|
Edit: Please put content in your responses.
Hey everyone. So after I beat Butcher so many times I realized what made his boss fight so fun. For those who aren't into D3, during the fight, you have to constantly move around because fire erupts around different sections of playing field. Stage Hazards.
I never really understood why this same concept couldn't be extended to Starcraft 2. Right now, the only Stage Hazards are Destructible Rocks and Xel'Naga Towers (and Neutral Creep Tumors recently). Both of these are fine, and they are extended and played with to the fullest extent. There are timings to take down rocks, there are timings to take towers. It's cool. They can add a lot to the maps (although we all know Blizzard is far too liberal with their rocks).
It made me think of a Lava Rising level. Certain lower sections of the map would be covered in lava and do extreme damage to the units within. Most would just call it far too gimmicky, but let's think about it for a second. Now clearly at first people would just die hilariously to the lava because they wouldn't understand it. But then people would get good at it. They'd get used to it, like the starcraft metagame gets used to everything. They would have timings specific to the lava rising. Whoa. That might actually be kind of cool.
Lava Rising might be too gimmicky (it also might be too graphic intensive for people). I get that. Okay, fine. Well, you know apparently they're scrapping the Shredder in Heart of the Swarm. Seems like kind of a waste in my opinion. So what about the Neutral Shredder?
This might seem a little weird at first, but it could actually be kind of fun. Rather than put Destructible Rocks blocking a tower, why not put a Neutral Shredder at the tower, preventing anyone from taking it? What if Shredders were placed in locations that made it frustrating to move around freely? People could possibly get pushed into taking damage from the Shredders.
It could force more play from air units, if there were small islands with Shredders on them. It would force more maneuvering and change the way drops/air units would work on the map.
I don't know, these are some fun ideas. I'd like to see how pros and skilled players deal with stage hazards. It could really invigorate some of the maps, honestly. What do you think? Are there other ideas for Stage Hazards?
|
Bad idea. You'd have to completely re-balance the game around it.
|
I don't see how this would add to the game rather than detracting from it honestly.
|
edit: I actually read your post now, nvm
|
I like to see pros play with stuff like that, it's also a terrible idea to try to get that stuff into competitive play. Two of the only "stage hazard"-type things that were in the game from the start were Destructible Rocks and gold expansions, how much fun does everyone think those are?
|
I'm sure there would be sick timings with medivacs/warp prisms in a lava rising type map which would basically force the game into going for certain builds on certain maps, something I do not wish to see.
Even if currently maps and metagame 'force' fast-expanding I think thats a lot better for the game than something really gimmicky like lava or whatever rising on the lowground or neutral units positioned somewhere on the map. Fast expanding adds variety to the game, forcing certain builds (eg. fast medivacs) takes it away.
|
Probably because D3 is more of a casual game, while StarCraft 2 is played as a competitive e-sport. Having a random factor possibly affect the outcome in a game you're playing by yourself or with friends is fine and dandy, but when it starts messing with match scores and tournament results (especially when the result is a fan favourite or superior skilled player getting knocked out), it's not so cool.
|
One of the Blizzard-made maps (Burning Tide, I think?) does this, though it's a greed map rather than melee.
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to try. From the old stuff before release, I thought they were going to put these mechanics into competitive maps, but evidently that wasn't the case, either never meant to be or they realized it was a bad idea at the time.
EDIT: Requires a lot of refinement to minimize the randomness factor while still influencing the gameplay enough. The frequency of lava level changes on Burning Tide is probably too high for any competitive play.
|
There would be so many epic opportunities to force field peoples armies into the lava. Im or it ;D
|
How could you siege or hold a defensive line across that position?
You couldn't have these stage hazards in bases (or else you couldn't mine there) and you couldn't have them right outside of bases (because then containing your opponent would be too dangerous).
Where else is there? The center of the map? So during the major engagements everything turns red and the unit composition and final engagement becomes pointless and even harder to micro (not to mention see, from a spectator's perspective)?
|
they should have just made every ladder map into survival UMS
|
On May 29 2012 06:14 Navillus wrote:
Two of the only "stage hazard"-type things that were in the game from the start were Destructible Rocks and gold expansions, how much fun does everyone think those are?
People complain about destructible rocks?
|
I don't like the idea of introducing things on the map that starts doing damage. The stage hazards in the game today are all about map control. The only damage you should be taking is fromthe opponents army.
|
Its a shame so many people shoot this down without really knowing much about its potential. I for one would love to see this tested by some skilled players. Never know untill you look :D
|
This would be bad for competitive play because it would mess with balance way too much.
|
While it could be cool to have part of the map be consumed by lava randomly, I think this would be imbalanced. I feel like if you made a mistake that could swing the game in the other players control, and thats not fair at all.
|
Not a good idea. A neutral shredder would ruin the game imo. Imagine accidentally walking by it and losing half an army. Keep the Stage Hazards to ums and campaign.
|
Right away, I can see problems with air units having a large advantage, 3-4 sentries changing the entire outcome of a game, etc
It takes away the neutrality of maps imo
|
Is is really necessary to reitarte the negative opinions so many times in every single thread about somthing funky? There are people that are against anything non-corservative, they are quite numerous. We get it. I do not see the need to hear from every single of you!
Anyway, I think that a particularly good idea is the "neutral shredder" part - because I have thought about it already a lot. It does not have to be shredder, it can be siege tanks, cannons, whatever causes damage. The point is, exactly, to make army movement more difficult. They don't even need to control a significant part of the map. It is enough if they control the shortest path to your enemy. They don't have to be particularly strong in DPS, neither (but could be very well invincible). This way, if you simply a-move or blindly rally reinforcements on such a map, it could be a very bad idea, if they go in a single file around a couple of siege tanks.
It is probably not something that SC2 really desperately needs right now, but it could add a little bit of extra skill required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
