'Cliffs' Are they still safe?

[ProjectArc]

When I saw the demo of StarcraftII it was like hell non-balanced. The main thing i was angry about is that cliffs are no longer safe enough. The reason that Lost-Temple succeded was beacause it had mostly good defence and nice place for mining minerals by the front. But after I looked at the demo, I was like WTF. Because there are hardly any defence left for terran now. I mean siege tanks are like rubbish now since they get pwned by those Immortals. Plus even cliffs can't save them from anything. Next, if the siege tank continues like this then there wont be any use for them. Since Lost-Temple only has 1 route for ground units you would only have to place like12+ siege tanks by the front. BUT now on StarcraftII there are units that can climb cliffs and attack all the SCV's from the side.
Besides that there are more thing sto worry about. EVEN if you have near-perfect-defence still will get pwned by phase prism. I mean the prisms are like hell unfair. Since you can tele units to the prism, the from line defence will be USELESS.

I think that blizzard should do something about the cliffs and a way to make cliffs like 'cliffs' :(

[eclipse]

you could just shoot down phase prisms, it not like they're invincible....

and siege tanks can still hit colossi, missile turrets hit them, and they are probably late game units. It also takes time to tele units in and if the prism dies those units die

[FlyingTiger]

I still don't understand what you mean by cliffs.

The siege tanks are effective for practically any other unit. You've only seen a glimpse of what is to be seen. I'm sure the terrans are going to be badass once information for them is released.

Why would you 12+ siege tanks be an effective defense in the fron in Lost Temple. Lost temple has one entrance but so many drop areas so I don't understand what you mean about getting screwed now cause 12 siege tanks on the front is an ineffective defense thatll prolly get owned by a carrier (or tempest in SC2). Plus only one unit can go up cliffs and that would be the colossus and from what I seen, they can go on smaller steps and not the gigantic ones. Plus the colossus is prone to anti air and anti ground (siege tanks? lol), so unless all you have are SCVs around your base, you won't be screwed if you have the right defenses.

I really think prisms are not that unfair at all. First it might not even have as much hp/shield as you think since it is a transport. Really if you leave phase prisms in front of your base, then you really need to work on not turtling and start scouting and expanding and be active when playing.

EDIT: eclipse please don't spam

[eclipse]

whoa sorry about that it kept giving me a error msg and said it didnt send so i kept trying it over and over...
=/

[burkid]

all it means is you have to change your strategy. so far there are 2 units that can cross cliffs, and they are in different races.

[paragon]

Try playing maps other than lost temple that had multiple choke points or really large choke points that were so big they could hardly be choke points. Teaches you to have a much better defense and to focus on having your offense be your defense.

[10-Neon]

Yeah, the best players I play with don't even bother trying to control chokes (with buildings, at least) unless they're really good chokes- they just use good building placement, build-capacity, and scouting: any enemies that make it to their base undetected end up having a tough time hurting anything but HP-heavy structures, hardly even able to engage the defenses (while the defenses tear away at them), and soon find an army being built right in front of them. Such bases can hold, if not repel large forces, even if the player doesn't bring their main army into it.

[[LightMare]]

Cliffs are not useless. There are multi-layered cliffs. So the higher level cliffs cannot be corssed even with the colossus (unless there is a lower cliff platform). This means there will still be maps that will use cliffs to offer protection from ground units.

starcraft2.com. go on the colossus page, watch the full animation of the second one. there is a first one walking on tiles, watch the one on grass. it walks up 2 levels of cliffs.

[paragon]

Cliffs are not useless. There are multi-layered cliffs. So the higher level cliffs cannot be corssed even with the colossus (unless there is a lower cliff platform). This means there will still be maps that will use cliffs to offer protection from ground units.

starcraft2.com. go on the colossus page, watch the full animation of the second one. there is a first one walking on tiles, watch the one on grass. it walks up 2 levels of cliffs.

It only walks up one level cliff at a time. So, if the cliff is 2 levels high to begin with, the colossus can't climb up it.

[[LightMare]]

where are there cliffs 2 levels high...

[burkid]

not many in SC1, but the colossus isnt in SC1!

[paragon]

where are there cliffs 2 levels high...

Um in that video. The cliff is like this:
.......______
____|_____|
|_________|

ignore the dots

[LimaBeanMage]

Just because we've seen one protoss unit that can walk over single cliffs does not mean Terran defensive strategy will fall apart. First and foremost the colossus is not a siege weapon, it is utilized against masses of small enemies. Siege tanks will own them whether they have cliffs or not.

As for the phase prisms, you'll just have to shoot them down before they get to you. If you think about it, what is the difference between a phase prism and a shuttle? You can't kill all of the units inside by destroying it, but that is about it. If you let a phase prism get behind your defenses then you essentially just let a new and shiny shuttle in. If you let either a shuttle or a phase prism in your defenses then you deserve to get dropped on.

[paragon]

Phase prism has the same regular unit transporting function of a shuttle on top of it's pyloning ability.
Cliffs are just as safe as they were in starcraft which is to say they really aren't if you are playing someone half decent. The Colossus will probably be a high tier unit at which point people could just as easily have done shuttle drops on you in StarCraft.
If anything, it will make people develop new strategies which is part of the fun that is StarCraft.

[ImaGiNe.]

I agree with paragon on this matter. Cliffs should still be safe from a majority of the StarCraft 2 units, We have only seen two units (thus far) that are able to "jump" ground. Not enough to truly ruin the balance of the game in my opinion. Besides, Terrans can harass Protoss players with Reapers.

[Itsmyship]

Well, even in SC1 cliffs could be crossed through the air, so its just another way to get through the defences. Even so, the Colossus is able to be attacked by anti-air, so you can keep one out the same way you keep air out, and reapers seem preety frail too, so im sure just good unit placement will be just fine

I personally dislike LT compared to other maps anyway, its still good, but i'd still play other maps over LT

[paragon]

Yeah I honestly think lost temple is not very balanced and I have a general dislike for maps with one ramp going up to the base because this makes most people just make this huge defensive place there.

[FlyingTiger]

Yeah I honestly think lost temple is not very balanced and I have a general dislike for maps with one ramp going up to the base because this makes most people just make this huge defensive place there.


yea but you can always drop on their base and, in addition, the person with a huge defensive place by the ramp is either not gonna expand very much or a turtler (haha same thing i guess). There's always a way to get through those defensive strongholds anyways.

I still think it is a very balanced map but that's my opinion of course.

[thiefingdude]

Please...the game isn't even finished yet...you don't even know what Terran completely has...
Don't assume.

[Ghost]

Yeah I honestly think lost temple is not very balanced and I have a general dislike for maps with one ramp going up to the base because this makes most people just make this huge defensive place there.


Yea, it leads to either massing photon cannons or terran barricades.

[Itsmyship]

Exactly, plus the scenery gets kinda boring after a while...that's why i like other maps like Bloodbath, Luna, and Longinius better

[Ghost]

what do people think of tribes? ultimate siege map lol.

[paragon]

Tribes is nice. Balance through general symmetry
http://www.battle.net/images/battle/scc/lp/bw08/tr.jpg

I've always liked Proving Grounds though
http://www.battle.net/images/battle/scc/lp/ladder/xpg.jpg

[FlyingTiger]

Proving grounds are one of my favorite maps.


Yea, it leads to either massing photon cannons or terran barricades.


Yea I'm sure that'll lead to victory. ::)

[generalrievous]

yeah and how about those cliffs in tribes eh..? very dangerous perhaps :P

[paragon]

Cliffs have always been dangerous. Never know what's on top unless you are. Thats why I bring along science vessels.

[paragon]

I am aware that units firing from cliffs will no be revealed. The point in question is the fact that ground units (so far the reaper and colossus) can move up cliffs as if they were ramps and therefore bypass their traditional ground defenses.

[burkid]

Paragon, did you read my post properly?

THOSE UNITS CAN'T MOVE UP CLIFFS!!!

They can go up 'ledges' (single level) but NOT cliffs (where they would be 2 levels high)

you could have just said that they can go up single cliffs and not double cliffs. we've discussed this in other topics as well.
(ledges ARE cliffs)

[paragon]

Paragon, did you read my post properly?

THOSE UNITS CAN'T MOVE UP CLIFFS!!!

They can go up 'ledges' (single level) but NOT cliffs (where they would be 2 levels high)

The only person calling them ledges and cliffs is you. And you did not say that your cliffs were 2 leveled cliffs and that your ledges were 1 leveled cliffs. Also, the lack of fog of war being revealed for any unit higher than you would apply to your ledges and cliffs while your post refers only to the fact that this occurs on cliffs. So, with everyone else saying one leveled cliff and two leveled cliff as well as the miss-assignment of the term 'cliff' in your last sentence regarding vision of units, you cause confusion in the terms you have assigned and yet not entirely stuck to.

[Remy]

Nothing pointed out in the opening post is new threat.

Immortals, anti-tank meatshield = ultra
Colossus, terrain/cliff crossing = all air units
Phase prism, warp-in = shuttle, dropship, ovie drop, recall

High ground tanks were always nice, but they were never the be all end all of anything.  Mutas don't even stop by to say hi to them before ass raping SCVs.  High ground will always be what they are, just another tactical elemental that you can try to use to your advantage.  I missed the part about high ground tanks owning all in the SC1 manual.

Before going into panic mode and getting your panties all up in a bunch over old threats in new packaging, consider how nice the high ground fog of war element will be for tanks.  Tank attack animations are instant and have no real travelling projectile, thus, you can not deduce a direction of origin. They also have super long attack range, good luck guessing where tank fire is coming from in SC2.

[paragon]

Before going into panic mode and getting your panties all up in a bunch over old threats in new packaging, consider how nice the high ground fog of war element will be for tanks. Tank attack animations are instant and have no real travelling projectile, thus, you can not deduce a direction of origin. They also have super long attack range, good luck guessing where tank fire is coming from in SC2.

It'll be like Dien Bien Phu all over again. Except instead of thousands of vietnamese guerrillas taking the artillery apart and carrying it up the mountains and then reassembling them, it'll be a tank going into siege mode which is a lot quicker.

So really, this topic should be about how walking near cliffs when you aren't on them won't be as safe, not how being on cliffs wont be as safe.

[burkid]

It'll be like Dien Bien Phu all over again. Except instead of thousands of vietnamese guerrillas taking the artillery apart and carrying it up the mountains and then reassembling them, it'll be a tank going into siege mode which is a lot quicker.

those silly french people, building a fortress in a valley

[paragon]

Yeah, in the vietnam war the north vietnamese army tried something similar against the united states. Except the United States had built it's base on the top of a large hill/small mountain. Long story short, the United States held out through a long siege and won that particular battle.

[burkid]

haha "this worked when we had the high ground so we will try it when we are attacking the high ground"

[Remy]

So really, this topic should be about how walking near cliffs when you aren't on them won't be as safe, not how being on cliffs wont be as safe.


Precisely. I know I'm gonna hate siege tanks so much this time around.

[burkid]

in the artwork trailer, the part with the colossi, a bunch of zealots are attacking a terran base just behind some immortals, which are absorbing all the tank fire, all of them in a 2 unit wide line. this will probably be a common formation when assaulting terran bases to get the most out of the hardened shields.

[Itsmyship]

Yeah, most likely burkid, hell, that's what i'd do...guess the age of the siege tank is finished guys... :upset: for when i play Terran ;D for when i play Protoss

[paragon]

Oh heres a question i just thought of about cliffs.
Would colossi be able to see over cliffs because of their height and the fact that they are counted as both ground and air for targeting purposes?

The age of the siege tank isn't finished because you can't attack them unless you are on the same level as them or higher or have something else revealing them.

[burkid]

i would assume colossi can see up 1 level of cliffs

[FlyingTiger]

eh maybe even more since they are soo tall

[Ghost]

Yeah, most likely burkid, hell, that's what i'd do...guess the age of the siege tank is finished guys... :upset: for when i play Terran ;D for when i play Protoss


No its not, a good Tank Commander would of unsieged his tanks and either retreated while firing at the immortals as tanks have a larger range and can fire while moving, that video was only that way to show the hardened shields.

[burkid]

No its not, a good Tank Commander would of unsieged his tanks and either retreated while firing at the immortals as tanks have a larger range and can fire while moving, that video was only that way to show the hardened shields.

but they role of the immortals had already been served at that point, the zealots and colossi made it into the base

[Ghost]

Sorry i dont really get what you mean

[Ghost]

i build bunkers around were i put my tanks so they dont get killed


Yea but you really cant build bunkers on a tactical advance like that, unluss you have a bunker "hop" prepared.

[burkid]

the whole point of the immortals spearheading the attack is so that the zealots and colossi can get in without the tanks shelling them from afar.

[Ghost]

Oh I c, thats true. But a Tank Commander should always have quick escape from situations like that. Either a quick dropships removal (or addition of support units), a station where the tanks can retreat to or more tanks covering those.

Anyway I LOVE the idea of the immortals, it'll stop peopl from JUST massing sieges. and if it doesnt better for me i say =D

[Ghost]

good point then i would do something like keep ghosts around them and nuke the army thats charging my sige tanks (go nukes ;D )


Yea but you'd have to stop the advance early to spare your tanks, if the advance is HUGE i'd sacrifica a few, ive killed off my own bases doing that b4, it wins games.

[Itsmyship]

good point then i would do something like keep ghosts around them and nuke the army thats charging my sige tanks (go nukes ;D )


You're going to nuke the army charging you, while in the process, destroying your OWN siege tanks, thus doing the thing you were trying to prevent?

[burkid]

Oh I c, thats true. But a Tank Commander should always have quick escape from situations like that. Either a quick dropships removal (or addition of support units), a station where the tanks can retreat to or more tanks covering those.

once an army is in your base, though, you woulnt probably want to run away with tanks.

o and ghost, youve been double posting a bunch

[Ghost]

Oh I c, thats true. But a Tank Commander should always have quick escape from situations like that. Either a quick dropships removal (or addition of support units), a station where the tanks can retreat to or more tanks covering those.

once an army is in your base, though, you woulnt probably want to run away with tanks.

o and ghost, youve been double posting a bunch


Sorry about the dp's but i cant get the hang of double quoting.

[burkid]

oh ok. just making sure you were aware.


no they wont becuse what everyone whel do is get a bunch of reapers around there sige tanks
human sheld

so reapers are going to shield tanks from a nuclear explosion by holding hands??

[Ghost]

LOL!!!

[Itsmyship]

oh ok. just making sure you were aware.


no they wont becuse what everyone whel do is get a bunch of reapers around there sige tanks
human sheld

so reapers are going to shield tanks from a nuclear explosion by holding hands??


I seriously lol'd to that one. :P I think he was talking about the whole immortal/siege tank thing earlier.

[burkid]

well he was still talking about nukes at that point too.

[Ghost]

I wonder how many people holding hands would it take to stop a nuke...

[Itsmyship]

*shrug* just make a really compact bunker made of humans

[burkid]

I wonder how many people holding hands would it take to stop a nuke...

i dont think i can count that high

[Itsmyship]

Oh hey, Burkid, you get a :powerup: for that one joke btw.

[paragon]

and can fire while moving

no, siege tanks cannot do this.


Sorry about the dp's but i cant get the hang of double quoting.

you just press the quote button by their post then when you're done answering that, you press the quote button for the next post and it adds that quote to the bottom of what you were saying.

[Ghost]

K, thnx about the dp thing

And yes they can, properly mircoed they can drive off AND fire at enemies, their nose turns to fire while moving.

[burkid]

i told you paragon, in a different thread, but you didnt believe me (im talking bout the tanks)

[Ghost]

Its fricking awsome when I manage to do it.

[T-man]

Indeed I have noticed that tanks can fire one shot while moving, it is a very odd feature.
You cannot say that tanks "can fire while moving;" however, because they must stop like every other unit to actually engage enemies for a period of time.
This brought up a shred of memory from the original vid with the MS, I seem to remember it being able to acquire enemies with its normal attack (those like eight plasma balls or whatever) while still moving.

I never could understand while mighty ships (carrier, battlecruiser, etc.) had to stop to fire. Even if each unit were only given the ability to fire one shot (similar to siege tanks) while moving before having to stop, it could have rather large tactical ramifications.

[Remy]

I thought I read somewhere that siege tanks could attack while moving in SC2...

I don't remember if it was from an official source though.

[burkid]

thats from infoceptor remy, so no, its not official

[paragon]

1) have you ever driven siege tanks right past a bunch of units and watched your siege tank's guns turn, turn, turn, turn, and never fire? This means they can't fire when moving
2) micro my ***. They are stopping and shooting. You're just making them go again right after they shoot.

[Ghost]

W/e, i manage to do it, not my problem if you cant manage.

[paragon]

You "manage" to make them stop, fire, and start moving again. Man, that must require you to like... look at the tanks and right after they fire click somewhere to move to. Skills man. Mad skills.

[TidalSpiral]

Banelings rolling down the cliffs... God I love this thought.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the height changes matters. Hopefully the fighting will be a little more dynamic and have a range of damage instead of pure numerical counts. SC was excellent but I always wished the outcomes would be slightly more randomized between closely matched forces.

[T-man]

. Hopefully the fighting will be a little more dynamic and have a range of damage instead of pure numerical counts. SC was excellent but I always wished the outcomes would be slightly more randomized between closely matched forces.


I personally loved the exact damage counts. Made it much easier to calculate kill amounts and do precision attacks.

[didd293]

again, this is probably to cater to pro korean players who like the offensive style of play. Even if the cliff-walking or whatever it's called plays a large role in the game, which I doubt, it would be just like a drop, except slower (maybe) and we had to fight off drops in the first game too, in case you haven't noticed. In the end, it'll just come down to how well you adapt.

[paragon]

Hopefully the fighting will be a little more dynamic and have a range of damage instead of pure numerical counts. SC was excellent but I always wished the outcomes would be slightly more randomized between closely matched forces.

Play warcraft 3 if you want this. If they do this to starcraft 2 they will not be forgiven. its extremely unfair when you have a unit that could have killed something if the random number had been higher or if your unit could have escaped if the random number had been higher. The only way to ensure the game's real competitive nature is to keep the damage values set.

[Remy]

I want to vote a big NO on randomized damage values. Definitely not for SC.

Also, to help squash this strange little argument on whether siege tanks could move and attack simultaneously in SC1, the answer is no. I don't know where that came from.

Siege tank cannons(or whatever that top part is supposed to be called) will automatcally pivot to aim at their targets while they move during attack cooldown, but that's just aesthetic. Albeit their attacking animation can be a little deceiving, siege tanks had to stop to attack just like other units, micro had nothing to do with it. Moving right after firing off a shot really isn't the same thing as a unit being able to attack and move simultaneously full time.

[paragon]

yep just what I said. But for some reason they still don't like believing me despite how right I am about so many things.

[Remy]

how right I am about so many things.


Believe it or not, an arrogant tone isn't very convincing, whether you are right or not.

And the last time I checked, being right is a true or false condition. You're either right or you're not. There are no degrees of variance, no more right or less right. Now what the hell is "how right?"

Now, after all that, I don't know if you'll decide to take it personally with offense or just brush it off. But because I do believe that you are an intelligent individual based on my experience from reading many of your posts in the past, and that I do not dislike you, I offer you a small advice...

Arrogance tells yourself that you are better, but humility tells that to everyone.

[ItzaHexGor]

What I would like to see, is for Blizzard to make cliffs more dangerous...

So here are the inter-tier units:

Protoss: Colossus
Terran: Reapers
Zerg: Unknown (maybe a spurt flyer or leaper)

As you already know... traveling up and down cliffs is a dangerous and difficult thing to do. So... what if, when a Reaper is jumping a cliff, river, void, or chasm, his/her jump-pack malfunctions, stalls, or runs out of gas, and they plummet to their death.

Colossus are extremely expensive and are a large unit, as opposed the to Reapers being infantry, so it is out of the question to have them die whilst climbing cliffs. But maybe they could make a mistake or slip, dealing serious damage as the crew inside are jolted and thrown as the Colossus recovers from it's fall.

The Zerg, assuming that their inter-tier travelers aren't large units, could have a bit more of an aggressive mishap. Seeing as they aren't reliant on technology to 'bridge the gap' (mind the pun!), then it is much less likely for them to just crash or fall. However maybe, during their leap or flight, could bump, or have a go at another unit that it also jumping or flying along-side it, and the two of them fall down or crash while having a vicious rumble, mid-flight!

[ijffdrie]

no way, random deaths are not in SC 2
do you understand that?

[BnechbReaker]

lol ijffdrie, calm down :p

[MarineCorp]

I wonder what's wrong with ijffdrie -_-;

[ijffdrie]

nothing, btw, we need you marinecorp, come to o great warriors

[ItzaHexGor]

Hey, cmon... I reckon it would actually be a good mechanic. Just to make cliffs and stuff more hazardous (because they are). and it's not like there would be tonnes of death each time, just like a 5% chance or something. Purely to make attacking or retreating over cliffs a bit more risky. And the deaths aren't random, it's because it's such a dangerous way to travel... not like your Reapers are all just standing there idly and one of them suffers a cerebral hemorrhage. Now THAT would be random/funny!

[10-Neon]

If you want to make traveling on cliffs more dangerous, imposing random deaths or damage is not the way to go. There are games where this might be done, ones that are trying to simulate a realistic war, etc, but StarCraft is not one of them. Now, as I am sure ijffdrie and the others will agree, it is not the idea of making cliffs hazardous that is objectionable in your idea, it is the idea that in doing so, a "dice roll" is occurring, something that is being decided by some random number generator instead of a player.

A StarCraft way of making cliff jumping risky would involve no randomness, no death. There might be damage involved, but it would be set. When Marines/Firebats use Stimpack, they take a set 10 damage. Now, what you could do for cliff jumpers is do something similar: Have them take maybe 2 damage for every hop. Maybe larger units will take more. This way, there is no random punishment: if a player chooses to hop a cliff, they know exactly how much damage their unit will take.

Another way to do this, and this one I would prefer if I had to choose, would be to "stun" the unit before or after it makes a jump. This is already used with a few different SC2 units. Stalkers' Blink takes a while before it can be used again, it risks Blinking into a situation that it can't get out of before its cooldown is over. Phoenixes shut down after they use Overload: they become sitting ducks until their systems come back up. With cliff jumpers, a Reaper might have to "charge" its jump packs before jumping a cliff, leaving them vulnerable for a second or two before the packs engage, a Colossus might have to slow down to a quarter of its normal moving speed in order to safely negotiate the change in elevation. These would be non-random and expected effects that both the player and their enemy would know about. An enemy would not have to just hope that a twentieth of the attacking force will spontaneously explode on the way over: they can just pick the right moments, before, during, or after the jump depending on how it is implemented, and cause the deaths themselves. The player using the units would know to treat these situations with caution, forcing them to look for safe jump areas as opposed to "any old cliff."

This is the kind of change that would alter gameplay in a useful way. Something that players can work with. Something with predictable results. But there is an interesting problem even with this: for Reapers and Colossi, moving over cliffs is done automatically, so if something bad is going to happen to the units, this will automatically happen even if the unit was not explicitly ordered to place itself into that situation. I think this is the kind of thing that Blizzard finds to be unacceptable. So, in order to make cliff jumping risky, they would also have to make the abilities like Blink: called directly by the player who is opting to take that risk. In my opinion, this would detract from the use of cliff movement, and certainly from the fun, which is probably why cliffs are not made to be risky at all.

[DontHate]

yea it's a beutiful mechanic. i see it already, Bisu sends his collosus down into Boxer's base. collosus trips and the scvs manage to get out of the way from the collosus while it's stumbling to get up. Koreans commit suicide.

[MarineCorp]

Woah! send me the link if you can! i would love to see that! very interesting

[10-Neon]

I am afraid he's seeing it in his head, along with quite a few other strange things I would rather not discuss.

[ItzaHexGor]

Yeah, I see what you mean, the player should always be in control, but I'll sticking by my original statement by saying that they are not purely random deaths. There is a proper reason for the odd one to die, being that constantly traveling up and down cliffs is not safe. I was just trying to think of a way that would make inter-tier traveling less of a sure-fire method. Are there any other ways of doing it?

[DontHate]

Woah! send me the link if you can! i would love to see that! very interesting
that's strange. sort of felt u weren't joking there.

[Seradin]

well, maybe the terrans can build a cliff mounted defense.

[10-Neon]

But not all maps have cliffs: such defenses would be too specialized. Kind of like the Infested CC, only available with Terran opponents, almost never used. Now if it were a standard defense building that could also be built on cliffs...? That might work.

ItzaHexGor: That is what my big long post was trying to address, by making cliff jumpers vulnerable while in the act, they are open to being attacked by other players. It is like using a transport to drop units in an enemy base: if they have turrets, the transports, which can't attack and have less HP than the units they carry, get shot down. This is the risk, making transports a non-sure-fire tactic. If there is no air defense, transports are safe. The same idea would apply to cliff jumpers, they do not take damage, they do not die, simply for jumping. They are placed in a position where it is much easier for them to die, but it is up to another player to take advantage of this. There is therefore skill on both sides: avoiding defenses for the jumper, anticipating jumps, for the defender.

[The Watcher]

In games were someone puts "no rushing" or other limitations, I see it as there inability to deal with a new or different opposing strategy. The cliffs are just another expample of this, and while I can't claim to find the answer to this I can say theres still the ability to try.

Plus in most "no rushing" games the host decides when to attack, and if you so much as peek in his base before hes ready to teh pwn you he gets pissed. that's why a don't like limit games, even if I'm not as good at them