EPTHotS Highground Mechanic - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
bmml
United Kingdom962 Posts
| ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
Ljas
Finland725 Posts
| ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11601 Posts
It is a advantage. But it is one that is easily negotiated with vision- obs, scan, overlords, units that bypass terrain, etc. Then the advantage is not very great. Something like miss chance or damage reduction continues to give the advantage to the person that won the highground. There is some advantage, but it is pretty insignificant compared to what it could and should be. It's one of those terrain features that actually creates points to fight over all over the map like Blizzard was hoping would happen with the watchtowers. | ||
|
Jochan
Poland1730 Posts
| ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
not to mention that a highground advantage is supposed to make you leave less units at a base to defend with so you can attack more often. (not having to pull your entire army to defend) and every RTS game has a high ground advantage in some form, this isnt a 'make it bw' idea | ||
|
Black[CAT]
Malaysia2589 Posts
| ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11601 Posts
On February 03 2013 03:48 Jochan wrote: Whenever I see post trying to change SC2 based on BW I know it's gonna be bad. How long will it take for people to understand that BW is different from SC2. BW was a great game, still is, one can argue best RTS ever made which will become best RTS in the history, but that is not the point. SC2 is fundamentally different, it's similar to BW on some levels but most of BW is in lore and unit names, that is it. Mechanics are different, movement is different, macro is different, everything is different, hence SC2=/=BW. And if you don't believe me, believe Blizzard which is trying their hardest to differentiate game even more, not less. You say it is going to bad, but then you don't say why. Is BW having something an automatic dismissal for adopting it? What is wrong with the actual idea as being presented the thread beyond "SC2 is trying to be different." | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On February 02 2013 09:24 NukeD wrote: While this change is a step in the right direction, it will hardly do anything to save SC2. SC2 was going to die with out this? Thats news. | ||
|
Ljas
Finland725 Posts
On February 03 2013 03:57 Larkin wrote: Having a big penalty will encourage players to turtle, no one will want to attack and have a far bigger risk of losing everything. People would be even more directed to just defending until they get to their respective lategame deathball compositions. I don't get it. How does being easier to defend with less units translate to a bigger risk of losing everything? | ||
|
NeWeNiyaLord
Norway2474 Posts
| ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:02 Ljas wrote: I don't get it. How does being easier to defend with less units translate to a bigger risk of losing everything? If it is easier to defend with less units, it is therefore more dangerous to attack. The way SC2 works is that if you lose an engagement you are put behind and have to do something to get back. So no one will attack because if their attack can be defended a lot easier, they will run an even greater risk of losing and being put behind. In addition, turtling players will obviously be defensive and so harassment in the form of things like drops will be less effective. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:04 Inex wrote: What a terrible idea. As OP said it it works early to mid game, what more do you want? Oh and ''map makers can adapt''; whoever said that apparently has no idea how difficult it is to create a decent map for SC2. Being masters also means nothing, since you could be low masters for all I know and that means you are just as bad as everybody else. What does the difficulty of making maps have anything to do with decisions that may be based upon them? On February 03 2013 04:05 Larkin wrote: If it is easier to defend with less units, it is therefore more dangerous to attack. The way SC2 works is that if you lose an engagement you are put behind and have to do something to get back. So no one will attack because if their attack can be defended a lot easier, they will run an even greater risk of losing and being put behind. In addition, turtling players will obviously be defensive and so harassment in the form of things like drops will be less effective. How does this patch affect drops at all? Regardless of whether or not a player turtles they're all equally capable of holding drops with no damage, which this patch does not really affect. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11601 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:05 Larkin wrote: If it is easier to defend with less units, it is therefore more dangerous to attack. The way SC2 works is that if you lose an engagement you are put behind and have to do something to get back. So no one will attack because if their attack can be defended a lot easier, they will run an even greater risk of losing and being put behind. In addition, turtling players will obviously be defensive and so harassment in the form of things like drops will be less effective. The high ground is part of what allows you to come back. It gives you survivability. Slow down the marauding army in time for you build up the next wave and attack. This allows you to push farther out into the field earlier because you can fall back in a harassing retreat, making stands on high ground areas which will allow you to cost-effectively trade. High ground advantage is more than just in your base. Maps can have high ground spread through the centre as well. If you have gained a high ground advantage that lies in between where a player wants to expand or that cuts through their reinforcing lines, you've been rewarded for pushing out offensively. Not only that, but if you can cost-effectively trade your units for taking an expansion, then you can commit smaller bands of them to protect expansions while the main army marauds the map. But if the enemy finds a defensive position mid-map, they can hold off the larger army while committing a large enough strike force to knock out the smaller number of expansion defenders. This is all theoretical with no numbers behind them, but I contend that high ground better allows the armies to be split, but this in turn allows the enemy to split and gang up where they find a weak point. Rather than simply having two armies circling each other, looking for the flash engage. More drops is exactly what more high ground advantage pushes towards. Drops become one of the ways to get over the defended positions. I will grant you that the economic system would probably have to be tinkered with to give greater incentive to expand beyond 3 base max 200. | ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:13 Falling wrote: The high ground is part of what allows you to come back. It gives you survivability. Slow down the marauding army in time for you build up the next wave and attack. This allows you to push farther out into the field earlier because you can fall back in a harassing retreat, making stands on high ground areas which will allow you to cost-effectively trade. High ground advantage is more than just in your base. Maps can have high ground spread through the centre as well. If you have gained a high ground advantage that lies in between where a player wants to expand or that cuts through their reinforcing lines, you've been rewarded for pushing out offensively. My point being that no one will use a marauding army because of the fear of losing it to a defender with too powerful a high ground advantage. If it gets to the point where players can hold a ramp with half the forces of their opponent, it'll be too much. However, you do raise a good point - players should be rewarded for taking the map, but I imagine if the defender's advantage is buffed lower league players especially will be even more afraid of pushing out on the map. | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
In quotes because for some people the game doesn't any fixing (due to lack of BW experience I'd dare to say), and as far as they care SC2 is perfect, and thinking that way is completely fine, they have fun and that's all that actually matters. Anyway, high ground advantage adds positional play, but SC2 lacks good siege units to make use of positional play. FFS, the siege tank IS the perfect siege unit but it is rendered so weak in SC2... Often times when I tune-in some SC2 pro stream I just see one of the players waltzing around with his army as if the map was plain flat. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11601 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:20 Larkin wrote: My point being that no one will use a marauding army because of the fear of losing it to a defender with too powerful a high ground advantage. If it gets to the point where players can hold a ramp with half the forces of their opponent, it'll be too much. However, you do raise a good point - players should be rewarded for taking the map, but I imagine if the defender's advantage is buffed lower league players especially will be even more afraid of pushing out on the map. The fear of pushing out in the lower leagues is something that will always be with us and it is something they need to get over with- and a bigger carrot would probably work better. More economic advantage for expanding. But that goes for higher level players too. More incentive to expand, then they will be much more spread out. You can't defend all places equally, so then the players will be jockying to strike and exploit the weakest point (there's your Sun Tzu), but this in turn will force large army engagements as the defender races to protect their weak points. Players finding ways to pull their opponent out of position. There is obviously a balancing act. You don't want to make the game so defensive in their base so that it is impossible to attack. But as we've already seen what the proposed high ground advantage does, I don't think this suggestion will lead to that. And if it does, then maybe it'll give Blizzard an idea of where and how to adust to their units to compensate for it. edit I also think there is actually a greater incentive to go attack. There is less risk of a base race. This means you can commit your army to an attack and know that you can hold off a reasonable sized backstab. Thererfore, you can be more bold with your main army. Base races are fun and all, but the frequency with which they occur in SC2 is indicative of a persistant problem in defence. | ||
| ||
