Why do all maps have unlimited expansion everywhere? Why not make a map designed for 2 base plays to 1 base plays exclusively - with literally no other bases to expand to. The base you start is the only base you've got, (Or have the expansion be farther away making it still possible to get a second base, but a lot more vulnerable.)
I say this with a bit of bias;
I've always loved the micro part, and strategy, of SC2, but disliked the macro part. One base plays, to 2 base plays are usually in my comfort zone. When my enemy goes one base, game usually tend to be a lot funner and way more nerveracking. If I win, I really think I beat the other guy by good strat and thinking.
(And my computer is 7 years old, and begins to lag hard at 150/200 armies, forcing me to win early or lose, and it doesn't allow me to practice macro at 200/200)
But I know I'm not alone, there are a lot of people out there that dislike the whole macro part of the game. It might not be a game design in general, but a map design in origin.
I also realize this might be a problem for zerg. Although there are a lot of smart people on Team Liquid. If it's a map problem, someone out there will be able to make a map that fixes this.
I think its a good idea for a change of pace but maps like this should never be in ladder play imo. Macro is very important part of Starcraft 2 and it separates the good players from the great players. Im not knocking the idea, id love to play a map with limited expansion points but just don't wanna see it at the high level competitive scene as it takes away a vital element of the game.
The whole point is that it should allow the option to do both. That's why the first 2 bases are easily defendable, the 3rd not so, and the rest are hard to defend. It's already hard enough to do macro builds because of the nats, backdoors and limited space in the center.
My biggest gripe with SC2 is its so limiting, rather than allowing for as many different styles of play as possible. In BW sometimes I want to do 14CC/12 Nexus other times I want to do 2 port wraith/2 Gate Reaver, SC2 doesn't seem to give me this flexibility, I find I am always having to do the same opening constantly because of counters being so easy to achieve, such as fast expand = lol backdoor. If BW had the mechanics and maps that SC2 had, pure macro or micro builds would always fail and you end up having to always go the middle ground which is not so interesting.
There are some special cases, like Nony's Phoenix build or Moonglaives mass spine crawler to power drone, but I still find its a lot more middle ground than lets say 2 port wraith or 3 hatch before pool.
Basically you should allow for as many options as possible, rather than enforce restrictions, to counter your argument .
but then 14 or 16 hatching barely gives you the advantage during macro battles... I suck at micro, so usually go 16 hatch 200/200 battles lol... except in ZvZ, I was just going over pool speedlings... but I think all Z's were doing that.
Seriously, there aren't enough expansions in sc2. These maps are nothing compared to bw. for example late game on fighting spirit or python you'll be on 5-6 bases.
Also this style of map and gameplay is heavily toss favored.
Macro is a major part of starcraft. Your suggestion would make it have a lower skill ceiling, a problem many already argue it has.
TL;DR You're suggestion is noob favored, and race imbalanced.
On June 20 2010 16:09 slowmanrunning wrote: I sense a warcraft 3 player...
Seriously, there aren't enough expansions in sc2. These maps are nothing compared to bw. for example late game on fighting spirit or python you'll be on 5-6 bases.
Also this style of map and gameplay is heavily toss favored.
Macro is a major part of starcraft. Your suggestion would make it have a lower skill ceiling, a problem many already argue it has.
TL;DR You're suggestion is noob favored, and race imbalanced.
Isn't it difficult to get a 3rd on python? all he's doing is suggesting maps that encourage micro as opposed to macro
I think the opposite is true right now. We need maps that encourage more expansions not fewer. 1-base player are almost exclusively all-ins or need to do enough damage such that a transition into 2 or 3 base plays would put the 1 baser ahead.
Do we want Bloodbath (the terrible, tiny blizz map from the original starcraft) to end up in the ladder pool for SC2? hell no. If you like this play, map a custom map and play with some friends.
On these maps that you say have too many expansions, you already have the option to do one, or two base play. Just because you can't macro and find it tedious doesn't mean you should limit your opponent as well.
"Two to one" base maps would be a bit shitty imo. The average time for a game on such a map would be about 10-15 minutes or less. I don't know about you, but my most epic games so far have been the 30-40 minute ones with the map cut in half and all expos taken.
Macro games > Low economy games
Of course, both type of maps aren't mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure these kind of maps will eventually show up. Just not on the ladder
On June 20 2010 16:09 slowmanrunning wrote: I sense a warcraft 3 player...
Seriously, there aren't enough expansions in sc2. These maps are nothing compared to bw. for example late game on fighting spirit or python you'll be on 5-6 bases.
Also this style of map and gameplay is heavily toss favored.
Macro is a major part of starcraft. Your suggestion would make it have a lower skill ceiling, a problem many already argue it has.
TL;DR You're suggestion is noob favored, and race imbalanced.
as a Terran player, imagine if t just turtles for half an hour to wait for his opponents to mine out, and pushes when he's got 1-1, and 200/200. It's gonna be extremely hard/almost impossible to break the t, and the fact that a 200/200 t army > a 200/200 p/z army using just a little bit of micro is seemingly in terran's favour on maps with only two bases.
and besides, macro is equally as hard as micro, so if you try to lessen it's significance, one would remove such a key element of starcraft. Macro + micro oriented games > 2 base maps.
It might be... interesting in customs, but horrible in Ladder. I don't see how a Zerg player, for example, could realistically hope to compete in solely 1 or 2 base play.
On June 20 2010 17:20 intergalactic wrote: "Two to one" base maps would be a bit shitty imo. The average time for a game on such a map would be about 10-15 minutes or less. I don't know about you, but my most epic games so far have been the 30-40 minute ones with the map cut in half and all expos taken.
Macro games > Low economy games
This is, I'm sorry, complete bull.
I apologize, I must derail this thread with some mandatory epic gamness to show whats what.
No, but seriously, if you don't want to play those "big maps", then just do custom games with custom maps. Even though there is some people like you, the majority of the people and 100% of the pro-scene revolve around "big maps"
One thing I do like about the very small one-base kind of play is that it creates a lot of really dynamic situations that take a lot of intelligence to adapt to. When you're put in crazy situations because of base trades and unorthodox play I feel like the game takes a lot of skill. Larger maps often allow players to play very structured, rehearsed gameplay that feels a bit canned.
The game probably isn't balanced for this type of play, and the openings would most likely get refined to a point where it would get boring, though.
you can just have one base strats but also have the ability to expand
why take out that part of the game unnecessarily? it would add no dynamic to the game other than making it shorter and less exciting and harder for protoss
On June 20 2010 16:09 slowmanrunning wrote: I sense a warcraft 3 player...
Seriously, there aren't enough expansions in sc2. These maps are nothing compared to bw. for example late game on fighting spirit or python you'll be on 5-6 bases.
Also this style of map and gameplay is heavily toss favored.
Macro is a major part of starcraft. Your suggestion would make it have a lower skill ceiling, a problem many already argue it has.
TL;DR You're suggestion is noob favored, and race imbalanced.
A "tl;dr" was not necessary. Not even a long post. But I basically agree with you.
Part of the reason Starcraft is such a successful competitive sport was that it took the skill, multitasking, to the extreme. Not many other games require this amount of multitasking. Most competitive games are usually focused on one aspect. The great part about Starcraft or games that require a lot of multitask is that you can never perfect it. You will see pro players have idle drones or just mess up on micro.
Having these one base maps will be very boring games because you can usually tell who will win before the game even starts. A player with better micro will beat the better macro player on this map. Multi base maps are great because both great macroers and great microers have a chance to win.
If you want to go play a micro only game, try DoW2. You have one unit producing structure and you basically move your army around the map to get resources.
EPT
.
