On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen:
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
Yeah, and we all know how well it works when a million people get a vote on how something has to be designed
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
The nerfs to AOE have turned this game from a game about being intelligent with your units to just having more. Even colossi got hit hard with the nerfbat (they used to 1-shot marines, making them a viable tool for gaining early map control and stopping early timing attacks). Blizzard went the absolute wrong direction with AOE. Instead of making AOE less mobile and more about area control, they just decided to nerf it and make it fit in better with the mobile army. Imagine if tanks did 2x as much damage as they do now, or if storm was the old size (like 3x bigger or something) with BW damage (112?). These giant clumped armies would melt in seconds, and so you'd have to respect those units. If more AOE units functioned like that, we'd have ourselves a much better game that was more about gaining map control and utilizing intelligent placement of powerful units than just running around with huge armies hoping to get a good engagement.
And I don't mean zerg is too strong, or terran is too strong, though I do think Terran has too many options, but that's another story.
What I mean specifically is that a race's tech trees aren't balanced with themselves. No attention is being paid to the fact that immortals are totally useless most of the time. What they do is done by the Colossus, better in most cases. Same goes for Carriers, Thors, Battlecruisers, Ultras, Ravens, Reapers (Lesser extent), supply calldowns, hydras, nydus canal, etc etc.
That would be forgivable if it were a few choice units that just didn't find their niche...But many of those units are key units.
The big boys, Carriers, BCs, Thors and Ultras can literally lose you a game if you switch into them before you've won because they're not balanced versus what else you can have. Ultras don't make more sense than roaches and lings in most cases. Carriers almost never make sense because Colossus usually precede them. While other units like Reaper and Hydra have difficulty finding a place because they cause you to go out of your way to get something only marginally better than an alternative at huge cost.
Almost universally, a hydra is a disadvantage. Why? If you're attacking ground units, 2 roaches cost a few more minerals and supply, and do more DPS, have more health, move faster, can move while burrowed, regenerate while burrowed, and are armored.
If you're fighting air, a muta does a bit less damage for a bit more gas, but moves at almost double the speed of a hydra with 50% more HP, doesn't require a range upgrade to become effective, and is air (Thus protecting it from many of the hydra's enemies)
What's more is the hydra/muta decision comes at a time when the hydra does not fit into the zerg army. The zerg army up to this point is very quick. Until now, zerglings and banelings have likely given you map control, or perhaps roaches with speed. Then the zerg player is presented a choice. Slow moving hydras that require creep for their effectiveness, thus eliminating the control you gianed early? Or mutas, which typically (unless hard countered) solidfy your map control and allow you to dominate.
In HOTS, less attention needs to be paid to the interaction of units with those in other factions, and more needs to be paid to the interaction of units and player choices within a faction.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
The nerfs to AOE have turned this game from a game about being intelligent with your units to just having more. Even colossi got hit hard with the nerfbat (they used to 1-shot marines, making them a viable tool for gaining early map control and stopping early timing attacks). Blizzard went the absolute wrong direction with AOE. Instead of making AOE less mobile and more about area control, they just decided to nerf it and make it fit in better with the mobile army. Imagine if tanks did 2x as much damage as they do now, or if storm was the old size (like 3x bigger or something) with BW damage (112?). These giant clumped armies would melt in seconds, and so you'd have to respect those units. If more AOE units functioned like that, we'd have ourselves a much better game that was more about gaining map control and utilizing intelligent placement of powerful units than just running around with huge armies hoping to get a good engagement.
I agree in principle that reliable ways to lock down an area would be the best for the game. I don't like the idea of more damage, however. SC2 is already a game of very high DPS units dominating the field and the idea of even more powerful AOEs makes me think there will just more more dumb all-ins and coin flips. There needs to be something in the middle of the road, beyond the siege tank and storm. The shredder and swarm host in HotS gives me hope, since their roles are so limited. Also the recall being moved to the nexus(and hopefully made smaller) may remove some of the positioning/engagement wars as well. It will likely make cannons stronger if they can be backed up by a small force quickly.
There are more ways to punish a player for being over aggressive than just ramping up the damage.
what a great and refreshing read. i agree with a lot of the points you made and you articulated it very well. excellent, look forward to more of your posts
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I'm not saying that the phoenix itself is a bad unit. I think I wrote that poorly cause people are confused what I mean by move-shoot mechanic. I'm saying that having units attack anything in range by default is a REALLY bad mechanic. It would be bad on ANY unit. It reduces the decision making of when to take a shot vs when to move. It also was a pathetic attempt at recreating the moving shot from BW (which is LITERALLY what we as a community were asking for) and the fact that the community just laid down and said, "eh, we give up, close enough" is very saddening. Blizzard's dev team clearly has no idea what the heck high level BW even consisted of, which is why the game looks like it was designed by a bunch of kids with ADD.
You make a pretty bold claim without any solid evidence or reasoning to back it up. You say it's a really bad mechanic but you don't give reasons why. Oh wait! It reduces the decision making on when to move and shoot you say, according to you this is bad game design. I agree that it would be terrible on pretty much any OTHER unit, but from the way the phoenix has been designed I really, strongly disagree.
You have provided no justification for why it is a bad mechanic, just because you say it is bad does not make it so. If you can give some solid examples prove that the move shoot mechanic, used by the Phoenix, is bad for the game, with respect to the rest of the game, (like you did with the Juggernaught in the Chess example) then you might have an argument, but right now your argument is essentially nothing.
You talk about removing decision making on what you shoot at, as though this is unique too the Phoenix just because they do it while moving. You know what other units make these decisions? Every other unit while not moving! If you don't believe me try it out some time. By your logic units should not do this as it takes decisions away from the player. Perhaps we should remove this feature and all units will behave like workers until told to attack since that is quite clearly superior design right?
The capacity to move and shoot does NOT remove decision making, it just allows a unit to do damage without stopping, you must still make the decisions where to position your units and what to target fire, just like EVERY other unit.
What the phoenix does is essentially a streamlined version of the stutter step, except of course much easier to perform and doesn't require stopping. It is an advantage that the Phoenix has to make up for it's fragility and limited air to ground potential. In this sense I feel that Blizzard has done a great job in giving this mechanic to the one unit that suits it's style yet it is not easily exploitable. I mean what can extra do you really get out of it? A few potshots at Mutas as you fly away from them, bruising of some medivacs while marines tear your Phoenix apart or, dancing around making them difficult to target. Probably the strongest bonus I would say it gives is the ability to keep moving while lifting ground units, which is actually quite micro intensive, and involves more cognitive thinking and decision making than A-moving a bunch of Mutas to kill off some ground units. Do you really think that this situation would be improved by forcing the Phoenix user to stutter step at the same time? Since you prefer Brood War and mechanically demanging micro I am going to assume your answer would be yes, but I sure don't and a difference in opinion does not make bad game design.
To be totally honest I think the problem you have with the move shoot mechanic is that it is easier than stutter stepping and kiting, and you feel that things should be harder to pull off mechanically. When it comes down to it though that is a matter of opinion not game design and I hope you don't take it personally, but I am going to go with my own opinion on this one.
In both cases you can probably skip to the 5 minute mark to where the action begins. You have pretty similar harassment. An air harassment build designed to take out workers and overlords.
But look at the very crisp and precise control that BW game engine allowed. Vs the gliding movement of phoenix combined with backwards moving shot that in comparison looks pretty sloppy and really require a small amount of control in comparison.
Now the real kicker is almost every unit in BW had that level of control potential. Not every unit scaled so well to get such impressive results, but the game engine allowed for very precise movements.
WoW, I must admit, that wraith micro looked pro, I definetly won't look at pheonixes the same way again.
I thought the attacking while moving of pheonix was justified by the fact they have really short range but super high speed, so its hard to properly control them, but seeing that wraith micro actually put things into perspective. There really should be no reason for units to have an auto-attack while moving, it detracts so much skill potential skill from a unit.
On January 17 2012 18:50 Falling wrote: @Myddraal The only way I can think is to actually show you the difference between what people where hoping Blizzard would put in vs what we got.
In both cases you can probably skip to the 5 minute mark to where the action begins. You have pretty similar harassment. An air harassment build designed to take out workers and overlords.
But look at the very crisp and precise control that BW game engine allowed. Vs the gliding movement of phoenix combined with backwards moving shot that in comparison looks pretty sloppy and really require a small amount of control in comparison.
Now the real kicker is almost every unit in BW had that level of control potential. Not every unit scaled so well to get such impressive results, but the game engine allowed for very precise movements.
I remember seeing that game live. Baby's wraith control is absolutely sick. He's one of my favorite terrans for a reason.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
On January 17 2012 22:31 Vicarios wrote: I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
Just wait....
This is more or less what i was thinking myself. The game will get much harder and complete with each expansion, and after Legacy of the void will be out and the player base is set up, Blizzard will care less about "making the game easier to approach new players". But even if this is true, and they have a big masterplan already, thay have to hide it .
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
On January 17 2012 22:31 Vicarios wrote: I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
Just wait....
This is more or less what i was thinking myself. The game will get much harder and complete with each expansion, and after Legacy of the void will be out and the player base is set up, Blizzard will care less about "making the game easier to approach new players". But even if this is true, and they have a big masterplan already, thay have to hide it .
I'm pretty sure if you look at WoW they only made things stupider and easier as time went on. These guys don't have a clue what they're doing and are completely lost ever since the SC/D2 devs left.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
EPT
.
