Reveald - Blizzard's answer to people placing random buildings around map when losing

Revealed Mode

When a player loses all their nexus, CC, or Hatcheries, they enter a revealed mode, which allows opponents to see every building or unit they have on the field. This is to stop people from trying to force an opponent to leave by placing random buildings in corners of the map, like pylons or depots, and refusing to leave.

I think this is a good mechanic because if a players loses all their resource buildings, the opponent would've already knew about all the bases they had and most likely destroyed them all.

When the last one is destroyed, the following message is displayed:

"'player's name' will be revealed"

After a few seconds, another message is shown:

"'player's name' is being revealed"

I found out about this feature from this 2v2 game:
P1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Y3CNMHORY
P2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3JfUzc0k1k

 

When I first saw this happen on random beta streams, I was impressed. I'm so glad they did this.

 

I don't like this idea at all. What if you had some random buildings and a worker to make a new CC/Hatchery/Nexus. Technically you still could win. But with this mechanic it makes your CC/H/N so vulnerable. And people will attack those first hoping they have killed the last one to reveal all of your enemies buildings to you.

And what if you make a CC/H/N after your buildings are revealed? To they stay revealed? or do your buildings re-enter the fog of war?

Personally I do not like this revealing idea. it's up to you as a player to defeat the enemy properly. Revealing buildings is like Blizzard saying "we think it's too hard for players to find that last building, we don't want the players to search for it so we'll tell them where it is". That's no fun. You should have to hunt those last few buildings down on your own without any help. It's not hard to look for a building. it's just lazy if you don't.

And why should a building in the corner of the map make someone leave. it's their loss if they refuse to search for it and leave. And if this lone building can be used as a bluff, it's just another strategy of the game. Mind you anyone who falls for this bluff is either really new to the game or really gullable.

I don't think this is an anti-unfair play thing. I think this revealing is there just for those too lazy to search out the last few buildings yourself. If the retail version has this I'll get help to hack it out of the game.

 

Isn't there a delay on it saying "Will be revealed" then to the "Is being revealed"?

That way, if you have the ability to rebuild your CC/N/H, you would have done it by then.

 

Agreed. A 3-5 minute delay would be just about right in my opinion. if this revealing mechanic had to be in the game. But a few seconds delay as is the impression I am getting from the original post is most certainly not enough time to rebuild a CC/H/N.

 

Once you place the building, though, the reveal goes away. It doesn't have to build and complete. I'm not entirely sure how long the delay is on the reveal, but I'd imagine if you were able to build a CC, you'd have done it, or at least about to.

 

This feature was implemented in warcraft 3.

It's because some players can be awkward after being defeated, won't gg and leave, and will hide farms in remote places hidden behind trees or wherever. Winner then has to take 5+ minutes combing the map and clearing up.

It's a rule that helps the winners to finish the game vs awkward opponents. Going two minutes without a Main, and no income, it would be practically impossible for the defeated party to turn the game around.

 

It is a good feature and is implemented since Warcraft III. As long as the time limit is not overwhelmingly short (such as 50 or so seconds) I see no problem with it.

 

This has been around since 2002 in WC3 Is this new to you?

And, to clarify, once you start the timer to get revealed, if you build a Nexus within that time then it is canceled. Basically, that person is dead if they don't have one up by the timer being out. This is a great idea and cuts down on lame Terran lifters and pylon/depot spammers.

 

see now my friend played terran and he just launched up all his command centers and flew them to the far reaches of the map xD

but yes its a good system.

 

Agreed, it's nice to have it in SC2. And Jasmin, the word you were looking for isn't awkward, it's lame *****.

It's basic courtesy to GG if you don't stand a chance at winning. Those who do not will be screwed in SC2, which is good.

 

It still doesn't help against terrans who fly away and hide their command center...

Its a lovely thing to see when your in 2v2 and you weren't paying attention to your allies last attack

 

A week ago I would whole heartedly supported this mechanic. Now I am not so sure. If not for a lucky accident by my opponent this mechanic would have cost me a game. I was playing as Protoss versus a Terran player, he swarmed my main based with Marines and Siege Tanks and ultimattely destroyed it, however before his finished the job I already warped in several Dark Templar to a hidden pylon on the map. Said Dark templar procceed to destroy his Command Centers and whatever missle turrets he had, it didn't take long for him to not have any detectors besides one floating CC I couldn't get to, from there I started slaughtering his army and may have ultimately came back had he not discovered the hidden Pylon by accident. However, had he not discovered the Pylon it would have been revealed anyways, which would have meant my certain demise because I couldn't destroy his army fast enough (partially because of the dance with his one remaining CC that kept trying to land to use Comsat). My circumstance were probably rare enough to not happen very often, but they do happen and it is something to think about with mechanics like this.

 

That's a good point, Kerwyn. Maybe they should have units increase the reveal time or negate it completely.

 

Yeah I don't like this mechanic. It's entire hinge rests on the Nexus/CC/Hatch which is WAY too easy to destroy in SC2.

Plus it doesn't even help the enemy in the situation where the player is refusing to quit. They just keep building all over and won't GG anyway. I've had it happen.

They should start pinging new building locations that are built without a functioning Nexus.

 

@LordKerwyn

Your example is moot because you WERE detected. You didn't lose because of the game mechanic. There were similar objections raised when this mechanic was implemented in WC3, but all of the examples that were cited against it were in fact rather esoteric incidents. I liked this mechanic in WC3: I remember having to scour entire maps for sore loosers in WC2 and StarCraft who, having been thoroughly defeated in battle, wanted to mitigate the victor's sense of achievement.

Now, Jon does bring up an interesting point: he seems to think that it's too easy to knock out the enemy's CCs. As he's played the game and I haven't, I'll take his word for it. I would suggest that the player with no CCs should have, say, 90 seconds to begin building one; if, after this 90 seconds period, the player is not building a new CC, all of his units and remaining buildings are revealed to his enemy, which greatly facilitates the destruction of a recalcitrant enemy. If a player receives no income for 90 seconds, he's pretty much dead anyway --much like what happened to LordKerwyn, who dealt what normally would have been a crushing blow to his enemy: he could not build units with LtA attacks. If such a mechanic were implemented, I think that players might prioritise the protection of their CCs a little more.

As an aside: I think that many of you dislike the notion of the stronger player's position being buttressed by a game mechanic, and that is partly why you are so resistant to the idea.

 

My example is pefectly valid because a minor difference in positioning and the pylon wouldn't have been discovered. Also, I havn't gone back through the replay to check but the mechanic may have been why he found it in the first place. Now if you don't like the idea of a person with a few unstoppable units being able to destroy a much larger army and infastucture that's perfectly valid.

As for CCs being to easy to destroy, I know it didn't take long for my DTs to turn one into swiss cheese, but then DTs are some of the highest dps units in the game so that could be why as well.

 

I, of course, have not seen the match, and perhaps I did not express myself clearly: unless you WERE detected because of this mechanic, your example really has no substance to it simply because the other player detected and defeated you. The fact that you had a band of DTs in his base is inconsequential. Did you lose because your attack failed to deal significant punishment to your enemy? No: by your account, you had dealt what normally would have been a crippling blow.
However, you only had one building, and having failed to protect this keystone, you lost. Consequently, unless you were detected by this mechanic (and your initial post suggests that you were not), your 'example' really is not an example at all: it is a hypothetical conjecture. And it is difficult to understand why Blizzard would balance the game around such conjectures. So, unless such hypothetical scenarios as you described are revealed to be a common occurence in the Beta, I see no reason to take it into account. As we both know, balancing is done using data --and data is something that has been recorded, not something that 'might have been'.

You are currently arguing that had your pylon been positionned just a little differently, you would have evaded detection --that, needless to say, is conjecture, not fact. Facts are definite. Conjectures, however logical or appealing they may seem, are not.

 

Having re-watched said game and analyzing what my opponent saw, had the pylon been placed 12 squares to the NNW (a Pylon is 2x2 squares in size for comparison’s sake) it is a fact he would not have seen it without the help of this mechanic. It is also a fact that I had completely destroyed my opponent’s economy while still having enough minerals to rebuild my own. There is also the one final fact that my opponent was extremely close to having no way to detect the DTs that would have slowly destroyed the rest of his army. Using these facts, it can be logically deduced that had my Pylon been a little bit better placed or had I been able to build another, this mechanic would have come into play causing me to lose a game I should have won.

So yes this is a hypothetical conjecture, however it is one that could have very easily come about had someone slightly better than myself have been playing instead of me during those last few minutes the game.

Next, ignoring logical conjectures is an extremely ignorant thing to do. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, 2 + 1 = 3 is also a fact, 3 + 1 = 4 is another fact, using theses facts and knowledge about the real numbers we can make the logical conjecture that (n+1) = n + 1 or prove it if we wanted to. Logical conjectures are important because they are how we make estimations about how our actions will affect the future. Or on a more related note how do you think Blizzard decides what changes they should make to the game each patch before they are tested? Do you think they just have a random number generator spit out some numbers or do you think they make some kind of logical guess or conjecture based off what they already know? Tell you what, when the next patch comes out look over the beta notes, and when they all make sense (because they were created through logical conjecture); I want to here your explanation why logical conjecture is somehow less than fact.

Finally, it should be noted that even though my opponent saw the Pylon about 2 and a half minutes before it was revealed he only responded to it about 10 seconds before it was revealed so the game might as well have played out like it would have had the Pylon not been seen 2 minutes earlier demonstrating the potential pit falls of this mechanic. Also, the fact that you chose to nitpick my example in such a long winded way makes me logically deduce you are an ***, and I would be curious to know why.

 

Personally, I don't like this mechanic whatsoever. And I got some reasons for it.

1. Like LK stated, there are times that you're able to mount a comeback but because of been revealed, it will not happen. Actually, the situation LK provided happened plenty of times for me in SC1 that I believe it is completely valid. I have mounted several comebacks even though my CC/Nexus/Hatcheries was destroyed.

2. I simply never give up. If you want to beat me, you will have to earn it. And yes, that means given the chance, I will play hide and seek and you better find all my buildings and destroy them all if you want to get the win. I won't do that when I'm having some friendly matches with my friends but if I'm playing in a rated game, anything goes. Call me an @ss or whatever but that's the way it is.
I still remember one game where hide a pylon in a wee corner and my opponent actually couldn't find it for like 40 minutes. I just ALT TABBED out basically doing my thing and my opponent was cursing like crazy. In the end, he just said FUXK YOU!!! and left the game. To this day, I still can't believe he couldn't find that pylon and it was probably one of the most funny win I ever had.