|
I was just thinking a few things over, and on most maps, the high ground advantage very quickly becomes a disatvantage the second your opponenet gets sight up there, which with overlords, observers and scans is very easy to do.
The way it becomes a disadvantage is that most maps have a tight choke around the top of the ramp to your main, which naturally allows anyone on the lower level to be able to form an arc around your units. The only way to really counter a push like this when you have less units is to let them all the way up your ramp and catch them in the choke, but ofcourse if you have an expansion, or any other type of buildings near your ramp your going to lose.
Why does this matter exactly? Well, i only played SC:BW for a short time, but from what i understand there was a 33% hit (or 33% miss?) chance when attacking things on high ground. Now this made it viable for players to tech and sacrifice army size as long as they kept the high ground advantage. To me, this gave games a chance to have much more creativity. However, currently in SC2, if you try to tech and your opponent can see that, he will simply do a timing push on you and over run you without any high ground advantage.
In my opinion, i think it would benefit the game so much more if blizzard were to revert back to the old system of high ground advantage, as we wouldn't see as many games where its simply massing up the same old army and moving out.
This is just my opinion, whats yours?
|
Lots of Terrans have already noticed this and will seige outside your ramp using air units to get vision and it is very hard to get down your ramp if they get tanks seiged up, I see this most commnly on Stepes of War but im sure it could be done on other maps
|
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/
|
On May 11 2010 22:22 Mecha_cl wrote:
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/
Think you misunderstand the point. What im stating is that because the chokes on the high ground are narrow, as long as you stay on the low ground you will always have the advantage if you have sight (And of course a big enough army to create a arc).
I will probably take some screenshots if i get time to explain what i mean better.
|
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.
|
On May 11 2010 22:27 Westy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:22 Mecha_cl wrote:
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/ Think you misunderstand the point. What im stating is that because the chokes on the high ground are narrow, as long as you stay on the low ground you will always have the advantage if you have sight (And of course a big enough army to create a arc). I will probably take some screenshots if i get time to explain what i mean better.
It seems though that at the stages of the game where there is enough units to actually form a huge arc that cannot be "outarced" by unit standing on the high ground then you should not be on one base turtling on high ground anyway but having taken a forward position.
|
On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever.
Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
|
On May 11 2010 22:27 Westy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:22 Mecha_cl wrote:
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/ Think you misunderstand the point. What im stating is that because the chokes on the high ground are narrow, as long as you stay on the low ground you will always have the advantage if you have sight (And of course a big enough army to create a arc). I will probably take some screenshots if i get time to explain what i mean better.
Take LT for example, the ramp is a short choke, easily covered by a block and it has a wide overlooking berth of everything under it.
I can think of no way you could successfully use the lower ground to you're favour.
If you're talking about the position you get in by going DOWN to ramp to them then i still stick by my words, you're doing it wrong. If you're turtling at least let them come to you first, you don't create a good choke point to then spring you're own trap.
|
On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
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.
|
On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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.
I tell people that everyday when they mourn the loss of things such as Lurkers. I just tell them to fuck off back to BW if its that important to them. SC2 isnt BW 2.0, its a new engine, same universe, similar units and races.
Seriously, if i got a buck for everytime i tell people this i'd be fucking Bill Gates.
|
i don't feel the whole 'new game, new mechanics' concept works for the high ground mechanic. think the game would be alot less aggressive with more pitched battles around the map at strategic locations if it was the BW mechanic, rather than army vs army, gg.
i still think they should at least try it and get feedback in beta, seems like the perfect time
|
On May 11 2010 22:59 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:
i don't feel the whole 'new game, new mechanics' concept works for the high ground mechanic. think the game would be alot less aggressive with more pitched battles around the map at strategic locations if it was the BW mechanic, rather than army vs army, gg.
i still think they should at least try it and get feedback in beta, seems like the perfect time
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. The old style to maps in BW wouldn't cut it today, Blizzard know this. People want more than just wide open spaces with occasional mineral patches/obsticles. They believe the terrain should be less static and i completely agree with them.
Think about it this way, Siege tanks would be WAY less useful without HG advantage, Reapers
Wouldn't exist because they wouldn't be much point. Those are just Terran advantage's. Dont underestimate Photon Cannon Turtles using HG advantage.
|
On May 11 2010 22:59 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:
i don't feel the whole 'new game, new mechanics' concept works for the high ground mechanic. think the game would be alot less aggressive with more pitched battles around the map at strategic locations if it was the BW mechanic, rather than army vs army, gg.
i still think they should at least try it and get feedback in beta, seems like the perfect time
Also, more aggression is good in SC2, thats the one thing i love. The harassing options is more evident thus making a more diverse gaming experience
|
If you are holding ground for fighting that is behind an expansion you are fighting in the wrong place and you deserve to lose. I don't think that the high ground advantage in sc:bw encouraged creativity what it did was encourage gimmicky play. You can just play to a few strengths and win with a trick. SCII is much more methodical.
|
On May 11 2010 23:05 jabberwokie wrote:
If you are holding ground for fighting that is behind an expansion you are fighting in the wrong place and you deserve to lose. I don't think that the high ground advantage in sc:bw encouraged creativity what it did was encourage gimmicky play. You can just play to a few strengths and win with a trick. SCII is much more methodical.
Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia.
|
United States1719 Posts
On May 11 2010 22:52 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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. I tell people that everyday when they mourn the loss of things such as Lurkers. I just tell them to fuck off back to BW if its that important to them. SC2 isnt BW 2.0, its a new engine, same universe, similar units and races. Seriously, if i got a buck for everytime i tell people this i'd be fucking Bill Gates.
I'd be happy too if i got a buck for no reason, but i dunno if id be happy enough to do that old man...
|
I don't view a high ground advantage as "being like it was in bw." Personally I view it as a more realistic advantage that has always been present throughout time. In military battles being on the high ground provides an advantage that people are arguing should be present. It isn't a case of sc2 vs BW.
|
On May 11 2010 22:22 Mecha_cl wrote:
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/
yea ummm you are still missing the point. his point actually has little to do with the old high ground mechanic.
his point is the following.
- The new high ground mechanic is an advantage if your opponent does not have sight.
- This advantage is negated when your opponent has sight, which is arguably easier with obs, ovies, scan(i see this as more of a midgame thing).
so at this point, if you agree that getting vision is easy(without running your units up and letting your opponent "get the first shot", then the high ground mechanic is equal between the attacker and the defender.
the OP goes on to say that this equality is broken by the fact that in the current map pool, many of the maps have a larger area for the units to spread out and form an effective "arc" on the low ground below the ramp than the high ground above the ramp. Now im sure you will agree with the power/advantage of an effective arc.
So if we accept that with easy vision, the high ground advantage is made equal, then map construction around certain ramps can lead to a disadvantage, NOT because of the high ground mechanic itself, but rather the way the map is constructed.
There were similar problems in BW as well. the case im most familiar with is in PvP, alot of times an opponent can get a relaly good arc of goons around your ramp and contain you so its imppossible to get down your ramp without reavers and maybe some zealots etc. This was mitigated by the fact that while it was easy to contain you at your ramp, they could not rush up it as effectively with the high ground mechanic.
In the end, I think that the problem the OP brings up could be solved by some new map making architecture. Im not sure how exactly to do it, but if you could design a ramp that has more space atop it, this would not happen.
as a disclaimer, this is more theorycrafting and translating the OPs opinions rather than my own. I have not played enough SC2 to have a very informed opinion.
|
On May 11 2010 22:37 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:27 Westy wrote:On May 11 2010 22:22 Mecha_cl wrote:
Just like everything similar to this (like Towers and Sensor Towers) every advantage can be a disadvantage.
Now, you miss the main point of high ground advantage. The main point is that you get the first shot off, even if you get sighting, GL getting into position without losing half your army.
NOT a disadvantage, you're doing it wrong and thinking too much about it.
Don't mean to sound like a dick, its quite late for me :/ Think you misunderstand the point. What im stating is that because the chokes on the high ground are narrow, as long as you stay on the low ground you will always have the advantage if you have sight (And of course a big enough army to create a arc). I will probably take some screenshots if i get time to explain what i mean better. Take LT for example, the ramp is a short choke, easily covered by a block and it has a wide overlooking berth of everything under it. I can think of no way you could successfully use the lower ground to you're favour. If you're talking about the position you get in by going DOWN to ramp to them then i still stick by my words, you're doing it wrong. If you're turtling at least let them come to you first, you don't create a good choke point to then spring you're own trap.
You can't think of any way that the lower ground below a ramp can be used to keep someone in their base? Good luck winning TvP or PvT when you get stuck in your base, unable to move down your ramp without taking huge losses. OTOH, I totally disagree with the OP, and this exact same situation occured in BW. Any time you had a choke that was helpful for defense early game could also turn into a disaster later on if you don't move out early enough.
|
Canada9720 Posts
On May 11 2010 23:06 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:05 jabberwokie wrote:
If you are holding ground for fighting that is behind an expansion you are fighting in the wrong place and you deserve to lose. I don't think that the high ground advantage in sc:bw encouraged creativity what it did was encourage gimmicky play. You can just play to a few strengths and win with a trick. SCII is much more methodical. Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia.
quit being such a dink. there have been some pretty good arguments
( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142 , http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114644) for bringing back the high ground advantage, and and posts like yours and jabberwokie's that're filled with assertions and no evidence does nothing to help the argument against high ground.
|
I think it's good they've removed random elements from the game. Battles should come down to player skill, not luck, which is often the case when miss percentages are involved.
|
It makes sense that choke points gives advantage to the defender once the army sizes are big enough. You even had this problem in BW if you let an opponent contain you outside your ramp. You try to break out and they shoot you to bits because you have to squeeze through the ramp while he has a nice half-circle going.
|
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.
|
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 ^^
|
Notice how WoW-kids argue that we should "go back and play fucking BW" or "Blizzard is a company, they can do anything they want", every time we try to bring up things that are inferior about SC2. This phenomenon of corporate loyalty is more common among the younglings, I just think it's interesting to see how they are groomed to be perfect little consumers. What a dream for all companies.
"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.
|
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.
|
It seems to me the mechanic is fine, and its the play that should be adjusted. High ground and a tight choke point are a valuable asset in the early game, and a liability by the time you get to the mid game. When you approach the tipping point, move to a more favorable location. Battles are won by those who control the terms of engagement. If you take a static position, you have given your opponent the option of attacking at the time he or she wishes and from whichever angle he or she wishes.
Why should a mechanic reward static and uninspired play?
|
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.
|
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).
|
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?
|
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...
|
everyone agrees with u and the ones who doesnt just want attention or seem smarter than the others 
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
|
Calgary25976 Posts
I think you haven't thought much about this and your argument is hardly convincing.
|
Not a big fan of the high-ground mechanic. For one, SC2 has chosen to be the only RTS i've ever played where there's no damage advantage from being on the high ground, well maybe not warcraft2. But I swear even C&C from '95 had a high ground advantage. And based on what Dustin said "it gives an advantage early and disappears late". Why would you want that advantage to disappear? To prevent turtling? Is turtling actually a problem, because I don't play too many games where someone turtles and actually wins (against a decent opponent).
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.
|
The chokepoint and the high ground advantage allows for everyone of almost any skill level to survive the early game. As the game progresses, more options open up to players to brake that advantage. As it should, something like that done in early game shouldn't hold the same value late game.
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.
|
The loss of high ground miss chance basically comes down to one thing: the nature of defender's advantage.
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.
|
I'm really confused why they are not doing high ground advantage like in sc1. Maybe do 20% miss or something, current advantage doesn't feel like advantage at all lol =/
|
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.
|
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).
|
On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
The first shot also matters so if you shoot first before he reveals you it also matters..
|
Miss percentage is what made my favorite BW map great - Heartbreak Ridge.
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.
|
On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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.
|
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.
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.
|
I agree with OP on this issue, the high ground advantage in BW is more interesting and promotes more daring techbuilds in the beginning of the game. What bothers me the most about this is that blizzards only response to why they like this new highground mechanic is like "just because", i would like them to officially recognize the main points about why we like the old way and then motivate more indepth why they think the new way is better, i fail to see the point.
|
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.
|
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..
|
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."
|
looking through this thread I don't understand why pro-SC2 and anti-SC2 (as SC2 currently is) factions keep acting like they're better than the other side.
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.
|
On May 11 2010 23:03 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:59 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:
i don't feel the whole 'new game, new mechanics' concept works for the high ground mechanic. think the game would be alot less aggressive with more pitched battles around the map at strategic locations if it was the BW mechanic, rather than army vs army, gg.
i still think they should at least try it and get feedback in beta, seems like the perfect time 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.
|
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.
|
On May 12 2010 06:06 EccoEcco wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
On May 12 2010 06:10 MorroW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 06:06 EccoEcco wrote: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. 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.
|
i think a far bigger effect is the unit size... 15 stimmed marines on a ramp can kill 15 hydralisks simply because half of the fat hydras are blocked and out of range sitting at the back.
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
|
I already submitted this question to the #BlizzChat that they hold on fridays, their reply was that they currently like the system, and it makes more "sense" than just randomly missing. They also felt the randomness of the missing took away from the "skill" of the game. I'm not passing judgment about their decision here, just telling you what I read. Lemme find the link.
edit:
Post #11
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630604051&sid=3000
|
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
|
i think high ground should give ranged units + 1 range... or something similar like a percentage.. just anything would be nice.
|
On May 12 2010 05:01 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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.
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.
|
On May 11 2010 22:52 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 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. I tell people that everyday when they mourn the loss of things such as Lurkers. I just tell them to fuck off back to BW if its that important to them. SC2 isnt BW 2.0, its a new engine, same universe, similar units and races. Seriously, if i got a buck for everytime i tell people this i'd be fucking Bill Gates.
I agree 100%. New game, new mechanics, etc. This is not broodwar. Please stop comparing the games at all. Why don't you instead just look at SC2 as a game in its own right, and decide...is it balanced? Yes or no. If it is, good game. If it isn't, bad game. It really is that simple.
EDIT:
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.
Ever heard of sentries? Or scouting? If you had sentries block ramp after half come up, kill those, then let rest come up, kill those. Separate his force. Or if you had scouted you could of seen what he was doing and reacted to it. You turtling is not an excuse to bitch about high ground. Use the choke to your advantage, scout, and keep a guy at xel'naga watch tower. This is a different game. You played a poor game and had a timing push against you in essence and you weren't prepared. You lose.
|
I agree, it bothers me how the mechanic is either all or none without some sort of consistent variable throughout the whole game. Why does it have to be 33% or whatever it was? If you kept in the current high ground advantage and added in say a 10-15% miss rate, you could have the best of both worlds. A little of the old mechanic combined with the new mechanic.
|
Look, no one is arguing the mechanic is not balanced. People who are talking about SC2 not being SC1 are putting a straw man up: we agree that it is freaking balanced. However, it's not BETTER. Show me a map like Heartbreak Ridge where pushes have to be cleverly timed. Oh wait, there is no high ground mid game so that map is pointless. Matchpoint holding the big ramp when taking your 4th? Seriously, by the time you'd do that you have observers, overseers, and vikings. No point to move out to take it then, better just all-in.
I can keep on going, but what this shows is this: the problem is that it discourages many-base play. It discourages taking these extra 4ths and 5th and having huge battles all over the map with small control groups. It's better just to all-in because taking those expansion make you vulnerable (yes, there is a ramp at the expansion, but is there a place where you can position your army where you will not get counterattacked yet still have a decent advantage?) People are complaining about how the game devolves into simple timing pushes, counterattacking seeing who will kill the other base (or lift off) first, and how almost every game turns into an all-in straight into an all-in, and this is why. Everyone is complaining about this problem but ignoring the solution just because an older game solved it this way... and that's a pretty dumb argument.
|
regardless what blizz and browder bullshits to us, the sc1 high ground mechanic is 100x better than the trash they still have in this game. SC1's is just more depth. Period.
User Temp Banned for this post: Tone
|
By that logic, NOTHING is BETTER. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion - some people like the randomness in SC!, some people don't.
It SHOULD be all or nothing. Imagine 20 Marauders losing to 1 Stalker because of high-ground; how is that balanced, or better, at all? Does it add more depth to the game? Yes, it does; however, the only depth it adds is the possibility for somebody to beat a superior force with a (highly) inferior one, which should only happen to a certain extent (i.e. if they A-moved)
You guys complain about SC2 being all turtle and macro, then A-move, then ask to replace a current mechanic that inherently discourages it? >.>
|
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed.
|
|
|
On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed.
And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons?
|
I really think there should be some miss % for highground
|
On May 11 2010 23:33 cuppatea wrote:
I think it's good they've removed random elements from the game. Battles should come down to player skill, not luck, which is often the case when miss percentages are involved.
you have a 100% of being ignorant of how luck and skill work
|
On May 12 2010 11:27 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed. And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons?
AFAIK, there's not a single person who thinks that the current mechanic is good. All they can say is "Learn to play the new game. Blizzard won't change it."
|
On May 12 2010 11:31 ilnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:33 cuppatea wrote:
I think it's good they've removed random elements from the game. Battles should come down to player skill, not luck, which is often the case when miss percentages are involved. you have a 100% of being ignorant of how luck and skill work
You have a 100% chance of being ignorant of how luck and skill work yourself, if you say that to cuppatea.
On May 12 2010 11:32 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 11:27 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed. And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons? AFAIK, there's not a single person who thinks that the current mechanic is good. All they can say is "Learn to play the new game. Blizzard won't change it."
I say it's good, because it discourages turtling, as well as removing a random element that could totally screw you over.
|
On May 12 2010 11:12 rackdude wrote:
Look, no one is arguing the mechanic is not balanced. People who are talking about SC2 not being SC1 are putting a straw man up: we agree that it is freaking balanced. However, it's not BETTER. Show me a map like Heartbreak Ridge where pushes have to be cleverly timed. Oh wait, there is no high ground mid game so that map is pointless. Matchpoint holding the big ramp when taking your 4th? Seriously, by the time you'd do that you have observers, overseers, and vikings. No point to move out to take it then, better just all-in.
I can keep on going, but what this shows is this: the problem is that it discourages many-base play. It discourages taking these extra 4ths and 5th and having huge battles all over the map with small control groups. It's better just to all-in because taking those expansion make you vulnerable (yes, there is a ramp at the expansion, but is there a place where you can position your army where you will not get counterattacked yet still have a decent advantage?) People are complaining about how the game devolves into simple timing pushes, counterattacking seeing who will kill the other base (or lift off) first, and how almost every game turns into an all-in straight into an all-in, and this is why. Everyone is complaining about this problem but ignoring the solution just because an older game solved it this way... and that's a pretty dumb argument.
I agree that the people going "omg this is a new game go play bwlol" are putting up a straw man, but that said you know what else would be to put up a strawman? To take a map from sc/bw a game with different mechanics and state that this map in that other game won't work in this game due to mechanic x. Hence mechanic is worse.
Anyway to the point if there is in fact a situation where you are encouraged to not take extra 4'th and 5'th base then I think it is a map design issue and not a game mechanic issue. First of all there is to my knowledge only two maps at the moment where this question is even relevant as only lost temple and metalopolis have enough expansions for it to even be a theoretical possibility to take a fifth base.
On metalopolis if you spawn on top and bottom respectively then there is every reason to take 5+ bases. The map really encourages it. Beyond that though there is some issue with taking many bases but mainly this is due to the layout of the maps. Actually it is because of the highground+ramp on the empty starting positions that messes it up because mobility is ridiculously constricted if you are holding two starting positions. I think issues like these are a question of map design though solely.
|
Another point I just thought of while watching some replays is that high ground dmg modifiers are necessary if we want to see more long games. Right now the current theme is games that last around 10 minutes because what happens is that once mains start expiring and more expansions start getting thrown down it becomes more difficult to hold all of your buildings.
A consequence of not being able to hold high ground mid to late game with fewer units is that you must have your entire army in one ball in a position to intercept the enemy at all times. If one player is able to catch an enemy off guard and destroy half of his army then the game is usually instantly over. This creates a situation of little suspense. There is one big battle and then the game is over. These battles usually occur during the midgame or early late game and therefor the games also end at around the same time.
It is impossible to defend any part of your base once you start to lose numbers to your enemy.
The ability to turtle and recover or switch tech is essential to high drama games.
|
The high ground advantage in SC2 is obviously a change from broodwar.. but we still need to get past the idea of it being exactly like broodwar as well.
Blizz has been on the route of awarding the aggressive player who can get quick map control. Really, what you have to do is just react to tanks. Usually, you have to worry most about being contained early game. Utilize strats such as drops, etc. and force the Terran to retreat.
Having to need sight to have full siege range is just another change, which is an obvious advantage for the player with air control... which is obviously what needs to be focused on then.
|
On May 12 2010 11:36 givemefive wrote:
Another point I just thought of while watching some replays is that high ground dmg modifiers are necessary if we want to see more long games. Right now the current theme is games that last around 10 minutes because what happens is that once mains start expiring and more expansions start getting thrown down it becomes more difficult to hold all of your buildings.
A consequence of not being able to hold high ground mid to late game with fewer units is that you must have your entire army in one ball in a position to intercept the enemy at all times. If one player is able to catch an enemy off guard and destroy half of his army then the game is usually instantly over. This creates a situation of little suspense. There is one big battle and then the game is over. These battles usually occur during the midgame or early late game and therefor the games also end at around the same time.
It is impossible to defend any part of your base once you start to lose numbers to your enemy.
The ability to turtle and recover or switch tech is essential to high drama games.
Pretty much agree with this, less damage output means the possibility of longer games. The thing is, since the damage reduction would be across the board, you can assure this remains balanced.
|
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.
the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls.
|
On May 12 2010 12:02 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:Show nested quote +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. the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls.
Except it DOESN'T always even out. Losing a battle in SC1, no matter how insignificant it may seem, can have gigantic impacts on the outcome of the game, much like how losing a single worker can mean a great deal - however, unlike the worker example, the miss chance is entirely dictated by the RNG.
The law of larger numbers states that you will MOST LIKELY approach the theoretical probability as you have a larger number of dice rolls, but unfortunately, it's all just probability. Probability can go wrong.
|
There is no random factor in BW high ground advantage. You always know that you are at a disadvantage going uphill, but that you might come out ok if you execute it well. As the defender, you always know that no matter how good your placement is, the person attacking uphill still might be able to break you. If both players are aware of it there is no randomness involved.
The argument that "This isnt SC1. Its SC2." is the debate equivalent of someone who is pro-Christianity showing up at a debate and their argument is "I just know there is a God". The only thing worse than that is when they start to try to go to work on your ego by acting as if anyone who isnt digging the new mechanics are some kind of inferior player who cant adapt to this new exciting fast paced futuristic game. Its kinda like those people who say you are un-American if you disagree with one thing the government does. Suddenly you are an ungrateful un-american moron to them. But you could be a totally fine American, and love alot of the things about being in America, and still hate a couple of things about it too. Same is true for SC2. You could be totally into it and feel it is superior in many ways to SC1 but that doesnt mean you have to swallow every turd it shits out without questioning.
|
On May 12 2010 12:08 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:02 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote: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. the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls. Except it DOESN'T always even out. Losing a battle in SC1, no matter how insignificant it may seem, can have gigantic impacts on the outcome of the game, much like how losing a single worker can mean a great deal - however, unlike the worker example, the miss chance is entirely dictated by the RNG. The law of larger numbers states that you will MOST LIKELY approach the theoretical probability as you have a larger number of dice rolls, but unfortunately, it's all just probability. Probability can go wrong.
More likely than not if blizzard implemented the chance to miss they would do it the way they do it in WC3. If something has a 75% chance to hit in WC3, it would actually have like 60% the first hit, then 75% the next hit, then 85% the next hit, etc., until it hit, at which point it would reset back to the 60%. It always averaged out to whatever the % chance to hit said though, so obviously you would have to tweak the 60%, 75%, 85%, etc. to get the math right.
Basically it decreased the variance while keeping the % chance to hit.
|
On May 12 2010 12:19 Mellotron wrote:
There is no random factor in BW high ground advantage. You always know that you are at a disadvantage going uphill, but that you might come out ok if you execute it well. As the defender, you always know that no matter how good your placement is, the person attacking uphill still might be able to break you. If both players are aware of it there is no randomness involved.
The argument that "This isnt SC1. Its SC2." is the debate equivalent of someone who is pro-Christianity showing up at a debate and their argument is "I just know there is a God". The only thing worse than that is when they start to try to go to work on your ego by acting as if anyone who isnt digging the new mechanics are some kind of inferior player who cant adapt to this new exciting fast paced futuristic game. Its kinda like those people who say you are un-American if you disagree with one thing the government does. Suddenly you are an ungrateful un-american moron to them. But you could be a totally fine American, and love alot of the things about being in America, and still hate a couple of things about it too. Same is true for SC2. You could be totally into it and feel it is superior in many ways to SC1 but that doesnt mean you have to swallow every turd it shits out without questioning.
What? These "arguments" are all nonsense. It doesn't MATTER if both players are aware of it, because the outcome is ALWAYS entirely random. You may KNOW that you have a chance, but in the end, it comes down to the RNG.
It may change the mindsets of the players, but it is ultimately the RNG.
|
I didnt really think this idea through but wouldnt it work if high ground units had like +1 additional range against lower ground units or lower ground units -1 range against high ground units? This way there would be no randomness and it might actually lead to some interesting situations. Didnt see this anywhere yet so i thought i might as well post this idea. Let me know what y'all think.
edit: typo
|
RNG: with a lot of shots going off, it averages out
On May 11 2010 23:06 Mecha_cl wrote:
Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia. Yeah because BW is only good if you look at it through rose tinted glasses. Do you even know what site this is?
|
On May 12 2010 12:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote:RNG: with a lot of shots going off, it averages out Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:06 Mecha_cl wrote:
Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia. Yeah because BW is only good if you look at it through rose tinted glasses. Do you even know what site this is?
Except it doesn't.
|
On May 12 2010 12:22 Zeke50100 wrote:
What? These "arguments" are all nonsense. It doesn't MATTER if both players are aware of it, because the outcome is ALWAYS entirely random. You may KNOW that you have a chance, but in the end, it comes down to the RNG.
It may change the mindsets of the players, but it is ultimately the RNG.
If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
With 10 units on each side, each firing multiple shots, you're gonna pretty much get the 50% miss when the battle finally ends.
But either way, most of us aren't talking about the implementation of a miss percentage vs percentage dmg reduction just a dmg reduction implementation in general.
|
On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
PONG WAS AWESOME. WHY DID YOU CHANGE PONG? NOW IT HAS COLORS AND MORE THAN TWO PLAYERS. WE DIDN'T NEED VOID RAYS IN PONG. STOP CHANGING THIS GAME. IT WAS FUN, AND BALANCED. WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT IF IT WAS BALANCED. WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT PONG FOREEEEEVERRRRR.
|
On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
|
On May 12 2010 12:50 GWash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
Not to mention that "pretty much" 50/50 doesn't exactly cut it (Ahaha, there's a semi-pun :D)
|
Well we're talking about introducing risk to attacking uphill. I"d say miss percentages does a pretty good job of that.
|
On May 12 2010 12:52 givemefive wrote:
Well we're talking about introducing risk to attacking uphill. I"d say miss percentages does a pretty good job of that.
That's introducing risk, but at what cost?
|
Sieged Tanks > "high ground" that is all.
|
The downside is that if you find yourself in a hole where you need to fight out you never know what exactly will get you out of it.
I would actually be more comfortable with a straight up damage modifier rather than a miss percentage.
|
On May 12 2010 12:50 GWash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
For one, adding a damage reduction is definitely a possibility for there to still be a high ground advantage that seems more obvious in the later portions of the game but not having randomness.
For two considering there are only 101 unique outcomes and 50/50 is going to be the most likely one, the chance would almost certainly be more then 1% although there is a reasonable amount of probability of outcomes like 55-45.
|
call me crazy
but, your saying that now with the ease of scan/ovies/obs sight is much easier now in sc2
arent these all bw units?
|
What's wrong with a percentage reducion In damage?
|
The problem I have with the current highground mechanic is that it provides less of an advantage the longer the game lasts. By late game, there is practically no advantage to be had from having the high ground, since you have so many ways of gaining vision. Yet, high ground should always provide some type of benefit. If it doesn't, then terrain is almost rendered meaningless and there is little gameplay variation to be had between maps.
But thinking about it, perhaps that is precisely the reason why Blizzard changed it. Perhaps they wanted to make terrain benefits less meaningful in order to simplify map balancing. In the original, it was nearly impossible to make a varied and interesting map without seriously upsetting the balance between races. Heck, to this day, Nostalgia remains the only map where all three matchups are in the 45-55 percent radius.....and many Zerg can attest that Nostalgia is far from balanced as far as modern gameplay is concerned. With terrain playing less of a role, it makes it much easier to create new varied maps without upsetting the balance.
Another thing to think about is that Blizzard seems to think that there should be periods where the advantage is negated, as opposed to the community mindset that high ground should have a persistant, non-changable effect. This in itself is not necessarilly wrong. The problem currently, however, is that players have no means of preventing vision (well, other then destroying the unit providing it, but that is easier said then done). Once a player has gained vision, that is that. Perhaps if players had a way to block vision, this mechanic would not be as detrimental to gameplay as it currently is.
|
On May 12 2010 13:13 DamonRJ wrote:
call me crazy
but, your saying that now with the ease of scan/ovies/obs sight is much easier now in sc2
arent these all bw units?
but having sight of the high ground in sc1 didn't win you the battle, nowadays it not only totally negates the high ground advantage, it to some extent gives the lowground person an opportunity to flank/surround units that are trying to take advantage of cliffs. but without comparing it to sc1 anymore, I agree that i don't like the current high ground advantage because as others have said, it doesn't promote risky play, or fast tech builds because you always have to basically keep up in unit count with your opponent, and once you lose your ability to defend 2 bases, you are stuck. this is also why it can grossly become overpowered for certain races because they can easily move their units faster than other races when it gets to 2+ base play.
|
On May 12 2010 13:42 Tom Phoenix wrote:
The problem I have with the current highground mechanic is that it provides less of an advantage the longer the game lasts. By late game, there is practically no advantage to be had from having the high ground, since you have so many ways of gaining vision. Yet, high ground should always provide some type of benefit. If it doesn't, then terrain is almost rendered meaningless and there is little gameplay variation to be had between maps.
But thinking about it, perhaps that is precisely the reason why Blizzard changed it. Perhaps they wanted to make terrain benefits less meaningful in order to simplify map balancing. In the original, it was nearly impossible to make a varied and interesting map without seriously upsetting the balance between races. Heck, to this day, Nostalgia remains the only map where all three matchups are in the 45-55 percent radius.....and many Zerg can attest that Nostalgia is far from balanced as far as modern gameplay is concerned. With terrain playing less of a role, it makes it much easier to create new varied maps without upsetting the balance.
Another thing to think about is that Blizzard seems to think that there should be periods where the advantage is negated, as opposed to the community mindset that high ground should have a persistant, non-changable effect. This in itself is not necessarilly wrong. The problem currently, however, is that players have no means of preventing vision (well, other then destroying the unit providing it, but that is easier said then done). Once a player has gained vision, that is that. Perhaps if players had a way to block vision, this mechanic would not be as detrimental to gameplay as it currently is.
OOoo, like the radar jammer's in C&C (i know i know C&C discussions in SC/SC2? wtf!) but those were pretty awesome to try to hide the map from opponents.
|
So high ground is useless if the opponent has vision, wich is easy, BUT this mechanic allows for easier map ballancing and more map diversity. The high/low ground is only relevant for the cliff jumping units, and if someone commits the bad mistake to charge against a high ground without sight.
There's still one advantage that applies - choke. To gain access to a high ground you have to climb a ramp with your army, it's a choke point, there is your defensive advantage. There are complains that the maps used don't allow a great arc for the defensive on the upper end of a ramp, but that's easy to solve.
Maybe the high/low ground mechanic as it is have advantages that are worth the difference from BW, try it out. On the other hand if there's a momment to test the old mechanic it is now, in beta.
|
Anything that stops the game from degenerating into a one big army battle is always a plus. Having a high ground advantage throughout the entire game will also help players stay in the game once they're army gets rolled. Imagine this, a protoss loses his main army, hides in his base and with some good storm drops (assuming storm gets buffed, fingers crossed but whatever), manages to claw his way back into the game.
Right now, once you have a bigger army, chances are, you instantly win once you gain sight of the high ground. Having an entire match played out on the basis of a single battle is pretty crap. And yea, those arguments about being safer while teching are plus points too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
