|
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.
That's the idea behind WC3.
It works very well, but it's not StarCraft's style. StarCraft is as much balls out, high speed action as quick thinking and strategy.
200 max is allright. You don't hit it too often.
Although I would love it if you could make a 12 player FFA map with no pop max. That would be awesome.
|
Take into consideration the fact that all the UI enhancements serve to make macro easier. This leads to the conclusion that it should be easier to get more units faster.
Also remember that, currently, Starcraft 2's macro takes less attention and APM than Broodwar's this means players will be able to spend more time microing.
Lastly consider that in Starcraft 2 a maxed Terran army is not necessarily the strongest thing in the game.
|
Reasons listed so far for not having the cap increased
-Boring
-People will turtle more
-I don't like it
-You don't hit it very much anyways
In case you guys didn't know, PvT in SC2 does't involve mass tanks and vulture, so does anyone have some legitimate reasons?
|
On September 21 2009 07:40 arb wrote:Show nested quote +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)
I guess you misunderstood, but it's not uncommon at all for P to hit 200 pop when T is barely at 150. If the pop cap was at 300, P can produce so fast that they could get to 300 population when T is at maybe 200, and at that point T can't prevent P from taking the whole map with its ridiculous army advantage(This would happen in 200/200 limit as well, but the limit lets T catch up for a while until they're at 160-170 when they are able to beat the P army comfortably and push)
|
I have already specifically thought about this, and I registered just to comment on this.
I'm thinking that they will have to increase the population max.. or do something to direct counter this problem:
As it stands, protoss and terran have a mining boost while zerg have a production boost. This means that zerg will either have more drones or have more bases with more drones in them. This means that protoss/terran mine more effectively from less workers while zerg has to waist extra population with drones. Seeing as zerg specializes in numbers this could be a huge problem.
I honestly see no problem for there to be no unit cap, With fast production rates & fast mining rates I only see turtleing as a failed strategy.
Just a note on other specifics of the game that i disagree with since this will most likely be one of my only posts.
-protoss dark pylon/zerg queen inject/ terran mule.
Please correct me if I am saying it wrong.
These are all repetitive tasks that are designed to add 'skill' to SC2. First of all this will not at all be fun. I'm sure even the beginning player would be sick of having to do this 3-5 action task every 20 seconds every game they play in. At least make it a late game task blizzard!! And even then make it so that the benefits arn't so noticeable! To me this sounds absolutely ridiculous and just creating another thing to do. I have never even seen or heard of a game as of yet that
-
|
Well, it really depends on the races and the balance between them. Using the 200 from Brood War most of us consider standard, we can see how a change would result in more turtling and building up and such, making it a more boring game. But with SC2, a pop max of 200 might be entirely more reachable than the 200 of BW. So basically, whether or not to raise it would be a balance issue I think, and not something they can just change freely to try to create a more tactical gameplay or whatever.
For example, in BW if they raised the pop cap the bigger Terran mech army would be crazy hard to fight against, a 300 supply Zerg army completely unmanagable, and the Protoss would directly benefit from this in something like PvT by gaining map control and pushing past 200 much sooner than Terran, preventing Terran from being able to really wait for that 200/200 army to push with.
Also, growth rates of each race, especially Zerg, are pretty different, and without a cap some race might begin to grow out of control 
|
the one post guy would seem to have a point about zerg and their drones.
at any rate the guy above me talking about a race going out of control, i understand what he's talking about, and frankly, it upsets me that this doesn't already exist in starcraft. i've gotten upset more than a few times at playing against an opponent with a strong army and throwing army after army at him to no avail and wishing i could break the 200 power limit...usually as zerg...if i felt that way in starcraft then it might be worse in sc2 with the new macro mechanics unless they change the power limits up a bit. of course with the new ultralisks it seems like zerg has ways of antying up against the terrans and protoss so maybe it won't be such a big deal after all. but i feel like it would be a bit nicer if in starcraft 2 there was this lack of limit to what you could build which would allow for something more dramatic than a bunch of base race games...
you know what i'm talking about....sometimes it just gets really annoying or just plain old when you are attacking and your opponent is too, and you kill off eachother's buildings to prevent them from rebuilding...and that's fine. but, sometimes i feel like and this is a big problem in war3 actually...because in war3 they have a specific type of armor for buildings called fortified armor which takes extra damage to siege type attack units...well...a player can mass those and take out the enemy buildings and win. which oftentimes is quite unfair. of course, the player must learn to counter it by macroing harder, but the food limit might at times get in his way...well, it's not that big of a deal in warcraft 3 but it is a bit of a problem, but this is just something to remind you guys of...i feel like limiting the size of the army can sometimes mean you hit a point where you have huge and quick battles rather than long and drawn out ones.
to explain.
if there is a limit, oftentimes people in a deadlock might want to tech up and build up and fight along the way...but at some point they hit a mark where they have to be more cautious about buildingup. maybe most of the map is taken, perhaps they can have an ultimate army sooner than the enemy and attack him while his enemy is still building up...well, i guess what i'm saying is without that limit he'll not really have a point where he can look at himself and go, yeah i can take him no matter what he's got...and then be proved right or wrong all of a sudden when they clash...but with no limits, there will always be that uncertainty...you can't reliably look at his army, counting up his limits and figuring you know what he has if there are no limits. like if you see 20+ battlecruisers in sc you know he has pretty much nothing else. but if in sc2 they remove the limits he could have expansions you haven't checked yet and have some tanks or banshees or whatever besides all that.
basically i think if you take away the limit it will add more strategy to the game. without the unit limits it means the enemy can not just size up what he sees and reckon he knows what you got because he's counting your limits. sometimes it's too much information that a guy has like an island expansion like playing LT just because you were looking at his units and you knew there was no way he could afford that without that island expansion, as an example. so you didn't have to scout it to know it was there. my point is, that player can choose to hide his units so you don't realize he has that island expansion until it's too late, right? so the same goes for unit limits. you don't need to count supply depots or overlords or pylons in sc because you can look at their units and know it's not going over 200, right? but not so if they take away those unit limits. instead you'll have people hiding troops at obscure places of the map to hide the fact that they have been reaping the benefits of some nice expansions that the other guy didn't know he had. my point is that hiding your units would be more useful without limits than with. if you can make him not realize you have a 50 power unit advantage over him, and he commits to a big battle, you can then be on a dangerous offensive and ready to start doing serious damage to his main bases, and he'll pay for not realizing you had that advantage...
i think this will make scouting more important by removing the limit.
i'm not saying it should be done, but i'm saying if it can be done, then it should be done.
|
Zerg can't fit with too much more than 200.
|
On September 21 2009 17:52 ActualSteve wrote:
Zerg can't fit with too much more than 200.
For once we can hotkey a max ling army though  Haha.
|
I completely disagree with people saying increasing the population cap would result in more turtling, there are many more tactics in SC2 of being able to backstab the opponent and not let them turtle and it makes it much easier to exploit the holes in there defenses. the main reason they should increase the cap as people have already stated is because macroing is easier and people will be hitting there population limit much faster. And as far as in 8 players games as people have eluded too you could make a population limit for those to not make the game to laggy etc. but for 1v1 games you would not have to worry about this nearly as much because there are just less units on the field. It would definitely add a greater emphasis on macroing and make the game more fun, the more units the better IMO. :-D
I would personally love a 300 cap limit in SC because it would make PvT's where T just turtles much easier to deal with because you could be at 300 supply while they are maxed at 200 supply with no money left. Obviously this will never happen, I'm just thinking out loud T.T
|
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.[/QUOTE]
I say we just bump everything up by a factor of ten. So the unit max is 2000, a marine costs 10 pop, etc. Also, everything should do 10x more damage, have 10x more hp and 10x more defence. And every game we'll boost everything by a factor of ten. It works for Final Fantasy, so why shouldn't it work for SC? Bigger numbers = higher coolness if the progression is right. You do 10 damage in SC, and OH SHIT YOU CAN DO 100 DMG IN SC2!!!
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 21 2009 04:48 generic88 wrote:
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.
I think it's more than a little misleading to directly compare the population max in War3 and Starcraft. To do that would be to ignore all the contributing factors of why it is what it is in War3. War3 has a limit of 100, but it also becomes more punishing on your income as you approach that limit. In Starcraft, you always want as many units as you can get because there are no penalties, but that isn't the case in War3. Going from 39 food to 41 food is a tremendous decision especially in the early game. That means you want to keep your army size small. On top of this, many units take 3 or 4 food whereas equivalent units in Starcraft may take 1 or 2.
In War3, you also always want to keep your units protected because if one dies, it feeds experience to your opponent's hero. So, most of the time you want to travel in a group. This is reinforced if you have units that carry auras or area-effect spells, where you want as many of your units as possible to benefit. That means it's typically not a good decision to separate your army and flank or pincer.
I don't think the logic carries as well as you might think on the surface. The battle strategies between both games are very different.
If the population caps were raised, it's difficult to say how the game would be impacted, but it would generally make area-effect abilities and long-range units more powerful.
|
All you people who are saying that the higher population cap would encourage turtling, especially on the Terran's part, are really wrong. Going from team melee experience (which allows you to get to 800/800 if all 4 players on a team are the same race), by the time a 3 base Terran on colosseum is at 200/250, the Protoss is at around 600/800 and just roflstomps the Terran when they try to push.
As for the Protoss's part, it's not turtling when you have 3/4 of the map, it's containing. ~_^
|
Higher population cap won't increase turtling because:
1)There is so much more shit that does huge AoE damage at once (Colossus, Banelings, Siege Tanks with higher splash damage, Nukes in Tier 2)
2) There is so much more shit that IGNORES ramps and cliffs (Reapers, Colossus, Infestors with underground travel, Nydus Worms, Warp-in)
If you turtle, you stand to face your opponent taking the entire map and just throwing wave after wave of retarded explosive shit or they'll just harass you wherever you expand.
|
broodlords imba wat o_o
what was the population cap in the battle reports anyway
|
United States3824 Posts
No population limit.
Person with the best computer wins.
|
I'd agree on a higher population limit (low enough to protect the computer specs, but no other reason)
Essentially the only limit becomes your total minerals/gas.... so with that you end up with a win favoring the expander, rather than the turtler.
|
On September 23 2009 08:48 cgrinker wrote:
No population limit.
Person with the best computer wins.
Yeah this would be true, I've done some 8 player UMS maps in Broodwar and good computers crash even then!
|
On September 21 2009 20:52 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2009 17:52 ActualSteve wrote:
Zerg can't fit with too much more than 200. For once we can hotkey a max ling army though Haha.
I did that at blizzcon, it was loads of fun. It wasn't quite maxed out, something like 100/200 pure ling army, but it was still badass. I was suprised how little space it took up though, they grouped together very neatly.
|
But doesn't it get to a point where the terrain limits the number of units that can effectively attack? The distance from a single unit with 200/200 armies head on will exceed its range, so basically a larger supply limit would just mean longer battles.
Or you could distribute your forces to multiple fronts, causing a higher APM requirement at higher supply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
