|
Much has been said about why it was not Blizzard's most brilliant moment when they settled on a mechanic for high ground that is spontaneously entirely negated by moving a single man partway up a ramp or bringing a single flying unit somewhere nearby.
I don't wish to rehash those arguments, but I would like to take a look at how map designers can improve the utility of high ground, and create better game flow, with the way they place their ramps.
First, let's look at an example of a ramp that offers almost zero tactical advantage in Starcraft 2:
![[image loading]](http://i38.tinypic.com/4j5pc4.jpg)
This is the entrance to a main base on Blistering Sands. Imagine, for example, two opponents with an equal-sized force of marines in the early game.
If high ground offers a tactical advantage, the defender (the one on high ground) should clearly have the favorable position. But, in practice, he really doesn't. Because of the way the ramp and cliffs are positioned, and the limited attack range of most units, the attacker can just walk along the south edge until he gets to the ramp, and then charge it. The defender would be lucky to get off even a couple shots before the attacker gets close enough to have vision of the high ground (which begins surprisingly far down SC2's ramps).
In conclusion, this ramp is defective. The map designer was trying to give a tactical advantage to the defending player, but in a real game, against a marginally intelligent attacker, it rarely matters.
True, the defending player can focus fire the enemies on the ramp, but he might well wind up losing more potential attacks due to the wasted time on repositioning his units than he gains during the brief window before replacement attackers can go up the ramp again. Or, the attacker can move enough men onto the ramp that it's impractical to kill them early enough in the fight for high ground to have any impact.
Let's compare that to a much more useful ramp:
![[image loading]](http://i33.tinypic.com/2hrlmdw.jpg)
This is the entrance to a main base on Lost Temple. Unlike the ramp on Blistering Sands, this one is placed so that defenders can get a few shots off on an attacking force before they breach the ramp. That advantage is enough to sometimes deter an attack, or balance out a slight numerical advantage, so it actually has an impact on game flow in some cases.
To take an extreme example, consider a ramp shape like this:
![[image loading]](http://i33.tinypic.com/2ekmy39.jpg)
Here, ranged defenders on the high ground have a huge edge over an attacking force, and only a greatly superior force, or one supported by scans and air units, will be able to break through. This is a pretty extreme example.
Brood War was not a great competitive game straight out of the box. It took a lot of refinement from the community to come up with maps with good game flow and the ability to generate epic, dynamic matches.
Starcraft 2 is much the same. Blizzard has handed us a badly designed high ground mechanic, and a bunch of maps with huge, wide-open, tactically worthless ramps. But with good map design, the community will be able to ameliorate some of these defects. Map makers, put useful cliffs by your ramps if you want to create valuable terrain.
Of course, there is one other possible solution - the map editor allows you to change the rules for high ground. Perhaps we'll see some legacy-themed maps with SC1's miss chance in place, or some other novel solution, like a range bonus against lower-ground targets. Still, realistically, the tournament standard will be the vanilla mechanics, but better map designs can make those play out a lot better.
|
While your points are generically sound, Protoss can take advantage of otherwise unhelpful ramps with good force field placement. Deliberately unhelpful ramps may be used as a way to tilt maps towards Protoss if such is judged necessary.
|
In the last picture, is the natural at the left side of the ramp? Because I would presume Terran and Protoss would just wall of where the low ground is the narrowest. That way they can safely wall off and FE.
Would this not screw Zerg completely?
Marines/marauders on high ground make it impossible for Zerg to break it early. Afterwards, siege tanks stop everything else.
If the natural was not protected by this ramp it would make some sense I guess. Although, again from Zerg point of view, the only way to get a defensive advantage early on is with spine crawlers (which need creep tumors and/or extra queens) For roaches to reach the advancing enemy the path would need to be very narrow. But that would limit their ability to surround with lings and would probably lead to early zealot contain. Or am I missing a point here? Queens could work probably.
|
hate to be a broken record, but seriously, sc2 needs a REAL highground advantage. Not just this i cant see u till i take one step up the ramp crap. Not being able to see the enemy on the high ground is something i like, but its simply not enough.
|
On August 11 2010 15:59 NeoLearner wrote:
In the last picture, is the natural at the left side of the ramp? Because I would presume Terran and Protoss would just wall of where the low ground is the narrowest. That way they can safely wall off and FE.
Would this not screw Zerg completely?
Marines/marauders on high ground make it impossible for Zerg to break it early. Afterwards, siege tanks stop everything else.
If the natural was not protected by this ramp it would make some sense I guess. Although, again from Zerg point of view, the only way to get a defensive advantage early on is with spine crawlers (which need creep tumors and/or extra queens) For roaches to reach the advancing enemy the path would need to be very narrow. But that would limit their ability to surround with lings and would probably lead to early zealot contain. Or am I missing a point here? Queens could work probably.
As he put twice, that is an extreme example.
I don't think he wants maps like that
|
I would say the small choke point provided by the ramp is enough to provide the defender with sufficient advantage. If you can't take advantage of this, you have not prepared for the attack early enough, or you simply played the wrong stratey, or played badly.
There is no reason why there HAS to be any high ground advantage at all. This is a different game, it has its own rules, and you need to play by them. And on the same note, high ground doesn't have to give you any tactical advantage at all if it doesnt want to. High ground doesn't owe you anything.
If you think high ground mechanics make the game better or worse, thats your opinion. Personally i prefer them currently because it means I have less game against obnoxious terran turtles which go for longer than they should.
I don't think precedence from broodwar is good enough reason to demand old high ground rules.
|
On August 11 2010 16:56 Hectic wrote:
I would say the small choke point provided by the ramp is enough to provide the defender with sufficient advantage. If you can't take advantage of this, you have not prepared for the attack early enough, or you simply played the wrong stratey, or played badly.
There is no reason why there HAS to be any high ground advantage at all. This is a different game, it has its own rules, and you need to play by them. And on the same note, high ground doesn't have to give you any tactical advantage at all if it doesnt want to. High ground doesn't owe you anything.
If you think high ground mechanics make the game better or worse, thats your opinion. Personally i prefer them currently because it means I have less game against obnoxious terran turtles which go for longer than they should.
I don't think precedence from broodwar is good enough reason to demand old high ground rules.
This "chokepoint" advantage would only apply to smaller ramps and in many instances, is no real advantage at all. While I agree that there's no absolute rule stating that there should be an advantage to holding higher grounds, I feel that it would be beneficial to add such a mechanic to increase the depth of tactics and strategy employed in the game. It's often the little extra things like this that help separate good players from great players. Of course there shouldn't be some ridiculously huge advantage, but it'd be nice to have a small, seemingly negligible one to just give that little extra boost to the people that put the extra effort in to position themselves advantageously and be selective about where they decide to fight and how they go about doing it.
|
Most people don't know how to use high ground and choke mechanics properly. While your observation that the more usable edge the stronger the choke is 100% correct. It would be close to impossible to force any ramp if only the units on top of the ramp would have vision. Then you would always need a flying unit.
But lets consider how most players place their units on a ramp. I do this mistake all the time. If these were lings/lots trying to come in, that would be another matter.
![[image loading]](http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5838/ramp1.th.jpg)
The general mindset if players is "not to let the other player up the ramp". Sometimes this is the error. If you are facing ranged units then you have to use the ramp instead of trying to defend it.
![[image loading]](http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/1125/ramp2.th.jpg)
Hardy 0 tactical advantage.
PS. Excuse my horrible Photoshop skills, it was easier than setting up a custom map. DS.
|
Yea, because Terran needs more aspects of the game tipped in their favor.
|
On August 11 2010 16:56 Hectic wrote:
If you think high ground mechanics make the game better or worse, thats your opinion. Personally i prefer them currently because it means I have less game against obnoxious terran turtles which go for longer than they should.
I don't think precedence from broodwar is good enough reason to demand old high ground rules.
I definitely think there should be some maps which discourage turtling and favor aggression, but SC2 doesn't need such an awkward high ground system to make it so - instead, just include some maps with flat terrain and multiple entrances.
I don't think high ground should work differently "because Brood War did it that way," but rather, because it makes for more interesting terrain and more opportunities for turnarounds than an effectively-flat map.
On August 11 2010 17:33 Kokkan wrote:Most people don't know how to use high ground and choke mechanics properly. While your observation that the more usable edge the stronger the choke is 100% correct. It would be close to impossible to force any ramp if only the units on top of the ramp would have vision. Then you would always need a flying unit. But lets consider how most players place their units on a ramp. I do this mistake all the time. If these were lings/lots trying to come in, that would be another matter. The general mindset if players is "not to let the other player up the ramp". Sometimes this is the error. If you are facing ranged units then you have to use the ramp instead of trying to defend it. Hardy 0 tactical advantage. PS. Excuse my horrible Photoshop skills, it was easier than setting up a custom map. DS.
This is a great illustration of how to take advantage of a chokepoint, but it would play out just the same at any same-height choke. It's not really taking advantage of the high ground, just the choke.
Also, the retail map pool contains a lot of "Why even bother?" terrain like this:
![[image loading]](http://i35.tinypic.com/6ypch5.jpg)
With such a wide ramp and no real usable cliff, it seems like it's just there for aesthetics, not gameplay.
|
On August 11 2010 16:41 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 15:59 NeoLearner wrote:
In the last picture, is the natural at the left side of the ramp? Because I would presume Terran and Protoss would just wall of where the low ground is the narrowest. That way they can safely wall off and FE.
Would this not screw Zerg completely?
Marines/marauders on high ground make it impossible for Zerg to break it early. Afterwards, siege tanks stop everything else.
If the natural was not protected by this ramp it would make some sense I guess. Although, again from Zerg point of view, the only way to get a defensive advantage early on is with spine crawlers (which need creep tumors and/or extra queens) For roaches to reach the advancing enemy the path would need to be very narrow. But that would limit their ability to surround with lings and would probably lead to early zealot contain. Or am I missing a point here? Queens could work probably.
As he put twice, that is an extreme example. I don't think he wants maps like that
I know it's a pretty extreme example, I read it twice. I was just illustrating why it's a pretty bad/dangerous one. It's not just the last ramp either, the LT ramp has a similar problems already.
The principle illustrated in the OP to generate defender advantage is valid. However, the implementation has to be done very carefully as it has mid/late game implications. Mostly as Zerg disadvantages. Which is what I was trying to illustrate.
|
Great post.
im having trouble with how ramps work for air units / colossus. even if they are "on the high ground" with their flyer helpers, low ground can still see them and shoot them?
|
Does someone know why Blizz made the high ground advantage so sound but on the other hand not use the mechanics we know from WC III (attacks upwards miss like 33%) also (to complicated?).
If this would be still given, chocke point positions would not bother us so much anymore.
On the other hand i think the game might get too static as no one would dare to pass any choke without beeing perfectly aware of what is on the upper side.
|
Does anyone else think that the high-ground advantage change was decided upon generally because of the fix to terran tank AI. I find it highly believable that Blizz wanted to change the tank AI to work like it does, didn't want to nerf the hell out of the unit in dmg and hp etc, but decided a creative way to make it work was to alter the HGA mechanics? I'm just throwing it out there, but it kind of makes sense to me. What do you guys think?
|
On August 11 2010 15:09 EggPuppet wrote:Let's compare that to a much more useful ramp: This is the entrance to a main base on Lost Temple. Unlike the ramp on Blistering Sands, this one is placed so that defenders can get a few shots off on an attacking force before they breach the ramp. That advantage is enough to sometimes deter an attack, or balance out a slight numerical advantage, so it actually has an impact on game flow in some cases.
Another poster on this forum noted that as long as the attacker has vision, the defender is at a disadvantage! Chokes like this allow the attacker to get a better surround with ranged units. This can actually lead to a substantial defender's disadvantage, which might contribute to a lot of the all-in type play found currently.
|
On August 12 2010 10:31 Sentient wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 15:09 EggPuppet wrote:Let's compare that to a much more useful ramp: This is the entrance to a main base on Lost Temple. Unlike the ramp on Blistering Sands, this one is placed so that defenders can get a few shots off on an attacking force before they breach the ramp. That advantage is enough to sometimes deter an attack, or balance out a slight numerical advantage, so it actually has an impact on game flow in some cases. Another poster on this forum noted that as long as the attacker has vision, the defender is at a disadvantage! Chokes like this allow the attacker to get a better surround with ranged units. This can actually lead to a substantial defender's disadvantage, which might contribute to a lot of the all-in type play found currently.
That is an extremely good point. Perhaps, in consideration of this, a well-constructed defensively valuable high ground cliff should have a gentle curvature, in addition to enough exposed surface area.
I wonder if, if Blizzard is set on this mechanic, they might at least decide to supplement it in a future expansion with terrain features that work like an air-only analog to the vision blockers that already exist on several maps. Some type of cloud, perhaps, which map makers could choose to place near cliffs which would deny vision to air units, so that cliffs aren't so easy to trivialize in the mid-game and beyond.
Alternatively, a new terrain type which simply offers a defensive advantage could add a lot of interest to SC2's maps. Strategically valuable terrain is important for interesting gameplay, but it doesn't necessarily need to take the form of high ground. Maybe some kind of "shielding tower," like the watchtowers, could be added to the game.
|
Good post. I definitely think that more maps should use this style of making the high ground much stronger.
Don't get me wrong, the high ground advantage is there. It's up to the user to make a nice concave and place his units properly to get the maximum from said advantage.
On Lost Temple, I frequently take advantage of the high ground as much as possible abusing that ridge. I'd like to see some more maps with even more extreme of an advantage to the defender so we can see how games could play out.
|
wouldn't high ground advantage just add to the current terran overpoweredness that so many people seem to decry?
|
I would really really like to see the maps become more complex, personally.
I like the high ground mechanic as is. It's true that in the face of air units or Colossus or a clutch scan it can become irrelevant or even bad, and there are certain maps where this is blatantly exploitable, such as Desert Oasis. However, I think this is a problem with the maps, not the high ground mechanic.
I also agree with a lot of the Zerg players who are saying that the current map pool includes very few open areas and other things that Zerg can abuse. So I guess I'd like to see better maps, and also more maps in general.
But back to the original point, I'd love to see the maps become more complex. The map pool is the easiest and most effective way to make games interesting and different without screwing with racial balance, and can alleviate a lot of racial imbalance.
Some very simple things that could end up really cool would be for instance, a mountain tileset so high that flying units can't fly over it. Or possibly more 2-level high cliffs that flying units can move over but Colossus and Reapers can't.
Or maybe a difficult terrain mechanic. Swampy or brushy or sandy ground that slows ground units down while moving on it.
Or maybe a cover mechanic. Certain areas that units standing in have ranged fire reduced by 1 damage, but not melee damage.
I play a lot of tabletop strategy, and I was never really interested in RTS games till SC2, and one huge reason was the maps. Really really simple things such as the watchtowers and high ground and brush have added a lot of actual strategy to this game, and while I don't think the maps are perfect, I think they're a huge step in the right direction.
It's so much fun to watch a replay where player A has the clear unit advantage but loses because he wasn't paying attention to the high ground or the brush. I want to see more of that.
|
So.. basically you want to buff maps for terran? That's all I'm seeing out of this.
I know that's not what you said and that's not where you're coming from but that is the end result.
As the only race that can't wall-off my ramp with ranged forces behind it and play defensively... no thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img227.imageshack.us/i/ramp1.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img843.imageshack.us/i/ramp2.jpg/)
