|
On February 05 2013 00:49 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another "My opinion is right no matter what and here let me shove it down your throat with extremely biased polls to boot!" thread. We definitely need more of these.
You probably should work on your reading comprehension because no where does he say that his opinion supersede anyone who is oppose to the High ground = stale and it's only useful in as a defense which in turns leads to bad game . Well in your way of presenting your argument to a court you would practically be ignored or jeered at because you are practically now just saying " WAGGGHHH I can not win with facts to back up my arguments and I am going to randomly spout out bs to make this thread look bad".
Barrin says
I welcome anyone to take up and argue the position that High Ground can only be Defensive. I present my case that High Ground can be integral to Map Control and even Offense in the form of a list of BW maps. (A picture is worth a thousand words, enjoy).
|
I welcome anyone and everyone who thinks a stronger high ground mechanic would generally only lead to more stale play to come here and elaborate on their reasoning (with more than a straw man, the epitome of generalization, please)
I just dont a reason why a less "stale" play would mean a more fun game? at least when what you define less "stale" as is in my opinion a balance issue, just because something is imbalanced and therefor different doesnt mean its fun, races should be on equal grounds while fighting against eachother.
|
Barrin's articles are always a treat to read because he understands the fundamentals. Guy deserves more recognition for his work. He's building quite the canon.
|
On February 05 2013 01:34 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 00:49 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another "My opinion is right no matter what and here let me shove it down your throat with extremely biased polls to boot!" thread. We definitely need more of these. You probably should work on your reading comprehension because no where does he say that his opinion supersede anyone who is oppose to the High ground = stale and it's only useful in as a defense which in turns leads to bad game . Well in your way of presenting your argument to a court you would practically be ignored or jeered at because you are practically now just saying " WAGGGHHH I can not win with facts to back up my arguments and I am going to randomly spout out bs to make this thread look bad". Show nested quote +Barrin says
I welcome anyone to take up and argue the position that High Ground can only be Defensive. I present my case that High Ground can be integral to Map Control and even Offense in the form of a list of BW maps. (A picture is worth a thousand words, enjoy). This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread.
|
I'm personally fine either way, I think it'd help mech play in TvP with regards to immortals (I doubt colo would suffer the same issue) but I can't see, with SC2's massive DPS gameplay, the difference between an advantage highground and no advantage making a massive playstyle difference, in fact I can't think of a single scenario where it would. MAYBE if the ramp was 10 ramps long (like Blue Storms ramps in BW) in the middle of the map but generally any army engaging in a choke (ie ramp) is going to suffer massive losses anyway.
So yeah, I just can't see (with SC2's style of play) for it to make any difference.
|
Thats the entire point. IT would change sc2's style of play. At the moment you cant attack into a choke because there is an army of similar size there waiting to kill you. With a stronger defensive advantage that defensive player only needs half his army there and the other half can be moving around the map or dropping the base or whatever. This means more small skirmishes, more action, more multitask = a more interesting game.
|
On February 05 2013 01:47 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:34 Sawamura wrote:On February 05 2013 00:49 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another "My opinion is right no matter what and here let me shove it down your throat with extremely biased polls to boot!" thread. We definitely need more of these. You probably should work on your reading comprehension because no where does he say that his opinion supersede anyone who is oppose to the High ground = stale and it's only useful in as a defense which in turns leads to bad game . Well in your way of presenting your argument to a court you would practically be ignored or jeered at because you are practically now just saying " WAGGGHHH I can not win with facts to back up my arguments and I am going to randomly spout out bs to make this thread look bad". Barrin says
I welcome anyone to take up and argue the position that High Ground can only be Defensive. I present my case that High Ground can be integral to Map Control and even Offense in the form of a list of BW maps. (A picture is worth a thousand words, enjoy). This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread.
On TL, opinions of established posters are valued higher than than those of no namers who haven't contributed much at all. If you want to disagree with his points, even about that example, feel free to do so, but at least do so respectfully, or else you're no better than you're making him out to be.
|
On February 05 2013 02:05 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:47 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:34 Sawamura wrote:On February 05 2013 00:49 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another "My opinion is right no matter what and here let me shove it down your throat with extremely biased polls to boot!" thread. We definitely need more of these. You probably should work on your reading comprehension because no where does he say that his opinion supersede anyone who is oppose to the High ground = stale and it's only useful in as a defense which in turns leads to bad game . Well in your way of presenting your argument to a court you would practically be ignored or jeered at because you are practically now just saying " WAGGGHHH I can not win with facts to back up my arguments and I am going to randomly spout out bs to make this thread look bad". Barrin says
I welcome anyone to take up and argue the position that High Ground can only be Defensive. I present my case that High Ground can be integral to Map Control and even Offense in the form of a list of BW maps. (A picture is worth a thousand words, enjoy). This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread. On TL, opinions of established posters are valued higher than than those of no namers who haven't contributed much at all. If you want to disagree with his points, even about that example, feel free to do so, but at least do so respectfully, or else you're no better than you're making him out to be. I don't pretend to be better. Talking down to somebody with a valid point and triumphantly flashing blue text at them just because they feel like being an asshole at that particular juncture removes whatever elevation they might have previously earned, though.
I respected Barrin a lot for his early work with FRB and the explorations he did with it. That doesn't give him a free pass for his recent posts. It's actually worse coming from somebody like him than it is coming from a random user, because I expect better from him.
We need less of this, not more of it.
|
On February 05 2013 02:14 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 02:05 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 05 2013 01:47 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:34 Sawamura wrote:On February 05 2013 00:49 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another "My opinion is right no matter what and here let me shove it down your throat with extremely biased polls to boot!" thread. We definitely need more of these. You probably should work on your reading comprehension because no where does he say that his opinion supersede anyone who is oppose to the High ground = stale and it's only useful in as a defense which in turns leads to bad game . Well in your way of presenting your argument to a court you would practically be ignored or jeered at because you are practically now just saying " WAGGGHHH I can not win with facts to back up my arguments and I am going to randomly spout out bs to make this thread look bad". Barrin says
I welcome anyone to take up and argue the position that High Ground can only be Defensive. I present my case that High Ground can be integral to Map Control and even Offense in the form of a list of BW maps. (A picture is worth a thousand words, enjoy). This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread. On TL, opinions of established posters are valued higher than than those of no namers who haven't contributed much at all. If you want to disagree with his points, even about that example, feel free to do so, but at least do so respectfully, or else you're no better than you're making him out to be. I don't pretend to be better. Talking down to somebody with a valid point and triumphantly flashing blue text at them just because they feel like being an asshole at that particular juncture removes whatever elevation they might have previously earned, though. I respected Barrin a lot for his early work with FRB and the explorations he did with it. That doesn't give him a free pass for his recent posts. It's actually worse coming from somebody like him than it is coming from a random user, because I expect better from him. We need less of this, not more of it.
And you're only adding to it. If you are going to call him out on something, don't do it like an asshole, do it with a clear counterargument that actually contributes good points to discuss.
Edit: For example, you could have made a case for how that example game showed more than just the advantage of having the middle, thus having an actual counterargument showing why you think it's bad rather than just calling his post bad. You could have said "I think you're dismissing this game too easily, the high ground allowed player to do x, y, and z he couldn't have otherwise done" and followed up with how the high ground mechanic can provide good offensive as well as defensive advantages when used properly by players and maps, without just making an (in your opinion counter)insulting post, it's just disrespectful; the only thing calling someone in idiot in a jerk fashion proves is that you're one too, it's for your own sake as well as the communities standards.
|
On February 05 2013 01:47 RampancyTW wrote:
This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread.
Obviously there is some terrain advantage in sc2 even in the late game. Its a question of degree. I dont think its a matter of opinion to say that most people dislike death ball vs death ball single engagement games, which do happen in sc2. I also dont think its a matter of opinion to say that a greater defensive advantage decreases the need to have all your units together in the same place.
From these facts its safe to conclude that a greater defensive advantage would increase the quality of games, unless it would have some other consequence that is even worse than deathballs. Someone suggested excessive turtle games. But that ignores map design, and Barrins original post.
|
High ground advantage in SC2 is absolutely meaningless once you have vision.
There you go, there is no real high ground advantage after what, 4 minutes into the game. Anyone opposed to this is just blind to the truth.
|
First, I would sugest OP to stop using BW maps. BW was very different game. Make SC2 maps where high ground would be of high importance. Then, argue that the high-ground doesn`t give enought advantage.
Second. The fact that SC2 high-ground advantage is denied by air scouting is of no problem in itself. There game needs to conclude one way or another, that is why it has siege units are introduced to the late game, and that is why high-ground becomes less effective.
On February 05 2013 02:32 samuraibael wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:47 RampancyTW wrote:
This entire topic of argument is a giant mosh pit of opinions masquerading as fact. And prior to my posting he had already boldly and proudly declared a recent example of the already-significant importance of high ground in SC2 a straw man for no reason other than, well, because he said so, sooo I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to think about this thread. Obviously there is some terrain advantage in sc2 even in the late game. Its a question of degree. I dont think its a matter of opinion to say that most people dislike death ball vs death ball single engagement games, which do happen in sc2. I also dont think its a matter of opinion to say that a greater defensive advantage decreases the need to have all your units together in the same place. From these facts its safe to conclude that a greater defensive advantage would increase the quality of games, unless it would have some other consequence that is even worse than deathballs. Someone suggested excessive turtle games. But that ignores map design, and Barrins original post.
Please, how can you speak about degree, without actaully making SC2 maps with meaningfull high-grounds and testing just how much there is a need for more advantage.
The "death ball" has harly anything to do with maps. Huge positional advantage doesn`t make games better. Arguably BW is an issue of an opposite, you had so little positional advantage, that the best way to defend your expos was to attack yourself. And not sit on advantageous positionsin the middle of the map, like some people sugest.
As for ignoring map design, please, make some meaningfull SC2 maps first, to support your argument.
Also, i would note that BW arbier recall, drops, the weakness of static defences, and fast siege units meaned the advantage of high ground vastly decreased in late game as well.
All in all, BW-fans have very selective memory.
|
The notion that stale play can occur with a greater form of high ground advantage does not solely hinge on a defensive nature. Having offensive high ground locations lends itself to the same problems many people complained about for the first year of SC2: an extremely small number of games were going into the "late-game."
Beyond the initial balance concerns, an extra incentive to obtain the high ground, offensively or defensively, could offer extremely one dimensional play. That being, of course, to secure the high ground as fast as possible in order to exercise both map control and game flow control. We could end up with a "turtle-fest" even if the player turtling didn't intend on it, because the offensive high ground has restricted movement and tactical options too much.
Of course, the obvious argument about creating a stale game comes in the form of increased defenders advantage. The best example of this now is that of the huge increase in defenders advantage Zerg enjoyed after the first 18 months of SC2. TvZ used to be a very exciting matchup, with heavy losses and a ton of action from 4:00 on. With maps now bigger and queens now stronger, there is little incentive for Terran to make any big moves aggressively due to the ease at which Zerg can defend. On the Zerg side, tanks, walls, and repairs are huge disincentives to make similar aggressive moves. Now we have a "quick" rush to 3 bases on both sides, meaning 13-15 minutes of caster chatter per broadcasted game. Nobody wants that (except people in love with Tastosis).
If the goal is simply to give mapmakers more options to play with, there are plenty of variables we have not toyed with (enough). There has been limited experimentation with geyser and mineral counts, easily defended remote expansions, non-ramped mains, and shaped terrain to emphasize defensive/offensive archs (it's all done manually around chokes currently).
As for a "real" solution to the problem that is trying to be solved, we need features which limit the effectiveness of army sizes, both defensively and offensively. In BW, this was done with poor AI (hello dragoons), forced squad sizes (12 unit control groups), and "clumping." Those same solutions can't be used now because it's definitely a step backwards in terms of technology. I applaud the forward thinking about high ground advantages, but if you want to fix the deathball, that's what it has to do. If it's simply a +army modifier, there's nothing stopping people from running around with a 130 food army together and praying for a good (high ground) engagement like they do now.
|
On February 05 2013 03:21 naastyOne wrote:
All in all, BW-fans have very selective memory.
That's almost comical.
I'll agree with you on the lackluster SC2 map pool (tournaments have been using the same shit for way too long). I have no idea how you can say there is little positional advantage in BW with a straight face mind you then you go on to this:
Also, i would note that BW arbier recall, drops, the weakness of static defences, and fast siege units meaned the advantage of high ground vastly decreased in late game as well.
It's not that simple and static defense in BW is pretty good. You're selling it way too short as holding a position is much easier. With a good setup you can hold off with a lot less thus it took a lot of tact from the other player to regain that position. In many scenarios, they couldn't go around it. They pretty much had to take it out or else they would be done.
The doodads and high ground are great ways to provide extra cover and force your opponent to misfire on the odd occasion. It's a good trade-off when we're talking about BW.
|
Personally, I would find it more helpful to take only a few examples of these BW maps and actually detail out how they prove your point rather than just presenting a gigantic list of maps as a kind of natural example of your point. I didn't follow BW and am unfamiliar with these maps and what games on them looked like. What exactly am I supposed to be looking for, and how does it prove that the high ground can be used offensively and for map control; and that this promotes better/more entertaining gameplay?
(I also tend to feel that including polls and mentioning how long it took you to compose the OP don't really strengthen your argument, but that's personal taste.)
To be more specific, let's take one of the BW maps you provided, one that was used in official Korean competition. I chose Chariots of Fire:
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/b/ba/Chariots_of_Fire.jpg)
I can clearly see that this map is very different in design to most SC2 competition maps, particularly with regard to the usage of high ground - each main is on low ground and can be sieged from nearby high ground. I also know that BW high-ground mechanics were different, namely that the high ground provided an advantage in battles even if the opponent had vision. Clearly then, the high ground in this map can be used offensively to great effect.
I'm not sure what the next step is. Are you suggesting that because of these two differences, games on this map were better (seems to be commonly defined as less turtling) than games on SC2 maps that lack these two features?
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On February 05 2013 04:36 jubil wrote:Personally, I would find it more helpful to take only a few examples of these BW maps and actually detail out how they prove your point rather than just presenting a gigantic list of maps as a kind of natural example of your point. I didn't follow BW and am unfamiliar with these maps and what games on them looked like. What exactly am I supposed to be looking for, and how does it prove that the high ground can be used offensively and for map control; and that this promotes better/more entertaining gameplay? (I also tend to feel that including polls and mentioning how long it took you to compose the OP don't really strengthen your argument, but that's personal taste.) To be more specific, let's take one of the BW maps you provided, one that was used in official Korean competition. I chose Chariots of Fire: I can clearly see that this map is very different in design to most SC2 competition maps, particularly with regard to the usage of high ground - each main is on low ground and can be sieged from nearby high ground. I also know that BW high-ground mechanics were different, namely that the high ground provided an advantage in battles even if the opponent had vision. Clearly then, the high ground in this map can be used offensively to great effect. I'm not sure what the next step is. Are you suggesting that because of these two differences, games on this map were better (seems to be commonly defined as less turtling) than games on SC2 maps that lack these two features?
Barrin is attempting to dispel the idea that a high-ground advantage can only lead to stale, turtle based games and so is showing examples of BW maps, where we all know there was a high ground advantage, to show how mapmakers built maps around this high ground advantage which encourage aggressive or other non-defensive states of play.
Edit: forgot the last part of the sentence.
|
SC2 Lost Temple was removed for a reason--high ground is an offensive tool as well as defensive. SC2 fans should know this already...
|
I think the best example that we have in the SC2 map pool where the high ground can be used offensively is in Cloud Kingdom when attacking the fourth base.
|
Ah, I was just thinking the same thing when I saw the other thread. Yeah, it can be used offensively too. I love positional play. Too bad in SC2 zerg doesn't have lurkers, and I'm not convinced swarm hosts fill that gap. t_t
|
On February 05 2013 05:47 figq wrote:
Ah, I was just thinking the same thing when I saw the other thread. Yeah, it can be used offensively too. I love positional play. Too bad in SC2 zerg doesn't have lurkers, and I'm not convinced swarm hosts fill that gap. t_t
SH =/= Lurkers
Lurker is a cloaked Hellion that can't move
SH is a grounded Broodlord that can't shoot
But I understood what you were "trying" to say, which is that you wish Zerg had a non-short range ground unit that was viable and not a caster that way high ground would actually be useful (Lurkers filled this very specific niche of useful ranged ground unit that can use high ground advantage)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
