Higher ground

[Rake]

Teamliquid.net has an article criticizing the current higher ground mechanics, particularly calling attention to a perceived lack of defensive and positional advantage once the lower ground has sight.

I was wondering how people in the beta here find the current mechanic and if they think it needs changing.

The Teamliquid article provides some commonly suggested changes, namely: a return to the old miss mechanic, a range reduction or an attack speed reduction. I would also like to suggest that air units could have a reduced sight range at a cliffs edge so that they have to go closer to reveal it, thus putting them in danger. If not that, I think an attack speed reduction could work but I don’t want a return to the old random miss mechanic.

What do you think?

[DemolitionSquid]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current mechanic in any way. It removes the randomness of the SC1 miss mechanic, and punishes anyone stupid enough to not use Observers/Overseers/Observers/MedEvacs/Scan.

[don]

I think a range modifier is the way to go if ever Blizz did something. I would also be more in favor of a range advantage for units in higher ground than a penalty for lower ground.

I agree with demo that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the mechanic so far, but as we are in beta, it would be smart for Blizzard to try something out at least for one patch cycle because IMO it can add something to the fun factor. Even if the bonus or reduction is minuscule, just the psychological effect of avoiding the disadvantage lower ground or taking an advantage on higher ground would make matches more exciting.

I feel that there should be an added incentive to taking higher ground, not just spotting upwards. It would affect map design and cliff-climber balance in the long run.

[Nicol Bolas]

The question behind the question is this: Do you think there should be a specific and intrinsic advantage to being on higher ground? The fundamental difference between SC1 and SC2 on this point is exactly that.

In SC1, if they have higher ground, they get their 50% miss chance, period. It doesn't matter if you can see them or not, they take effectively reduced damage. However, since this doesn't affect AoE, it also means that races that have lots of AoE ranged attacks (ie: Terran) are more able to break high ground advantage than those that don't (ie: everybody but Terran).

In SC2, once you get a spotter, the advantage goes away. Well, most of the advantage. If you're trying to bring a melee army to fight against someone on Lost Temple, expect ranged attackers to cut a lot of them down without being able to fire back.

Not unsurprisingly, the answer from the SC1-lovers brigade is that there should be a permanent advantage to having high ground.

I think that the stronger the high ground advantage is, the more likely that the game and maps will have to be balanced around it. There does need to be some advantage to create positional play, but I think it is important that it can be surmounted without having to resort to direct action like dropping or AtG attackers.

The already existing permanent advantage of high ground is already bad enough; it keeps an entire class of units (melee) out of battle for a time.

[Rake]

Good summary Nicolas.

Does everybody think there are enough defensive advantages in the game?

[DemolitionSquid]

Good summary Nicolas.

Does everybody think there are enough defensive advantages in the game?

Well what would you consider a "defense advantage?"
Chokes?
High ground?
Destructible Rocks?
Watchtowers?

Hell, if there's any race who clearly outclasses the others in "defense advantages," its Terran. Maybe Terran needs less defensive ability, or the other races more?

[Rake]

All of the above would be included. I am mostly looking for reassurance that if a player wants to defend, say because they are behind, they can do it. The Teamliquid article gives the impression that once a game starts to turn one way the other side can't defend because of the lack of high ground advantage.

[Nicol Bolas]

I am mostly looking for reassurance that if a player wants to defend, say because they are behind, they can do it. The Teamliquid article gives the impression that once a game starts to turn one way the other side can't defend because of the lack of high ground advantage.

That sounds like a personal problem to me.

If you want to defend the high ground in SC2, if you want the high ground advantage, you have to earn it. You have to snipe Observers. You have to kill advancing Overseers. You have to kill Medivacs. If you fail to do these, then you will not have the high ground advantage.

The way high ground works here is that it changes the dynamic of the battle, rather than acting as a permanent shield that you have to overwhelm someone through.

Granted, if you're Terran, you can always throw down a scan. So there isn't much you can stop in that case.

[0neder]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current mechanic in any way. It removes the randomness of the SC1 miss mechanic, and punishes anyone stupid enough to not use Observers/Overseers/Observers/MedEvacs/Scan.

Randomness is what made SC1 so exciting. It's a risk. The player chooses to take the risk or not, so that is not really random.

Also, having no high ground mechanic makes it extremely difficult to tech while defending with few units. Something you could pull off if good enough in SC1, but almost impossible in SC2.

[unentschieden]

I think the comparison to how Relics works do it is quite telling. They have plenty random chance and it doesn´t hurt their Games.
Relics Coversystem isn´t "stand here and have the advantage". Cover can be flanked and destroyed.
The old Mechanic didn´t go just because it was random. It went because it was uneven. Terrans benefit the most simply because all their units are ranged. Random chance is worse for high CD shooters like Colossus , Thor, etc. It also messes with established mechanics, just imagine the face of the Protoss whos Voidrays keep resetting.

Defensive advantage have to be circumventable or they invite defensive stalemates. High ground SHOULD be an advantage, but it shouldn´t be only counterable with bruteforce (more units than the defender).