EPTThere's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers.
SC2 High Ground Disadvantage? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Befree
695 Posts
There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers. | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:40 Westy wrote: 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. First of all, there is terrain advantage, so lets not say that there is none. Second of all you can tech and not die, the existing high ground advantage is most prominent during the early game. If you mean to suggest that you cannot tech up in mid game because you need a different kind of high ground advantage to not die then I again feel that perhaps people are not trying hard enough to play within the confines of the game. It seems to me that it is sensible that doing a major "tech-switch" without having a transition that will keep you alive is just one of those situations where players need to find different ways to build. If you NEED high ground miss rate or whatever or you will loose in every such circumstance then I don't think we are playing the same game. That a player can "beat" the high ground advantage through air units seems both rational and good from a design point of view. In the real world having the high ground is not going to keep you safe from aerial assault and in sc2 if you want to maintain your high ground advantage then you need to assert control over your airspace. If I can get a viking to spot up the high ground then I am not doing any more tech than it takes to get muta's or phoenixes. I really don't think there is a problem with the current high ground system, in fact I actually think it is spot on because it is not a huge game changing advantage but it is still an advantage and you need to assert it through play. That said if someone has a brilliant idea on what could be added to make it even better then I am by no means against listening. But please don't say miss percentage or anything like that. Such random mechanics do not belong in an rts imo. | ||
|
LightYears
39 Posts
| ||
|
givemefive
United States300 Posts
It's also not all that random. a 30 or 50% miss percentage when you have tens of units firing each second will work itself out to be pretty much just a damage modifier. I feel as though in SC:2 the high ground mechanic is different and requires a different mentality than in SC:BW. You must move out of your choke at the correct time or you will lose. It is unfortunate though because it makes holding a high position closer to the opponents base more difficult because high ground gives no dmg advantage and therefore no advantage at all. By the time one is ready to move out they can move in the overlords, obs or over units to spot the high ground and break your position. Why would you move out to a high ground position vs your opponent when you can sit in a better position closer to your reinforcements. High ground in BW allowed you to defend your expansions with less troops (like a couple lurkers or a few tanks) so that you could set up the rest of your army in a position that would contain or defend your main. That's one of the biggest problems with the new mechanic I think. You can't setup 2 tanks or lurkers at the top of your ramp anymore and call it good. Fortunately map design may be able to make terrain more interesting through different choke and open space design. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 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. Yeah the high ground SHOULD NOT have changed, it makes taking the highground pointless, in sc1 it took alot of investment to break a high ground expo because you had this thing called the defenders advantage, in sc2 however its send an air unit there and there is no advantage because you can shoot up and never miss. its stupid and pointless bring back the miss % actually ill provide an example of what happened to me yesterday : im doing the standard 1gate core stargate gate, i have about 4 stalkers while making a voidray, my opponent comes in with his 3 marines 3 marauder army, 4 stalkers CAN NOT beat this on low ground without blink because of slow, so what do i do wait for the non existant highground advantage to save me somehow, BUT WAIT, he walks up gets vision on my ramp and kills me because theres no longer anything to keep someone teching safe anymore this happens everytime it ry to tech except against zerg usually(weaker units ofc) because theres nothing stopping them from walking a zealot or a marauder or whatever up and killing you, its straight up retarded, and allows lower skill players to win because theres no longer a factor to let you play like you want to, you have to play the standard robotics build because everything punishes you with some kind of gay early rush which you cant even stop because they just need vision of your ramp to be on even ground with you. hope that made some sense. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
My own opinion is that the old mechanic led to uninterrupted turtling, which I found boring. It's a nice strategy, but seeing it go unhindered because of the ability to abuse the high ground to stay standing despite having an obviously inferior force just sort of bugs me. Oh, and let's not forget that units are no longer revealed when they are on the high ground. It may be black and white, but the pieces fit together nicely. | ||
|
djdolber
Sweden85 Posts
| ||
|
EccoEcco
United States61 Posts
I watch a lot of casts and replays, and if there is one thing I'm not seeing its cookie cutter builds or games. Good players have found ways to access most every tech (well I have yet to see Motherships or carriers used well). On of the things that the game holds right now is the dynamic of information and decision making. The person who scouts better, anticipates better, and transitions better has an advantage. High ground is a way for mediocre players to hold on and drag out games when they are outmatched. Its not a way to protect diverse play. It devalues those dynamics that make this game engaging. I understand that people are used to the mechanic, but I think leaving it behind is an important innovation that helps push for more creative and advanced play. If you're seeing your games end in macrofest a-move giant battles, I would suggest you work more on harassment, flanking and splitting your opponents attention. If you want to feel safe in a defensive position, I think you're playing the wrong game. I like that I NEVER feel safe. For me its a mark of game quality that any battle can be lost to superior micro. If the only way to win a fight is out-massing an opponents defenses, you've removed the intrigue from both sides of the contest. If you really want the high ground, fight for it. Maintain air and detection superiority against the T & Z. Make Terrans burn their scans to gain sight then flank with stealth banshees to punish them. Use the sacrifice your opponent makes to get sight against them. know the tech/units they need to abuse your ramp, and skip ahead to the best counter. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 12 2010 05:39 EccoEcco wrote: Personally, I think it would be a detriment to the game to add a static high ground advantage back in, and for evidence I would submit the strategy that people in this thread are saying would be facilitated by it. I.E. being able to defend conservatively and tech up. The ability to tech while skirmishing and macro-ing effectively is a skill not a right. I watch a lot of casts and replays, and if there is one thing I'm not seeing its cookie cutter builds or games. Good players have found ways to access most every tech (well I have yet to see Motherships or carriers used well). On of the things that the game holds right now is the dynamic of information and decision making. The person who scouts better, anticipates better, and transitions better has an advantage. High ground is a way for mediocre players to hold on and drag out games when they are outmatched. Its not a way to protect diverse play. It devalues those dynamics that make this game engaging. I understand that people are used to the mechanic, but I think leaving it behind is an important innovation that helps push for more creative and advanced play. If you're seeing your games end in macrofest a-move giant battles, I would suggest you work more on harassment, flanking and splitting your opponents attention. If you want to feel safe in a defensive position, I think you're playing the wrong game. I like that I NEVER feel safe. For me its a mark of game quality that any battle can be lost to superior micro. If the only way to win a fight is out-massing an opponents defenses, you've removed the intrigue from both sides of the contest. If you really want the high ground, fight for it. Maintain air and detection superiority against the T & Z. Make Terrans burn their scans to gain sight then flank with stealth banshees to punish them. Use the sacrifice your opponent makes to get sight against them. know the tech/units they need to abuse your ramp, and skip ahead to the best counter. The point of fast teching is to get said tech unit as fast as possible with as little units as possible(such as DT in Sc1) This i highly disagree with, without high ground advantage protoss would always beat terran early game id suspect in most cases, why? because dragoons can run up ramps and rape marines without having to worry about missing or anything just because one of them has vision. which is what happens now except you cant tech because you wont have enough units to hold off some newbie all in push. Lastly, whats the point in fighting for highground? when every race will have some flying unit (colossus,viking,overseer??) to see up there anyway, its not like they have a chance to miss or anything they can balls to the wall attack up and win especially since everything will hit. I for one see the new high ground mechanic as a huge step down from the original one.. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:58 Befree wrote: I had always thought the high ground miss chance was one of the worst things implemented in the game. I agree with there needing to be a high ground advantage, but there is no way that it can be like the BW one and be based on miss chance. There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers. That's like saying they should eliminate splash damage and recreate the damage schema so the target gets hit with "X" damage, the immediate circle of units gets hit with "Y" damage, and the outer circle of units gets hit with "Z" damage. High ground advantage was great for what it means... "high ground advantage." | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
Pro-SC2 people always attack the others for being unwilling to adapt and clinging to nostalgia, while anti-SC2 people always go 'oh you kids go back to WoW everyone knows we're right'. I wish people would stop arguing along general party lines (and they are party lines) and try to look at things objectively. If I wanted politics I'd go to CNN. | ||
|
HopLight
Sweden999 Posts
On May 11 2010 23:03 Mecha_cl wrote: Well go play fucking BW then dude, if the mechanics that great and you prefer it, we don't want you hear to complain about new things because you don't fully understand them. So basically what you are saying is that if we happen to dislike the implementation of certain new mechanics and point out that we preferred them how they were done previously, then we are incapable of understanding how the new mechanic works. Just because we happen to prefer things the old way in some areas doesn't necessarily mean we think all new mechanics are bad. But for crying out loud we should be able to say why we prefer them without meeting the incredibly unhelpful "go back to BW if you are not happy". The whole point of the Beta is to find out what works and make suggestions for improving it. | ||
|
EccoEcco
United States61 Posts
On May 12 2010 05:48 arb wrote: The point of fast teching is to get said tech unit as fast as possible with as little units as possible(such as DT in Sc1) This i highly disagree with, without high ground advantage protoss would always beat terran early game id suspect in most cases, why? because dragoons can run up ramps and rape marines without having to worry about missing or anything just because one of them has vision. which is what happens now except you cant tech because you wont have enough units to hold off some newbie all in push. Lastly, whats the point in fighting for highground? when every race will have some flying unit (colossus,viking,overseer??) to see up there anyway, its not like they have a chance to miss or anything they can balls to the wall attack up and win especially since everything will hit. I for one see the new high ground mechanic as a huge step down from the original one.. 1) If you want to fast tech, high ground is still in play in the early game. 2) Defending against protoss in the early game, high ground is still in play 3) I agree. Walling in and using high ground in the mid-game will lose to flying units, so why are so many people so concerned with maintaining a ground to ground miss chance? I say high ground is just right in the current build and rewards good play. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On May 12 2010 06:06 EccoEcco wrote: 1) If you want to fast tech, high ground is still in play in the early game. 2) Defending against protoss in the early game, high ground is still in play 3) I agree. Walling in and using high ground in the mid-game will lose to flying units, so why are so many people so concerned with maintaining a ground to ground miss chance? I say high ground is just right in the current build and rewards good play. the high ground isnt in play. the ramp acts like a tunnel creating a better arc for the defender. nobody slides by the cliff when they try attack. they just keep a healthy distance then attack from the front of the ramp giving absolute 0 difference in the vision part | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On May 12 2010 06:10 MorroW wrote: the high ground isnt in play. the ramp acts like a tunnel creating a better arc for the defender. nobody slides by the cliff when they try attack. they just keep a healthy distance then attack from the front of the ramp giving absolute 0 difference in the vision part Fullheartedly agree with you. Let's have some real advantage for staying on one base, it's not like you're unbeatable for turtling anyhow. | ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
but to quote zeke "The mechanic in SC1 let people tech up with few units and still be able to not get steamrolled by a "direct" counter when they ought to have." that's a pretty big problem. 1. funnelling units onto a ramp 2. 33% miss chance = almost impossible to break in | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
edit: Post #11 http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630604051&sid=3000 | ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:58 Befree wrote: I had always thought the high ground miss chance was one of the worst things implemented in the game. I agree with there needing to be a high ground advantage, but there is no way that it can be like the BW one and be based on miss chance. There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers. I agree with this. One of the big problems with games like WoW and DotA(Hon) is that it is not only based on skill, but on RNG. To be truly competitive, the game shouldn't have any RNG elements. edit: in response to the units on top not able to form an arc, I think we should wait until retail and we start having a wider range of maps in the pool. All of the blizzard maps so far are fairly generic | ||
|
weeeee
Australia71 Posts
| ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On May 12 2010 05:01 arb wrote: Yeah the high ground SHOULD NOT have changed, it makes taking the highground pointless, in sc1 it took alot of investment to break a high ground expo because you had this thing called the defenders advantage, in sc2 however its send an air unit there and there is no advantage because you can shoot up and never miss. its stupid and pointless bring back the miss % actually ill provide an example of what happened to me yesterday : im doing the standard 1gate core stargate gate, i have about 4 stalkers while making a voidray, my opponent comes in with his 3 marines 3 marauder army, 4 stalkers CAN NOT beat this on low ground without blink because of slow, so what do i do wait for the non existant highground advantage to save me somehow, BUT WAIT, he walks up gets vision on my ramp and kills me because theres no longer anything to keep someone teching safe anymore this happens everytime it ry to tech except against zerg usually(weaker units ofc) because theres nothing stopping them from walking a zealot or a marauder or whatever up and killing you, its straight up retarded, and allows lower skill players to win because theres no longer a factor to let you play like you want to, you have to play the standard robotics build because everything punishes you with some kind of gay early rush which you cant even stop because they just need vision of your ramp to be on even ground with you. hope that made some sense. So the high ground mechanic is bad because you're a baddie who tried to defend against marauders and marines with straight stalkers. Good argument. If you had instead of making 4 stalkers made 2 stalkers, 1 sentry and 2 zealots (exact same cost), you would easily defend against 3 marines and 3 marauders. Basically, just follow Day[9]'s advice and learn to play rather than whine. | ||
| ||
