|
Hello, firstly this is my first (I think, and am fairly certain) post to TL. I've read the rules, and have been a luker on the forums for the better part of the last year.
Either way, I had an idea that I put on the Bliz Forums, but I think it's worth grabbing the attention of a larger audience, so I thought this would be an appropriate place.
OP:
Terrain has a large factor with how a map is played out. Everyone knows this... duh.
As a spectator, it's much more interesting to see people handling many engagements simultaneously versus having big blob of units versus bigger blob of units. Duh.
It's really easy to run into the previous situation because you can have them all on the same control group, and pathing is so freaking awesome in this game. Duh.
So at what point can we break this up? It appears nowhere. The pathing tends to be so good in SC2 that this is ultimately how most every single game gets played out.
That being said, time for my question... have "semi-chokes" yet been explored by mapmakers. Since I just came up with that term as far as I'm concerned, allow me to describe what I mean by it. They way I picture a semi-choke working is a central area, where large groups of units can be engaged at, but ground to ground combat can't take place (i.e. marine tank vs marine tank). This sort of exists on Shakarus Plateau, but to a much lesser degree than what I'm wanting to see.
On Shakarus you have the center of the map with the four cliffs that you can place units on. Because you can place units on here, it wouldn't be considered a "semi-choke", but it is similar in style to how I picture units being forced around them to be constructed.
So, now how do I picture a semi-choke being constructed if you can't do it with terrain? Buildings. There exists buildings in the map maker that we could implement to physically separate units, without causing gimmicky tactics like a colossus standing on a ridge, or a tank seiged up. This could be a means to effectively force flanking maneuvers from the opponent, and hence breaking up units, which is what we'd like to see.
So finally, have "semi-chokes" been explored in SC2 as far as anyone knows about? Is it a good idea? If there's enough feedback about it... I might be willing to jump head first in trying to make a map for it.
And a clarification I made later:
I wouldn't be imagining the entire ladder pool switching over night, but also just one or two maps changing would be ineffective at capturing the shift that I'm trying to describe.
The pre-placed neutral buildings, would be essentially small width indestructible rocks. The advantage this would have could be that mapmakers could specify a range to restrict access to (i.e. having a six unit building to eliminate queens from engaging, however trivial).
Linky: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6759126888
Any input would be nice 
EDIT:
Got one thing clarified for myself (there exists a remove pathing tool in the SC2 Map editor), so really, the main points of discussion now should be reflected from the 3 things Barrin mentioned directly below this post.
They are, buildings could add the following advatanges to the game:
On October 04 2012 00:07 Barrin wrote:
(1) Different graphics :>
(2) Perfect circle collision (instead of square, diamond, octagon, etc)
(3) 'Soft' collision (units try to stay outside y radius, but will get as close as x radius).
Are these advantages worth exploring, and why? What would you perceive they add and/or take away from the game? As well as anything that you find relevant other than this (i.e. a link to a map utilizing buildings for these effects, to change gameplay).
|
|
|
mappers already kind of do this with gaps in the map, either a lowered terrain hole or raised small-width cliff. you dont see buildings or rocks out in the middle of the map because they die incredibly fast and its somewhat moot point.
you dont usually see shakuras/lost temple style cliffs either, where you can drop tanks on them solely because its a very difficult situation to deal with as zerg, that is, you force a zerg player's hand to commit their army to engage that point or force them into muta, as they do not have a siege unit to deal with that position.
in the end, regarding the blob vs blob, theres nothing we can ever do about that. the game units themselves need to be redesigned. the protoss army for example, all ground units move at around the same speed, and colossus do not collide with units so you can stack them right into the middle of the ball. things like this is what causes players to just ball their units because its easier to control them that way.
|
What's the consensus on lowered terrain where you can still see, it just prevents melee attacks. This would force a zerg player to have something other than zerglings and banelings, but that doesn't seem too outrageous to ask.
|
Seems to me that would greatly buff the power of forcefields, which could be quite problematic. The Protoss players would have part of their work already done for them if they engaged near these neutral buildings. It would also make essentially every battle harder for Zerg in ZvT and ZvP, as it would be more difficult to get an effective surround than at present.
|
On October 04 2012 00:12 a176 wrote:
you dont usually see shakuras/lost temple style cliffs either, where you can drop tanks on them solely because its a very difficult situation to deal with as zerg, that is, you force a zerg player's hand to commit their army to engage that point or force them into muta, as they do not have a siege unit to deal with that position.
That's kinda why I'd like to see more buildings used for controlling the map. Can't drop seige tanks on them 
@Barrin, thanks for the post to help with clarification. As far as "unclickable" is concerned, not sure if that is necessary, who knows, mappers might be able to use them to squirm in their name or something clever. Kinda curious, when you state "previously barely known" are you referring to this post, or has this been discussed in the past? Sorry if my search skills failed me  .
@RFDaemoniac, Doesn't just prevent melee attacks, but that's kinda the idea. Buildings don't necessarily effect vision, sort of like what you said, but they also can prevent range attacks, especially at short distances.
Also, just curious, is there a way to quickly quote multiple posts at once?
|
On October 04 2012 01:55 CSmith wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 00:12 a176 wrote:
you dont usually see shakuras/lost temple style cliffs either, where you can drop tanks on them solely because its a very difficult situation to deal with as zerg, that is, you force a zerg player's hand to commit their army to engage that point or force them into muta, as they do not have a siege unit to deal with that position. That's kinda why I'd like to see more buildings used for controlling the map. Can't drop seige tanks on them @Barrin, thanks for the post to help with clarification. As far as "unclickable" is concerned, not sure if that is necessary, who knows, mappers might be able to use them to squirm in their name or something clever. Kinda curious, when you state "previously barely known" are you referring to this post, or has this been discussed in the past? Sorry if my search skills failed me . @RFDaemoniac, Doesn't just prevent melee attacks, but that's kinda the idea. Buildings don't necessarily effect vision, sort of like what you said, but they also can prevent range attacks, especially at short distances. Also, just curious, is there a way to quickly quote multiple posts at once?
You realize that there's a pathing tool that you can easily use to make cliffs unpathable so you can't drop on them so you don't need random buildings.
|
On October 04 2012 02:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 01:55 CSmith wrote:On October 04 2012 00:12 a176 wrote:
you dont usually see shakuras/lost temple style cliffs either, where you can drop tanks on them solely because its a very difficult situation to deal with as zerg, that is, you force a zerg player's hand to commit their army to engage that point or force them into muta, as they do not have a siege unit to deal with that position. That's kinda why I'd like to see more buildings used for controlling the map. Can't drop seige tanks on them @Barrin, thanks for the post to help with clarification. As far as "unclickable" is concerned, not sure if that is necessary, who knows, mappers might be able to use them to squirm in their name or something clever. Kinda curious, when you state "previously barely known" are you referring to this post, or has this been discussed in the past? Sorry if my search skills failed me . @RFDaemoniac, Doesn't just prevent melee attacks, but that's kinda the idea. Buildings don't necessarily effect vision, sort of like what you said, but they also can prevent range attacks, especially at short distances. Also, just curious, is there a way to quickly quote multiple posts at once? You realize that there's a pathing tool that you can easily use to make cliffs unpathable so you can't drop on them so you don't need random buildings.
I did not. Either way, I guess the benefits Barrin listed are still applicable to discussion. I'll change the OP to reflect that.
|
(1) Different graphics :>
(2) Perfect circle collision (instead of square, diamond, octagon, etc)
(3) 'Soft' collision (units try to stay outside y radius, but will get as close as x radius).
The buildings in the game all have terrain footprints which work like terrain, meaning that they aren't circular. You could rig up neutrals which did use their circular radius for pathing rather than a footprint, like units do, though, but I don't really see the benefit of them being circular as opposed to octagonal or whatever.
Buildings don't have soft collision, though... afaik only air units have that, and ground units can be overlapped when moved by a vortex or force field or dropped in a tight area or something, in which case they try to spread out. Or do units with footprints have their unit radius as a soft radius and their footprint as a hard pathing barrier? Usually the radius is smaller though.
|
|
|
Yeah, at least to make them circular, which is an interesting thought. And units treat other units and force fields differently because they path through them, and then just slide around them when they collide. The units won't pick a path that avoids them automatically, unlike buildings, terrain, destructible rocks, etc. I could see some use for that, I guess.
|
Sorry for getting off topic a bit, but has anyone used terrain object doodads? They are used in the campaign for almost this exact purpose, and from what I can tell you can mess with their footprints (?)
|
I tried to use terrain objects when attempting to make a doodad bridge into a walkable bridge for Hypnosis Ridge. I was using some tips from a modding site, but it wound up not working the way I had wanted it to, but this had more to do with the doodad than terrain objects themselves (it's too convoluted to explain concisely and not relevant to the issue at hand). It is not that difficult to create a terrain object from what I remember but you would have to do a search on it because I don't remember where exactly I found it. I was searching on "making the doodad bridge pathable" or something to that effect. Once you see how that's done, it shouldn't be too difficult to apply it to this idea, and it's probably even easier in this case.
|
Personally I refer to this in my own head as the orchard effect. You have "open" space dotted with unpathable areas that are generally "small" compared to the space they fill (but can vary in size depending, of course). It usually makes it harder to have engagements the way you want to at certain points in the game for each race.
The natural course of sc2 play has tended towards players spreading out their armies more and more. Using this sort of terrain will not help this because it is just "bad engagement" territory for someone at some point and will be avoided in preference of true open ground or a tight choke.
It's not a bad idea but I think it should me applied on a fine-grain particular level by a mapmaker -- every single spot on your map should be by design. For consideration, here are some maps to look at that use this technique to a certain extent:
Rapyuta
Axis of Industry
Ambush Valley
Grimboa
|
EatThePath,
Definitely more like Axis of Industry and Rapyuta than Ambush Valley as for what I had in mind.
Axis of Industry, in my mind, demonstrates potential to give an edge towards several groups of units being used. Rapyuta limits mobility, but not attacks to the third through use of a doodad (or I guess that's what that wall is). I might try and play some games on these tonight
Ambush Valley I think would actually have the opposite effect to where it would end up favoring the engagements I'd want to see avoided, in particular in the center of the map. Drops would become increasingly effective here since the terrain is actually hindering all movement from players. And the tight spaces make it unappealing to make larger units that'd move through it.
Thanks for the post.
|
I also made Grimboa which used the same sort of thing. The way the center was structured, it encouraged armies to spread themselves out.
|
On October 05 2012 05:43 Gfire wrote:I also made Grimboa which used the same sort of thing. The way the center was structured, it encouraged armies to spread themselves out.
I was looking for this but I forgot what the heck it was called! Thanks for pointing it out. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
