|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Now, let me warn that this is just a collection of thoughts, not an actual suggestion. SC2 seems to have a LOT more "instant troop delivery systems" than SC ever had, so this could actually raise a serious gameplay issue. Why is it so important.
Inherent defender's advantage
Let's take SC1 and let's take PvP. Take a standard gate core build that almost everytime now includes zealots. What do people usually do with their first zeal in that case? Right, they send it to harass. Now, since it's a mirror, unit advatange is very crucial, but on the same time sending that zealot is perfectly safe. In fact, if it does minor economic damage (2 killed probes are enough to justify it's cost) and dies, it's actually a good thing because you are guaranteed to survive should he muster his force and attack back. That happens because of the defender's advantage - when someone sends his troops to attack, the defender will always have some extra units just because of the time the attacker spends walking. Space and time are linked.
Why is it important?
That's not a hard question - without it, any minor mistake is pretty much guaranteed to lose the game. But the defender's advantage does not make you lose the game - on fact, when you fuck up something, the only thing you lose is ground. Depending on the map and the actual disadvantage, that ground loss can be crucial, because you might have that expo you need to protect in the "contested ground" whereas your opponent has it in "home ground" and can protect it with impunity. However, in other cases, that ground loss can have little to no effect at all. It would somewhat limit your ability to position your army well, but that's it. That thing actually is directly responsible for all those "close" games where neither of the opponents seems to have a distinct advantage. They are quite thrilling to watch as well. Even though the results of fights seem to be somewhat random (even without control at all, 6 goons vs 6 goons will always have a winner), the ground advantage one side gains is being projected onto neutral ground that has little use. Having a larger portion of a huge field that has no chokes or expos won't win you a game on it's own. So, in such games, the power distribution fluctuates between players allowing each one a "second chance" so that the most skilled comes out on top.
A side-effect of this is that play should still be ground-based. Defender's advantage is largely negated for air units both due to their mobility and due to the fact that while territory still matters, it's shape doesn't. No chokes, no flank rooms, nothing, just air. SC2 at it's current form seems to have a heavy air focus which is imo wrong.
Dawn of War
It was a great game on paper. But watch any replay from the first patches and see how people play - yes, they first max out their squad cap, then go attack. The funny thing is that while squads are being produced at your base, units are being reinforced on field without any kind of tying to territory. So, if those armies clash and one of the players has to withdraw, he has actually almost lost at that point - nothing awaits him at his base because both players have been just reinforcing their squads. The force composition is entirely independent on the place the battle is fought on, so every little advantage carries on. The winner of the first battle usually proceeds on winning the game. DoW has been a rush-fest, and Relic proved to be totally helpless on addressing the subject - they just made tech even more attractive, so DoW's expansion had adopted a new model - rush to tier4 ASAP. Needless to say, situation has been only made worse. However, despite all their attempts, it was actually close to impossible to address that issue with that production model. Maps for DoW were also more of a decoration that a real factor. This is an example of how such a feature can bring down a good game.
Defender's advantage in SC2
Should be still there. However, I'm quite worried by the fact how many territory-independent production features are in the game - protoss warpgates, drop pods, nydus , thors built fast by SCV etc. I've no doubt that Blizzard also realizes this and they actually try to offset those features by adding disadvantages - i.e. warpgates can't just build everywhere and you need a nominal form of territory control in form of the phase prism, warped units are vulnerable etc, but I'm worried about how many ideas of this kind are being implemented. Take care Blizzard, this shit is a game-killer.
|
Drop pods are very high up in the tech tree. By the time you get them 6 marines are not going to be a "Game Killer". Sure they might be useful as some quick backup or to harass an expo but really they are not going to break the game. 6 marines die in a couple of siege tank blasts.
Also the phase prism warp in takes extra minerals balancing it out.
|
I think probably one of the best ideas to come out of Starcraft 1 was the idea of the push. The push made territory very important-supply lines could easily be cut and intercepted, and large amount of troops could be inhibited by smaller amounts if placed properly. Seeing how Blizzard is making the push far more attractive-for instance, as Terran, Thors and Tanks, Drop Pods, and the like-allow a player to reinforce a push with more ease than otherwise. Using the territory independent production won't win a person the game unless it's some sort of cheese.
I recall that in Dawn of War, the games I played usually involved some sort of large scale push down several alleys. I would often try to ambush the push by using the Webway Gates to surround an enemy force. At the same time, I would also drop pod enemy forces from the rear, which was a very effective way to crush an enemy push and force them to build anew.
I do agree, though, that territory-independent production should not be the main focus of a game.
Keep in mind the kind of Air Units we've seen so far though. We have three designated Anti-Air Aircraft-the Predator, the Phoenix, and the air version of the Viking. We have the Warp Ray, Carrier, Banshee, and Battlecruiser for Ground Attack purposes. Now, from what I've seen, the Banshee and Warp Ray, the long range ground attackers, are very vulnurable to small amounts of air-air craft. What's the counter to these? Ground units.
Also keep in mind what late game TvT looks like. Mass wraiths vs BCs. Air units are relatively late in the chain, and what they have in mobility they lack in durability and firepower that only ground units have. What would you rather have, 2 Wraiths at 300/200, or 2 Gol at 200/100?
|
This is a wonderful post. I hope that the defender's advantage due to the Doppler effect will still be a crucial part of game play in SC2.
|
Like I said many times before, all these new ways of circumventing terrain and distance hurts strategic army placement and trivializes map control.
|
5403 Posts
On September 24 2007 06:48 Jyvblamo wrote:
Like I said many times before, all these new ways of circumventing terrain and distance hurts strategic army placement and trivializes map control.
QFT
just look at c&c3. Black holes, paratroopers, nukes... sucky.
|
got to agree with you. Hope they find a way to balance it.
|
got to agree with you. Hope they find a way to balance it.
I agree.
p.s.
Damn it I've read your sig!!
|
Great points. It is integral for a game like StarCraft to keep the different areas, paths, and chokes of a map important for more reasons than just resources and rush speed.
I didn't play Dawn of War enough to experience the problem you're discussing, but I understood that the ability of a unit to make other units in the field drastically reduced the power of defense. The game was almost too fast paced for me.
I don't see SC2 committing these kinds of glaring mistakes yet, however. Building a Thor shouldn't be a huge issue if it's specialized enough, warping into pylon power doesn't look super easy, and since the Marine drop totally sucks (it adds nothing to the game) I'm hoping that it will be removed altogether. Basically, if Blizzard balances the game right by giving proper negatives to certain racial capabilities (instead of making them cheesy, all-bonus capabilities), there's no problem that I can see. 
|
I see it more as a creative option than something that would become necessary to win games, similar to reaver drops, you don't need them, but they can help. Just imagine sneak warping a dt into a zerg's expo and murdering all his drones. If it got scouted it'd be a waste of resources for the prism and dt, but if you get away with it. . .
|
I don't know how much I agree. It seems to be quite costly to circumvent terrain; drops cost more than usual and require that you use a ghost, which is a sub-par offensive unit (though snipe seems to compensate for this), and units that easily circumvent cliffs and the like aren't that common, and from what I've heard aren't terribly powerful, either.
Unlike the C&C series, too, you actually have to already have a presence somewhere to get units to a place. You can't pull them out of nowhere or drop them without risk; you have to have a phase prism ready, or you have to be able to see the top of the cliff to blink/jump, etc. etc. If the game goes for more than just a few real battles, then getting a fleet of dropships together would be cheaper than relying on drops or warp gates, right?
|
The thing about warp gate is that the idea that your opponent could use a phase prism or just plain build a pylon outside your base and start warping in units is rather scary.
However, consider this: warp gates must be transformed individually, cannot be selected in groups (like other production buildings can in SC2) and you must select where they warp to. So while on paper it seems like a deadly strat, it would be extremely APM intense. The defender, who presumably isn't warping in, will have the advantage of being able to select multiple buildings, micro better and not have to worry bout clicking back to the base constantly.
So I actually like this feature as it really rewards great players, imagine a macro monster like oov pumping in units with warp gate.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Woooya, warp gates can be group selected.
|
Warpgates and drop pods have more than the standart means of production, so you sacrifice economy to achieve greater mobility/map control, which rewards macro.
|
Excellent post. But lololol has a good point as well. I don't think territory independent production will ruin the game just being there, as long as it's a late tech option. However, I DO think they've got too many options.
Examining SC1:
Zerg: Nydus Canal - way up the tech tree, not to mention zerg units are relatively mobile, so it's mostly only used on large maps with obstructing terrain (Python) AFAIK.
Protoss: Recall - basically a big drop pod, expensive, and way up the tech tree as well
Terran: don't have anything like that
I think the reason these things are fine in SC1 is that they aren't so good that they must be used, and some games don't even last long enough for people to even consider getting them. SC2 seems to be moving these things to midgame though. Terran drop pods look to be about as high in tech as mutalisks are now. The phase prism will probably in the same tier, allowing psi coverage to warp gates. At this rate, we can assume Nydus worms to be a midgame option as well. Add to this the fact that each race will undoubtedly have a flying transport, and it could start to look ugly fast.
This could be okay, if it's not good enough to be a must-use option. If it's a must use, then what we'll see is this:
every game, regardless of race, and starting midgame, terrain becomes mostly irrelevant. Matchups will become way too linear, and devolve into rock/paper/scissors on a terrainless map.
Ways this can be addressed:
- push the option to late game tech, and (IMO) remove the ability from one (or two) race(s) altogether, or at least make it scarce for them.
- make it a somewhat risky expenditure as a midgame option. Basically, make it expensive enough to research to the point that getting it midgame leaves you without the necessary minerals to expand or contain, for example.
|
I think they are putting emphasis on mobility now that is why they are putting these in mid game. They want to encourage offense over turtling. he want you to be aggressive expander if need to be. They seem to be trying to solve stalemate problems especially in TvT
|
On September 24 2007 20:35 flabortaster wrote:
I think they are putting emphasis on mobility now that is why they are putting these in mid game. They want to encourage offense over turtling. he want you to be aggressive expander if need to be. They seem to be trying to solve stalemate problems especially in TvT
how often do you watch competitive BW?
there's only one match that comes to my mind when i think of a TRUE stalemate (Rock vs Chalrenge) and that was a PvP...what stalemates are you talking about? (i'm not flaming, i'm actually curious)
|
I watch alot. But you have to remeber SC2 is not your precious SC1 it's a new game that keeps in the spirit of the 1st but not making a carbon copy. There are many TvT stalemates. where tanks are positioned everywhere and Terran really have difficulty breaking through tank lines without having to risk their own fragile tanks. Terran don't really have anything in their arsenal to fight off other tanks. They rely on timing and positioning. I believe even the forum vets agree about TvT stalemates...
|
On September 24 2007 05:49 BluzMan wrote:
Dawn of War
It was a great game on paper. But watch any replay from the first patches and see how people play - yes, they first max out their squad cap, then go attack. The funny thing is that while squads are being produced at your base, units are being reinforced on field without any kind of tying to territory. So, if those armies clash and one of the players has to withdraw, he has actually almost lost at that point - nothing awaits him at his base because both players have been just reinforcing their squads. The force composition is entirely independent on the place the battle is fought on, so every little advantage carries on. The winner of the first battle usually proceeds on winning the game. DoW has been a rush-fest, and Relic proved to be totally helpless on addressing the subject - they just made tech even more attractive, so DoW's expansion had adopted a new model - rush to tier4 ASAP. Needless to say, situation has been only made worse. However, despite all their attempts, it was actually close to impossible to address that issue with that production model. Maps for DoW were also more of a decoration that a real factor. This is an example of how such a feature can bring down a good game.
Dude, recently I started playing DoW:DC again and I just can't agree with your statements here:
1. You speak of FIRST patches, not the most recent ones.
2. Maps in DoW aren't just a decoration, just check out how skilled players are using cover to their advantage, use units that can help them gain one (jump troopers on maps with strategic points that are hard to access)
3. You can't afford to reinforce all your units and still develop your tech.
4. Have you ever thought about giving units different upgrades to swing the course of battle to your favor?
5. There's been countless games that went back and forth for about 30-40 minutes without any player being able to deliver a killing blow to the enemy.
6. You CAN surprise your enemy there.
7. Defender has not much advantage because that's how this game is designed. No camping allowed, enemy will just take over the map and win by take and hold. And that's the best thing I have seen in RTSs so far: force people to be active from the beginning till the end of the game, give no quarter. It also requires a lot of multitasking at higher levels (capturing points, decapping enemy points, building, teching, reinforcing squads, throwing grenades/using skills in several battles at once etc. etc.).
You also ought to check the DoWPro mode. Guys that made it have changed the game completely by focusing on balancing it (units die faster, each built unit extends the build time of another one, tech tree is much more sophisticated etc.).
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
I never bothered to even buy DC (there are various reasons, but mostly because I tried it in an internet cafe after 10 games of BW and was disgusted with slow game speed), maybe the situation's changed. However, it's competetive peak was during the first patches (1.2-1.3) and that was the version played at WCG. Winter assault that followed was a total failure, you can't really argue that. It's not like DoW is a bad game, it was actually quite a refreshment for the dying genre, but it was nowhere nearly as good as SC. I played DowPro, it's earlier versions only dealt with balance issues. I must correct myself that there was a defender's advantage in DoW - upgrades listening posts gave increased income and a gun at the same time, but taking that listening post was entirely based on "who takes it first". In StarCraft, you think twice before expanding, in DoW, all resources on map are being taken in the first 3-5 minutes because where stuff is located doesn't mean shit.
I think they are putting emphasis on mobility now that is why they are putting these in mid game. They want to encourage offense over turtling. he want you to be aggressive expander if need to be. They seem to be trying to solve stalemate problems especially in TvT
That is funny because the game already encourages that. Neo-gen TvT is nowhere near turtling, just watch some recent games. (and yes, I don't give a complete damn about casual players that get away with sitting at their bases) The removal of defender's advantage doesn't encourage offense on itself, it encourages quick wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
