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
28451 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
Bisutopia19195 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
Germany1903 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. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 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. 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). | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
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. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On February 05 2013 01:34 Sawamura 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.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". | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
So yeah, I just can't see (with SC2's style of play) for it to make any difference. | ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On February 05 2013 02:05 Fyrewolf wrote: 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.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 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. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On February 05 2013 02:14 RampancyTW wrote: 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. | ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
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. | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
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. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
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: 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. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
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. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
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. | ||
|
jubil
United States2602 Posts
(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? | ||
|
Targe
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. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
NKB
United Kingdom608 Posts
| ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
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) | ||
|
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
Canada11310 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 States2404 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
| ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On February 05 2013 13:57 Sated wrote: They could, but Barrin never does. Barrin always uses BW. I wasn't commenting on the validity of the argument, just the way Barrin chooses to argue. I wonder why using brood war when talking about SC 2 makes so much sense. | ||
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
Can people realize that they're two different games, the mechanics of one game doesn't work in the either game all the time and this is one of those said mechanics. What is there to discuss about high ground though? The way the original post is read in my eyes is: Here's a bunch of pretty pics of maps in BW with no high ground, or little of it, and in my opinion it made the game good. But it makes SC2 good still, but people think it's promoting stale play. Why isn't SC2 following the path BW left it which promoted fun play? | ||
|
Unsane
Canada170 Posts
On February 05 2013 14:06 MonkSEA wrote: Comparing BW and it's maps to SC2 and it's maps is like comparing CoD maps with the DOTA maps. This is a terrible analogy, considering probably 90% of BW switched to SC2 on day 1 and therefore that is where the meta game started at. They are not only in the same genre but the commonalities between BW and SC2 (ignoring the fact one is literally the next installment of the previous) are HUGE. The commonalities between CoD and DOTA are almost non existent. They may be different games, sure, but the community is quite vastly shared. Unlike dota and CoD where the community has no overlap. I could go on all day about this. | ||
|
KillingVector
United States96 Posts
On February 05 2013 14:06 MonkSEA wrote: Comparing BW and it's maps to SC2 and it's maps is like comparing CoD maps with the DOTA maps. Can people realize that they're two different games, the mechanics of one game doesn't work in the either game all the time and this is one of those said mechanics. What is there to discuss about high ground though? The way the original post is read in my eyes is: Here's a bunch of pretty pics of maps in BW with no high ground, or little of it, and in my opinion it made the game good. But it makes SC2 good still, but people think it's promoting stale play. Why isn't SC2 following the path BW left it which promoted fun play? Why does high ground advantage not work in Sc2? Its more of a general concept that effects strategic choices. I can't think of one unit that is suddenly "broken" by it. I think Barrin is right that most people's concerns are fixed by intelligent map design (this includes resource distribution). @ Thieving Magpie I also think different terrain effects are interesting and something that could be looked at. Someone made a thread about it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=395256 Realistically, this seems like the avenue that map makers will have to explore, because I really don't believe that Blizzard will ever change their stance on high ground advantage. Even if they did, the starting "Blizzard" maps ladder pool is sure to implement it very poorly. | ||
|
Magicferret
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11310 Posts
However here goes nothing. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TK627q6.jpg) Things to notice. 1) Mains and natural are not on high ground. Instead they are walled. And really that is all SC2's so-called 'high ground advantage'. It is mostly a wall advantage, not a high ground advantage. 2) The high ground in the centre of the map are not tight chokes, but massive ridges one quarter the height of the map. These are not impassable chokes that will bog down the flow of the game. However they will give the one attacking up the ridge some reason for caution. When early game pressure is met by a force pushing back, these ridges will allow something like dragoons to fall back in a fighting retreat, regathering on top of each ridge to slow down the counter-push just a little bit longer so reinforcements can be replenished at home. Each of those ridges becomes a potential battle site where players will choose to take a stand or fire a few shots and retreat. As for offence. Let's say Blue is our intrepid Terran mech that has set up with Tanks and mines. It is not impossible to bust through (not a constrictive choke.) But it will make it harder to bust through. Therefore Red will not wish to give up the Ridges and fight to keep them from falling into Blue's hands. And when they do, they must decide the cost of a frontal attack vs trying some alternate routes. By gaining the ridge, the Terran's positional army is accomplishing multiple offensive goals. If the Red has not yet expanded, Blue effectively shuts down expansions along that path. If Red had expanded there, Blue has now cuts off Red's reinforcing armies, and threatens multiple areas. Perhaps Blue can cut down one of the expansions. At the very least, it should help raiders get in easier and Red's new armies are split. Any of those ridges can accomplish similar offensive threats depending on where players have decided to expand. The point isn't that SC2 doesn't have this sort of decision making. Rather, high ground advantage is something that can be wielded by map-makers to promote even more of this sort of decision-making. And that it helps both offensive and defensive strategies. At the very least it gives map-makers more things to work with. As a side note, this is also an example of how Rocks/ Temples SHOULD be used. *cough* Browder *cough* (Bottom left and top right.) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
That's a beautiful post. Nice. | ||
|
Unsane
Canada170 Posts
On February 05 2013 14:17 KillingVector wrote: Why does high ground advantage not work in Sc2? Its more of a general concept that effects strategic choices. I can't think of one unit that is suddenly "broken" by it. I think Barrin is right that most people's concerns are fixed by intelligent map design (this includes resource distribution). I feel like my tanks only use cliffs to prevent units from getting close to them: -I can put them at the cliff when against lings. -I can put them almost at the cliff when against roaches and locusts. -I can put them about five hexes from the ledge against stalkers hydras and marauders. The more tanks I have the more i can ignore this because....tanks.... with the following secondary constraints: -When shooting down cliffs air sight is not needed. -When shooting up cliffs air sight is needed. The more vikings i have the more i can make sure i have air sight Yeesh, mighty fine deathball logic we've got there...I wonder why some people don't like having no defenders advantage. Defenders advantage promotes positional play which indirectly combats deathballing. This could be a ridge in the middle of the map, people need to get over the concept that defenders advantage is only for defending mains and naturals. If i have to wait for 200/200 as mech to move out isn't that bad? Isnt that the epitome of turtling and deathballing, all in one composition? When map control can change in an instant because the map is bad and/or there is no defenders advantage, and the loss in map control puts any base after your 3rd in jeopardy because deathball play rather than positional play is being promoted, isn't that bad? Doesn't that promote 3 base (or 2, whatever the map is suggesting) play? Where we repeat that process so many times because the map pool is all essentially the same, the imba strat surfaces and dominates the whole map pool, isn't that bad? "I have to win on 3 bases or i lose because a 4th isn't an option; its not holdable". Isn't that bad? People complain about stale play, but what about seeing the same build again and again on every map? How is that not stale? In BW i could take a hold a ridge with 2 tanks as long as it wasn't already occupied. This ridge could have varying importance depending on the map, perhaps a resource node lies behind it, perhaps its your 3rd, perhaps it covers the main attack path. I only needed a tank count of 6 to potentially hold my main/nat and 3rd on fighting spirit. I could move out into the middle of the map sooner, but it depended on the map. Sometimes it was most favourable for me, (based on tankcount, opponent's composition, map) to position myself outside of his 4th? People seem to whine most about deathballs and turtling. Having defender's advantage changes the value of both turtling and deathballing. Sure, my main might be more difficult take to storm, but perhaps a reduction in how much minerals are available at each node would compensate. Lets say 1200 minerals per patch and 2000 gas per geyser, the nodes would expire faster and turtling would be less effective without effecting early game balance. Say it was reduced enough that maxing was difficult with higher tier units with only a main and natural. The 4 base zerg would beat the 2 base terran each time. He'd still be able to get out 'X unit' for your 'Y unit' push, but if that defenders advantage frightens you too much when you do go to attack, then take another base, he is giving you the map, and therefore a defensible location somewhere nearby, say at his 3rd that he'll have to take eventually, lest he run out of minerals in his main and natural. It would only effect mid and late game, if turtling was effective then a player need only expand with the map control given away by the turtling. It would reduce the value of a hidden expansions too, there are only so many 'hidden' nodes available. Edit: On February 05 2013 14:54 Falling wrote: + Show Spoiler + Probably shouldn't bother as no proper argument has been mounted beyond 'stop using BW examples.' However here goes nothing. Things to notice. 1) Mains and natural are not on high ground. Instead they are walled. And really that is all SC2's so-called 'high ground advantage'. It is mostly a wall advantage, not a high ground advantage. 2) The high ground in the centre of the map are not tight chokes, but massive ridges one quarter the height of the map. These are not impassable chokes that will bog down the flow of the game. However they will give the one attacking up the ridge some reason for caution. When early game pressure is met by a force pushing back, these ridges will allow something like dragoons to fall back in a fighting retreat, regathering on top of each ridge to slow down the counter-push just a little bit longer so reinforcements can be replenished at home. Each of those ridges becomes a potential battle site where players will choose to take a stand or fire a few shots and retreat. As for offence. Let's say Blue is our intrepid Terran mech that has set up with Tanks and mines. It is not impossible to bust through (not a constrictive choke.) But it will make it harder to bust through. Therefore Red will not wish to give up the Ridges and fight to keep them from falling into Blue's hands. And when they do, they must decide the cost of a frontal attack vs trying some alternate routes. By gaining the ridge, the Terran's positional army is accomplishing multiple offensive goals. If the Red has not yet expanded, Blue effectively shuts down expansions along that path. If Red had expanded there, Blue has now cuts off Red's reinforcing armies, and threatens multiple areas. Perhaps Blue can cut down one of the expansions. At the very least, it should help raiders get in easier and Red's new armies are split. Any of those ridges can accomplish similar offensive threats depending on where players have decided to expand. The point isn't that SC2 doesn't have this sort of decision making. Rather, high ground advantage is something that can be wielded by map-makers to promote even more of this sort of decision-making. And that it helps both offensive and defensive strategies. At the very least it gives map-makers more things to work with. As a side note, this is also an example of how Rocks/ Temples SHOULD be used. *cough* Browder *cough* (Bottom left and top right.) Mains dont have to be high ground, i did not even consider this... Edit2: Thinking about this further, ATM the maps that have had equal ground attack lead ups are considered strong for one base pushes (4gate on taldarim, for example), BW static defense was very strong and helped compensate for any lack of high ground used at the main/nat. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
NasusAndDraven
359 Posts
On May 15 2015 21:25 Barrin wrote: Getting tired of people thinking High Ground is for defensive purposes only. Nice bump m8. But you know not all of us (not most of us) actually played broodwar. Atleast to a sense that we would have a good understanding of strategy. So how about explaining it in a way that does not require understanding of other games than SC2? EDIT: Also I think this is the problem with most map makers. They think that its ok to use offensive high grounds or easy access backdoor rocks to main or anything like that, if they can make the map "balanced" by tweaking the other parts of the maps accordingly. Also they focus way too much on making the game a good spectator sport. Even if there are 200 000 people viewing a game that is exiting because someone is abusing a highground cliff next to the other players third, its a problem if that 1 player finds it fucking annoying and something that should not be part of the game. The player will cry about it, and it will affect the whole community. I dont know if a articulated my thoughts well enough, but the point is that if you get "tired of people thinking X map feature", maybe you should think that the customer is always right, and they are the customers at this point. Like if you studied cooking for 40 years, you should still rather prepare a dish that the customer likes, instead of what you think is better. Dont theorize what is actually better, but instead do what you are asked to do, be innovative in ways that dont bother the customer. | ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
On February 05 2013 14:54 Falling wrote: Probably shouldn't bother as no proper argument has been mounted beyond 'stop using BW examples.' However here goes nothing. Things to notice. 1) Mains and natural are not on high ground. Instead they are walled. And really that is all SC2's so-called 'high ground advantage'. It is mostly a wall advantage, not a high ground advantage. 2) The high ground in the centre of the map are not tight chokes, but massive ridges one quarter the height of the map. These are not impassable chokes that will bog down the flow of the game. However they will give the one attacking up the ridge some reason for caution. When early game pressure is met by a force pushing back, these ridges will allow something like dragoons to fall back in a fighting retreat, regathering on top of each ridge to slow down the counter-push just a little bit longer so reinforcements can be replenished at home. Each of those ridges becomes a potential battle site where players will choose to take a stand or fire a few shots and retreat. As for offence. Let's say Blue is our intrepid Terran mech that has set up with Tanks and mines. It is not impossible to bust through (not a constrictive choke.) But it will make it harder to bust through. Therefore Red will not wish to give up the Ridges and fight to keep them from falling into Blue's hands. And when they do, they must decide the cost of a frontal attack vs trying some alternate routes. By gaining the ridge, the Terran's positional army is accomplishing multiple offensive goals. If the Red has not yet expanded, Blue effectively shuts down expansions along that path. If Red had expanded there, Blue has now cuts off Red's reinforcing armies, and threatens multiple areas. Perhaps Blue can cut down one of the expansions. At the very least, it should help raiders get in easier and Red's new armies are split. Any of those ridges can accomplish similar offensive threats depending on where players have decided to expand. The point isn't that SC2 doesn't have this sort of decision making. Rather, high ground advantage is something that can be wielded by map-makers to promote even more of this sort of decision-making. And that it helps both offensive and defensive strategies. At the very least it gives map-makers more things to work with. As a side note, this is also an example of how Rocks/ Temples SHOULD be used. *cough* Browder *cough* (Bottom left and top right.) Great post. "Each of those ridges becomes a potential battle site", so very true. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3338 Posts
But with Watch Towers, with Mothership Core, Overseer, Medivacs, Air battle units and even Colossus, it almost diminishes the High Ground advantage. They added Gold Bases, Watch Towers for more reasons to venture out on the map and grab map control, but funnily enough the removed High Ground combat advantage, did just that. I never liked the %miss that BW had, even though there's Pseudo random systems, I don't think it fits Starcraft. Instead I really like the idea of +1 armour for high ground, or +1 range for shooting down, or -1 range for shooting up. It makes sense from a bullets perspective, with lazers maybe not, but yeah. | ||
|
Obsi
87 Posts
On May 15 2015 21:25 Barrin wrote: Getting tired of people thinking High Ground is for defensive purposes only. You just confirmed the quality of this thread and your OP, congratz. The polls and questions asked are flawed. Different maps with high grounds in different positions would create more variety in strategy for sure. But variety for variety's sake is not good. If you want some bullshit strats and good ol' 2010 balance back, sure let's make highground advantage an attackers thing. Have fun zergs holding any Protoss/Siege Tank push/allin. And the poll thing: Would switching elephants in for politicians lead to more variety in decisions? Yes. Whereas the question should be, whether it would be a GOOD thing. Also: NasusAndDravens points are all really good. I guess many mapmakers just don't play the game anymore but still think they know what is fun to play (on). | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
On May 15 2015 21:31 NasusAndDraven wrote: Nice bump m8. But you know not all of us (not most of us) actually played broodwar. Atleast to a sense that we would have a good understanding of strategy. So how about explaining it in a way that does not require understanding of other games than SC2? EDIT: Also I think this is the problem with most map makers. They think that its ok to use offensive high grounds or easy access backdoor rocks to main or anything like that, if they can make the map "balanced" by tweaking the other parts of the maps accordingly. Also they focus way too much on making the game a good spectator sport. Even if there are 200 000 people viewing a game that is exiting because someone is abusing a highground cliff next to the other players third, its a problem if that 1 player finds it fucking annoying and something that should not be part of the game. The player will cry about it, and it will affect the whole community. I dont know if a articulated my thoughts well enough, but the point is that if you get "tired of people thinking X map feature", maybe you should think that the customer is always right, and they are the customers at this point. Like if you studied cooking for 40 years, you should still rather prepare a dish that the customer likes, instead of what you think is better. Dont theorize what is actually better, but instead do what you are asked to do, be innovative in ways that dont bother the customer. Every single map maker in the community is able to make standard ladder-worthy maps 24/7/365. We don't do it because it's boring to do the same thing over and over again. The players are supposed to adapt their strategy to every map. People are too much used to whine about everything but there are some cases, like games, where the interesting and fun part is to use the brain and go beyond your comfort zone. This is a real time strategy game, not a brain-dead 200/200 macro simulator. People in sc2 community complain that we make only standard on industrial scale. When we create maps with unusual features, people are angry. This is a neverending whining. This is why i stopped caring about the whining and work only on experimental maps. The most standard maps win in tlmc and my bet is that the winner of tlmc6 will be the most standard one from the pool. You can vote right now to have an unusual map in the ladder map pool so vote for these maps. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5214 Posts
On February 04 2013 23:59 Barrin wrote: Is High Ground only Defensive? ...Let me take a stab at this since you didn't spell out definitions, and therefore your argument has some holes. If person holding the high ground always has the advantage in battle, then it is advantageous to hold the high ground. If by attacking one must leave the high ground, then it is only useful for the defender. The vast majority of examples of high ground usage in SC2 are ones where someone traps someone else and forces them to attack the high ground. They trap them by being aggressive and taking map control. But that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't the defender, since the trapped player must attack into them to break out. The best strategy in any strategy game and indeed war itself is to force your opponent to attack into you. You always want to fight where you have the advantage, and because of the idea of the "defenders" advantage, you always want to be defending. So, you really need to spell out the definitions of defender or attacker. Let's revisit Terran drop play on Lost Temple during the early WOL days. Let's say a Terran player drops and puts Siege Tanks on the high ground near my natural. I move out to expand and suddenly my Probe explodes. Now if I want to expand to my natural, I have to attack to get him off the high ground. Therefore, he is the defender right? Yet that drop was considered an offensive play. And therein lies the problem. Are you taking about the defender more generally as someone having a playstyle where they don't cross over the mid-line of the map (turtle play)? Or are you talking about the defender as being the person who doesn't initiate combat in a specific instance (the attacker initiates the battle)? Those are two very different definitions, and using my example above on Lost Temple, I may be playing a turtle style and be the "defender" yet I have to initiate combat (attack) to get those Siege Tanks off the high ground. So I could be considered both the attacker and defender at once. Either way, we know is that my opponent executed a good strategy because he is forcing me to attack into him. So it is pretty easy to argue successfully that the high ground is something that only benefits the defender if we take the latter definition. And with both those definitions in mind, we can see the potential problems and benefits of implementing stronger high ground advantage. | ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
On May 19 2015 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote: Well you didn't exactly spell out definitions, so your argument is pretty easy to trash. If person holding the high ground always has the advantage in battle, then it is advantageous to hold the high ground. If by attacking one must leave the high ground, then it is only useful for the defender. The vast majority of examples of high ground usage in SC2 are ones where someone traps someone else and forces them to attack the high ground. They trap them by being aggressive and taking map control. But that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't the defender. You really need to spell out the definitions of defender or attacker. Let's revisit Terran drop play on Lost Temple during the early WOL days. Let's say a Terran player drops and puts Siege Tanks on the high ground near my natural. I move out to expand and suddenly my Probe explodes. Yet that drop was considered an offensive play. But if I want to expand, I have to attack and get him off the high ground. Therefore, he is the defender. Thanks for your post ... reading through the thread I was constantly wondering "how the hell should you be offensive by HOLDING a position". To nurture this thread with some definitions: + Show Spoiler + Wikipedia.com - Definition "offensive (military)" An offensive is a military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal. Another term for an offensive often used by the media is 'invasion', or the more general 'attack'.[...] DISCLAIMER: I know it is the definition for the noun "offensive". But I hope it makes my point clearer. Going by this definition you can never be offensive by holding a position. You did your aggression/offensive to get to that position. You either put more immediate pressure onto your opponent or less, depending on the position but not necessarily the "highground". What - I guess - Barrin tried to say is that by adjusting the mechanics (to get a bigger advantage off of high-grounds) you have more strategical options for the position or more positional option for strategies. Highgrounds can and never will be "offensive". That brings me to the next point. A highground is an advantage. It doesn't matter if it has miss-chance, non-vision or whatever effect. By adding effects you just make the advantage bigger or smaller. Now here is where a lot of people would start to argue if it creates stale-plays, more predictable outcomes etc. But I say; still the wrong point to discuss. Before you start to adjust anything you should first elaborate on the concept of advantages in a RTS. And since it is a map-artifact; also about the positioning of said advantages. Lost Temple was not bad because of a certain highground mechanic. It was bad because the highground was positioned in a way that especially Zergs had no answer to it. We could have had 50% miss-chance for the highground-defender and it would still have been imbalanced. Same goes for BW. That BW had maps which created exciting play around highgrounds was not necessarily due to the fact of the highground mechanic but because of several game-mechanics benefiting from it. Well .... I don't have an opinion about it because I think it is a way too complex mechanic to just theorycraft about. I would rather leave it as it is and put my thought-work into general map-design and general game-mechanics. edit: Some thought-food; the principle of "high-ground"-Mainbase. Is there a map-design that can implement a low-ground base without being abnormally abused by Blink? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
NasusAndDraven
359 Posts
On May 19 2015 00:57 Superouman wrote: Every single map maker in the community is able to make standard ladder-worthy maps 24/7/365. Depends how you define "ladder-worthy". Does that mean the map has to be better than slag pits? Or does it mean that you need to create another map as good as cloud kingdom, AKA the best map ever? You can make really stand out maps without gimmicks. Now I am not saying that you should never use gimmicks. But how about not using gimmicks that are widely hated by the community like backdoor rocks, abuse able gold bases, or if we want to stay on topic, offensive high grounds, just because you think it works for the map? | ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
On May 19 2015 03:04 Barrin wrote (spoilerd the img): The closer a held position is to your opponent the easier it is to attack him, therefore the more aggressive it is. It's less about the actual aggression, granted, but the threat of it is still offensive. You are forcing your opponent to defend his side of the map (whether or not he has claimed it yet) with this threat of aggression. Denying your opponent the ability to move out on the map to scout or take expansions is essentially aggressive, regardless of whether or not there is an actual engagement. Dead things don't do damage, but there is more to concept of "the best defense is a great offense". A position is aggressive simply by being closer to your opponent's bases than your own bases. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/thumb/e/ef/ReverseTemple.jpg/600px-ReverseTemple.jpg) I see where you are coming from, but I have a hard time seeing how having roughly equal forces above your enemy's main on Reverse Temple is anything but aggressive. To be clear, once you have crossed into the enemy's side of the map (see Influence of the Map Analyzer and Circle Syndrome for more information on how to decide this, but it's exactly what you think it is) you are the attacker. You are never the attacker whenever your forces are on "your" side of the map, you are always the defender when your opponent moves his forces on "your" side of the map. This is how I define these terms. This is really just semantics btw, the effects are the same. Are you saying that high ground is only defensive? This is less about semantics, more about the essence of the debate you want to drive forward. I kinda allready wrote what you did. The closer you are to certain points of interest the more aggressive the position is. The contrary to defending is attacking. A position that is held/fortified is by that definition always defended. Now can a defended position be aggressive? I would say; nay. Either you are launching an attack, or are defending. To launch an attack you obviously need to move out. Can highgrounds be aggressive? If they are part of an attack. Are they offensive? Well ... a position is, not the highground. Not a highground is an agressor, nor does a highground make a position offensive. It is the position itself that is either offensive or defensive (proximity to opponent, cutting routes etc.). The highground can just enable a position that without the highground would be hard to defend(/easy to take) to be defendable again. And well a highground can be abused for an attackers advantage. Then again you are defending the position. So coming back to your question "Are you saying that high ground is only defensive?": No. Defending a position is defensive. Depending on strategic impact of defending the position you can put on pressure on your opponent. We can now debate about the lingustic meaning of "defensive" in different scenarios, but that would be missing the point. And again, I am not the one to ask for an opinion wether it is good for SC2 to change the current mechanic. I just want to help to clear some mist. edit: lots of editseses. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
Tbh wether a unit is on the highground or not doesnt change any interaction. It would be the same as if the terrain would be flat. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
Has anyone in the mapping community received feedback on this issue recently? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5214 Posts
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]. 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 by 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. | ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
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. I really want to highlight what bronzeknee stated: "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." This is what Í (and I guess also BronzeKnee) was hinting at. Does a debate about highground solve the issue of meaningless positional play? I don't think so and can just applaud to BronzeKnee for speaking my mind  On May 19 2015 06:43 Barrin wrote: This is getting way closer to the core problem than highgrounds imo. As you maybe noticed I way very careful with defining "strategic positions" because in SC2 there are essentially only 3 types: [...] 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. - Cut the supply route to a "far" off base (4th or 5th). - Pressure your opponent by claiming a good position right infront of his bases. - Hold watchtowers. The first of those does not even happen often and most of the times results in a quick a-click on the main building and MAYBE idle there to keep it from being retaken. With more spread bases (BW'ish style of expanding) you would naturally have way more strategic positions and by that positional play. | ||
|
wakitakiviewdue
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
| ||
