|
Actually the war of multiple bases makes even more interesting game, with many fronts of attack at the same time. Often there are 3+ battle spots on the minimap, with bases being traded back and forth, as well as units. Such game is a good game!
On June 20 2010 15:33 Strobe wrote:
(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) I know very well what you mean though.. There should be more effective ways for players with very weak machines to still enjoy the game, otherwise the sea of "noobs" is quite often a sea of "people whose machines are worse than yours".
|
On June 20 2010 19:21 figq wrote:
I know very well what you mean though.. There should be more effective ways for players with very weak machines to still enjoy the game, otherwise the sea of "noobs" is quite often a sea of "people whose machines are worse than yours".
They should just allow ppl to play SC2 with the SC1 skins, lol.
Think of it as a "throwback version." Maybe they could charge $20 for it!
|
i get why you'd like it dude, but its totally race imbalanced and could never work. also, could easily end in lame stale-mate kinda games.
|
Go play WC3 if you want 1-base play. SC evolved in macro-based play and SC2 is only building on that.
edit: I would say SC2 right now has too much 1-2 base play and not enough macro. Part of that is the maps which hopefully change. More tournaments should incorporate the BW remakes since they are 100x better than terrid maps like Blistering Sands and DO.
|
I'd love to see the ladder maps have even more resources and ect. but that's just me. I don't really have a problem with 1 or 2 base maps...
|
On June 20 2010 17:52 bITt.mAN wrote:Show nested quote +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. + Show Spoiler [Awesomeness to come] +
see below, I like a higher postcount ^^
it's true that tiny maps like shrinkage gives some new dynamics to the game, but it's at the cost of huge game mechanics (macro/late-game game plans/huge army management and micro/etc.). imo, tiny maps like this are mere novelties in starcraft, and will only remain as such (just like how blood bath is a novelty map in Broodwar).
|
Starcraft is a macro-oriented game. Imagine if everyone on a football team could shoot, control the ball, pass, and have all the mechanics of the game crisply refined, but they knew nothing about positioning. I understand why you prefer one to two base play, but it wouldn't work for the pro-scene.
|
I also would love one base or two base maps.
I imagine though zerg players whouldn't like it as much.
|
On June 21 2010 01:19 papaz wrote:
I also would love one base or two base maps.
I imagine though zerg players whouldn't like it as much.
we already hate on most of the current maps so why should we like even shorter maps?
|
I think Blizzard is actually trying to encourage more 1 base play. The suggestion isn't to take out every map that has multiple bases. I would like to see MORE maps in play. And some low-econ maps are out there even in the Brood War progaming scene. Originally, Brood War was far more Micro-oriented, it's only been the last few years that people have focused on the macro-oriented play. I think Blizzard is trying to encourage more 1 base play to help foster diversity. Personally, I really liked low resources maps in SC at times, not for every game, but it made it much more dynamic. Vampire, for instance, had 2 geyers in the main, but both of them and the minerals started at fairly low totals. This map isn't a good example probably, as it encouraged a lot of expansions because they were so much less resources. But even regular maps don't have tons of expansions. If you think about Python though, there are only 3 bases for each player. It's just that in a 1v1 there are 6 extra empty bases because it's a 4 player map. I wouldn't mind seeing a 2 player Lost Temple with those 6 extra bases gone. Micro used to be a huge part of Starcraft, before Macro was. I think Blizzard wants both to be important, not have Macro be more important than Micro, but rather have it be more dynamic and balanced.
|
Basically you should allow for as many options as possible, rather than enforce restrictions, to counter your argument
I actually thought this was supporting my argument to tell you the truth. I always felt restricted to doing huge macro build, if I didn't want to play for fun but to win.
I sense a warcraft 3 player...
I played the campaigns, didn't touch any of the multi-player aspects however.
Your suggestion would make it have a lower skill ceiling, a problem many already argue it has
Sorry if I have a different opinion then you, but I think macro requires so little skill. If I win by macro, I really don't feel like I out-played my opponent. =S
TL;DR You're suggestion is noob favored, and race imbalanced.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I was just suggesting something. If you think it was dumb, there's no need to go out of you way to say your a noob, go die in a fire. I just find macro a lot easier and less fun. Too robotic and mechanical.
Just because you can't macro and find it tedious doesn't mean you should limit your opponent as well.
If you like this play, map a custom map and play with some friends.
This would be a terrible idea for the pro-scene.
My whole point with this thread is to see what team liquid could come up for a map that would support this - so that I could play with my friends. I didn't really care about seeing the pro-gammers trying it out. Nor did I even mention them.
Play shrinkage.
Not really what I had in mind. I mean a map about as big as steps of war, but without as many bases. Sirinkage looks really weird O.o
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.
Exactly what I'm trying to say.
Actually the war of multiple bases makes even more interesting game, with many fronts of attack at the same time. Often there are 3+ battle spots on the minimap, with bases being traded back and forth, as well as units. Such game is a good game!
I agree with you, or else I would not be playing SC2 at all. But after 400 games doing the same exact thing, I find it a lot more fun going one base to 2 base plays since it add more thinking to win then just trying to build more bases then your enemy and being somewhat smart with the attack-move command. It's an interesting battle, but it's just the same battle over and over in macro wars.
you can just have one base strats but also have the ability to expand
The thing though, is that if my opponent even expands once, my one base play is an uphill battle that I usually don't win. As soon as they expand, I'm forced to go a macro game.
i get why you'd like it dude, but its totally race imbalanced and could never work. also, could easily end in lame stale-mate kinda games.
That's why I think it's a map problem. If the map is done well, I think this problem could be solved. Maybe having only one base isn't the answer, but having an expansion far off instead of at the front door is. I don't know, that why I asked TL
Go play WC3 if you want 1-base play.
I really didn't like that game that much. And DoW felt more like a tug of war then anything else, to the couple of people that mentioned that game. Haven't even touched the second since I was disappointed with the first greatly.
|
I don't like 1 base plays. Its far too easy to be contained and I'll know exactly where you are so scouting isn't required. Scouting has always added a enjoyable element to the games.
|
There was a map from BW I used to play with friends which encouraged low econ play in the opposite way of what is being talked about here. There were tons of expansions but the minneral patches were much smaller then normal forcing you to play low econ even with lots of expansions.
The map wasnt even close to balenced but it was tons of fun to play with friends
|
All I have to say is if the OP thinks that macro takes 'no skill', then how come you cannot macro if its so damned easy?
|
maps with no natural are auto lose for zerg unless they cheese, and maps with only the natural are auto lose for zerg after your opponent secures their own natural and sits on it for a bit. I think at the very minimum there should be a potential for 3 bases per player
|
Obviously the bases shouldn't be too limited. The current map pool is fairly diverse, but I definitely would like to see some maps with less bases. Incineration Zone was a terrible map, but the idea behind it is not. I like that there is also maps like Desert Oasis with very difficult natural expansions. In Brood War, the maps that came out in the later years were very macro oriented and had easy 2nd and 3rd bases, but there were also many maps back in the day that decided to make things a little tougher for players. I liked those kinds of maps, especially vampire because your base would run out of steam so fast that you had to really make the most of your money.
Macro DOES take less skill than micro (though macro is more of a strain since its constant and therfore easier to mess up), but is therefore much less satisfying of a victory, which I understand completely. It's does feel nicer to outplay your opponent, rather than outbuild him, There does need to be some more big macro maps in the pool too though. But the most important thing we can have in the maps is Diversity. I wholeheartedly support both new limited base or limited resource maps and maps with many many expansions, possibly even multiple golds.
I think the most important factor in making a map favor a 1 base build up are ones with the naturals more difficult to defend like DO. We need more maps total including macro maps, but we definitely do need some more arena type maps like an actually good version of Incineration Zone.
Edit: Vampire wasn't that map, though it did have 2 geysers. I do remember a map with 1000 minerals in each patch and 3000 in each of the 2 geysers. It definately made for interesting matchups.
|
Macro DOES take less skill than micro
Actually, the multitasking skills required in efficient macroing dwarfs the skill that micro needs. That's why BW makes every other game look pathetic in terms of competitive play.
That said, I'm not bashing micro. I definitely enjoy micro more, but forcefully making players focus on that by limiting macro options would make for very imbalanced maps (Zerg in particular would be completely screwed) and very dull, one dimensional play, while you specifically say that you want to shy away from that. The problem is that you're assuming bigger maps = a mandatory macro game, where this simply isn't the case. There's still an option for smaller battles, most notably in the early game where micro is more intense.
In the end, it might be fun, but it shouldn't be anything that Blizzard devotes time to - they are focused on making this an e-sport and that's what the maps they develop are for.
|
My opinion is this idea would get boring really fast. Imagine all the noobs out there who just sit on one base and macro up. Technically, you'll get turtling terran and protected protoss who are just sitting massing some unit, like void rays. Would this be fun? Another thing, imagine if all the games were decided in the first 5 minutes every time, would it be fun? I also have to disagree with fyrewolf, macro is not necessarily easier than microing. You have to have a balance of both, knowing when to jump back to your base and build, when to expand, or when you should retreat. That's all macro, because technically macro is not just outbuilding him. I would have no problem with a Vampire map again, but a one base map would not be as fun.
EDIT : ^^ beat me to it
|
All I have to say is if the OP thinks that macro takes 'no skill', then how come you cannot macro if its so damned easy?
Because my computer crashes at 150/200 supply?
I said that right on the OP. I'm fine if you don't agree with my opinion, but at least read my OP before posting. I read all your comments fully, why can't you?
Sorry to sound harsh, but that really tick me off =(
maps with no natural are auto lose for zerg unless they cheese, and maps with only the natural are auto lose for zerg after your opponent secures their own natural and sits on it for a bit. I think at the very minimum there should be a potential for 3 bases per player
That's a good number I think.
There was a map from BW I used to play with friends which encouraged low econ play in the opposite way of what is being talked about here. There were tons of expansions but the minneral patches were much smaller then normal forcing you to play low econ even with lots of expansions.
The map wasnt even close to balenced but it was tons of fun to play with friends
That sounds like another good idea. Interesting one too, I haven't thought about less resources per base.
I think the most important factor in making a map favor a 1 base build up are ones with the naturals more difficult to defend like DO. We need more maps total including macro maps, but we definitely do need some more arena type maps like an actually good version of Incineration Zone.
That makes sense. I get a vague picture coming together that I think would make for an interesting map to play at.
Possibly have the natural be harder to obtain and harder to defend, with the third Expansion(s) being near the center of the map, and possibly the hardest to defend.
My opinion is this idea would get boring really fast. Imagine all the noobs out there who just sit on one base and macro up. Technically, you'll get turtling terran and protected protoss who are just sitting massing some unit, like void rays
This is one big problem. I'm thinking multiple ways to get into someone's base might stop that. Turtling is only as effective as you can block off your chokes. If say the third expansions has no chokes at all, and second is wide open with your main being the only easily defended spot, that means if your turtle, your letting the opponent take all their three bases without contest.
That might fix that problem, but probably will add way more then I can think of atm.
In the end, it might be fun, but it shouldn't be anything that Blizzard devotes time to - they are focused on making this an e-sport and that's what the maps they develop are for.
I'm not posting this thread for blizzard, but for my own map making. 
The way I see it, Micro is 20% of the game, Strat is 30%, and macro is 50%
I'd like to bring it down a notch so that it's more in line with the others.
|
Macro is something you do constantly so it's more of a strain, but Micro has to be "fit in" wherever you can squeeze it into your attention/apm. Microing also has a much smaller window of time for execution, especially concerning battles (though army positioning ahead of time is often more important than the Micro), and it can be harder to come back from repeated micro losses, whereas you can be behind on Macro and compensate in with many different methods. It is more difficult to make up bad Micro decisions because of the fewer methods to compensate.
That's why I stated that Micro is harder than Macro, but Macro is constant, and therefore a strain; I don't want to undervalue the need for Macro, in the end it's more important, because straight Micro helps less in winning the game if you can't Macro than vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
