|
On February 02 2013 10:00 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote: This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2. You're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us. Only at a GM level for the last ~2 years with thousands of games played. So clearly not at all. I bet your credentials are far more impressive for being such a smart-ass constructive contributor.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Damn, the way it was initially worded in the title I thought Blizzard were actually going to add a decent highground mechanic.
:/
the terran will dart in, in between the locust spawns
If you're letting people run in when there's no locusts spawning you're not burrowing properly. You can burrow in such a way that there's always locusts. Nobody does it because it's easier to select all and press the burrow key.
|
I never liked the high ground advantage in SC2. It's an all or nothing thing, you either don't have vision and there is nothing you can do, or you have vision and high ground doesn't matter at all. Any change would be great IMO.
|
On February 02 2013 17:28 PandaTank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 10:00 forsooth wrote:On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote: This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2. You're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us. Only at a GM level for the last ~2 years with thousands of games played. So clearly not at all. I bet your credentials are far more impressive for being such a smart-ass constructive contributor. Can you give us comments on what exactly makes you think the defender has a considerable advantage? Your posts have no more constructiveness than those you accuse of being useless, but with said games/experience under your belt, you have the capacity to contribute to discussion.
From what I know, I think a high-ground advantage would be interesting at least to test. Would definitely be a big change of which the balancers would probably be leery, however.
|
if we want more active fights then we need more active maps, not high ground gimmicks.
See the latest whirlwind map or whatever with expansions at every edge of the map. Sure it may not be balance, but expect to see alot of actions across all races mid game on that map
|
On February 02 2013 17:32 Qikz wrote:Damn, the way it was initially worded in the title I thought Blizzard were actually going to add a decent highground mechanic. :/ If you're letting people run in when there's no locusts spawning you're not burrowing properly. You can burrow in such a way that there's always locusts. Nobody does it because it's easier to select all and press the burrow key.
assuming we have enough swarm hosts to make a dent. too few locust spawns and it doesnt kill anything, to many and they dart in
mid game you cant have 20 hosts
|
-1 Range when attacking Highground Deserves to be tested imo. It'll give something extra to think about, which is a good thing. It could inspire map makers to make more interesting maps (not just for defence). The units giving the high ground vision should keep their default range of course.
|
give it a try, this high ground mechanic atm is pretty stupid compared to sc1
|
On February 02 2013 18:06 iky43210 wrote: if we want more active fights then we need more active maps, not high ground gimmicks.
See the latest whirlwind map or whatever with expansions at every edge of the map. Sure it may not be balance, but expect to see alot of actions across all races mid game on that map
See here:
On February 02 2013 11:49 Coffee Zombie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 11:15 FLuE wrote: Some people are being a bit narrow minded on how this could potentially lead to better game and map design.
For example, everyone saying people would just turtle are assuming that your 2nd or 3rd base are always a high ground base. Well think of maps where essentially your main is high ground, natural is "even ground" and then ur 3rd is actually low ground. In those cases you could actually have a situation where trying to turtle on your 3rd would be easier to break since your defense could be below while the offensive units are actually on higher ground.
I'm not saying the idea is good or bad, but everyone saying it just leads to more and more turtling and defender advantage isn't thinking about the way maps could really be set up. So it is something to consider although I think anything more than -1 range or a slight damage reduction(15-20%) would be to extreme.
One thing I really miss from SC and BW was the use of the terrain. Putting tanks on ledges, dropping hydras on high ground, and cannoning ledges were all a fun part of BW although sometimes abusive. But it was something you had to prepare for and led to some cool play and strategy. It's also worth noting that without actual terrain with actual effects means the only tool left is really the choke, which means traversibility is tied to terrain advantages always, and can be used by attacker and defender alike. With actual terrain that grants actual effects, you can have wide, uneven plains and small hills that are important for cover and so on. You could design terrain so that it was pretty unilaterally in either the defender's or attacker's favor. It'd free up mapmakers to experiement landforms in a much more nuanced way than is possible in current SC2.
I think the decoupling of chokes and advantage is precisely what is needed for your 'more active maps'
|
I dont want, sc2 is already super defense game, like all other like cnc, stronghold, aoe etc. it would make more boring to play, maybe not for the viewers. this is why i love wc3, you have to play pure offensiv and micro.
|
I believe what we need are later game static defenses that are much stronger but may need to cost supply. Maps also need less cliff areas, but instead areas of significance should have a combination of cliffs and impassable terrain that would have a choke or many funnels. There must also be an area that should allow for easier head on attacks that follow a much longer path. The same defensive area would also hinder the speed of conducting straight on counter attacks that were not premeditated in the case of someone pushing a max army around the longer path.
|
The -1 range seems like a really good idea on paper because it would at least promote people to harass. Would love to see it tested. Though as smart as Blizzards team of testers are, they would probably forget the huge positive impact of using different maps than the ones being used would have on this mechanic, and call this change bad.
|
On February 02 2013 17:28 PandaTank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 10:00 forsooth wrote:On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote: This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2. You're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us. Only at a GM level for the last ~2 years with thousands of games played. So clearly not at all. I bet your credentials are far more impressive for being such a smart-ass constructive contributor. And still stating that SC2 has too much defender's advantage is dubious, especially when you play Protoss at GM level; or didn't you notice that Warpgate negates the elementary defender's advantage that is distance for the attacker's reinforcements? 90% of the time Protoss auto-wins Terran in lategame after winning a fight just because of the production asymmetry (notice how the reverse is not true). Didn't you notice how Forcefield allows you to negate the defender's positional advantage, resulting in ludicrous situations in which Protoss forces his way through 5 Bunkers like it's no problem (notice how the reverse doesn't exist)? Actually you're right, there may be too much defender's advantage in SC2, or rather too much asymmetry in the amount of defender's advantages races have in the different match-ups.
|
+1
This would vastly increase the quality of games while also discouraging mindless a-move. This is something that SC2 drastically needs.
|
I don't get it. We have a suggestion that would allow for a deathball to be fended off by a smaller army that's utilizing the terrain advantages of his base, thus allowing for more multi tasking, and more entertaining plays in general. And people try to argue that this suggestion is somehow bad?!
Am I the only one tired of turtling 20 minutes and then have a huge deathball v deathball fight in like 50+% of games?
|
if would make the game a turtle camping boring shit ... sry i am 120% against anything of it !
On February 02 2013 19:44 MooseMasher wrote: I don't get it. We have a suggestion that would allow for a deathball to be fended off by a smaller army that's utilizing the terrain advantages of his base, thus allowing for more multi tasking, and more entertaining plays in general. And people try to argue that this suggestion is somehow bad?!
Am I the only one tired of turtling 20 minutes and then have a huge deathball v deathball fight in like 50+% of games?
jaeh but thats 50+ minute boring games then
|
Please keep in mind that the maps we use atm are not build with highground advantage in mind. And obviously if you just go ahead and give a turtle map like Metropolis a strong highground advantage it just becomes more ridiculous.
Instead you should see a highground advantage as a big potential to make better and more varied map designs in the future.
To illustrate my point some pictures: + Show Spoiler +1) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7K98af6.jpg) ------------------------------------------------------------------ ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uomLVON.jpg) These two are basically the same in SC2 as the highground just gives vision advantages. 2) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Fxa1il.jpg) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tmhn3O6.jpg) The only thing in these two pictures that gives the attacking army a disadvantage is that it will have to go through a choke (either a flat one or the ramp). There is no additional advantage for the army standing on the highground!! 3) Lastly as a good example for more varied map design lets take ridges which were commonly used in BW like Heartbreak Ridge or Gladiator. What's so great about them is that they give advantage without a choke, so choke abusing units like Sentries with forcefields or splash units don't get stronger, yet any army standing on top will have an advantage. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U9IjEAr.jpg) In SC2 the army standing on top of the ridge has no advantage at all.
|
On February 02 2013 19:30 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 17:28 PandaTank wrote:On February 02 2013 10:00 forsooth wrote:On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote: This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2. You're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us. Only at a GM level for the last ~2 years with thousands of games played. So clearly not at all. I bet your credentials are far more impressive for being such a smart-ass constructive contributor. And still stating that SC2 has too much defender's advantage is dubious, especially when you play Protoss at GM level; or didn't you notice that Warpgate negates the elementary defender's advantage that is distance for the attacker's reinforcements? 90% of the time Protoss auto-wins Terran in lategame after winning a fight just because of the production asymmetry (notice how the reverse is not true). Didn't you notice how Forcefield allows you to negate the defender's positional advantage, resulting in ludicrous situations in which Protoss forces his way through 5 Bunkers like it's no problem (notice how the reverse doesn't exist)? Actually you're right, there may be too much defender's advantage in SC2, or rather too much asymmetry in the amount of defender's advantages races have in the different match-ups. This is a difference in background IMO. People that played or at least watched and liked BW will want more defensive advantage simply because they are able to understand and then appreciate good defensive play. People coming from other games, games that were MUCH more limited in terms of strategy (like Counter Strike and DOTA as is that case with Panda) just want constant aggression.
I've noticed that people coming from similar backgrounds are also the ones that view mech as boring.
|
In war3 there was a small chance units would miss when the targets were on a highground, so might be worth a try, but it would not make sense for air units and colossi.
|
Sounds like a good idea imo.
I think this definitely deserves to be tested. It is beta after all.
|
|
|
|