High Ground

[Rowdy]

As I understand it, high ground currently confers an advantage by denying vision to units on low ground, even if those units are under fire from above.

In Starcraft I, the high ground advantage was based on damage reduction. Units on high ground were favored with a 25% chance to be missed by units firing from below.

If I recall correctly, Blizzard replaced the chance to miss because it made for a random mechanic in a scenario that should have favored the superior tactician. While I respect the logic behind this decision, I think the new implementation has unwittingly diminished the importance of high ground.

Currently, the value of fighting from high ground is completely nullified when the player on low ground gains vision uphill by moving a single unit from low ground to high ground or by bringing an air unit to the battle. This means that as the game progresses and armies become larger and more diverse, high ground is less likely to remain an exploitable mechanic.

This was not the case in Starcraft I. Even with melee units streaming uphill and air units overlooking the battle, a player fighting from low ground was at a disadvantage. Attacking a fortified hill was a serious undertaking, and maps often used high ground to define points of strength and map control. The permanence of the high ground advantage made terrain more interesting and gave players more opportunity to exploit the map.

I think Blizzard should bring the damage reduction back in some form. If a chance to miss is too random, then perhaps guaranteed damage mitigation would make sense, or maybe some other system entirely would do the trick. But I think high ground should matter as much as it did in Starcraft I. It was a compelling mechanic that deserves a presence in this game.

[Drxizor]

Yes!, I completely agree that high ground has lost its importance, even in early game battles, if you fight by the ramp, having any units on the ramp completely nullifies the lost vision, so that the strategy part of RTS is completely missing. Perhaps a 25% miss is too high, but atleast a 10% chance of miss would be fair.

[Inoob]

i would favor just damage reduction. that way there is no random numbers being thrown around, and keep the game consistent each time you are on high ground.

[Zaq]

Agreed.

In addition with increased unit mobility across the board (units are faster, jump cliffs, can teleport everywhere, etc.) terrain is even less important in addition to the valid reason you listed.

[Lawjeek]

+1

[Dream]

+1. one of the few worthy suggestions I've read.

[Sqweek]

I also agree on either damage reduction or chance of miss

[Motts]

Agree, Terran walling the top of the ramp doesn't help much when they get some units up onto it.

[Webbstre]

I'll throw my agreement in as well.

[Inoob]

taking height into consideration and giving a damage reduction for these cases would also work great for those trying to defend their base from powerful units. right now if someone has a terran sitting outside his base and uses a scan and attacks. he deals full damage, has very clear sight of everything for that area, and can plow through your defense. it should still be possible, but since you dont really...see what is behind there ( for those units below ) then it really should be a reduction to some effect.

also, ive been proposing that maps be given more variety to them. some maps not provide you with choke/ramps. if something else could be done so races can effectively stop a rush, then the whole point of strategy at that point would be for the user to find higher ground, and get there asap. this would make sure that users/players are constantly challenged in different situations, and not always putting down a barracks/ supply to block in the same spot. it defaults to the same strategy every time.. what if i could effectively build just enough buildings to block more of the path around an area, but not completly.. and then place some bunkers/ turrets on higher ground to defend against zerg rushes. that way I would be creating the choke point manually and having the game present one for me. but considering how weak the buildings are, i would have to possibly expand on higher ground, and then move my buildings over to there.

if the game would provide you with different challenges on every map like this, it would be much much more interesting.

[Cursor]

Why doesn't this have more pages?!?!?!
I love the game, I trust Blizzard... but, really...

What we are looking at now are more vanilla, less dynamic maps than SC1.
It just serves to make the High Ground less valuable, and the whole board less dynamic.

I favor just a flat Damage Reduction rate (around 20%) to units being attacked from a lower position.

This is like fundamental battle principle, the whole point of fighting on ramps with lings vs lots, and a huge part of strategic positioning. PLEASE don't keep this out of the game.

[Shadowmaim]

Yeah, high ground advantage is something I really miss. :(

One thing about SC2 that worry's me the most is after 2-3 games I can't play anymore cause it gets tedious and boring. There is HARDLY any variety in my games. 1 in 10-15 games I may get one that lasts longer then 10 minutes.

I can list off what happens in most games here with race vs race comparisons, which I could never do in SC1.

[Fdsdfg]

Yeah, high ground advantage is something I really miss. :(

One thing about SC2 that worry's me the most is after 2-3 games I can't play anymore cause it gets tedious and boring. There is HARDLY any variety in my games. 1 in 10-15 games I may get one that lasts longer then 10 minutes.

I can list off what happens in most games here with race vs race comparisons, which I could never do in SC1.

Give it time. Also, watch some high level videos - it's nice to see fights with banelings, hellions, ravens, etc being used

Edit: oh and I miss the high ground advantage too. Lategame when vision and observers are ubiquitous, high ground means nothing.

[Queuequeue]

I actually agree with this. I would prefer to grant vision to the low ground while attacking for bringing back the change to miss factor.

[Yaz]

I agree with this as well. High ground advantage is lost pretty easily now and it really just comes down the advantage of probably having a choke to defend if they brought lower range units or melee.

[Rowdy]

There's an article on TeamLiquid discussing high ground that made me want to bump this thread. >_>

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142

[Silent]

Currently, the value of fighting from high ground is completely nullified when the player on low ground gains vision uphill by moving a single unit from low ground to high ground or by bringing an air unit to the battle. This means that as the game progresses and armies become larger and more diverse, high ground is less likely to remain an exploitable mechanic.



You nailed it bud. Currently, as the game progresses into the mid game players can start ignoring terrain because each race will have ways to see over cliffs and ramps. Terrain, especially high ground, doesn't influence players' decision making very much right now.

[Stormtemplar]

With you people!

[Mcintosh]

Add my vote to this as well. High ground needs to mean something even when both players have line of sight.

[Whitey]

agreed!

[Thalassicus]

I agree completely, it'd be nice to see a flat damage reduction. It'd confer the benefit of the miss %, while not being random.

[Supafrunk]

Not that I want to frustrate anyone here, but I prefer this new system with the LoS being lowered, because at least Terrans won't always bring out tanks to do the whole job mid game. I know air units counter tanks, but at least it's fun to see more T1-T2 units trying to tear up the ramp instead of just cheaping it with tanks.

I would agree to have both systems back, but instead of 25% it would be 50%. So end game ramp would still have some value.

[Ronniejdio]

I just assumed this was already in the game, thanks for the info and +1

[Wafflezz]

+1 vote to keep the current SC2 no sight granted to lower elevation and add the SC1 25% miss to lower elevation

[Zerothgal]

I definitely like the current LoS mechanic, and I wouldn't mind seeing a static damage reduction to units firing from the low ground.

I do not, however, want to see the return of the 25% accuracy reduction. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. I absolutely despise unnecessary dice rolls in my RTS, as a string of bad "rolls" can easily turn the tide of battle against a player who, by all rights, should have had the tactical advantage.

Case in point: Warcraft III, which took dice rolling to a whole new level. Now, I love that game to death, but the random numbers in the game drove me absolutely nuts. Every unit had a "range" of damage (ex: an archer might deal 8-12 damage), and you were never quite sure exactly how much each one was dealing at a given time.

On the subject of accuracy reduction, let's take a look at one of the hero abilities.

The Demon Hunter, a Night Elf hero, was highly favored by players as a staple of that race. Why? Well, one of his three basic abilities was a passive move called "Evasion." At the maximum level, it reduced all enemy's chances to hit the Demon Hunter by 30% (I think). The result? A quick moving, high damage agility hero could become an absolute tank if luck was on his side. An entire army literally be wiped out trying to focus down this guy to no avail one moment, and could kill him in seconds the next. As a Night Elf player myself, I found this to be more than a bit annoying, because most of his survivability was based completely on luck. I can only imagine how frustrated some of my opponents must have felt when I was getting really lucky with the rolls.

Bottom line: I'm all for an added bonus for players on the high ground, I just want it to be something that isn't left to chance. An RTS is supposed to be about intelligent formation and application of tactics in real-time, and frivolous random numbers only undermine this. With a fixed percentage reduction, you'll always know what sort of offensive hit you're going to be taking when fighting an uphill assault, and can adjust your strategies accordingly.

[Queuequeue]

I have been saying this since release. The current state of high ground is just not what it should be. It's just WAY too easy to gain vision on high ground positions, negating all advantage of it completely.

[Blackyoshi]

I definitely like the current LoS mechanic, and I wouldn't mind seeing a static damage reduction to units firing from the low ground.

I do not, however, want to see the return of the 25% accuracy reduction. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. I absolutely despise unnecessary dice rolls in my RTS, as a string of bad "rolls" can easily turn the tide of battle against a player who, by all rights, should have had the tactical advantage.

Case in point: Warcraft III, which took dice rolling to a whole new level. Now, I love that game to death, but the random numbers in the game drove me absolutely nuts. Every unit had a "range" of damage (ex: an archer might deal 8-12 damage), and you were never quite sure exactly how much each one was dealing at a given time.

On the subject of accuracy reduction, let's take a look at one of the hero abilities.

The Demon Hunter, a Night Elf hero, was highly favored by players as a staple of that race. Why? Well, one of his three basic abilities was a passive move called "Evasion." At the maximum level, it reduced all enemy's chances to hit the Demon Hunter by 30% (I think). The result? A quick moving, high damage agility hero could become an absolute tank if luck was on his side. An entire army literally be wiped out trying to focus down this guy to no avail one moment, and could kill him in seconds the next. As a Night Elf player myself, I found this to be more than a bit annoying, because most of his survivability was based completely on luck. I can only imagine how frustrated some of my opponents must have felt when I was getting really lucky with the rolls.

Bottom line: I'm all for an added bonus for players on the high ground, I just want it to be something that isn't left to chance. An RTS is supposed to be about intelligent formation and application of tactics in real-time, and frivolous random numbers only undermine this. With a fixed percentage reduction, you'll always know what sort of offensive hit you're going to be taking when fighting an uphill assault, and can adjust your strategies accordingly.


Read the TeamLiquid article; it pretty much debunks the myths against high ground miss chance. It was in Brood War, and was competitive Brood War turned into a dice roll by it? Hell no.


Right now, high ground is basically the same is flat ground unless its a cliff with no ramp. There's just no advantage to a ramp anymore, while in SC1 it alllowed you to hold off much bigger armies so you could tech up. You pretty much have to mass over any sort of tech because if you go for tech, you're very vulnerable to a large army, and its hard to win without a numbers advantage. Adding high ground miss chance back to the game will greatly improve positional tactics, something sorely missing from the game currently

[Bromandog]

I agree completely. I would keep the no-vision thing though, to make it even more deadly. I find there is too little advantage to being the defender in SC2 and think this would go a ways to fixing that.

[Shadowmaim]

The funny thing is, with no penalty to high/low ground. High ground is actually becoming "high ground disadvantage". If you have melee units on the high ground, they are screwed. Ive had players, lets say toss as a example, come up to my base with stalkers + observers. They would pickoff my units on the high ground without any disadvantage. Hit and run while I would have to run all the way down my ramp to get to them.

I think its really stupid that being on high ground has in fact become the disadvantage. Cause 9/10 people will explot the lower ground to hit the higher ground with very little resistance. I do it as well. Its so funny as terran to sit outside a enemy base and scan with tanks to take out almost everything on the high ground without a penalty.

The new Highgound/Lowground thing now is actually doing the reverse. Giving the low ground the advantage, which makes no sense in terms of how High ground is USUALLY the advantage.

I vote to bring back the penalty for fighting low ground to high ground. Mainly cause right now, the Low ground seems like the better place to be when fighting people on high ground.

[Crashu]

Totally agreed.

High ground advantage was one of the things that made StarCraft 1 a great game.

[engineer]

+1 Agreed. I , like many others, would like to keep the SC2 system while adding a small damage penalty to those below the cliff. (Whether the penalty is a miss chance or a fixed percent reduction is actually inconsequential, statistically speaking, so I'm fine with either.)

[Tojara]

As long as it's a flat damage reduction (10-25%) instead of miss chance. Miss chance was pretty dumb.

[Fdsdfg]

Read the TeamLiquid article; it pretty much debunks the myths against high ground miss chance. It was in Brood War, and was competitive Brood War turned into a dice roll by it? Hell no.

It didn't ruin it, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

I'd like to see high ground damage bonuses back - flat % damage reduction is odd becuase it gets 'jumpy' in smaller numbers, but maybe -1 to all damage or something. Miss rate would also be fine too.

[Kiwikaki]

agreed

[Intfam]

I agree with this. The high ground advantage needs to be restored. Hell, even if being the high grounder meant a flat damage reduction of 5 or something, it would make a difference.