EPTHotS Highground Mechanic - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
| ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
| ||
|
Jotoco
Brazil1342 Posts
On February 04 2013 06:11 gedatsu wrote: +1 range to higher ground units is better than -1 to lower ground. Because -1 hurts too much for short range units such as roaches. And +1 will do nothing for melee units, such as the zergling or zealot. A Huge early game advantage for terran. | ||
|
gOst
415 Posts
| ||
|
Ace1123
Philippines1187 Posts
| ||
|
blackbrrd
Norway477 Posts
| ||
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
| ||
|
Rorra
Australia1066 Posts
its fine as it is. op do you really want games to become all about stale play, deathball massing with some awkward engagements because no one actually wants to attack high ground(minus drops-which are already prevalent in the metagame)? Not to mention the effects on balance & the effects on TvT. What about the effect it would have on maps with low ground mains? HotS is looking so well designed as it is, Its so depressing to see some people actually agree with the op... Well guess i gotta put my faith in blizzard not paying attention to terrible ideas like this... sorry if that's a bit heavy of a response, but seriously... just no... | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
On February 02 2013 10:41 sths wrote: I think TL should institute a policy where in threads regarding game design or game balance, posters should have to include their battlenet ranking before they can comment. This is not elitism, its just that if you're silver league and you say things like "sc2 defenders already have too much advantage because its hard to attack up a ramp", you clearly have very little understanding of the game. This would not be a problem if Blizzard ignored low level people but they don't. I understand the argument that Blizzard have to appease the noobs because they are the largest in numbers. But imagine trying to design the game of tennis or any other competitive sport around what the noobs think instead of what is happening at the highest level. Serve and volley would be banned, 3 point lines would be only 3 meters away from the basket and goals would be 20 meters wide. Would people still play these games let alone watch? Idk I play zerg and I guess in early early game I can attack up a ramp against terran and zerg but I can never attack up a ramp against protoss and in the midgame I can never attack up a ramp at all unless my opponent is out of position which makes the proposed changes irrelevent. I agree with your statement but in this case his claims were fair and you can easily argue in their favor...so why not stay on topic. | ||
|
Rainling
United States456 Posts
On February 04 2013 21:27 Rorra wrote: hell no.. its fine as it is. op do you really want games to become all about stale play, deathball massing with some awkward engagements because no one actually wants to attack high ground(minus drops-which are already prevalent in the metagame)? Not to mention the effects on balance & the effects on TvT. What about the effect it would have on maps with low ground mains? HotS is looking so well designed as it is, Its so depressing to see some people actually agree with the op... Well guess i gotta put my faith in blizzard not paying attention to terrible ideas like this... sorry if that's a bit heavy of a response, but seriously... just no... Why do you think deathball massing would become more prevalent if high ground advantage was implemented? Deathball massing didn't seem to be much of a problem in the original Starcraft, which had a high ground advantage. Why would things turn out so differently if high ground advantage was implemented in Starcraft 2? | ||
|
kuroshiro
United Kingdom378 Posts
On February 04 2013 20:35 gOst wrote: I can't believe what's so hard to understand about this. It's a great suggestion and will lead to less ball vs ball play. As sc2 is now you need a maxed army to defend against a maxed army. If it wasn't the case, you could defend against a maxed army and still have a portion av your army attack your opponent somewhere else, ergo you will need to cosider how much of an army you need to defend and how much you need to attack. This, IMHO, is the simple and straightforward crux to the argument, and I think it (or something like it) should be quoted at the top of the OP so that everyone knows what's really being argued for. The question in my mind is would balance really need to be changed that much? Right now the game is balanced for deathball vs deathball action - that is to say the balance is already poised so that a small advantage like high ground defence would free up only small amounts of forces for other types of attack/harrasment, thus not changing the game too much. I suppose that doesn't take into account the different levels of mobility of the different races though... | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 04 2013 16:42 sharkeyanti wrote: For those who've asked, the BW miss chance is 50%. The fact that most of people who are blindly agreeing with this suggestion don't know this is a pretty good indicator of how obfuscated this stuff can be, even among a community that SHOULD know something like this. What happens if "deathball play" doesn't end when this silver bullet is implemented? What happens if a change like this doesn't do anything? At worst, what happens if this makes the game even worse strategically? All you've done is added a piss-poor mechanic that is difficult for most people to get at first glance. | ||
|
Penev
28504 Posts
On February 04 2013 21:51 aksfjh wrote: The fact that most of people who are blindly agreeing with this suggestion don't know this is a pretty good indicator of how obfuscated this stuff can be, even among a community that SHOULD know something like this. What happens if "deathball play" doesn't end when this silver bullet is implemented? What happens if a change like this doesn't do anything? At worst, what happens if this makes the game even worse strategically? All you've done is added a piss-poor mechanic that is difficult for most people to get at first glance. We're all gonna die. It's to be tested.. In the beta.. Bad suggestion, because the defenders advantage is already way to big with the choke system :/ Read the thread. Several people pointed out that maps will have to be changed. Maybe this "choke system" doesn't need to exist with this implemented. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10132 Posts
On February 04 2013 21:51 aksfjh wrote: The fact that most of people who are blindly agreeing with this suggestion don't know this is a pretty good indicator of how obfuscated this stuff can be, even among a community that SHOULD know something like this. What happens if "deathball play" doesn't end when this silver bullet is implemented? What happens if a change like this doesn't do anything? At worst, what happens if this makes the game even worse strategically? All you've done is added a piss-poor mechanic that is difficult for most people to get at first glance. That's what betas are for. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
So we're going to test this in a month? Maybe less? It's a huge change. If it were to be implemented, it would have to be done at the beginning of a beta. | ||
|
MVega
763 Posts
Won't happen. It's far too late in the HotS beta for such a change, and I can't imagine that being something that they test on a PTR or their testing maps. It's just too huge of a change. Being completely honest, if the community got their way and a change like this was implemented, unit pathing was like it was in BW to avoid clumping, and some of the more convenient skill reducing features like MBS were removed ... SC2 would have died shortly after launch. The current belief in this community is that we've lost a lot of casual players because the casual aspects of SC2 are lacking, and if we make the base game closer to brood war, those casual aspects become even worse, and we're boned. Want brood war? Play Brood War (I do), or play one of the dozen maps that aim to recreate Brood War's gameplay. Different game is different and will remain such. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The problem with this kind of thing in sc2 though is that massive drop play or air play is harder in sc2 I think because all AA units are basically airborne. In BW you have this interesting fight where one army controls ground and has good AA but the other has more mobility and air play. In sc2 you tend to defend drops and airplay with airplay yourself making this kind of play much less interesting. If it were to be implemented the miss mechanic from BW is the most elegant probably. reduced damage sucks with the armor system of sc2, it means high damage units are hardly affected while low damage units are getting a MASSIVE damage nerf. Reduced attack rate makes absolutely no sense thematically. Reduced range imo influences the game in a poor way, sentries on the ramp or whatever get even stronger then. The possibilities to set up situations where A can hit B but not vice versa then probably get too much | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10132 Posts
On February 04 2013 22:12 aksfjh wrote: So we're going to test this in a month? Maybe less? It's a huge change. If it were to be implemented, it would have to be done at the beginning of a beta. Man don't be so shortminded, obviously there is not time for HotS beta to implement this, but LotV could be an option. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 04 2013 22:32 Godwrath wrote: Man don't be so shortminded, obviously there is not time for HotS beta to implement this, but LotV could be an option. Topic title: HotS Highground Mechanic.  | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10132 Posts
I know, but i think any rational person would know by now that implementing this is impossible withouth a delay on release, something that won't happen, so instead we should ignore that and just aim for more productive things | ||
| ||
