|
I have a very simple question which I hope is relevant enough to warrant it's own thread.
Would increasing the population cap in Starcraft 2 increase the game's skill ceiling?
Although there is an unlimited unit select it would not always be beneficial to command your army through a single control group. Combat tactics such as flanks, pincers, unit spreads, and harassment will still necessitate using multiple control groups.
My line of reasoning is that by giving the player a larger army to manage you will increase the actions required to manage that army effectively. This assumption is partially based upon the effects seen from decreasing army sizes alla Warcraft 3, which I must admit is based on secondhand experience, from hearing other players discuss the game. Despite this, I think the logic is sound.
Now I don't think it would necessarily add a huge amount to the skill ceiling, but I do think that every "little bit" helps.
Besides the initial question, would an increased population cap have any other relevant effects on/in the game?
Thank you for your time.
|
Id love if you could pre-set the pop cap in melee games and UMS games but other then that i dont know how it would inpact gameplay (except make macro more important)
|
I'm pretty sure an increased population cap would just make turtling more of a viable strategy, which is not what blizzard wants from sc2.
Just look at sc: you don't wait for 200/200 unless you're playing PvT and terran is sitting back and waiting for 3/3, and at that point you're just relying on macro, not superior control, to win
|
With apparently much quicker production rates from all races, this would make logical sense to me, as an example, you can apparently have 5-hatch hydra production off 2 hatches(1-2 queens?) on 2 bases. (I might be off on those numbers, but point still stands) Higher population limit would make sense with this, as macro games in SC2 would often hit the 200/200 cap theoretically.
|
I think a higher pop cap would increase the skill ceiling, it's so much easier to control a few units than trying to control many units. It will probably increase the importance of macro, since it may take longer to get maxed.
|
I dont see it changing the game a whole lot. How often do you actually hit 200/200? Outside of pvt I rarely ever reach that limit. pvp and pvz have enough action to keep you below that limit the vast majority of the time.
I dont know how the sc2 matchups are going to play out, but with the tank having a smaller role than in bw I see the population limit being hit even less often.
I am hoping sc2 will have very little turtling and a lot of action so that pop limits wont be much of an issue.
|
Higher pop cap would just make protoss stronger : /
|
Those 'wait until we max out' games would get soooooooooooo much more boring.
|
haha maybe your right Elite00fm, in sc it would make toss/terran crazy strong because they can have a higher power concentration in a small space.
as for the OP I think it would increase skill cap in the giant-epic-max-out-full-upgrades-battle sense but other than that not really.
|
At 200/200 it pretty much forces you to attack. If the population cap went to 500? Well it would encourage people to sit back and just mass up units and be defensive. By capping it, there comes a point where both players just have to throw down.
This is entirely besides the concern of having an 8 player game with 200 supply worth of units for each player which would probably cause some peoples' computers to abort.
I can't believe how slow news is lately that we are down to discussing this topic.
|
I'm a newbie, but I think decreasing the pop cap would force more tactical play than increasing it. A lower pop cap means that army make-up, effective use of each unit, battle tactics, tactical advantages like recon/scouting information and cover advantage just that much more important. But with a lower pop count, it would be more like tabletop Warhammer than a computer RTS.
|
On September 21 2009 06:05 Elite00fm wrote:
Higher pop cap would just make protoss stronger : /
theoretically it would make terran stronger, 200/200 terran is already near impossible to stop with 200 supply protoss. now imagine 300/300 terran.
sure more arbiters but more vessels/gollies/tanks etc(or whatever the equivalent is)
|
The maps would need to get bigger...that's about it.
|
On September 21 2009 07:36 NExUS1g wrote:
I'm a newbie, but I think decreasing the pop cap would force more tactical play than increasing it. A lower pop cap means that army make-up, effective use of each unit, battle tactics, tactical advantages like recon/scouting information and cover advantage just that much more important. But with a lower pop count, it would be more like tabletop Warhammer than a computer RTS.
or...you can play wc3
|
Increasing the population cap would also make balancing overall race matchups more difficult. Imagine how much for defensive and unstoppable Flash would be if he was waiting for Terran to get to 300 supply?!?
|
I think it's perfectly fine as 200... right? ^^
|
On September 21 2009 08:13 0neder wrote:
Increasing the population cap would also make balancing overall race matchups more difficult. Imagine how much for defensive and unstoppable Flash would be if he was waiting for Terran to get to 300 supply?!?
Yes but he would then be mined out of those 4 bases he's on while the protoss is already mining out the rest of the map.
|
I guess u can change cap for custom games.
|
you could also just increase both pop cap and pop cost for tanks and such. that way the maxed terran army wont be as devastatingly destructive
|
On September 21 2009 09:40 majesty.k)seRapH wrote:
you could also just increase both pop cap and pop cost for tanks and such. that way the maxed terran army wont be as devastatingly destructive
Shall we have 1 marine become 2 pop now? Just so 300/300 m&m isn't overly destructive? It could work, but I don't think a human soldier would work as 2 population. It just doesn't really make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
