Population Limit Effects? - Page 3

It could work, but I don't think a human soldier would work as 2 population. It just doesn't really make sense.

On October 07 2009 11:14 BluzMan wrote:
But SC2 is a different beast, I think that going beyond 200 would be fun. Still with a limit though because of a finite computational resource, but maybe 400? 200 is not that much in fact, in many games workers eat up 1/3 if not 1/2 of that.

On September 21 2009 04:48 generic88 wrote:
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?

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.

On September 21 2009 04:48 generic88 wrote:
Besides the initial question, would an increased population cap have any other relevant effects on/in the game?

On October 08 2009 08:05 Liquid`NonY wrote:

Nope! I think it'd decrease it.

Yeah, assuming a map with plentiful resources (where map control is significant), a higher population cap favors the player with map control too much. The defensive player ought to have a fighting chance, but a high population cap allows the other player to macro without any hard choices. 5th, 6th, 7th and even more expansions become more beneficial than they ought to be. Building low-tech units to 200 supply from fear of an early timing attack isn't punished when no timing attack comes that early.

Example PvT: When I hit 160 supply on zealots and dragoons, I've gotta choose between maxing with 20 more of those units, or trying to survive on what I've got while I wait an eternity to get a group of carriers up and running. Building another expansion isn't even an option as none of that remaining 40 supply can go to probes. But with a higher supply cap, I can build an extra expansion or two, 30 more probes, start my first group of carriers, then pump out extra zealots and dragoons while I wait. In other words, I can have it all.

There's quite a bit more to it and all that stuff goes into the decisions of players in every game where it's conceivable that 200/200 might be reached. The skill of controlling a bigger army doesn't come close.

On a map sidenote, the difficulty of designing maps for ground battles that have an extended range of possible army sizes might make for some odd maps. If a map is supposed to allow for a 300/300 ground army to get 270 degree flanking on a position, that's gonna be a very wide open map that might play awkwardly/boringly when the players don't have ground armies of that size.

On October 08 2009 09:03 Polyphasic wrote:


you're making this harder than it needs to be.

a lot will also depend on map design. if you add more minerals to each mineral patch, you can still get to 300/300 population with only 3 bases.

it's all about the duration of the game, and bigger armies clashing. the question is, how big does a control group of units need to be before you can't micro it anymore. for example, 1 reaver in shuttle you can micro. but 3 reavers in 3 shuttles, you'll have a harder time.

when units get more than a certain amount, people are just going to start using attack A instead of microing. maybe that'll turn the second half of the game into more of a macro dynamic while the first half of the game with smaller armies is still a micro dynamic.