|
Taken from Semmo's article, High-ground Advantage: A Change, http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7810091710 ,
In Brood War, High-Ground had a big impact in gameplay. There were smarter plays, and more comebacks.
This is true for Starcraft 2 as well; however, the problem is that the high-ground only affects the early to mid game in SC2.
Due to the fact that Zerg (Overlord, Overseer, Mutalisk), Terran (Medivacs, Scan, Vikings), Protoss (Collosus, Observer), all have easy access to high-ground vision after the mid game, the high ground does not play a big role in the game.
The result is that battles take less advantages of terrain, and battles become one sided and a math game.
This is the beta, and beta should be where we try new things, right?
Here are some suggestions to increase the highground advantage so that even in the late game, the highground matters: (Please note that I don't mean implement all of them, I mean choose one or two and test them out)
-1 Range when attacking Highground
This would have a big impact on gameplay, such as in TvT, the defender would have the advantage in Tank Wars, making it less stalemate.
In Other match-ups, it would always give the first shot to the defender, which gives defender the advantage.
The attacker would now have the burden of micro, as he/she would have to play cleverly to overcome the advantage.
Damage Reduction
This is the simpler solution, which would play out similarly as BW. The defender would always have an advantage, and smaller armies would be able to use terrain and control to overcome the army deficits, leading to more comebacks and amazing plays.
Attack Speed Reduction
This would have similar impacts as Damage Reduction.
All in All, A Better Highground advantage would provide:
- More comebacks
- Smarter Players to prevail, Leads to Smarter Plays in general
- Less Stalemate in defender's position in Tank Wars
- Map features become very important, and fun
- Macro builds, if the defender has enough control, would be viable.
Thank you. This is the Beta. Please Consider.
I think a highground mechanic would encourage positional play and micro. It'd also add diversity and fun to the maps.
Blizzard would be silly not to implement one of these ideas, or at least try. My personal favorite is a 40% damage reduction from lowground range units shooting up to highground (same damage reduction for 1 level or 2). SC2 is lacking map control features, and the best way to add in that dynamic is with a highground. As Semmo stated, it would encourage comebacks and positional play, reward smart engagements, and ultimately increase the skill ceiling. And, last but not least, maps could be made with many different features and concepts than the current SC2 design allows.
The map pool would have to change a bit; the only current ladder maps that would work really well with a highground mechanic (in my opinion) are Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom. But losing the other maps wouldn't be a tragedy by any means to SC2. I'm sure Blizzard could pick up some GSL, Proleague, or community maps to fill the gap in time for HotS' release.
What do you think?
Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/17otwv/high_ground_advantage_in_hots/
[edit]
I'd like to add to the discussion of "defenders advantage". Many people seem to think that highground advantage would make encourage turlting in SC2. But infact, it is quite the opposite.
A lack of a highground advantage is actually the reason maps have to promote turtling. Current maps need massive rush distances. They also need tiny chokes into expansions. The middle of the map cannot be designed to utilize map control or to be used aggressively. Highground advantage means mapmakers can toy with highground and lowground for aggressive and defensive uses.
For example, a map like Match Point from BW allows a player to advance aggressively into the opponents third expo (the mineral-only). Or, a player can control the corner highground and defend two+ expansions.
Maps in SC2 would definitely change. The change would be for the better. Naturals would no longer have to be highground. Strategically designed highground could be used to the attackers advantage. Valuable expansions could be placed on lowground. Maps could encourage harassment in new ways using cliffs. So no, adding a highground mechanic would not encourage turtling in SC2 once the maps adapt.
|
I feel this would draw TvT out even further O.O
Also, make defending so so much easier (given its nearly always up a ramp)
|
While this change is a step in the right direction, it will hardly do anything to save SC2.
|
Personally i feel its way too easy to defend in sc2 and these mechanics would just make that worse.
Part of the reason it has been so deathbally is there is less incentive to attack. So while I personally feel its a good idea, its a good idea for a different game.
|
This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2.
|
I am glad Blizzard is thinking about trying new things. When I first got WoL beta and even before that when we played at Blizzcon, the lack of high ground advantage really irked me. Like many things I moved on and I honestly never really thought about revisiting this mechanic... so props to Blizzard in that regard.
I wouldn't be worried about "Saving" Sc2 lol. It will pretty much dominate the RTS market for a while. There will always be a desire for competitive rts and as long as it has no competition it doesn't need saving. Now trying to compete with Mobas or another genre... well that is another story.
Let's all just focus on helping Blizzard making SC2 the best it can be!
|
I don't understand the suggestion that -1 when attacking high ground make it less of a stale mate? the stale mate is caused when the defender can defend against any attack and the attack refuses to attack because of it.....
|
On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote:
This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2.
I don't believe there's much defenders advantage at all in SC2. There are only maps like Metropolis with 5 bases behind two tiny chokes, gigantic rush distances that don't get shorter, and no harass potential. The only defenders advantage is the time it takes to walk across the map...
You aren't taking into account map design. Yes, some maps would make defending the natural a little easier (but that isn't much of an issue). Highground advantage would make some aggression easier by controlling portions of the map and forcing your way into a players base. Also, some expansions are on lowground. Mapmakers are quite smart when it comes to map design; I'm sure increasing the defenders advantage with a highground mechanic will not be an issue.
|
damage reduction is idiotic and it changes the unit relationships
miss chance is better, and the randomness averages out over many attacks, the only time it will actually be a coinflip is when you are trying to allin up a ramp and then you deserve to have that be a coinflip anyways
|
it's stupid, most of the time when you attack up a ramp you will risk it because you will attack into a concave and you will have a ball on the ramp, that's already enough for a defensive advantage, do you want to remove all ins from the game? lol
|
On February 02 2013 09:48 Extenz wrote:
it's stupid, most of the time when you attack up a ramp you will risk it because you will attack into a concave and you will have a ball on the ramp, that's already enough for a defensive advantage, do you want to remove all ins from the game? lol
if you can actually defend with fewer units then that means you are free to take more expansions and are encouraged to split up your army and make it less deathbally, and fight for map control instead of sitting in your natural until you max out
|
On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote:
This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2.
You're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us.
|
On February 02 2013 09:26 Archybaldie wrote:
Personally i feel its way too easy to defend in sc2 and these mechanics would just make that worse.
Part of the reason it has been so deathbally is there is less incentive to attack. So while I personally feel its a good idea, its a good idea for a different game.
I completely disagree with this statement. There is not much defender's advantage in Starcraft 2. Going through small chokes into large armies is basically suicide, but with high ground vision that is prevalent in the late game, above-ramp armies can be engaged by below-ramp ranged units without necessitating travel through the narrow choke point, resulting in an essentially even engagement. Engagements before 200 supply necessarily give some sort of advantage to the defender because aggressive reinforcements to a push take longer to arrive than defensive reinforcements, with the exception of warpgate units. Static defense does give the defender an advantage. In the late game, however, reinforcements aren't as important, and static defense plays less of a role. A notable exception to this is tvt, because taking time to siege up tanks within the range of enemy tanks puts the attacker at an enormous advantage.
If defending was easier, players would no longer be forced to keep the majority of their army in one place and could harass and expand more aggressively because they would be able to defend larger armies with strategically placed smaller armies. I do not get the "Starcraft 2 has too many deathballs, defender's advantage would make this worse" argument. The reason deathballs are prevalent is that there is little incentive to split up one's army, because larger armies almost always defeat smaller armies if both are well-positioned.
|
On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote:
This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2.
I would say the complete opposite tbh. Most of the times there is no defenders adventage at all except faster reinforcements and ofc you get mechanics like warpgates and creep that negate that.
|
I have always felt it to be weird that say if you are on the edge of a cliff with roaches and have an ovy there that you can shoot UP the cliff to kill an enemy. I think that anything that cannot shoot up should not be able to shoot up. Simply put roaches, marauders, Hellions, collusi etc should not be aloud to aim up if they cant aim up.
|
On February 02 2013 10:03 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 09:27 PandaTank wrote:
This is idiotic in my opinion. The defenders advantage is already far too great in StarCraft 2. I would say the complete opposite tbh. Most of the times there is no defenders adventage at all except faster reinforcements and ofc you get mechanics like warpgates and creep that negate that.
In the early / mid game, stuff like roaches, mothership core, forcefields, range 5 queens, creep, salvageable bunkers w/ easier-to-use SCVs for repair, free siege mode tech, widow mines, easy ling-tight walloffs with all buildings, 6 second spores, jetpack overlords, overlord nests everywhere on every map, stargate detection through oracles, it's kind of difficult to be successful with non-allin aggression.
But yeah, in the lategame, you win a fight and baaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwrrrrrgh all over the base.
|
I wouldn't want more features that encourage turtling, it's already pretty bad.
|
I think TL should institute a policy where in threads regarding game design or game balance, posters should have to include their battlenet ranking before they can comment. This is not elitism, its just that if you're silver league and you say things like "sc2 defenders already have too much advantage because its hard to attack up a ramp", you clearly have very little understanding of the game. This would not be a problem if Blizzard ignored low level people but they don't. I understand the argument that Blizzard have to appease the noobs because they are the largest in numbers. But imagine trying to design the game of tennis or any other competitive sport around what the noobs think instead of what is happening at the highest level.
Serve and volley would be banned, 3 point lines would be only 3 meters away from the basket and goals would be 20 meters wide.
Would people still play these games let alone watch?
|
On February 02 2013 09:24 NukeD wrote:
While this change is a step in the right direction, it will hardly do anything to save SC2.
Didn't know it needed to be saved.
|
I think I agree that this would only encourage turtling and death ball play more, which is not what's needed. If the defenders advantage is greater then people simply won't attack. If they won't attack, the game becomes boring (and results in long games with a single 200/200 battle that decides it when one player eventually gets impatient)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
