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.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
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.
It doesn't reward melee units. Edit: The guy above was faster. :o
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
You dont get it. Its obvious, that you are a terran player, who is disregarding melee units.
What I was trying to say, is the following: range bonus/penalty only affects ranged units, and therefor is more terran specific, since they have no melee units. It also means, that terrans gain more through holding high ground, than the other races.
It's as simple as this: less than 100% of the units are ranged. But exactly 100% of the units have armor/profit from more armor or guardian shield'esque manipulation.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
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.
Well with how the WOW's monthly fee system works, they can't make the game harder, or they will lose players/money. This won't be the case with SC2 after LOTV is out for some time. I just hope i'm right, but still won't stop supporting the ideas behind this thread.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
Range penalty for shooting up?
Profits siege tank, BL and colossus positions disproportionally, since they already have great rang. So its even harder to bust them. And does not profit melee compositions nearly as well.
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.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
Range penalty for shooting up?
the +1 armor for melee units so they can hold a ramp little bit better against ranged units.
On January 17 2012 23:16 PureBalls wrote: Profits siege tank, BL and colossus positions disproportionally, since they already have great rang. So its even harder to bust them. And does not profit melee compositions nearly as well.
I don't believe it would affect flying units like broodlords, since cliff issues are not concern to flying units.
On January 16 2012 13:00 Roe wrote: I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
Its not really zone control if its only available for a very short time.
I can literally fortify a position forever with enough tanks/mines/turrets/depots. It does require a big investment though and a lot of precious time and effort, its like building a castle.
PDD/Forcefield is a relatively small investment but the scale at which you can control a zone is also much less.
You can do essentially the exact same thing in SC2, have you not watched MVP play split map against Zerg?
That's one match up though, and split-map is different to map control.
E.g I can split the map vs Toss using MMM by being mobile and scanning the Toss army movement. Map control is having 2 lurkers above a ramp and infinite bio units dying trying to get up it.
Every matchup except ZvZ allows for powerful zone control with Reavers, Lurkers, Mines, and Siege Tanks.
There are many matchups which doesn't allow for map control causing ball vs ball play. E.g In SC2 you cannot play mech vs Protoss and split the map.
First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
nice post, but there are plenty of points i'd argue.. anyway I want to ask you this.. burrowed roaches do not force detection? really? I'm not sure how you come up with that conclusion. burrowed roaches kill a protoss army w/o observers pretty easily and force the protoss to be defensive UNTILL he has detection..
I agree on the problem of zone control, but you critize there are too many ways to kill a siege tank.. if there wasn't siege tanks would rape ANYTHING on the ground..
I appreciate the effort you put into this post, but I feel that, at many points, you simply critize stuff that many "lower" skilled players cannot overcome..
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
On January 19 2012 02:51 JayIsImbA wrote: nice post, but there are plenty of points i'd argue.. anyway I want to ask you this.. burrowed roaches do not force detection? really? I'm not sure how you come up with that conclusion. burrowed roaches kill a protoss army w/o observers pretty easily and force the protoss to be defensive UNTILL he has detection..
I agree on the problem of zone control, but you critize there are too many ways to kill a siege tank.. if there wasn't siege tanks would rape ANYTHING on the ground..
I appreciate the effort you put into this post, but I feel that, at many points, you simply critize stuff that many "lower" skilled players cannot overcome.
Didn't seem to be a problem in BW.
What they really need to do is remove the Tank AI, Blizzard just has to accept that its really bad for the game, something they've been unwilling to do since people mentioned the Thor was a terrible idea in Alpha.
I haven't seen it mentioned here, but wouldn't it be possible to implement unit formations such as the ones from Age of Empires II? It could fix the ball-only issue and allow area of effect attacks to be buffed further without having to dumb down the pathing system.
On another topic, I could imagine Blizzard holding some of the necessary fixes until LotV. I mean, they could easily have made a complete game in WoL but that woudn't have fitted in the three expansion model. In order to give people reasons to buy expansions, they must be keeping some of the best changes for later.
On January 19 2012 10:21 javert wrote: I haven't seen it mentioned here, but wouldn't it be possible to implement unit formations such as the ones from Age of Empires II? It could fix the ball-only issue and allow area of effect attacks to be buffed further without having to dumb down the pathing system.
On another topic, I could imagine Blizzard holding some of the necessary fixes until LotV. I mean, they could easily have made a complete game in WoL but that woudn't have fitted in the three expansion model. In order to give people reasons to buy expansions, they must be keeping some of the best changes for later.
Myth: The SC2 pathing system is good. Truth: No it is terrible, it is as dumbed down as dumbed down gets.
Go look at Company of Heroes or many other games where the units move like a real army (spread out with no formation) while still having perfect pathing. Battles also last a long time, which is something SC2 really needs to work on.
Fixed formations are a bad idea, why? Because everyone would choose ball anyway.
in terms of unit design, I think blizzard made a big mistake trying to balance the game too much.
People tend to blame blizzard for trying to make units fun and cool instead on focusing on making them balanced, but I think this is very wrong. I think blizzard was completely right in making units cool and fun and interesting FIRST, and THEN much later, focusing on balance. Their mistake was not going all the way. Maybe they got scared.
As OP stated, SO many good ideas were trashed, and the only reason one can think of is balance. This was all done before beta. Think about BW. If there had been any unit in SC2 with as much power as some of the units in BW, it would have been nerfed immediately because it didn't seem balanced. Yet that's one of the reasons BW is so interesting, because all races had some things that were just extremely powerful. Battles could be turned due to very powerful abilities. All 3 races had things one could say was imbalanced, but yet the game was eventually balanced.
So many great ideas completely scrapped. The best way to have handled SC2 imo would have been to put in a whole bunch of interesting powerful fun units for each race, forget balance, and just let the players balance it through learning how to deal with things. Then after a good long while has passed, address things that are too broken. But what blizzard did, was preemptively scrap/nerf all things with potential to be OP, in order to achieve balance faster. Balance isn't as important as some of you might think. Blizzard didn't really balance BW as much as the players balanced it themselves.
List of good units/ideas off the top of my head that Blizzard scrapped/nerfed:
Static defense movement: Initially a protoss ability, changed to zerg, but nerfed so that it takes a long time to burrow down. Immortal: Used to be a cool unit that took very little damage from high damage attacks because they activated his shield. But low damage attacks would bypass the shield and take him down much faster. Now it's just a unit that can't take more than a certain amount of damage. Fungal Infestation: Used to be a great ability from the infestor, that would shoot some sort of parasite at an enemy infantry unit(don't know what units it worked on aside from that), and then that unit would, after a few seconds, explode and kill other units within a certain radius. The player would have to micro to separate the infested unit from the others before it was too late. The Roach: as mentioned in OP. Hunter Seeker Missile: Used to be a threat. Thor: used to be built by scv like a building, but now it comes out of a building that is smaller then the unit. Apparently it was too OP for scvs to be able to build it. Baneling: Used to be a OMG watch out for that baneling, and they weren't easy to kill. It was changed to SO MANY BANELINGS. I remember when beta started I snuck a zergling into my enemy base and morphed it into a baneling. Giggling I moved him to the mineral line and made him blow up. Yeah, nothing happened...
The baneling change is an example of how they went from making a unit more expensive but deadlier, into making it less expensive but weaker. Expensive but deadly is far more interesting than high numbers. The reaver was good because it took 1 scarab to unleash hell, potentially. This creates excitement. Having 3 deadly banelings to watch out for is more exciting than having 10 much weaker banelings for instance.
Anyways, writing too much, but the point is that the best way to have gone about balancing the game while still keeping it really interesting would have been to put in every great, interesting, fun unit/ability into the game, and then letting the players balance it in beta. NOT nerfing/scrapping all good, interesting ideas beforehand for the sake of having a more balanced beta. That's how I see it at least. There is a lot of hope though, since there are still two expansions left, so we'll see.
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
You are right. The hell with realism! Let's just make the marines fly and their rifles can fire unlimited nukes. After all, who really cares about the realism in RTS game?
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://us.thq.com/resources/screenshots/large/b1219efef945218ba64732a63ac8752c.jpg)
