EPTIs High Ground Only Defensive? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
Glurkenspurk
United States1915 Posts
On February 05 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote: SC2 Lost Temple was removed for a reason--high ground is an offensive tool as well as defensive. SC2 fans should know this already... SC2 LT was a terrible map for reasons besides that. Using one map as the only reason to be against better high ground is completely stupid. No viable 3rd position, bad gold position, close spawns were broken, and a watch tower that was way too powerful were just SOME of the MANY reasons that LT was bad. The little cliffs next to your natural aren't the only way mapmakers can use high ground. You know this, don't be stupid. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 05 2013 06:02 Glurkenspurk wrote: SC2 LT was a terrible map for reasons besides that. Using one map as the only reason to be against better high ground is completely stupid. No viable 3rd position, bad gold position, close spawns were broken, and a watch tower that was way too powerful were just SOME of the MANY reasons that LT was bad. The little cliffs next to your natural aren't the only way mapmakers can use high ground. You know this, don't be stupid. ?? I'm supportive of high ground... I'm saying people trying to argue that high ground is defensive only are silly since its been used offensively since the beginning.... I actually enjoyed the games on LT a LOT. Between island expos, cliff attacks, etc... It was hectic, crazy, aggressive, and when the flow reached late game you knew it was earned by both players as neither turtled to late game they clawed their way there. Could it be better now? Of course! But it was also fun back then too. | ||
Falling
Canada11371 Posts
On February 05 2013 03:21 naastyOne wrote: 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. Saying BW has very little positional advantage ignores the entire early to mid game. I would agree that there does need to be a way to mitigate entrenched positions in the late. I would suggest that current SC2 highground skips the positional mid-game and goes straight for the end-game. Consider this. Early to mid-game in BW has miss-chance, ramps that are hard to get up, powerful defensive units (tougher cannons, more powerful storms, reaver splash, massive tank splash, lurkers that rip bio apart.) But a significant part of the game stays in the early to mid-game positional game. However, if sides become too entrenched, there are ways in the late-game of over-coming what could be a stalemate. Multiple Arbiter Recalls, Carriers-switch, Doom Drops, Dark-swarm combined with crackling, ultra, fleets of drop ships carrying tanks armies, tech switch to air (wraith or Battlecruiser) The point is this is very lategame and a significant tech switch. Not something that is over-come once you have your first scouting units. High ground in SC2 is not really high ground. It's basically a wall that blocks line of sight and movement (mostly.) But if we got rid of high ground and replaced it with thin walls that blocked line of sight there would be little discernible difference. So in the early game, once sight is over-come we have already skipped to the lategame. (This is compounded by the number of cliff-walkers.) As to high-ground being used offensively. Absolutely. It will be several hours before I can, but I hope to draw a couple examples on Heartbreak Ridge or equivalent. But in brief if you have gained a high-ground position that cuts through your enemy's reinforcement line or cuts off expansions, then you have gained an offensive advantage using high ground. And people can drop the Lost Temple 2 example. That's high ground done poorly and BW had its own share of abusable maps in the early days. High ground towers where tanks can shell the main or natural is not what we are talking about here. Most of the time the high ground is accessible by ground (vs those drop towers.) And as often as not, the high ground were actually super open ridges and massive ramps. And yet these still gave advantage. | ||
|
ChriseC
Germany440 Posts
xelnaga towers give u alot of mapcontrol without the need of splitting up ur units, 1 deathball can pretty much control most parts of the map needed. | ||
|
Korlith
Canada3 Posts
There could be strong defensive positions that do not rely on a choke point. While allowing units to flow freely, it would also allow parts of an army to hold off a larger one allowing units to be broken off to harass with less risk of your main army just getting destroyed and never being able to stabilize. Strong defensive positions could be used to both defend or attack a base. Using shakuras plateau as an example, Drops could be sent to siege zerg third bases and build a depot wall to prevent mass zerglings from just killing everything. The bases in the middle could also be sieged from the cliff by tanks. This helped small groups of units in good positions to be relevant in the game instead of just getting overrun because the entire army was not there. Although shakuras plateau was a terrible map to play on if the opponent held the middle with the towers and used the cliffs, it still showed the power that cliffs bring as well as the diversity in offensive options. The high ground advantage could also be used to help balance the game. In Wings of Liberty, zealots killed everything terran mech had. In Hots, hellbats were introduced as a good all around unit that happens to also crush zealots. If players attempted to put tanks on a cliff to hold a position, any of the protoss ranged units would just kill them. The cliff offered no protection from the ranged units and due to the unit ai, the zealots would just target the units that they could reach without any micro. Defensive positions could even be used as a turtle deterrent. If a defender stays in their base too long, the aggressor could take the defensive position outside the defenders base and create a strong contain. When the defender eventually moves out (hopefully), the contain could fight somewhat evenly with a big chunk of the units attacking the main base instead of being in the contain. As it currently is, the high ground is either at the top of a choke (ramp) or a cliff in the middle of the map. The highground at the choke is nearly pointless as vision is readily available early into the game. Any unit on a cliff in the middle of the map just gets killed as soon as the opponent as vision. | ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
Cloud Kingdom uses height decently in parts. Daybreak on the other hand uses it too defensively for my view. Antiga's is largely really bad, though I like that little nook near the smoke sight blockers. And then maps like Metropolis and Whirlwind aren't even worth properly mentioning since they're generally so flat or use height as like a "risk rating" for expansions. There used to be a couple of maps that used changes in height a lot which created engaging games. But they had other issues and got removed. I always liked Crossfire and Crevasse. People complained about Crossfire so much, but almost every game there was interesting. Crevasse hit in the era of GomTvT and gave us some amazing games. I think both maps had zerg issues if I remember correctly, but they still used high ground in what I saw as "fun" ways. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 05 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote: SC2 Lost Temple was removed for a reason--high ground is an offensive tool as well as defensive. SC2 fans should know this already... That's not what's being discussed in this thread. A gimmick cliff that can't be accessed by ground placed right beside the natural isn't good in either SC2 or Brood War. Ground Zero was a BW map that tried the same thing, and it had to have the cliff removed due to balance issues. + Show Spoiler [Ground Zero (with cliff)] + ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/506_Ground%20Zero.jpg) + Show Spoiler [Neo Ground Zero (without cliff)] + ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/546_Neo%20Ground%20Zero.jpg) What's being discussed is map designs like Heartbreak Ridge, which offer great strategic design through the use of high ground advantage. This kind of map design has no value in SC2 due to the lack of high ground advantage in the game. + Show Spoiler [New Heartbreak Ridge] + ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/267_New%20Heartbreak%20Ridge.jpg) | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 05 2013 10:23 iamcaustic wrote: That's not what's being discussed in this thread. A gimmick cliff that can't be accessed by ground placed right beside the natural isn't good in either SC2 or Brood War. Ground Zero was a BW map that tried the same thing, and it had to have the cliff removed due to balance issues. + Show Spoiler [Ground Zero (with cliff)] + + Show Spoiler [Neo Ground Zero (without cliff)] + What's being discussed is map designs like Heartbreak Ridge, which offer great strategic design through the use of high ground advantage. This kind of map design has no value in SC2 due to the lack of high ground advantage in the game. + Show Spoiler [New Heartbreak Ridge] + I was not talking about balance I was talking about aggression. In SC2, without high ground advantage, since day one of release, people have been using cliffs and high ground aggressively almost more than they've been using it defensively (not counting walling off the main base which was always a high ground ramp until Tal Darim) Did it have a lot of imbalance issues? Yes. Mostly for zerg. Cliff aggression was also in Delta Quadrant (hitting the third), it was in Kulas Ravine (harassing the main before the rocks were knocked down), etc... Were the maps balanced? Most likely not. Were they fun to play? Nope. Was it easy to turtle on 3base? Absolutely not. Would it be possible to maintain 3base play on it now? Absolutely yes--but most of your resources would be sucked up defending your third causing casters to be taxed, unit movement to be constant, and overall just heavy aggression to be present. But that's not the point--the point is that the OP is trying to say that high ground is not necessarily defensive. And I'm saying that anyone who thinks opposite of that is stupid because since day one since map pool one we have had cliff aggression in SC2. There not being cliff aggression now is not the fault of high ground mechanics but is the fault of map design. (Try telling a zerg player who played on shakuras plateau in 2011 that the cliffs were not used aggressively and he will metaphorically sock you in your metaphoric face) I'm saying people trying to say that high ground advantage will only make people be defensive is wrong because people will naturally be aggressive on cliffs the second a cliff is present to be aggressive on. And, being that's the case, any change in the high ground mechanic that makes it stronger will give map makers the flexibility to have variant cliff/ramp designs to allow for more cliff aggression. because right now, the best (only) way to encourage cliff aggression is to go Shakuras Plateau and make cliff tops without ramps. Imagine if the watchtower areas in Taldarim were cliffs that gave defenders advantage? Suddenly the only way to advance against someone who has the watchtower is to go through the middle of the map since it would be crazy to fight uphill. The map shape shrinks down and suddenly the whole map completely changes. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
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. Yea but the thing is that in this case his opinion IS right | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 05 2013 11:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: I was not talking about balance I was talking about aggression. In SC2, without high ground advantage, since day one of release, people have been using cliffs and high ground aggressively almost more than they've been using it defensively (not counting walling off the main base which was always a high ground ramp until Tal Darim) Did it have a lot of imbalance issues? Yes. Mostly for zerg. Cliff aggression was also in Delta Quadrant (hitting the third), it was in Kulas Ravine (harassing the main before the rocks were knocked down), etc... Were the maps balanced? Most likely not. Were they fun to play? Nope. Was it easy to turtle on 3base? Absolutely not. Would it be possible to maintain 3base play on it now? Absolutely yes--but most of your resources would be sucked up defending your third causing casters to be taxed, unit movement to be constant, and overall just heavy aggression to be present. But that's not the point--the point is that the OP is trying to say that high ground is not necessarily defensive. And I'm saying that anyone who thinks opposite of that is stupid because since day one since map pool one we have had cliff aggression in SC2. There not being cliff aggression now is not the fault of high ground mechanics but is the fault of map design. (Try telling a zerg player who played on shakuras plateau in 2011 that the cliffs were not used aggressively and he will metaphorically sock you in your metaphoric face) I'm saying people trying to say that high ground advantage will only make people be defensive is wrong because people will naturally be aggressive on cliffs the second a cliff is present to be aggressive on. And, being that's the case, any change in the high ground mechanic that makes it stronger will give map makers the flexibility to have variant cliff/ramp designs to allow for more cliff aggression. because right now, the best (only) way to encourage cliff aggression is to go Shakuras Plateau and make cliff tops without ramps. Imagine if the watchtower areas in Taldarim were cliffs that gave defenders advantage? Suddenly the only way to advance against someone who has the watchtower is to go through the middle of the map since it would be crazy to fight uphill. The map shape shrinks down and suddenly the whole map completely changes. You're still discussing a different design topic. I'm not talking about the aggressive capabilities of cliffs that are unreachable by ground. Shakuras Plateau is a much better example to illustrate your point than Lost Temple was, but it's still a very different concept. EDIT: To make my point more clear, I'm still talking about map designs like Heartbreak Ridge, Jade, Blue Storm, etc. Having the ability to let high ground have meaning even when there are huge ramps leading up to the high ground; that concept doesn't exist in SC2 due to the lack of high ground advantage. EDIT2: Just want to also point out that I understand you're agreeing with the OP about high ground advantage also being used aggressively. I just think you're focusing way too much on discussing unreachable cliffs and not on all the other applications a high ground mechanic offers. | ||
|
Unsane
Canada170 Posts
Having a defenders advantage forces the attacker to be creative. Its quite a funny thing when a player curses at me at the end of the game because he couldn't break my defense yet didn't even try half of the options available to his race. Apparently to some though the first five or six minutes of the game remains interesting enough to want to repeat it endlessly. Leaves me wondering "maybe i should just wait patiently for these children to take their Ritalin so their attention spans are superior to the 10 min mark." EDIT: To address the OP, it takes time for the lower parts of a community to crawl out of the shadows of noobism. In all games, the pros are very quickly to define what is the top, and there is a very small increase of skill cap as time goes on. In contrast to the top, the average catches up relatively quickly. The people who understand the game just need to wait for the riffraff to catch up. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 05 2013 12:26 iamcaustic wrote: You're still discussing a different design topic. I'm not talking about the aggressive capabilities of cliffs that are unreachable by ground. Shakuras Plateau is a much better example to illustrate your point than Lost Temple was, but it's still a very different concept. EDIT: To make my point more clear, I'm still talking about map designs like Heartbreak Ridge, Jade, Blue Storm, etc. Having the ability to let high ground have meaning even when there are huge ramps leading up to the high ground; that concept doesn't exist in SC2 due to the lack of high ground advantage. EDIT2: Just want to also point out that I understand you're agreeing with the OP about high ground advantage also being used aggressively. I just think you're focusing way too much on discussing unreachable cliffs and not on all the other applications a high ground mechanic offers. My focus is not on unreachable cliffs--how the high ground is useful is arbitrary. I'm saying that it's impossible to use the argument that high ground advantage will lead to turtling instead of aggression when aggression already happens when there is no high ground advantage. Whether it is miss change, vision block, unreachable cliff, cloaking, increase damage, etc... The actual "high ground advantage" is arbitrary. It doesn't actually matter what the high ground advantage is and it doesn't matter how weak or strong it is--if there is a tiny advantage to it people will use it both aggressively and defensively. For example: Lost Temple--cliff at the natural Delta Quadrant--cliff at the third/back expansion Shakuras Plateau--cliff at the natural third/tactically 4rth or 5th Shakuras was something considered tactically cool, Lost Temple was considered tactically unfair, Delta Quadrant was about 50/50 In the end they weren't that different from each other mechanically, nor were they even that different abstractly. Now, they had to be that way because that was the only time you had an advantage with them. The high ground in Tal Darim by the watch towers, for example, could easily be circumvented by the enemy units simply touching the base of the hill so as to reveal the high ground. The advantage disappeared immediately and hence was not strong enough to be abused. However, people still rallied over there since it had some level of advantage no matter how tiny--it was simply too subtle to be excited by (but it was still there regardless) The more polarized you make it, the sexier it will look. For example--marines splitting versus banelings equals sexy, stalkers splitting versus early game zealots is boring. Both mechanically the same but one is very much more volatile while the other is two high hitpoint units respectfully striking each other. So, taking the shakuras cliffs as an example, landing tanks up there to hit the Zerg 6th in a split base scenario was sexy--but not as sexy as a line of lurkers holding back a bio ball on Heartbreak Ridge. Both moves are tactically the same (put long range units on high ground located in the middle of the map), both moves are equally devastating (the lurkers maintain map control protecting all the bases behind it, stopping the Zerg 6th gives terran an economic advantage of a 6 base to 5 base split map scenario. But damn is Heartbreak Ridge sexier than Shakuras. However, despite variances in aesthetic value, they're really not all that different. However, with or without high ground advantage, the game state on shakuras can be done whether theres a miss chance on high ground or not, the same can't be said if Heartbreak Ridge is copied in SC2 (That's tal darim btw if you didn't notice) The stronger the height advantage, the more options map makes have. Currently the only visibly present option is putting a siege cliff on an expansion (Be it natural, third, fourth, etc...) If there was a height advantage other than vision limitations, then map makers can create the same tactical slugfests but with other terrain designs. The goal for the high ground advantage is not to create areas on the map where terrain can be abused--that's already present in SC2. The goal is for there to be more options of terrain abuse for players to play with. Terrain features that will create sexy play (like the Shakuras example) and not boring play (like the Tal Darim example). Yes, I know Lost Temple was imbalanced--but it was damn more entertaining than watching 3base turtle on Antiga. If the game has to be imbalanced to be entertaining than I'd rather have it be imbalanced. However, I think it's possible to make it both entertaining AND balanced. That is why terrain advantages are necessary. And I say terrain advantage very specifically. I don't care if its high ground with a miss chance or a "dense forest" that cloaks ground units or "heavy cloud cover" that cloaks air units or a permanent guardian shield area or a lava that kills units but does not block unit pathing so you have to micro manage your army in order to walk through the area safely. Or regional earthquakes that deselects units and removes their control groups, or heavy raindfall to slow walking units or rough terrain that slows wheeled units or quicksand, that stuns light units or whatever! The terrain feature does not actually matter--in the end it is arbitrary. And no matter what the terrain people will use it both offensively and defensively as needed. Adding high ground will not force more 3base turtle play--the only thing that causes that is 3base saturation being the cap in SC2. If mineral saturation was efficient at 5 bases then people will learn to turtle on 5 bases instead of 3. If mineral saturation was 7 bases then people will learn to turtle on 7 bases instead of 3. All terrain features do is allow for sexy play to happen. Whether it is allowing a smaller force to defend against a bigger force, or whether it allows a small force to efficiently damage a large base requiring a huge pull back of units to stop it from doing too much damage. Sexy play that pumps the audience will happen when they see a small force efficiently fighting a large force. Its always sexy and hence its always necessary. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On February 05 2013 13:13 Sated wrote: Another topic by Barrin on why SC2 should be BW. Just play BW. (Or SC2BW if graphics mean anything to you). All of Barrin's points could be argued without the BW examples. A highground advantage is just good for SC2. But, BW, WC3, and Dota provide good examples of why it works. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
I disagree with your zealotry on the subject, but I agree with the basic premise: map/terrain features that create INTERESTING effects and alter player control/unit dynamics would be a really cool thing to toy around with, and would open up a lot of creative pathways for mapmakers. I don't find high-ground miss chance particularly interesting, and disagree strongly with the elements of randomness it adds to any given engagement. Players on the low ground will choose to avoid disadvantageous positions when possible, and will have the battle be largely outside of their control when it isn't possible. Not much room for excitement there. I don't think SC2 needs that, either. I like your suggestions of cloak zones, slow zones and the like. Player-predictable and player-counterable in both directions given proper reaction time/preparation etc. I think there's plenty of potential for things like those to enhance the SC2 gameplay experience without introducing huge elements of chance. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On February 05 2013 13:13 Sated wrote: Another topic by Barrin on why SC2 should be BW. Just play BW. (Or SC2BW if graphics mean anything to you). this is such a backwards thinking(no offense, just to strongly point it out("play bw if you dont like sc2")) that it desont help make sc2 better and i think the reason is simple: keep what worked. if the new thing doesnt work, cant make it work, go back to the way it was. just briefly thinking, if bw style (unit visible upon firing) was present in sc2 lost temple, it could have worked. (further thinking, it could have created a cool spectacle: expert player can hit and load the thor before roaches can hit it in a instant) | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
| ||
