicking. So due to my excellent TL-post-micro I could prevent a misvote. 
Sorry guys! 
Have a nice day! 
|
I think this is a great idea.
The plea should go towards tournament organizers and Blizzard though. They are reluctant to include these maps into their map pools. I'm hoping that, with the Pro League, organizers will start to be less conservative about their map pools. What does Pro League have to do with it? I think they would be the first ones to experiment with that and could set a good example. They have brought in some new aspects already like the sand animation on one of their maps.
|
I think, we have to consider esports. This means, there should not be too many exceptions to the standard rules.
|
Just copy the system Dawn of War had - mappers could define a separate "layer" of cover (visuals independent from the affected gameplay area). Light cover, like a small crater, would grant a defensive boost. Heavy cover would grant a strong defensive boost but slow units going through it. Negative cover (e.g. water) instead made them take additional damage. Cover was shown with a (de)buff icon, straightforward to understand and can easily be put on any map. Hovering your cursor over an area of cover changed it to show if an area had cover and which type.
Simplify it for SC2 a bit and there you go.
"putting dark swarms down" on the other hand seems like a really hacky (albeit oldschool) way of doing things
|
Dawn of War never made it successfully into big esports. You cannot just copy something to make a different thing better.
|
On January 25 2013 20:00 [F_]aths wrote:
Dawn of War never made it successfully into big esports. You cannot just copy something to make a different thing better.
Sure you can... it's what Blizzard does with all their games, what Apple does with all their products. Definitely a viable design strategy. An appropriate mix of good, tested ideas can be better than an original one.
|
I just checked to see if we could not get it under melee in the HotS editor (Blinding Cloud from the Viper) as just a regular old unit ability much like you can place arbitrary force fields. Could not find it.  Hopefully someone figures it out -- might require some data work.
|
On January 25 2013 20:00 [F_]aths wrote:
Dawn of War never made it successfully into big esports. You cannot just copy something to make a different thing better.
For two sentences, you've managed to cram quite a lot of sentiments into your post that I think are idiotic, but let's go with this one for starters: At what point did making SC2 a fun game to play and watch become a lower priority than "ESPORTS!"?
Followup question: How many games have "made it successfully into big esports"? Enough that you feel confident in making very broad generalizations about what is and is not possible in that area?
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 25 2013 20:00 [F_]aths wrote:
Dawn of War never made it successfully into big esports. You cannot just copy something to make a different thing better.
Just because something wasn't an esport doesn't mean that it didn't have good parts to it...
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
I missvoted, I meant to say yes, but clicked no. Still, more experimentation is a good thing! ^^
|
I missvoted as well. I meant to say yes, but clicked no ):
|
|
|
On January 26 2013 01:53 Barrin wrote:
^--- lol @ putting "yes" second and not clicking "always display results in this order"
Yeah... I realized that just before clicking. So due to my excellent TL-post-micro I could prevent a misvote.
|
Force field is actually a unit. It self destructs if massive units are nearby via autocadt validstors. Effects like blinding cloud sre just persistent effects with models. Should be easy to make a blinding cloud unit though.
|
On January 26 2013 01:20 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 20:00 [F_]aths wrote:
Dawn of War never made it successfully into big esports. You cannot just copy something to make a different thing better. For two sentences, you've managed to cram quite a lot of sentiments into your post that I think are idiotic, but let's go with this one for starters: At what point did making SC2 a fun game to play and watch become a lower priority than "ESPORTS!"? Followup question: How many games have "made it successfully into big esports"? Enough that you feel confident in making very broad generalizations about what is and is not possible in that area?
I agree that this posting of mine lacks content. I should have explained my statement.
Dawn of War 2 was casted by Take in a sponsored ESL league, but it never was a big esports title. Dawn of War has quite nice graphics and good gameplay, but we have to ask why it isn't an esports title.
I think, the graphics of DoW tries to be realistic up to a point where it is a bit confusing to follow. And while the campaign setting is very good of course, the multiplayer feels a bit like an addition to the campaign. The SC2 multiplayer feels like a seperate product from the campain. Is is rather easy to follow the action. I saw complete noobs, which most recent RTS experience was WC2 (yes WC2, not even WC3) and they were able to get a rough picture of what is going on. I believe that DoW lacks those qualities.
A second point: Chess is an incredible deep strategy game. Incredibly deep! Even though the board on it is played is rather boring. There were many attempts to make chess more interesting, but most of the world champions still play the classic chess.
|
I'm all for trying this stuff, but it has to be done right.
SC2 already has big problems with clarity and ability to see what's going on.
If you have an area that reduces clarity, it should probably have a negative affect so players try to keep their units out of it if possible. It should be used in ways where it doesn't force ugly engagements, it's just used to control zones.
You also have to think about confliction with creep... Would you need it to be a no-creep zone if it were something on the ground? A no-building zone as well? It could visually conflict with creep and whatnot. What if you had something that reduces speed of units? Would that conflict with creep gameplay-wise?
Something like this has it's advantages. We can do it, even at the tournament level, without Blizzard giving approval, so it's more practical. Also, having the advantages independent of terrain level can actually give us more freedom as map makers. Before, I have thought that this made more sense than high ground advantage. However, there's something very SC-ish and somewhat easy to understand and simple about high ground advantage, isn't there? It might just be me, but that seems like the best solution. To have high ground advantage as a base, I mean, and to use other types of terrain as a bit more special and less common. Maybe more common than the neutral spells in BW but more like that.
|
|
|
Something like this has it's advantages. We can do it, even at the tournament level, without Blizzard giving approval, so it's more practical. Also, having the advantages independent of terrain level can actually give us more freedom as map makers. Before, I have thought that this made more sense than high ground advantage. However, there's something very SC-ish and somewhat easy to understand and simple about high ground advantage, isn't there? It might just be me, but that seems like the best solution. To have high ground advantage as a base, I mean, and to use other types of terrain as a bit more special and less common. Maybe more common than the neutral spells in BW but more like that.
Agree. Like I said in the high ground thread, it's better to have one mechanic that everyone understands that can do multiple things for you. But there's no reason you couldn't also combine special features later. These should only be added into maps after we begin to exhaust the other options, though. Otherwise, you dilute the identity and meaningfulness of SC2 mastery.
In any case, unless we move into a new era of foreigner mapmaking ascendance, this thread should be titled "a plea to tournament organizers". I don't blame you for framing it the way you did, but we've been dealing with the problem of "yeah, but so what" since the beginning. =\
I'd be very interested to test what kind of neutral buff/debuff things, used correctly, can add depth to the game without threatening balance. I just don't see how that happens, unless GOM or Kespa executive-decisions such a map into the tournament pool, which we have nothing to do with.
|
I had the idea a while back of putting a "tower" type thing on maps to give guardian shield (or insert other buff here) when you get near it (lasts the normal duration a guardian shield would, and the tower might have a cooldown on it so it doesn't spam 30 guardian shields if you walk up with 30 zerglings).. which is fairly similar to what's being talked about here. Unfortunately my knowledge of the data editor is pretty rudimentary and I couldn't figure out how to make it work.
there is going to be at least 1 ground debuff shipping with HOTS.. the "Rough Terrain (Snare patches)" in the units tab, afaik this will slow units going through it. I kind of want a speed one too, because that would allow you to place 3rds further away and put the speed buff inbetween the nat and the 3rd.
But we can't always have nice things.
edit: while we're on it, the absolute NUMBER ONE thing I want for the editor in the future is BRIDGES that can have pathable terrain underneath them. This would multiply the amount of interesting map layouts (esp. with regards to mixing up the layout of the main/nat/3rd) you can have by a billion (or so ).
|
ahaha, would be nice, but it'd break the engine, so you might want to swallow that particular dream. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
