EPTSC2 High Ground Disadvantage? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cuppatea
United Kingdom1401 Posts
| ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
| ||
|
Orpheos
United States1663 Posts
so if your opponent has easy vision, then the highground and low ground essentially become the same, just like destination. | ||
|
Chaos
United States772 Posts
On May 11 2010 23:34 Orpheos wrote: oh and i forgot. an example of chokes that created defender disadvantage at certain points in the game: Destination. those double bridges were a bitch to get out of. so if your opponent has easy vision, then the highground and low ground essentially become the same, just like destination. Destination also had a backdoor you could use if necessary ^^ | ||
|
Perfect Balance
Norway131 Posts
"Don't like the fact that new products are filled with saturated fats and artificial sweeteners? You have no right to complain! Go back to the forest and eat leaves and roots!" Embarassing. | ||
|
AraqirG
United States266 Posts
You don't want to engage when they get a concave around you. Position your units farther back so you engage when their units are stuck on the ramp. | ||
|
EccoEcco
United States61 Posts
Why should a mechanic reward static and uninspired play? | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
I feel that this applies a bit to the high ground topic because lets be honest, 90% of people who complain about the high ground mechanic are bdub players who want the bdub high ground mechanic back because it is "better" or whatever. But high ground is a mechanic that works exactly the same in both directions, if you are defending you have the same high ground advantage as a person you are attacking who is defending on high ground. I think that people get stuck with the illusion that there is another mechanic to compare to (the bdub one) instead of spending their time figuring out how to best utilize the high ground in THIS game. I am sure there can be a very theoretical argument over what each system brings and it is definately true that the sc2 high ground mechanic and the bdub high ground mechanic results in different consequences and different play. But instead of wasting time on things like "wow I just lost and if the high ground was like in bdub then I wouldn't had" just spend your time on actually figuring out how to adapt to how this game works. As a player, the game is never wrong, if you get beaten by high ground mechanics then it is YOU who are playing it wrong. edit: I play terran and I make serious use of sieged tanks on the lowground with spotting and I agree that it is very effective. But you know why it is effective? Because people cheat. And by cheating I don't mean literally hacking but they are cheating on defense and positioning. Not getting anti air to kill an aerial spotter, not having map control/scouting to see my tanks moving out in advance, not having units on the ramp or below the ramp to move out and hit the tanks before they siege up. If you sit on your high ground with no vision below, no considerable anti air and then you let a terran move tanks up close to the high ground and siege them then you deserve to loose because you just got punished for disregarding too many important factors. | ||
|
XiaoZhuPa
Singapore30 Posts
I like games that will reward you for clever positional play (i.e., you can defend with less units due to better position / micro). | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
On May 12 2010 00:38 XiaoZhuPa wrote: I agree with the OP, I feel that even with sight the high ground should have a slight advantage (but maybe reduced versus when there is no sight). I find that the narrow choke is actually detrimental. I like games that will reward you for clever positional play (i.e., you can defend with less units due to better position / micro). Kind of like breaking a static defense by clever use of sieged tanks and a viking to spot up high ground? | ||
|
feather6
48 Posts
On May 12 2010 00:36 ymirheim wrote: ... If you sit on your high ground with no vision below, no considerable anti air and then you let a terran move tanks up close to the high ground and siege them then you deserve to loose because you just got punished for disregarding too many important factors. Good post. I like the new high ground, it discourages blindly turtling. A ramp is an undeniable advantage in the early game when you can wall off, especially before there are air units. In the later game, someone who sits in their base + natural and completely cedes map control will be in trouble. Barring some cute tech timing (which will require luck or scouting anyway), turtles will lose. This is how I want it: if turtling is the optimal strategy, this will be a boring game to watch. Every race has ways around a fortified choke, siege tanks on the side of your base are far from the only threat. Blink stalkers, siege-range Colos, old-fasiond ovie drops... | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
 blizzard could at least try have it for some patch or 2 just to see the feedback. if it was a bad idea then switch back imo t.t On May 12 2010 00:30 AraqirG wrote: This is only true when defending with a small numbers of units on the actual ramp itself. If you form a concave at the top of your ramp (a little back from the ramp itself) it gives you the advantage. You don't want to engage when they get a concave around you. Position your units farther back so you engage when their units are stuck on the ramp. well that got nothing to do with highground. ur just talking about chokepoints and thats exactly whats bad about it. why even bother giving us high ground main bases when its so simple to get vision of the cliff anyway reverse all maps from highground => lowground and i swear it will play the same | ||
Chill
Calgary25992 Posts
| ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
And OP is right it can be a disadvantage later on as they can use ranged units to make an easy concave around what is basically a ball for your units trying to get out. Of course if you let a terran siege 5 tanks outside your ramp without some kind of plan you sort of deserve to lose. But I've played games before where I sent the zealots up the ramp with sentries below firing on everything in a nice arc while all their crap was jammed into the space on the ramp. It's not like this is much different from BW.. Just tanks and ranged units would do less damage since they were lower, but it was still effective to put units on the lower ground, especially tanks. | ||
|
TecNoPhi
United States25 Posts
In order to win you must have some kind of advantage, like better micro/macro, counter units, etc. Or putting your opponent at a disadvantage, like killing off harvesters, sniping expos, etc. Exploiting your opponents seemingly secure ramp, I could consider it the latter. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
The current system does grant defender's advantage, but in a tremendously all-or-nothing manner. Either the high ground makes you completely unstoppable or it's completely worthless. Many people liked it the old way better when it always gave a noticeable but not ever overwhelming advantage. "Gimmicky"? Really? Come the fuck on. | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
| ||
|
Westy
England808 Posts
On May 12 2010 00:36 ymirheim wrote: I think people are going along thinking of things the wrong way with this game. I realize that it is a beta and to some extent we should be looking at balancing issues but like Day9 likes to say on the topic of unit balance. When you are playing, NEVER even get tempted to think that this or that unit is OP. Just objectively look at the rules of the game and see how you can work it to your advantage. I feel that this applies a bit to the high ground topic because lets be honest, 90% of people who complain about the high ground mechanic are bdub players who want the bdub high ground mechanic back because it is "better" or whatever. But high ground is a mechanic that works exactly the same in both directions, if you are defending you have the same high ground advantage as a person you are attacking who is defending on high ground. I think that people get stuck with the illusion that there is another mechanic to compare to (the bdub one) instead of spending their time figuring out how to best utilize the high ground in THIS game. I am sure there can be a very theoretical argument over what each system brings and it is definately true that the sc2 high ground mechanic and the bdub high ground mechanic results in different consequences and different play. But instead of wasting time on things like "wow I just lost and if the high ground was like in bdub then I wouldn't had" just spend your time on actually figuring out how to adapt to how this game works. As a player, the game is never wrong, if you get beaten by high ground mechanics then it is YOU who are playing it wrong. edit: I play terran and I make serious use of sieged tanks on the lowground with spotting and I agree that it is very effective. But you know why it is effective? Because people cheat. And by cheating I don't mean literally hacking but they are cheating on defense and positioning. Not getting anti air to kill an aerial spotter, not having map control/scouting to see my tanks moving out in advance, not having units on the ramp or below the ramp to move out and hit the tanks before they siege up. If you sit on your high ground with no vision below, no considerable anti air and then you let a terran move tanks up close to the high ground and siege them then you deserve to loose because you just got punished for disregarding too many important factors. This is my main problem, its very easy to identify where you lost when YOU were holding the high ground to try and tech. It's because you didn't have enough units and the high ground gave you NO advantage at all. The solution? Do the same boring old build every single game. In competitive games where winning really matters, you will not see any interesting strats because there is no terrain advantage that allows someone to hold of a mass attack. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote: overlords, observers and scans are 3 sacrifices that a player must make just to see the units at high-ground, this doesn't seem like much of an advantage. Although i do see your point, and i think the way it is at the moment is ok and too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. But those are incidental costs if you use a unit you already have(its not like they have cloak for scan). | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote: BW and sc2 are two different games, sc2 isn't just a remake of sc1 in an attempt to 'fix' it. New game, new units, new mechanics, don't know how so many people don't realize that yet. why do geeks like you have to screw up every thread where a serious discussion is going on. just shut up and read. you should try to prove your (or rather come up with ANY) arguments, instead of repeating this useless sentence over and over again. | ||
| ||
