EPTOn February 03 2013 04:00 rd wrote:
SC2 was going to die with out this? Thats news.
SC2 was going to die with out this? Thats news.
This among a lot of other things yeah.
HotS Highground Mechanic - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
This among a lot of other things yeah. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11259 Posts
On February 03 2013 04:42 Emzeeshady wrote: This actually happens quite a lot in SC2. Lots of people choose to ignore this for some reason and only point to the games where there is turtling into death balls. Regardless maybe I am wrong and this change will actually be beneficial. In that case there needs to be a shitload of testing done. It may occur in SC2. But the question is to what degree. If it is a good thing, can we get more of it? Would better high ground advantage help encourage it? If yes, then why not try it? Yes it would require a lot of testing, but I think that's what many of us were hoping the expansion betas were for. Maybe it's a pipedream for SC3 two decades from now. Who knows. | ||
|
muzzy
United States640 Posts
That said, I do think it'd be interesting to try out modifying the high ground mechanic in SC2, but I don't think it's necessarily broken right now. | ||
|
kiero
Canada136 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
 | ||
|
kuroshiro
United Kingdom378 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2403 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. I hope you know that I'm the author of Korhal Compound, my good friend superouman (Cloud Kingdom and others) retired partly because of no highground advantage, and all of the other mapmakers agree on adding a highground advantage (LS, ATTx, Jacky, TPW members, DF members, etc.). We are the mapmakers in SC2. [edit] Didn't mean to sound like Korhal Comp is a good map lol... it sucked. But you get my point. | ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
| ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
On February 03 2013 06:11 monitor wrote: I hope you know that I'm the author of Korhal Compound, my good friend superouman (Cloud Kingdom and others) retired partly because of no highground advantage, and all of the other mapmakers agree on adding a highground advantage (LS, ATTx, Jacky, TPW members, DF members, etc.). We are the mapmakers in SC2. [edit] Didn't mean to sound like Korhal Comp is a good map lol... it sucked. But you get my point. Why don't you just add in high ground advantage with the editor and make all the highground maps you want? | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On February 03 2013 06:36 coolcor wrote: Why don't you just add in high ground advantage with the editor and make all the highground maps you want? Of course we can do whatever we want in the editor... but no one will play it, no tournaments will use it. Maybe some small scene will develop that plays it like Starbow or Onegoal, or maybe it can be used as a proof of concept, but that's it. On February 03 2013 06:11 monitor wrote: I hope you know that I'm the author of Korhal Compound, my good friend superouman (Cloud Kingdom and others) retired partly because of no highground advantage, and all of the other mapmakers agree on adding a highground advantage (LS, ATTx, Jacky, TPW members, DF members, etc.). We are the mapmakers in SC2. [edit] Didn't mean to sound like Korhal Comp is a good map lol... it sucked. But you get my point. Hey, why aren't I on the list? I just posted a huge thread on this recently. Anyway, I think I would have more fun as a map maker with some high ground advantage.. However I can't say for certain that just implementing it without other changes would work out completely. It might have some unwanted negative side effects. Sadly, it could really look stupid for a while before players figured out how to use it, and everyone might think it doesn't work when it really just needs more time. Blizzard understands this well, though, when it comes to game design, but they mostly apply it to their own ideas that everyone is hating on. It's hard to convince them to try something, although it did work with the hellbat thing if I'm not mistaken, so maybe. Edit: Not that I support biological hellions, lol. | ||
|
habeck
1120 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
SlixSC
666 Posts
| ||
|
gh0un
601 Posts
-1 Range when attacking Highground This would have a big impact on gameplay, such as in TvT, the defender would have the advantage in Tank Wars, making it less stalemate. In Other match-ups, it would always give the first shot to the defender, which gives defender the advantage. The attacker would now have the burden of micro, as he/she would have to play cleverly to overcome the advantage. Have never read such a contradictory statement ever. It wouldnt make tank wars less stalemate, quite the opposite. It is already almost impossible to push against a tank line that is on top of a hill. With -1 range, it would simply be impossible to attack into another terran´s base, because his tanks would have a huge advantage. This results in an ever bigger stalemate because none of the two terrans can push into the other players tank line. All the other suggestions are terrible aswell. The game does not need a highground advantage, if anything it needs a highground disadvantage. If it were harder to defend bases (and therefore highgrounds for the most part), then the player that has less bases (the one that wants to start a comeback) would have a much easier time to actually get a comeback going. All these "we need more highground advantage" posts start off completely wrong by saying that they want to increase the comeback frequency by adding more highground advantage. A bigger highground advantage will always favor the one that has more bases and therefore the one that has the advantage in the game. An increase in highground advantage will just make the game even more boring because it will become impossible to start a comeback. The only thing that would make the game more likely to have comebacks is to completely remove static defenses (including queen defense, all towers, mothership core, basically everything that can defend a base) and then also completely remove highground advantage. This way, whoever manages his units better will win the game. Sounds crazy, but thats how it is. The only problem with this is that all-ins would become much more powerful, but that is also fixable. Buff scouting options across the board. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 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. What? Defender's advantage is terrible. There really isn't one at all, actually. Have never read such a contradictory statement ever. It wouldnt make tank wars less stalemate, quite the opposite. It is already almost impossible to push against a tank line that is on top of a hill. With -1 range, it would simply be impossible to attack into another terran´s base, because his tanks would have a huge advantage. This results in an ever bigger stalemate because none of the two terrans can push into the other players tank line. All the other suggestions are terrible aswell. The game does not need a highground advantage, if anything it needs a highground disadvantage. If it were harder to defend bases (and therefore highgrounds for the most part), then the player that has less bases (the one that wants to start a comeback) would have a much easier time to actually get a comeback going. All these "we need more highground advantage" posts start off completely wrong by saying that they want to increase the comeback frequency by adding more highground advantage. A bigger highground advantage will always favor the one that has more bases and therefore the one that has the advantage in the game. An increase in highground advantage will just make the game even more boring because it will become impossible to start a comeback. People making a comeback need a defender's advantage. Why? Because their opponent's army will destroy theirs anywhere else. That's why they are coming back. Reducing defender's advantage (even though there really isn't one right now) would make it even harder for comebacks to occur. When you are making a comeback, you don't randomly waltz out of your base to try to quickly destroy an opponent's base. Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, THAT'S WHY YOU NEED TO COME BACK. Your army is weaker, and therefore the only thing that will let you come back is if you can hold your own bases/take one more base and hold them, which needs a better defender's advantage. | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
robih
Austria1084 Posts
lategame is already terrible enough | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
| ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On February 03 2013 07:47 robih wrote: would ruin the game into an even worse campfest lategame is already terrible enough Which goes into another flaw with how you don't need to expand as quickly/often..... high ground advantages would be great if people actually had to be more aggressive to benefit economically. | ||
| ||
