|
According to the infographics: https://preview.redd.it/rsq9vm9ywmba1.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=dbf915dc5796a09c42dd69652ac23cbe1a53ba61
There are three safe overlord pillars on Altitude. However, no matter where I put the overlords, my opponent is able to see them from the lowground (no scans, vikings etc). I am not the only person who has had this problem-others in various discord servers as well as GM zerg players on twitch have had this problem too..
Here's a picture of overlord placement where the opponent can still see overlords: https://imgur.com/a/NLsR0wC
Even if there is a supposed spot the overlords can be safe, this is poor design and needs to be fixed. Imagine making a map where protoss has to be single-pixel perfect in order to wall off, lest be overrun with zerglings. This is not good game design-overlord pillars have never and should never require such precision (if these pillars are even functional at all). No disrespect to the map creator-it simply needs a fix.
|
|
|
On March 02 2023 06:06 sidasf wrote:
Imagine making a map where protoss has to be single-pixel perfect in order to wall off, lest be overrun with zerglings. This is not good game design
This part is meant as a self aware joke hopefully? Lmao
My response to the overall post is that it's a good thing. Not every map should have a pervert pillar and it's dumb that it has been a thing for so long on literally every map even when Zerg was dominating. At least half the maps in each pool should not have one.
|
France12762 Posts
It’s pretty great if zergs don’t have free overlord spots, in my humble opinion. Not sure why people thought you are supposed to get this in every map.
|
I think there are two separate issues here. (i) whether overlord pillars are good design, and (ii) that the map advertises pillars but may actually not have pillars. I think the OP confounding the two focuses discussion on point (i) when point (ii) should be a pretty cut-and-dry question to answer and to fix: if pillars are advertised but are effectively absent due to difficulty of use, then they should probably be made larger. The map was voted into the pool assuming there would be pillars.
As for (i), well, that's a whole can of worms. I think Altitude already has done an interesting job with the pillars by putting them in the middle of the map rather than over the natural for what it's worth.
|
On March 02 2023 06:28 JJH777 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2023 06:06 sidasf wrote:
Imagine making a map where protoss has to be single-pixel perfect in order to wall off, lest be overrun with zerglings. This is not good game design This part is meant as a self aware joke hopefully? Lmao My response to the overall post is that it's a good thing. Not every map should have a pervert pillar and it's dumb that it has been a thing for so long on literally every map even when Zerg was dominating. At least half the maps in each pool should not have one.
In case you aren't aware, protoss needs to work with the grid squares in order to wall off successfully. Each square is atleast 100 pixels or so. There is a margin of error of about 100 pixels. Now that you know this, you can understand how it's relatively easy to successfully wall of with protoss, and how requiring them to be actually pixel perfect in order to wall off would be terrible game design.
I'm not going to be drawn into an argument with you whining about balance with Zerg when the fact is that every map in recent history has overlord pillars. Some have more, and some (like Altitude) have less, and that's fine.
The problem is that these platforms are clearly intended to be safe spots for overlords, but there is a problem with the design requiring them to be dead on at a specific pixel in order to work. It's likely unintended behavior and should be fixed.
On March 02 2023 06:59 yubo56 wrote:
I think there are two separate issues here. (i) whether overlord pillars are good design, and (ii) that the map advertises pillars but may actually not have pillars. I think the OP confounding the two focuses discussion on point (i) when point (ii) should be a pretty cut-and-dry question to answer and to fix: if pillars are advertised but are effectively absent due to difficulty of use, then they should probably be made larger. The map was voted into the pool assuming there would be pillars.
As for (i), well, that's a whole can of worms. I think Altitude already has done an interesting job with the pillars by putting them in the middle of the map rather than over the natural for what it's worth.
Yes, the issue at hand is (ii). The map advertises pillars but they do not function as any proper highground pillar should work. This is not a balance issue, it's simple a map design issue.
|
On March 02 2023 07:07 sidasf wrote:
In case you aren't aware, protoss needs to work with the grid squares in order to wall off successfully. Each square is atleast 100 pixels or so. There is a margin of error of about 100 pixels. Now that you know this, you can understand how it's relatively easy to successfully wall of with protoss, and how requiring them to be actually pixel perfect in order to wall off would be terrible game design.
That only applies to the buildings. Adept placement in the hex between 2 buildings is very much a 1 pixel off and you're dead vs ling flood situation. As evidenced by Trap dying to that exact situation even when he was the best Protoss and likely overall player in the world.
|
On March 02 2023 07:12 JJH777 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2023 07:07 sidasf wrote:
In case you aren't aware, protoss needs to work with the grid squares in order to wall off successfully. Each square is atleast 100 pixels or so. There is a margin of error of about 100 pixels. Now that you know this, you can understand how it's relatively easy to successfully wall of with protoss, and how requiring them to be actually pixel perfect in order to wall off would be terrible game design.
That only applies to the buildings. Adept placement in the hex between 2 buildings is very much a 1 pixel off and you're dead vs ling flood situation. As evidenced by Trap dying to that exact situation even when he was the best Protoss and likely overall player in the world.
A quick run on a test map or the unit tester proves this statement to be false. Not only that, you've already moved the goalposts when the original discussion was about creating a 1 square wall off with buildings. We can complain about how putting a queen too far back between two evo chambers lets zerglings flood in, or too far in front lets her take a bunch of damage and die. That's simply a function of the way unit models work in the game and has been standard for over ten years. If you have a balance problem with that, I encourage you to make your own thread about it. This is not a discussion of balance, it's a discussion of a feature of a map in the pool that needs to be fixed.
Every map allows protoss to make a wall with 3 buildings or less, and every map allows terran to wall off their main base with 2 depots and a barracks. Every map has pillars for zerg. As someone who plays all three races, to see something that messes with any of these mechanisms is unfun and uncompetitive. They are standard for a reason. In this case, it's also unintended.
Altitude has very few overlord pillars, and that's fine-what's not okay is these pillars functioning in a matter akin to a map that suddenly requires protoss to make unprecedented changes to make their building wall.
What we have here is an anomaly, most likely unintended. There have been other unintended functions of maps that have been fixed in rollouts.
If anybody knows, if there is a better platform to contact the devs on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
|
On March 02 2023 08:21 sidasf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2023 07:12 JJH777 wrote:On March 02 2023 07:07 sidasf wrote:
In case you aren't aware, protoss needs to work with the grid squares in order to wall off successfully. Each square is atleast 100 pixels or so. There is a margin of error of about 100 pixels. Now that you know this, you can understand how it's relatively easy to successfully wall of with protoss, and how requiring them to be actually pixel perfect in order to wall off would be terrible game design.
That only applies to the buildings. Adept placement in the hex between 2 buildings is very much a 1 pixel off and you're dead vs ling flood situation. As evidenced by Trap dying to that exact situation even when he was the best Protoss and likely overall player in the world. A quick run on a test map or the unit tester proves this statement to be false. Not only that, you've already moved the goalposts when the original discussion was about creating a 1 square wall off with buildings. We can complain about how putting a queen too far back between two evo chambers lets zerglings flood in, or too far in front lets her take a bunch of damage and die. That's simply a function of the way unit models work in the game and has been standard for over ten years. If you have a balance problem with that, I encourage you to make your own thread about it. This is not a discussion of balance, it's a discussion of a feature of a map in the pool that needs to be fixed. Every map allows protoss to make a wall with 3 buildings or less, and every map allows terran to wall off their main base with 2 depots and a barracks. Every map has pillars for zerg. As someone who plays all three races, to see something that messes with any of these mechanisms is unfun and uncompetitive. They are standard for a reason. In this case, it's also unintended. Altitude has very few overlord pillars, and that's fine-what's not okay is these pillars functioning in a matter akin to a map that suddenly requires protoss to make unprecedented changes to make their building wall. What we have here is an anomaly, most likely unintended. There have been other unintended functions of maps that have been fixed in rollouts. If anybody knows, if there is a better platform to contact the devs on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
My post never had anything to do with building walling so I'm not moving goal posts at all. Units are part of Protoss walls. Many posts have been made about the situation I'm describing and comparing it to walling with a queen in ZvZ shows you have no idea what I'm talking about. It's a specific issue with adepts due to their building collision settings being smaller than most other units which causes them to require extremely precise placement that even pros frequently get wrong. It 100% looks like a surefire wall and will work vs a move or a single right click but spam clicking from the Zerg will cause lings to squeeze by. Countless Toss have lost games this way even at the professional level and it is inconsistent with how other units wall.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On March 02 2023 08:21 sidasf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2023 07:12 JJH777 wrote:On March 02 2023 07:07 sidasf wrote:
In case you aren't aware, protoss needs to work with the grid squares in order to wall off successfully. Each square is atleast 100 pixels or so. There is a margin of error of about 100 pixels. Now that you know this, you can understand how it's relatively easy to successfully wall of with protoss, and how requiring them to be actually pixel perfect in order to wall off would be terrible game design.
That only applies to the buildings. Adept placement in the hex between 2 buildings is very much a 1 pixel off and you're dead vs ling flood situation. As evidenced by Trap dying to that exact situation even when he was the best Protoss and likely overall player in the world. A quick run on a test map or the unit tester proves this statement to be false. Not only that, you've already moved the goalposts when the original discussion was about creating a 1 square wall off with buildings. We can complain about how putting a queen too far back between two evo chambers lets zerglings flood in, or too far in front lets her take a bunch of damage and die. That's simply a function of the way unit models work in the game and has been standard for over ten years. If you have a balance problem with that, I encourage you to make your own thread about it. This is not a discussion of balance, it's a discussion of a feature of a map in the pool that needs to be fixed. Every map allows protoss to make a wall with 3 buildings or less, and every map allows terran to wall off their main base with 2 depots and a barracks. Every map has pillars for zerg. As someone who plays all three races, to see something that messes with any of these mechanisms is unfun and uncompetitive. They are standard for a reason. In this case, it's also unintended. Altitude has very few overlord pillars, and that's fine-what's not okay is these pillars functioning in a matter akin to a map that suddenly requires protoss to make unprecedented changes to make their building wall. What we have here is an anomaly, most likely unintended. There have been other unintended functions of maps that have been fixed in rollouts. If anybody knows, if there is a better platform to contact the devs on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Take a look at this so you become aware that yes, you actually need to be pixel perfect to wall, else lings can get in if you move them (not a+move) and push the adept even if it's in hold position.
https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/604131-balance-patch-5011-ptr-patch-notes?page=28#543
In any case, If a Map is supposed to have overlord pillars, then yes it should work correctly. There is a disrcord for mapmakers maybe you can contact someone there?
Thoguh I also agree there shouldn't be overlord pilars in the natural
|
ovie pillars on the natural make more sense in a meta where low tech gateway timings are super deadly and hard to read or where phoenix/void ray first openers are strong macro plays. neither of those things are true right now in pvz so it isn't needed
agree that if midmap pillars are busted they should be fixed though. by the time protoss is moving through the middle of the map they should have an observer or air unit, so that's not a balance concern to me. if anything zerg can be punished for leaving ovies on the map so pretty fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
