EPTit's just another great idea that will be ignored because sc2 rules yo. swarm hosts with more free units and hellions that turn into roaches ftw.
HotS Highground Mechanic - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
snailz
Croatia900 Posts
it's just another great idea that will be ignored because sc2 rules yo. swarm hosts with more free units and hellions that turn into roaches ftw. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 03 2013 22:57 fabiano wrote: Oh really? You just called BW and Dota 2 (randomness, not cliff shooting in dota's case) games with bad design huh, how funny is that. No one will have trouble understanding the concept of misschance because you are firing up a cliff. Okay, maybe 6 years old kids, but you get my point. People should just stop coming up with lame excuses. Yes, they were/are bad design. That doesn't necessarily make them bad games, nor does it mean people won't still play it (and play it a ton). It does add yet another barrier of entry for a casual player though. This reminds me of the whole debate in MMOs with PVP specific ability subtext, where abilities behave differently if casted against players compared to NPCs. It makes things incredibly confusing to somebody that just wants to get on 5 hours a week and just have fun with friends or strangers. By adding unnecessary or cumbersome complexity to the game, you shut those people out. IMO, that's what adding "hidden" high ground advantage does. On February 03 2013 23:06 NukeD wrote: Your post is ridiculously wrong if you think people will think its weird and strange to have an high ground advantage. So you just assume most people are idiots who cant put two and two together. Any player who sees an army on highground will assume its a bad idea to engage that army there instead of on low ground, and he will assume that because its the way things work in real life. In real life the army that is on higher ground has a huge advantage over the on that is down, be it range, cover or whatever. If you think that this rule of nature and basic pysics is a random rule, then the theory of relativity will blow you away. First of all, there's no other rule of miss chance or +armor (outside of very specific upgrades or abilities) in the game already. This isn't Warcraft, where unit stat modifiers are all over the place. Throwing something like +1 range or 33% chance to miss just muddies everything. Even if it's perfectly clear to somebody like you, brilliant in every way, not everybody will put "two and two together," especially at first glance. Second, there is already a mechanic of high ground advantage, even if you don't like it. It's straight forward and intuitive. If you brush up against a cliff on the low ground, you can't see up it. You can't fire back at those units unless you gain vision. You see and understand that in the first 1-2s of an encounter with cliffs and high ground. Same with LOS blockers. Yes, there probably could be some changes to high ground advantage we have now, but it's not necessary and it needs to be done in an intuitive way if done at all. Also, lol and wtf at the physics thing. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 03 2013 23:40 fabiano wrote: I see, didn't know that actually. Hence why it's bad design... | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
You got me there man, you got me there... I see there is no point in arguing here anymore, I'm so fucking dumb for even trying. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On February 03 2013 23:53 aksfjh wrote: Yes, they were/are bad design. That doesn't necessarily make them bad games, nor does it mean people won't still play it (and play it a ton). It does add yet another barrier of entry for a casual player though. This reminds me of the whole debate in MMOs with PVP specific ability subtext, where abilities behave differently if casted against players compared to NPCs. It makes things incredibly confusing to somebody that just wants to get on 5 hours a week and just have fun with friends or strangers. By adding unnecessary or cumbersome complexity to the game, you shut those people out. IMO, that's what adding "hidden" high ground advantage does. People who play SC2 5 hours a week for a bit of fun and have no additional knowledge through spectating games or so wouldn't really realize if the game had a 30% miss chance or not, nor should the game be designed or balanced around these people. That's also the people who complain about completely ridiculous things as "imba" cos they don't understand high level gaming. Similarly mapmakers would never focus on these casuals when making a map but only look to make the best maps for esports. | ||
|
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
On February 04 2013 00:03 Ragoo wrote: People who play SC2 5 hours a week for a bit of fun and have no additional knowledge through spectating games or so wouldn't really realize if the game had a 30% miss chance or not, nor should the game be designed or balanced around these people. That's also the people who complain about completely ridiculous things as "imba" cos they don't understand high level gaming. Similarly mapmakers would never focus on these casuals when making a map but only look to make the best maps for esports. If such a miss chance was added to the game, blizzard could easily use it for a loading screen tooltip. "Units shooting uphill have a 30% miss chance." or something along those lines. | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
On February 03 2013 10:43 Falling wrote: What is a perfect game? Are there not always competing issues that are being balanced? It strikes me that it is a small sacrifice to add miss-chance that might make a minor difference in skill on an individual unit shot by shot. When in return we open up massive tactical options that demonstrates even more skill by players making use of the high ground advantage to take and hold terrain. It creates terrain features. Something to fight over rather than just flat ground. The problem with -1 range is once you've closed the gap, then you are right back where you started with very little difference being high or low. Miss chance is a persistent advantage that can only be negated by getting on their level or coming in with more stuff. But what skill is actually being impacted? This is not a fps where we are individually aiming our troops weapons and the game has a random chance to miss. The part it is impacting is already automated. It doesn't impact our ability to split, to when and where to engage, to target fire, to use an ability such as blink, or to shoot and scoot. All the skills we actually use remain the same. It is simply harder to take the high ground units as it will take more shots or more troops than on the flat ground. The only 'skill' I can think it is impacting is that when we sent 12 roaches to attack 10 we should have won. But instead we now lose. But this isn't a new rule change mid-game. We know this from the outset and we would therefore attack with 15 instead. It makes the 'skill' of determining the exact right number of troops to win an engagement slightly less pre-determined, but because there are so many other things you can do (ablities, target fire, shoot and scoot) it would hardly matter anyways. A bean counting skill being slightly fuzzy is no big loss compared to the new tactical demonstrations of skill this would open up. "You're goddamn right." I'm not sure why people think this would lead to more turtling, if anything it would encourage people to stop turtling. What is the sense of building up a huge army that might then be dealt with by a smaller army (given you fight high ground vs low ground). It wouldn't even affect the mid and late game as much as it would affect the early game. Personally I think implementing a defender's advantage is definitely a move in the right direction. It would lead to more/earlier expanding and smaller groups of armies moving around trying to win smaller battles. This is a no brainer, I'm all for it. | ||
|
bearhug
United States999 Posts
On February 02 2013 09:54 rauk wrote: 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 no. acutually it will encourage more passive play, encourage more deathball play, since one can play more greedy with the defender advantage. In other words, it will discourage aggression and everyone will sit in their base until they reach maxed army. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
sharkeyanti
United States1273 Posts
On February 04 2013 00:17 bearhug wrote: no. acutually it will encourage more passive play, encourage more deathball play, since one can play more greedy with the defender advantage. In other words, it will discourage aggression and everyone will sit in their base until they reach maxed army. If the evolution of BW is any indication - and considering many of the best SC2 pros used to play that game - there is evidence to say that defender's advantage encourages aggression. Someone who becomes more defensive will likely be able to expand faster, but then they are vulnerable on the map. Take for instance a TvP, if T turtles and cedes the map, Protoss will litter the map with pylons and be able to reinforce very easily. P will also be able to harass effectively until T has made a shit ton of turrets. By making lots of turrets, the economic advantage of faster expansion could well have been nullified. In addition, P has had pick of the litter for bases around the map. Defender's advantage would also make the game much more interesting to watch, as the only positional aspect of the game has to do with arc/chokes at the moment. Defender's advantage could also encourage more creative attacks | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On February 04 2013 00:24 Barrin wrote: I actually have a pretty strong conviction that the best maps for e-sports - at least the way SC2 is currently set up, which let me be clear I don't agree with to begin with - are just within the range of the average casual player. I have strong suspicions that this was done on purpose. It only makes sense... follow the money. Blizzard makes more money, many people get what they feel is a good game and have a lot of fun with it... and us "hardcore" [vocal minority???] are left rather unsatisfied with basically nowhere to turn in terms of RTS games. But we're not gonna stop talking about it, right guys? xD I don't know if we are a minority, less and less people are playing the ladder. Even on the forum, some people with no ladder experience sometimes argue about stuff they have never dealt with. See on reddit, those guys always creat threads about ladder anxiety and then argue about how blizzard should fix X detail | ||
|
Aideh
United Kingdom11 Posts
Rather than having a descending map (high points at start/spawn location, rest of the map on the low ground), maps would require varied levels of terrain as features of the map. However the main base will have to be elevated by one level to help early game defense (with the ramp and such). Would really love to see changes like this implemented! It would allow for much more game diversity and make positional play much more important than which death ball has the better arch! Could also allow for some sick micro of small sized forces vs medium sized forces in the middle of the map! | ||
|
Magicferret
United States8 Posts
On February 04 2013 00:08 decaf wrote: "You're goddamn right." I'm not sure why people think this would lead to more turtling, if anything it would encourage people to stop turtling. What is the sense of building up a huge army that might then be dealt with by a smaller army (given you fight high ground vs low ground). It wouldn't even affect the mid and late game as much as it would affect the early game. Personally I think implementing a defender's advantage is definitely a move in the right direction. It would lead to more/earlier expanding and smaller groups of armies moving around trying to win smaller battles. This is a no brainer, I'm all for it. Decaf we already see some some pros go for thirds before the seven minute mark implementing this defenders advantage would make it more ridiculous and make most counters to early double expands negated and I personally thinks that is a terrible idea since it throws play into a specific route and makes the game less interesting through less non macro build choices. I really like to see players counter greediness and counter their opponents build through scouting this change would make it harder to do so. It should be rewarding to counter your opponents build and punish you if you dont prepare for a counter. This also really makes all-ins bad which they are already a risk they are perfectly strong if not scouted in ample time. This change really supports the people who don't scout for any dangers that would normally destroy them. There already is a defenders advantage aside from ramps and cliffs. Its the fact that if both your armies get wiped out you reinforce faster unless your opponent has a pylon in or near your base or other production facility proxied. Which goes back to solving your problems through scouting. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
But most of the time when people want "more defender advantage", "more space controlling options", they will use that as a way to turtle even more in an already overly passive game. SC2 is very passive until top level (Korean GM, GSL, Proleague) is reached. Even at EU foreigner level, people use "safe builds" (aka "not that safe but eh nobody is punishing it..."), macro up a bunch and it's not that rare to see 1 hour long games because nothing happens, people don't take risks, and are not mechanically skilled enough to make something happen anyway. Blizzard gave +2 range to queens, in an attempt (successful I would say :D) to increase Zerg defensive capabilities. How did that turn out? So much smart plays and comebacks, right? Instead of all the difficult thinking involved in the previous dichotomy "making drones vs making combat units", Zerg generally is able to reach at least 65 drones in their non-mirror matchups before anything decision-making related comes up. Nobody says "He droned up a bunch, that's really smart!". So I'm completely against giving more defender advantage than there is right now. Queens, Mothership core and upgrade-less siege tanks are already good enough. Instead, provide players with fast and micro-intensive units to harass with and outplay their opponents in battle. For me one of the most interesting matchups in WoL to watch is TvT, and I feel like this is because tanks are not overly strong. Shit that moves can actually break siege lines if you have the right quantity and good micro, and that's great. I just hope TvT in HotS will not be full mandatory mech with tanks, turrets and mines everywhere  | ||
|
habeck
1120 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 04 2013 00:03 Ragoo wrote: People who play SC2 5 hours a week for a bit of fun and have no additional knowledge through spectating games or so wouldn't really realize if the game had a 30% miss chance or not, nor should the game be designed or balanced around these people. That's also the people who complain about completely ridiculous things as "imba" cos they don't understand high level gaming. Similarly mapmakers would never focus on these casuals when making a map but only look to make the best maps for esports. The notion of "imba" transcends player skill, unless you think Ryung specifically and nearly every other pro player is a casual player. Stop trying to pin all the things you don't like on people you don't understand. Casuals are just as much a part of SC2 as "hardcore" fans and players. The game should be the same level of accessible regardless if you want to spend 5 hours or 50 hours a week playing it. You can't ignore or shame the "casual" side of SC2 without also ruining the hardcore side. Bottom line, this addition would be one of those things a very large number of people wouldn't understand or see unless they saw it explicitly explained somewhere, like Liquipedia or a reference on somebody's stream or cast. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11178 Posts
In reality, I don't think it's even necessary to know that shots are being missed. You attack into units on the high ground a couple times and get mauled and you think 'crap, I won't attack into entrenched positions without a bigger army.' Or "I need to go around the army on the high ground' which is precisely the sort of thinking high ground advantage is supposed to promote. Alternate routes, diversionary tactics. To add variety to the frontal assault. And it only makes sense that attacking uphill will be harder. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Everyone who is saying this would lead to more turtling is forgetting that you would be making all the current maps that are used in this game obsolete balance-wise. With this chance, you could get rid of some of those tiny chokes and the ability to better zone off areas of the map would lead to more interesting positioning of expansions around the map. This is not as black and white as you are all making it out to be. | ||
| ||
