Is High Ground Only Defensive? - Page 5

On May 19 2015 06:06 Barrin wrote:

A bunker just outside of range of a natural hatchery is a microcosm of what I mean by "aggressive" or "forward" defensible position (which as you can see does not necessarily involve high ground). When some lings come by you put the marines/reapers into the bunker, which suddenly becomes "defensive" under your definition. But you're still bunker rushing.. surely a bunker rush is not purely defensive.

Or maybe a creep+queen/crawler contain/push (again not necessarily with high ground). Is making spine crawlers on the enemy's side of the map really defensive (the creep and lack of need for supply for attacking units[buildings] would be the "defenders advantage" equivalent of a high ground here btw)?

The thing about contains is that they can easily turn into pushes if the defender (person who's side of the map most of the units are on) does not keep up with production. Being forced to make production is distinctly a quality of a defender's position.

I'm not claiming that a high-ground-benefiting forward defensible position has no defensive qualities. I am simply asking if it is only defensive and asserting that it isn't.

Consider the fact that there is still the "reinforcement" defender's advantage for the person who's side of the map is being entrenched upon; by simply crossing the halfway point between your opponent's production/bases and your own production/bases gives him a production advantage -- giving your opponent a production advantage isn't exactly my idea of "defensive".

Also consider how much the person who sets up a forward defensible position has to spread his forces out. As the person being contained, you can bypass the contain with air / drops / nydus / warp gates, forcing the opponent to act. When attacking someone with air/drops/nydus/warp, is it your opponent in a more defensive when he has his army near your base or near his own base?

Again, I'm not really saying that high ground can ever be purely offensive (but Reverse Temple example comes close).. I am challenging the idea that it is always purely defensive.

To be super clear on my definitions, I agree I should have done that in the OP:

Attacker - Someone who moves most of his forces closer to the enemy's bases than his own bases.
Defender - Someone who has more enemy units [by value] on his side of the map than the opponent's side of the map [1v1].

On May 19 2015 14:06 BronzeKnee wrote:


So you've chosen the former of the two definitions I've laid out.

Therefore it seems to me that you're really seeking is an improvement in positional play, and you probably think that if the high ground is stronger, positional play will be stronger.

In that I agree that positional play needs to be stronger. But it has been ruined but a multitude of spells and huge maps, not because the high ground advantage isn't strong enough. I pointed out a long time ago during the HOTS Beta that a Siege Tank in the middle of the map could hit the ramps of both naturals on Steppes of War, but on today's maps its at least 2 screen lengths away from the ramps. These huge maps have destroyed positional play, and nerfed the Tank into oblivion far more than Blizzard ever could.

Even worse is the amount of spells that make positioning of little concern. Spells like Blinding Cloud, Force Field, Vortex, Abduct, ect. What is the point of taking the high ground and gaining some great advantage when a bunch of Vipers just cover it in Blinding Cloud. The point and click of the spell replaces the micro and thought required when gaining a positional advantage.

For those reasons I believe the solution is to make maps smaller and remove abilities that destroy positional advantages. Positional play was more valid when we didn't have the Viper in the game, and when maps were smaller. So let's go back, especially with the improved Tanks and Immortal changes and see what happens.

If that isn't enough, perhaps some changes to the high ground are warranted but you have to be exceedingly careful, as making the advantage too strong will force people down certain paths and control the strategy of the game.

On May 19 2015 06:43 Barrin wrote:
[...]
I would actually love it if like 4-7+ active mining bases were more viable/ideal (you get way too much income with this even in the Half Patch Model though) so that a "forward high ground defensible position" on YOUR side of the map was just strong enough to cover a certain area but could be bypassed even by ground. This is more like what combat and physical strategy is like in real life, btw.