EPTHotS Highground Mechanic - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
| ||
|
PVJ
Hungary5221 Posts
| ||
|
MooseMasher
Sweden42 Posts
Also having the highground advantage with no choke would be so nice :D On February 02 2013 19:49 Ragoo wrote: 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. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
You really should know that plenty of people feel that way without at all needing to agree with it. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On February 02 2013 20:15 PVJ wrote: Test it please for god's sake test is. I'm so not gonna buy HotS or LotV if they aren't implementing the simplest mechanics which were fucking working well for 12+ years. I'm sick of their ignorance / dumbness. More or less this. A proper defenders advantage would drastically increase the quality of all matchups in this game. Players accustomed to a-moving hyperproduced (because of SC2s easy macro and super production mechanics) deathballs will complain, but this change can only bring good (along with a lot more strategy) to this game. | ||
|
NVRLand
Sweden203 Posts
| ||
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
But i don't know if they already did... | ||
|
starfinder
Japan167 Posts
I really can't understand why Dustin so hate BW. | ||
|
Silencioseu
Cyprus493 Posts
On February 02 2013 09:15 Malpractice.248 wrote: I feel this would draw TvT out even further O.O Also, make defending so so much easier (given its nearly always up a ramp) Then i guess the maps would be modified out of the standard single ramp for main and double ramp for natural | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
| ||
|
xsnac
Barbados1365 Posts
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. I second this . in PvP HOTS defender advantage is already HUGEE with msc cannon on nexus . | ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
Edit:Whatever they do... I just hope they can make it a real tug of war like BW was /fanboy | ||
|
NDDseer
Australia204 Posts
Not super familiar with the map maker or tools available like that, but I don't know why there hasn't been started a "StarCommunity 2" type initiative where things like Fewer Resources Per Base, Different Map Design, Removed/Limited Xel'Naga towers for vision, Increased High Ground Advantage, perhaps minor modifications to balance that generally people can agree on (e.g. queen range could probs be decreased again, colossus could be modified to have some kind of micro-able attack and not just 1a) are all implemented, and then a reasonable portion of the community plays at least some of the time on those maps and once/if it turns out to be majorly baller, then it can be shown to Blizzard as an example of what's possible. Seems a bit more proactive then all this well-argued but ultimately kinda pointless bitching (aka "suggestions"). | ||
|
Destroyr
Germany299 Posts
On February 02 2013 21:15 NDDseer wrote: What I don't understand is how the community constantly creates well-argued, considered arguments for significant changes to the game, and then argues about it for a bit and hopes that Blizzard puts it in the actual game just cos. Not super familiar with the map maker or tools available like that, but I don't know why there hasn't been started a "StarCommunity 2" type initiative where things like Fewer Resources Per Base, Different Map Design, Removed/Limited Xel'Naga towers for vision, Increased High Ground Advantage, perhaps minor modifications to balance that generally people can agree on (e.g. queen range could probs be decreased again, colossus could be modified to have some kind of micro-able attack and not just 1a) are all implemented, and then a reasonable portion of the community plays at least some of the time on those maps and once/if it turns out to be majorly baller, then it can be shown to Blizzard as an example of what's possible. Seems a bit more proactive then all this well-argued but ultimately kinda pointless bitching (aka "suggestions"). There is: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=388155 You are welcome | ||
|
NicksonReyes
Philippines4431 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + In Jade, you're fucked if you let your opponent take control over your ledge, or even just let him have a concave in front of the middle highground ramp around your huge ramp ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/507_Jade.jpg) | ||
|
NDDseer
Australia204 Posts
On February 02 2013 21:21 Destroyr wrote: There is: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=388155 You are welcome Thank you. Which then raises the question, why do we still get people making a new thread every week with their suggested improvements, instead of pouring work into something like that? | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
Defender's advantage allows for more army splitting, and results in opponents splitting their armies in response. Instead of competing deathballs, we'd have strategical attacks and strategical defenses at key areas. The game would have more skirmashes at different locations and more spread out engagements. Also, the map itself can punish turtling by allowing for more expansions. Want to turtle behind your seige line? I'll simply take the entire map and crush you with superior economy. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On February 02 2013 21:33 baubo wrote: I don't understand why people automatically think defender advantage -> turtling. If anything, wouldn't common sense suggest the exact opposite? The reason why so many SC2 games are build up for 15 minutes and one 30second engagement to end the game, is because players are so afraid of making a mistake of multi-pronged attacks or harass that leads to main army not big enough to handle the opponent's bigger army. Defender's advantage allows for more army splitting, and results in opponents splitting their armies in response. Instead of competing deathballs, we'd have strategical attacks and strategical defenses at key areas. The game would have more skirmashes at different locations and more spread out engagements. Also, the map itself can punish turtling by allowing for more expansions. Want to turtle behind your seige line? I'll simply take the entire map and crush you with superior economy. I agree with this. A good example would be a protoss opening with a warp prism in PvZ. There's always gonna be that fear of having too little of an army at home to defend a possible counterattack while being active on the map with part of your army. High ground advantage could change that and allow the defender more freedom. I do think it'd require a lot of redesigning and tweaking of existing units and maps though. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
| ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On February 02 2013 22:25 Dingodile wrote: The defence of all three race in HotS are more powerful than in WoL. And if I play ladder or watch streams, Hots is too defensive for me (WoL is/was already too defensiv). In WoL were 90% of all games "build up 15mins and one 30sec fight", in HotS somewhere 99%. Well HotS is just in beta, of course people are either gonna do crazy cheese or camp in their base because there's no clear definition of what you can or cannot do and when you can or can't be aggressive yet. Give the game some time  | ||
| ||
