|
Btw: wouldnt it be much more interesting to just have more options in mapdesigning with many small terrainfeatures, instead of a highground advantage that would be always connected to each and every heigth difference?
Like
1way sightblockers
Areas with certain advantages (like a fog that gives or takes away while you stand in it)
Periodic opening gates or elevators
Complete sightblockers (not even air gives vision)
Sure, some stuff might be confusing at first, but most of that stuff could be selectanle to a certain degree, allowing you to read its effect.
It would allow mapmakers to actually deploy positionsl advantages, without the need to mess with the genetal balance to adapt to everything suddenly being different.
|
One issue with high ground % chance to miss that didn't exist in BW is smart targeting. Anything with smart targeting such as marines may spread out their damage in a way that is less optimal than just regular targeting. Of course this depends on how it is implemented and how the smart targeting is implemented. If the smart targeting is done at the same time as the rolling for each missed shot, then it can be avoided. Although, frankly it doesn't make much sense that they can change who their shooting at based on the fact that the guy next to them missed.
|
On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons.
I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine.
Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management.
|
On January 25 2013 03:29 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:58 KillingVector wrote:
In regard to my previous post above, I may have been a little premature. I realized that I may not correctly understand how hit chance works with AoE for something like a siege tank. Is the hit chance applied before doing AoE (that is once for all units under area) or is it applied to each unit in the area of effect individually?
I was assuming the former case, but I think that for the latter case my example still stands as random hit chance != flat % damage reduction. That is, suppose there is only one siege tank and it takes one volley to kill banelings. With the latter case for hit chance, about half of the banelings remain. For flat damage % reduction, all banelings are at half health. Even though they are at half health, they still have the potential to do the same damage because they are suicide units. Of course, its now easier for the marines to shoot them down, but it seems to me that the equivalence of the outcomes isn't necessarily true. It would need some testing.
Edit: But then my example is messing up AoE anyways, so I don't know. My main point is that something like banelings do their damage on suicide, so reducing their life by 1/2 doesn't necessarily reduce the damage they will do over their lifetime by 1/2. High ground AoE never missed in BW. It makes sense because once a bomb explodes, it's shrapnel flies in all directions and does end up hitting everyone around it. So, if a tank shell missed a direct hit on a dragoon, it won't do full 70 damage, but since it explodes anyway the shrapnel from it flies in all directions would do full AoE damage which was 35. Real science applied in a virtual game.
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that it was for all damage. My mistake.
My main point though is that the baneling's damage comes from only one suicide attack. If under the current Sc2 mechanics, a defending baneling dies, but under the new damage reduction it makes it through with say 5 health, it still does the same amount of damage. Of course, it matters how many units it hits.
That is, say the low ground marines have a reduction in damage of 1/3. Against any other unit, that means on average the defending unit is alive 50% longer to deal damage. Its like the unit is 50% stronger/better. The baneling though only has to close the gap and then it deals as much damage as it will ever do. A couple more surviving banelings could be much more than a 50% increase in damage. A 5 health baneling does just as much damage as a full health baneling.
Maybe the banelings that survive won't hit as many marines, because they die too soon. Maybe the geometry of the ramp prevents any of this from being an issue. It needs testing. I'm just not sure on paper how this all works with suicide units.
|
On January 25 2013 04:58 KillingVector wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 03:29 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 00:58 KillingVector wrote:
In regard to my previous post above, I may have been a little premature. I realized that I may not correctly understand how hit chance works with AoE for something like a siege tank. Is the hit chance applied before doing AoE (that is once for all units under area) or is it applied to each unit in the area of effect individually?
I was assuming the former case, but I think that for the latter case my example still stands as random hit chance != flat % damage reduction. That is, suppose there is only one siege tank and it takes one volley to kill banelings. With the latter case for hit chance, about half of the banelings remain. For flat damage % reduction, all banelings are at half health. Even though they are at half health, they still have the potential to do the same damage because they are suicide units. Of course, its now easier for the marines to shoot them down, but it seems to me that the equivalence of the outcomes isn't necessarily true. It would need some testing.
Edit: But then my example is messing up AoE anyways, so I don't know. My main point is that something like banelings do their damage on suicide, so reducing their life by 1/2 doesn't necessarily reduce the damage they will do over their lifetime by 1/2. High ground AoE never missed in BW. It makes sense because once a bomb explodes, it's shrapnel flies in all directions and does end up hitting everyone around it. So, if a tank shell missed a direct hit on a dragoon, it won't do full 70 damage, but since it explodes anyway the shrapnel from it flies in all directions would do full AoE damage which was 35. Real science applied in a virtual game. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that it was for all damage. My mistake. My main point though is that the baneling's damage comes from only one suicide attack. If under the current Sc2 mechanics, a defending baneling dies, but under the new damage reduction it makes it through with say 5 health, it still does the same amount of damage. Of course, it matters how many units it hits. That is, say the low ground marines have a reduction in damage of 1/3. Against any other unit, that means on average the defending unit is alive 50% longer to deal damage. Its like the unit is 50% stronger/better. The baneling though only has to close the gap and then it deals as much damage as it will ever do. A couple more surviving banelings could be much more than a 50% increase in damage. A 5 health baneling does just as much damage as a full health baneling. Maybe the banelings that survive won't hit as many marines, because they die too soon. Maybe the geometry of the ramp prevents any of this from being an issue. It needs testing. I'm just not sure on paper how this all works with suicide units.
Deleted. I can't read.
|
On January 25 2013 05:07 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:58 KillingVector wrote:On January 25 2013 03:29 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 00:58 KillingVector wrote:
In regard to my previous post above, I may have been a little premature. I realized that I may not correctly understand how hit chance works with AoE for something like a siege tank. Is the hit chance applied before doing AoE (that is once for all units under area) or is it applied to each unit in the area of effect individually?
I was assuming the former case, but I think that for the latter case my example still stands as random hit chance != flat % damage reduction. That is, suppose there is only one siege tank and it takes one volley to kill banelings. With the latter case for hit chance, about half of the banelings remain. For flat damage % reduction, all banelings are at half health. Even though they are at half health, they still have the potential to do the same damage because they are suicide units. Of course, its now easier for the marines to shoot them down, but it seems to me that the equivalence of the outcomes isn't necessarily true. It would need some testing.
Edit: But then my example is messing up AoE anyways, so I don't know. My main point is that something like banelings do their damage on suicide, so reducing their life by 1/2 doesn't necessarily reduce the damage they will do over their lifetime by 1/2. High ground AoE never missed in BW. It makes sense because once a bomb explodes, it's shrapnel flies in all directions and does end up hitting everyone around it. So, if a tank shell missed a direct hit on a dragoon, it won't do full 70 damage, but since it explodes anyway the shrapnel from it flies in all directions would do full AoE damage which was 35. Real science applied in a virtual game. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that it was for all damage. My mistake. My main point though is that the baneling's damage comes from only one suicide attack. If under the current Sc2 mechanics, a defending baneling dies, but under the new damage reduction it makes it through with say 5 health, it still does the same amount of damage. Of course, it matters how many units it hits. That is, say the low ground marines have a reduction in damage of 1/3. Against any other unit, that means on average the defending unit is alive 50% longer to deal damage. Its like the unit is 50% stronger/better. The baneling though only has to close the gap and then it deals as much damage as it will ever do. A couple more surviving banelings could be much more than a 50% increase in damage. A 5 health baneling does just as much damage as a full health baneling. Maybe the banelings that survive won't hit as many marines, because they die too soon. Maybe the geometry of the ramp prevents any of this from being an issue. It needs testing. I'm just not sure on paper how this all works with suicide units. Actually, banelings are sort of melee attack units. They don't fire any long distance projectile that can miss. If you touch the marine with your baneling, then it should do full damage, doesn't matter if your bane was on low gronud and marine on high ground. High ground advantage shouldn't really apply to banelings.
I am very well aware of that -_-
My point is that applying a chance to miss % to suicide units such as banelings can have large variance on game outcomes. People who dismiss it as "averaging" out (or more appropriately the law of large numbers) are ignoring the fact that one more baneling connecting could make a huge difference for which the rest of the game is highly dependent. (Sc isn't really a series of independent trials)
|
On January 25 2013 05:21 KillingVector wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 05:07 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:58 KillingVector wrote:On January 25 2013 03:29 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 00:58 KillingVector wrote:
In regard to my previous post above, I may have been a little premature. I realized that I may not correctly understand how hit chance works with AoE for something like a siege tank. Is the hit chance applied before doing AoE (that is once for all units under area) or is it applied to each unit in the area of effect individually?
I was assuming the former case, but I think that for the latter case my example still stands as random hit chance != flat % damage reduction. That is, suppose there is only one siege tank and it takes one volley to kill banelings. With the latter case for hit chance, about half of the banelings remain. For flat damage % reduction, all banelings are at half health. Even though they are at half health, they still have the potential to do the same damage because they are suicide units. Of course, its now easier for the marines to shoot them down, but it seems to me that the equivalence of the outcomes isn't necessarily true. It would need some testing.
Edit: But then my example is messing up AoE anyways, so I don't know. My main point is that something like banelings do their damage on suicide, so reducing their life by 1/2 doesn't necessarily reduce the damage they will do over their lifetime by 1/2. High ground AoE never missed in BW. It makes sense because once a bomb explodes, it's shrapnel flies in all directions and does end up hitting everyone around it. So, if a tank shell missed a direct hit on a dragoon, it won't do full 70 damage, but since it explodes anyway the shrapnel from it flies in all directions would do full AoE damage which was 35. Real science applied in a virtual game. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that it was for all damage. My mistake. My main point though is that the baneling's damage comes from only one suicide attack. If under the current Sc2 mechanics, a defending baneling dies, but under the new damage reduction it makes it through with say 5 health, it still does the same amount of damage. Of course, it matters how many units it hits. That is, say the low ground marines have a reduction in damage of 1/3. Against any other unit, that means on average the defending unit is alive 50% longer to deal damage. Its like the unit is 50% stronger/better. The baneling though only has to close the gap and then it deals as much damage as it will ever do. A couple more surviving banelings could be much more than a 50% increase in damage. A 5 health baneling does just as much damage as a full health baneling. Maybe the banelings that survive won't hit as many marines, because they die too soon. Maybe the geometry of the ramp prevents any of this from being an issue. It needs testing. I'm just not sure on paper how this all works with suicide units. Actually, banelings are sort of melee attack units. They don't fire any long distance projectile that can miss. If you touch the marine with your baneling, then it should do full damage, doesn't matter if your bane was on low gronud and marine on high ground. High ground advantage shouldn't really apply to banelings. I am very well aware of that -_- My point is that applying a chance to miss % to suicide units such as banelings can have large variance on game outcomes. People who dismiss it as "averaging" out (or more appropriately the law of large numbers) are ignoring the fact that one more baneling connecting could make a huge difference for which the rest of the game is highly dependent. (Sc isn't really a series of independent trials)
Ah sorry, I misread your post.
Well, to speak for lower leagues, this could be a bit of a problem. Let me analyse.
Here is what I think is possible: A group of marines trying to go up the ramp for harassment, but banelings are near the ramp, let's say behind the queens. The marines try to move to the ramp because the queen isn't taking much damage. The zerg sees this and moves the banelings to the front, the terran reacts and retreats with stim boosting the running speed, and simultaneously tries to return fire while backing off (The kind of micro displayed by MKP in several GSL tournaments).
Hmm.... no matter how hard I think, the Zerg is always winning, unless the terran builds a Medivac and does a drop. One tactic that comes to mind is to lure the banelings to low ground by feigning an attack, but backing off with stim once the banelings are on the low ground or ramp, leaving them vulnerable.
Perhaps we'll see an early tank build with this, since a tank nullifies all banelings. Needs to be tested!
|
On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management.
I guess you didn't read my post?
If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing.
There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed.
|
On January 25 2013 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management. I guess you didn't read my post? If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing. There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed.
This is a point worth emphasizing. There are more ways to create a defenders advantage than just to implement a high ground advantage. In BW the reason why defenders could defend the way they did was not purely based upon the high ground advantage, rather it was the defensive units that players had access to. Ultra-boss PsiStorm, 2 supply tanks, Lurkers, etc.
I think the idea of fortification is key to strategy in RTS, so I am all for the implementation of the ability to truly fortify area. Terran already has bunkers, PF's, and siege tanks. Perhaps the neosteel frame upgrade should give bunkers and PF's +100 and +200 HP respectively or something. Terran doesn't need huge tweaks for actual fortification to be practical.
I think that spine walls are already pretty good at fortifying things.
Protoss is alright at fortification. I would like to see them be perhaps a bit better, whether it is introducing an upgrade for cannons or giving them a defensive unit other than the sentry. I think that a lot of the whole "Protoss deathball" playstyle comes from the fact that Protoss' one good defensive tool is warp in, so they feel very uneasy when they are moving up to four bases or more.
All that being said I must admit I am biased towards buffing fortification as a Terran players that uses PF's and bunkers like Paula Dean uses butter and mayonnaise.
|
On January 25 2013 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management. I guess you didn't read my post? If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing. There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed.
Good point, someone had to ask this. I'll list my points. Firstly, it's not purely to encourage harass, but also to induce the player to think strategically, something that changes from map to map. Increasing the potency of base defenses does not achieve the same result, because you can build base defenses anywhere across the map, wherever you have creep, protoss matrix, etc. High ground cannot exist everywhere in contrast to low ground. Changing terrain allows for a greater diversity of positional play, and greater importance to certain locations at map. The mapmaker can decide which points of the map to emphasize.
For example, if I increase base defense, then it doesn't matter if units are on high ground or low ground, my defense will remain strong. But if there is high ground and low ground, then a player can decide where to position his units to efficiently engage units on high/low ground, or perform a drop to make things even. Have you every played on maps like Katrina and Tau Cross? The high ground on Tau cross was so useful to strategically take out the zerg's vespene geyser at the middle expansion, but it was risky because of mutalisks and the spell plague.
It's too simple to say that base defense gets you the same positional play and result, because it doesn't. Let me tell you again, high ground changes with every map, base defense doesn't. This is one reason why it should come back, and it also induces the player to actually consider which part of the map to give more emphasis, and think and plan things out.
|
I think it has to do with three concepts: 1. the ability to trade units despite being outnumbered; 2. the wish for terrain and positioning to matter; and 3. defender's advantage.
High ground advantage is a bonus for all three of these, but I think the problem is that these concepts are fairly fundamental to the way the game plays out and the current maps and units are created around it, so making them more prominently felt won't necessarily improve gameplay. Some examples: the colossus will now be incredibly strong because it is quite mobile and a colossus-based army can easily take a strong position on high ground somewhere. All maps will have to be changed, for instance Cloud Kingdom now has an impossible to take fourth base, but in many maps the third base will be quite difficult to attack; you could change the maps to be more spread out, but that will have balance repercussions, .
Another thing that's important to mention is that - let's suppose that Blizzard wants to increase positional play - introducing a high ground advantage is a dangerous step that will complicate many existing dynamics. Blizzard also has the option to introduce units that will reward positional play more, as they're doing in Heart of the Swarm. It's smaller scale and more controlled, so the results are more predictable.
Many of the suggestions about things like economy, positional advantages, micro etc. I agree with, but it essentially turns SC2 into a different game and Blizzard is just never going to make those changes. If they had intended to, they would have done so a year ago, it's far too late at this point. We'll have to accept that this is the game we're going to get, with some improvements to balance and a couple of unit dynamics. Outside of unit design, there will be no fundamental changes.
I know it's fun to brainstorm about these things and it can be frustrating that Blizzard has been so conservative, but I think it's still important to realize that this discussion will be pointless if we address it to Blizzard. The only suggestions that Blizzard will listen to are about unit changes. It's also possible to have map features introduced by map makers, which is one area where the community does have some power, so maybe that's a fruitful area of discussion too.
|
On January 25 2013 06:43 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management. I guess you didn't read my post? If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing. There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed. Good point, someone had to ask this. I'll list my points. Firstly, it's not purely to encourage harass, but also to induce the player to think strategically, something that changes from map to map. Increasing the potency of base defenses does not achieve the same result, because you can build base defenses anywhere across the map, wherever you have creep, protoss matrix, etc. High ground cannot exist everywhere in contrast to low ground. Changing terrain allows for a greater diversity of positional play, and greater importance to certain locations at map. The mapmaker can decide which points of the map to emphasize. For example, if I increase base defense, then it doesn't matter if units are on high ground or low ground, my defense will remain strong. But if there is high ground and low ground, then a player can decide where to position his units to efficiently engage units on high/low ground, or perform a drop to make things even. Have you every played on maps like Katrina and Tau Cross? The high ground on Tau cross was so useful to strategically take out the zerg's vespene geyser at the middle expansion, but it was risky because of mutalisks and the spell plague. It's too simple to say that base defense gets you the same positional play and result, because it doesn't. Let me tell you again, high ground changes with every map, base defense doesn't. This is one reason why it should come back, and it also induces the player to actually consider which part of the map to give more emphasis, and think and plan things out.
It sounds like the goal is to create terrain that encourages tactical play--as it sounds like what you're asking for is not so much "defensiveness" but more-so the ability for small packs of troops to be efficient enough at an attack (or stall tactic) to be worth risking. (similar to marines shooting from the back of a mineral line, or Sentries blocking off a choke during attacks/defense)
Is this closer to what is being looked for?
|
I don't see why Blizzard would hesitate.
It shouldn't affect existing maps too much, because the advantage isn't that huge. It will encourage much more map awareness, especially on Cloud Kingdom. If you spot the enemy army moving to the 4th base via high ground then you can station extra units for a defensive stance beforehand. Not knowing when your opponent was going for the attack on 4th base would of course cost you the expansion.
People here are discussing as if high ground would grant near invincibility, whereas it only grants a 1/3rd miss chance for units that aren't on the same or higher level. Give it a chance people. You guys are shutting down the idea before Blizzard has even given their official word on it. Why such resistance to change, dear community?
|
On January 25 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 06:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management. I guess you didn't read my post? If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing. There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed. Good point, someone had to ask this. I'll list my points. Firstly, it's not purely to encourage harass, but also to induce the player to think strategically, something that changes from map to map. Increasing the potency of base defenses does not achieve the same result, because you can build base defenses anywhere across the map, wherever you have creep, protoss matrix, etc. High ground cannot exist everywhere in contrast to low ground. Changing terrain allows for a greater diversity of positional play, and greater importance to certain locations at map. The mapmaker can decide which points of the map to emphasize. For example, if I increase base defense, then it doesn't matter if units are on high ground or low ground, my defense will remain strong. But if there is high ground and low ground, then a player can decide where to position his units to efficiently engage units on high/low ground, or perform a drop to make things even. Have you every played on maps like Katrina and Tau Cross? The high ground on Tau cross was so useful to strategically take out the zerg's vespene geyser at the middle expansion, but it was risky because of mutalisks and the spell plague. It's too simple to say that base defense gets you the same positional play and result, because it doesn't. Let me tell you again, high ground changes with every map, base defense doesn't. This is one reason why it should come back, and it also induces the player to actually consider which part of the map to give more emphasis, and think and plan things out. It sounds like the goal is to create terrain that encourages tactical play--as it sounds like what you're asking for is not so much "defensiveness" but more-so the ability for small packs of troops to be efficient enough at an attack (or stall tactic) to be worth risking. (similar to marines shooting from the back of a mineral line, or Sentries blocking off a choke during attacks/defense) Is this closer to what is being looked for?
Yes, a terrain that encourages tactical play - that changes from map to map.
|
On January 25 2013 07:02 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 06:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:43 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2013 04:20 Unshapely wrote:On January 25 2013 04:11 Scrubwave wrote:
I get and agree that current high ground "advantage" is stupid but what makes you think blizzard will consider any changes to it? To make the game more interesting, and encourage strategic advances towards enemy base? Games will be more about harassment rather than full-scale frontal attacks. Well, we don't need "terrain advantage" for that--they could just buff midgame defences so that it's almost impossible to win an outright frontal assault forcing a need for more sideways attacks. For example, if Planetary Fortresses were given a bigger AoE radius and scaled with mech upgrades--breaking through a lategame terran wall would be almost impossible forcing less frontal attacks. Or what if the Dark Shrine had cannon upgrades that increased cannon range and gave cannons hardened armor? It's already impossible to break through spine walls supported by Infestors forcing lots of harass play XvZ games. Etc... Terrain advantages need to have a very specific reason for existing that can't be solved by simply buffing turrets and cannons. I guess you've never played BW? Buildings, stationary defense, etc. always had 100% hit chance. Your shots only missed on units that could move, like marines, dragoons, etc. Your entire argument is moot. High ground advantage won't affect Planetary or Spine. Also, running up your entire army to a Spine Crawler Wall or Planetary Fortress should be difficult. That's why the player should think, look for an exploit, and then attack. You shouldn't blindly run all of your army straight up and expect to win. Do a traditional Bisu style dark templar drop, or savior style battlefield management. I guess you didn't read my post? If the goal is purely to encourage harass and less frontal assaults--that doesn't have to be terrain. Buffing defenses does the same thing. There needs to be a better and more specific reason why it is terrain that have to be buffed. Good point, someone had to ask this. I'll list my points. Firstly, it's not purely to encourage harass, but also to induce the player to think strategically, something that changes from map to map. Increasing the potency of base defenses does not achieve the same result, because you can build base defenses anywhere across the map, wherever you have creep, protoss matrix, etc. High ground cannot exist everywhere in contrast to low ground. Changing terrain allows for a greater diversity of positional play, and greater importance to certain locations at map. The mapmaker can decide which points of the map to emphasize. For example, if I increase base defense, then it doesn't matter if units are on high ground or low ground, my defense will remain strong. But if there is high ground and low ground, then a player can decide where to position his units to efficiently engage units on high/low ground, or perform a drop to make things even. Have you every played on maps like Katrina and Tau Cross? The high ground on Tau cross was so useful to strategically take out the zerg's vespene geyser at the middle expansion, but it was risky because of mutalisks and the spell plague. It's too simple to say that base defense gets you the same positional play and result, because it doesn't. Let me tell you again, high ground changes with every map, base defense doesn't. This is one reason why it should come back, and it also induces the player to actually consider which part of the map to give more emphasis, and think and plan things out. It sounds like the goal is to create terrain that encourages tactical play--as it sounds like what you're asking for is not so much "defensiveness" but more-so the ability for small packs of troops to be efficient enough at an attack (or stall tactic) to be worth risking. (similar to marines shooting from the back of a mineral line, or Sentries blocking off a choke during attacks/defense) Is this closer to what is being looked for? Yes, a terrain that encourages tactical play - that changes from map to map. Of course, I loved this in BW, and wouldn't hate in SC2.
So before we talk about what advantage to add--why don't we talk about what types of tactical plays do we want to encourage. For example, how small a force can something be and how big of an army should it be able to fight? How lopsided should a fight be when two armies fight but there is terrain advantage? What can we do to get those results *now* or at least similar results.
For example, more tight chokes would allow 1-2 Sentries to hold off large scale ground attacks.
Longer chokes would allow tanks to better defend areas.
larger line of sight walls would allow army positioning to be more important in a supposedly "large open space"
More open cliffs behind mineral patches to allow marines/hydras/stalkers to shoot down and harass.
More islands (both floating in space islands or simply high ground islands)
More time sensitive structures/features (like temporary towers, temporary walls, or even temporary bridges)
Once we've played with what is available (actually play with them and not simply whine that my A-moved deathball died in the middle of the map to colossus Kulas Ravine style) then maybe we can actually start discussing what *type* of new terrain feature should be made available.
And that's not counting things we can already add to terrain just with the editor. Malicious terrain like lava, persistent spells (everything from a "storm" area to a "guardian shield" area), variant resources available at expansions (mineral only, gas only, low patch count, etc..)
|
I dont have much to add, but I agree totally with increasing the benefits of high ground. Having the ability for small armies to stop much larger ones because of terrain suddenly adds such a great deal of strategy. All of a sudden if your army gets caught in a bad spot because there are burrowed units on top of that ramp and lings barring your retreat you can easily swing the tide of battle. It could mean the difference between good and great players by how good their map knowledge and scouting can be during games. I like the idea that players can more easily mount big comebacks by pulling off some kind of special moves and deep, well thought out strategies. One of the things I've always liked about SC2 was in that the strategy was so deep I could apply things like the Art of War to actually improve upon battle tactics and strategy.
Anything to make the gameplay & strategy deeper, and reward more skilled players is a plus. Im only posting in hopes that someone from Blizzard reads and can do something while we are still in beta.
|
On January 25 2013 08:50 vicml21 wrote:
I dont have much to add, but I agree totally with increasing the benefits of high ground. Having the ability for small armies to stop much larger ones because of terrain suddenly adds such a great deal of strategy. All of a sudden if your army gets caught in a bad spot because there are burrowed units on top of that ramp and lings barring your retreat you can easily swing the tide of battle. It could mean the difference between good and great players by how good their map knowledge and scouting can be during games. I like the idea that players can more easily mount big comebacks by pulling off some kind of special moves and deep, well thought out strategies. One of the things I've always liked about SC2 was in that the strategy was so deep I could apply things like the Art of War to actually improve upon battle tactics and strategy.
Anything to make the gameplay & strategy deeper, and reward more skilled players is a plus. Im only posting in hopes that someone from Blizzard reads and can do something while we are still in beta.
In defense of Blizzard (not that I don't want terrain changes) but adding high ground advantage is not what will make SC2 more Sun Tzu-ish.
|
On January 24 2013 23:12 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 22:39 SC2John wrote:On January 24 2013 20:11 Targe wrote:On January 24 2013 15:50 Alex1Sun wrote:On January 24 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It doesn't have to be high ground--trying to put the focus purely on high ground will cause blizz to simply think "well this isn't BW"
What's needed is terrain relevance on a pound-per-pound basis. A terrain difference where two equal units are no longer equal because of terrain.
Chokes only affect large numbers of units
Vision is an on/off function
What's needed is something to make it so that when one stalker fights another without micro--the one in the better terrain wins. I don't care if it's low ground advantage or tree advantage or fog or whatever--but it's needed. Exactly. And I also feel it's up to mapmakers to introduce such areas. No need to change basic game mechanics, just add a few maps with different ground advantage zones and see which ones add interesting and balanced gameplay. If there is no mechanic for map makers to use how can they base terrain around that mechanic? Two posts later, following the same question: On January 24 2013 16:28 Alex1Sun wrote:On January 24 2013 16:18 MikeMM wrote:On January 24 2013 15:50 Alex1Sun wrote:On January 24 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It doesn't have to be high ground--trying to put the focus purely on high ground will cause blizz to simply think "well this isn't BW"
What's needed is terrain relevance on a pound-per-pound basis. A terrain difference where two equal units are no longer equal because of terrain.
Chokes only affect large numbers of units
Vision is an on/off function
What's needed is something to make it so that when one stalker fights another without micro--the one in the better terrain wins. I don't care if it's low ground advantage or tree advantage or fog or whatever--but it's needed. Exactly. And I also feel it's up to mapmakers to introduce such areas. No need to change basic game mechanics, just add a few maps with different ground advantage zones and see which ones add interesting and balanced gameplay. It's definitely not up to mapmakers. A very very good mapmaker SUPEROUMAN tried his best to create exciting maps using current game mechanics and eventualy he got disappointed that because of game mechanics of SC2 maps don't influence gameplay that much. Here is the link on his post http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6713481997?page=1#0 Well, he made good maps, but I never saw him trying to implement any new forms of ground advantage in his maps. Again, it doesn't even have to be high-ground advantage. A lot of things can serve similar purpose. For comparison look at some BW maps: static disruption webs, static dark swarms, lots of interesting features. SC2 editor easily allows such things and more. Oh wow, I expect SPL will be using stuff like that when they introduce new maps then!
I really hope it will become the case soon!
There is so much potential in mapmaking and new exciting forms of ground advantage even with current game mechanics!
Why is nobody trying it? It can make the game so much better!
|
|
|
There is no incentive or reason that Blizzard should add any core mechanics to the game that cannot be clearly shown or explained in a combat situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
