EPTIs High Ground Only Defensive?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
I feel like one of the reasons as to why high ground advantage for attackers wouldnt work in sc2 is because 1: the units of each race eg lurker, reaper, dropships etc) and, compared to BW the way all races could take advantage of the highground contra sc2 were not all races could do it the same way. 2: all the different multiple factors in scbw compared to sc2 would make it more "okay" for some maps to be highly in favor of X race in one way or another (in BW that is). 3: the highground advantage is already quite big, mapcontrol, greater engagements etc (espec when its combined with a watch tower) I just dont see a reason as to why it should be changed. hots is changing alot (smaller skirmishes are being encouraged by buffing harassment, no siege mode-research required, among a lot of other things) I just dont see a reason as to why or how more high ground or a "better" high-ground mechanic is actually needed / would create a good, balanced game. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
LuckyGnomTV
Russian Federation367 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28503 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
High ground already gives a huge advantage in SC2. This is why when someone takes control of the middle high ground in Antiga, they take a big advantage. Just watch the Iron Squid 2 finals game 1 between DRG and Life, to see what happens when someone who's ahead makes the mistake of attacking into someone who's controlling the high ground in the middle on Abyssal City. A bigger advantage is unnecessary and would just slow down the game and turn it into a turtle fest. | ||
|
Cuce
Turkey1127 Posts
No, stronger high ground = STALE PLAY there is way too much generalization in this question and it makes it quiete biast | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On February 05 2013 00:39 Barrin wrote: This one is solely to clear up a misconception so that we can actually discuss it properly. Take the middle of the map on ANY map and you have a big advantage. So because of this one instance in this one game (on a map not designed for strong high ground advantage), the high ground advantage can only be used defensively? This is a massive straw man. --- There are so much more possibilities that he is not considering, is there not? I mean no disrespect, but everyone please take note of this typical narrow-minded reply. Jesus you talk about strawmen, then you say stuff like "take the middle of the map on ANY map and you have a big advantage"? Really? So to you, the middle of Entombed Valley and Antiga are the same? Do you actually play this game? You claim high ground in SC2 doesn't give an advantage, I give you a concrete example from a very recent game, and a mirror match at that, so there's no unit or composition imbalance to account for, and you dismiss it because "it's just one example"? So what should I do, comb through 1000 VODs to prove you wrong, because you're too lazy to do it yourself? Strawmen indeed! | ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
This particular issue directly results in a limitation of mapmaking because highground advantage is reduced to a defensive posture, and even than is still too weak - this result in players deathballing because to expand further without a full supporting army would result in the bases being overrun. The offensive nature of the high ground advantage, if changed, would potentially result in more technical maps that would require players to more purposefully use the high ground to scout, gain map control, and attack. It would also require a higher degree of maintenance (use of apm) to remain properly positioned--this has the potential secondary effect of possibly slowing down the macro portion of the game. If the highground mechanic were to be changed, it would be important to note that it would have an offsetting trade in how mains/naturals/thirds may or may not be formed depending on the mapmakers focus in that regard. Suddenly, thirds may need to be placed farther away to expand the timeframe of the mid game, or some form of highground near the third that an opponent may use may be required to encourage denials. Such a change requires testing (one that mapmakers are actively searching for a method to test it) and further investigation. All in all do I think it would be better for the game? Yes. Do I think it is the last issue that needs to be addressed? No. But it is a heck of a good start in that regard. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On February 05 2013 00:46 sitromit wrote: This happens a lot with topics like this. Anytime there's any sort of BW game mechanics vs. SC2 game mechanics element, no matter how superficial, any top-level games demonstrating that the SC2 game mechanics are actually quite functional and skill-promoting are ignored and dismissed.Jesus you talk about strawmen, then you say stuff like "take the middle of the map on ANY map and you have a big advantage"? Really? So to you, the middle of Entombed Valley and Antiga are the same? Do you actually play this game? You claim high ground in SC2 doesn't give an advantage, I give you a concrete example from a very recent game, and a mirror match at that, so there's no unit or composition imbalance to account for, and you dismiss it because "it's just one example"? So what should I do, comb through 1000 VODs to prove you wrong, because you're too lazy to do it yourself? Strawmen indeed! | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19299 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
Insoleet
France1806 Posts
Also, the very limiting point in mapmaking is not the high ground mechanics. its the warping mechanics. | ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
On February 05 2013 01:04 Insoleet wrote: high ground advantage already existed in sc2 in the first ladder maps. And it was stupidly bad. lost temple or shakuras plateau are the first samples which come to my mind. Also, the very limiting point in mapmaking is not the high ground mechanics. its the warping mechanics. To the first point -- it was bad because it was a weakly applied version of the concept that had too many things shifting at once to be determinned as good or bad As to the second point -- That is part of the issue (which has been partially solved w/ the inability to warp in on high ground change from low ground pylon) but the high ground mechanic is also a major issue within mapmaking. Ask any of us who make maps. | ||
|
kuroshiro
United Kingdom378 Posts
| ||
|
kuroshiro
United Kingdom378 Posts
On February 05 2013 01:04 Insoleet wrote: high ground advantage already existed in sc2 in the first ladder maps. And it was stupidly bad. lost temple or shakuras plateau are the first samples which come to my mind. Also, the very limiting point in mapmaking is not the high ground mechanics. its the warping mechanics. That was the current high-ground mechanics, these threads are about proposing new high ground mechanics. In my opinion the `sight-advantage' we have now would be unnecessary with one of the replacements. It's a horrible half-way house solution that *massively* affects the early game and is almost completely gone by the midgame. The main reason for it in the first place might have been so that you can't easily warp into peoples bases, but you can't warp up level now anyway, so that reason is gone. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
On February 05 2013 00:12 sitromit wrote: How many more high ground threads do we need? High ground already gives a huge advantage in SC2. This is why when someone takes control of the middle high ground in Antiga, they take a big advantage. Just watch the Iron Squid 2 finals game 1 between DRG and Life, to see what happens when someone who's ahead makes the mistake of attacking into someone who's controlling the high ground in the middle on Abyssal City. A bigger advantage is unnecessary and would just slow down the game and turn it into a turtle fest. Highground has zero importance in sc2 in mid or lategame army engagements. The reason why highground position are still often a popular spot to hold is because they often contain a watchtower and have small or medium sized ramps leading up to them, thus giving you a better arc when the opponent has to push through them or because they hinder melee units movements. All these characteristics can also be created by other terrains features. Big long ramps like on bluestorm or RoV ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/16_Ride%20of%20Valkyries.jpg) that provide no other advantage then being highground, don't have any effect in mid or lategame engagements in sc2. People never really set up on top of the ramp leading to the middle plateau in taldarim because they had zero effect. | ||
| ||
