I wish they would define what they mean by "skill". IMO they clearly only mean mechanics and the ability to click quickly and micro way too many units. However, this has nothing to do with strategy... while it may take more twitch "skill", it takes far less strategical thinking.
---
High ground can also be used offensively!!!
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)
It doesn't always have to be up a ramp.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 09:26 Archybaldie wrote:
Personally i feel its way too easy to defend in sc2 and these mechanics would just make that worse.
Part of the reason it has been so deathbally is there is less incentive to attack. So while I personally feel its a good idea, its a good idea for a different game.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
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.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 09:48 Extenz wrote:
it's stupid, most of the time when you attack up a ramp you will risk it because you will attack into a concave and you will have a ball on the ramp, that's already enough for a defensive advantage, do you want to remove all ins from the game? lol
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 11:10 furerkip wrote:
The more you increase defender's advantage, especially in TvT, the harder it becomes to break turtlers. Everyone will just stay on tanks until they can go air. At least with the current situation, there is a constant flux on control, where one person has it, and the other person attempts to gain it, and then we attempt to go for Sky Terran once the other person tries to huddle themselves up (when they give up attempting to try to swing the game into their favor and try to take minimal losses). In TvP, this is a wasted mechanic (forcefields are your defender's advantage and you don't need one after the early game). TvZ, not so sure, because Zerg has no units that can seige while on ground, so the only thing it affects is marines, but we're transitioning into a game where mech is heavily preferred to bio (HoTS), so there's no need to worry about that.
It's a good thing that defender's advantage is only early game and mid game, because that's when you need it for the game to progress beyond the 8 min mark. But after that, it's just a "don't touch me, don't touch me!" mechanic, and that's not why anyone plays strategy games (at least, I've never heard of anyone that plays strategy games just to sit in their base all game).
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 12:23 sitromit wrote:
So more turtling? No thank you.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 12:24 Masq wrote:
why would this make any difference? It would make early games even more defensive, with almost no chance of doing early pressure. This would just compound the problems with units like colossus and broodlord turtling (that simply bypass any highground/terrain advantage).
If those type of units were adjusted something like this would be viable. Until then, its kind of pointless.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 12:31 Emzeeshady wrote:
This would be an awful change. People already say that we need more aggressiveness in SC2 and less turtling but this change would be the opposite. This game would be awful if people tried to make it like BW without the handicaps the game had.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 12:32 grush57 wrote:
Yea, this would make the game far more turtle like. Bad thing, imo.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
On February 02 2013 19:02 Dingodile wrote:
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.
High ground can also be used offensively.
Mapmakers can adapt.
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
So if the middle of the map is on higher ground and the bases tend to be on lower ground.. with a stronger high ground advantage, maps would be less active?
On February 02 2013 15:12 EnumaAvalon wrote:
Better high ground mechanics can solidify the defender's advantage.
It can also help solidify map control.
On February 02 2013 15:46 sunglasseson wrote:
you cant fix problem C without fixing A and B nothing said here can ever change this. its a building and the foundation cannot be added upon untill its first made stable
Welcome to Problem A.
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 ...
I really am sorry for not yet being able to support FRB the way it needs to be supported.. real life comes first.
And before FRB comes high ground mechanic, PLEASE.
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.
Take a look at the target audience and you'll understand.
On February 02 2013 12:58 IndyO wrote:
People need to realize that it would only encourage deathbally-turtle play on current maps, because the current maps have to be designed that way.
Thank you.
These people opposed to a high ground mechanic seem narrowly focused on the part where big armies collide and the physical micro part of it. Indeed, even some in favor. And who could blame you with it being what you're so used to?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7K98af6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uomLVON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Fxa1il.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tmhn3O6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U9IjEAr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/imba1i.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/401/imba2.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/imba3.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/imba4.jpg/)
