Are games short because of tiny maps?
Forum Index > SC2 General |
AioncannonzSC2
United States92 Posts
| ||
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
Demarini
United States151 Posts
| ||
surraymb
Austria113 Posts
| ||
storm44
1293 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:27 Demarini wrote: i like games that last 15-25 minutes. 30-40 and beyond is just too much for a ladder match. On August 03 2010 13:32 surraymb wrote: I play SC2 because the games are short. If a 45+ minute game would be the norm instead of the exception I would probably play a lot less. These kinds of match lengths are just plain exaggerations. Even large macro-oriented maps in Brood War like Andromeda rarely produced games longer than 30 minutes. | ||
hiro protagonist
1294 Posts
| ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:35 TheYango wrote: These kinds of match lengths are just plain exaggerations. Even large macro-oriented maps in Brood War like Andromeda rarely produced games longer than 30 minutes. This. Games in SC2 are shorter in general because macro is very limited by obscenely small maps and entirely too many narrow choke areas. Get larger maps into the map pool and you'll get a much more varied game and it'd blow the entire game wide open. It'd probably do a lot for the supposed ZvT problem as well. | ||
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:53 GG.Win wrote: Games seem faster because the entire pace of the game is sped up, starting from worker production(6v4). If this were the only factor, then we would still be progressing to the same *stage* of the game. As it stands, it's not all that common that games get past the point where both players are on 3 or more bases. | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:53 GG.Win wrote: Games seem faster because the entire pace of the game is sped up, starting from worker production(6v4). I'm not talking about the game speed I'm talking about past that. Many games don't get to T3 and there aren't nearly as many battles as in BW. You'd be hard-pressed not to see this. | ||
Prophecy3
Canada223 Posts
Even though i'm a huge fan of big macro games with non-stop cross map action on all fronts, there's 2problems with large maps. 1) Unit Cap - With the average worker count in the 60-80 range that leaves you with 120-140 worth of supply with which to kill your enemy which isn't a whole hell of a lot to cover a large map with, making things like full mech not as viable because of immobility. I think an answer for this (if players were to play on a large 8person map) would be to simply raise the unit cap to 300. 2) Movement Speed - All races mainstay units (marine/tank/zel/stalk/hydra/roach) move fairly slow so in a large map games are going to be longer just because of travel distance. I think a solution for this would be to add either objectives or control points create strategic tension between directly assaulting the enemy base, their economy or the objectives. I suppose that would be a completely different game mode though.. Still.. It would be nice to see maybe even a 6person map in tournaments and get some very macro oriented, aggressive players.. I'm sure it'd be fun | ||
junkacc
99 Posts
In all seriousness though, larger maps take up more memory, maybe that's why Activision made them so small. Another 3D "benefit" for you. User was warned for this post | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
That said, I don't think map size is a HUGE indicator of game length. I think average times may be slightly shorter because of the added strength of aggressive play on smaller maps. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:59 Prophecy3 wrote: I've also felt that the two player maps especially are slightly too small.. You're pretty much forced into 1base power pushes just to stay alive, or hold off the inevitable early pressure that's coming at you as well as it being very susceptible to cheese.. Even though i'm a huge fan of big macro games with non-stop cross map action on all fronts, there's 2problems with large maps. 1) Unit Cap - With the average worker count in the 60-80 range that leaves you with 120-140 worth of supply with which to kill your enemy which isn't a whole hell of a lot to cover a large map with, making things like full mech not as viable because of immobility. I think an answer for this (if players were to play on a large 8person map) would be to simply raise the unit cap to 300. 2) Movement Speed - All races mainstay units (marine/tank/zel/stalk/hydra/roach) move fairly slow so in a large map games are going to be longer just because of travel distance. I think a solution for this would be to add either objectives or control points create strategic tension between directly assaulting the enemy base, their economy or the objectives. I suppose that would be a completely different game mode though.. Still.. It would be nice to see maybe even a 6person map in tournaments and get some very macro oriented, aggressive players.. I'm sure it'd be fun Neither of these issues caused problems in BW. I don't think we can say without some testing that they would be problematic in SC2. | ||
Jonoman92
United States9091 Posts
| ||
seRapH
United States9706 Posts
| ||
junkacc
99 Posts
| ||
TheKing
Australia186 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:10 junkacc wrote: Once again, I don't think there's much room for bigger maps. More memory needed when many systems are struggling already. Dustin Browden is a game designing genius. The idea of it being a memory issue is unlikely due to 2 things: 1) Campaign maps are large. If it was taxing to support large maps, they wouldn't have designed them for the campaign. 2) It's still very possible to make large maps in the editor. In fact, there are large maps for 2v2. If you can support 4 players worth of units on a huge map, its certainly possible to support 2. It's just that no one designing the default maps seems to have felt the need to make at least one large macro map for 1v1. | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:10 junkacc wrote: Once again, I don't think there's much room for bigger maps. More memory needed when many systems are struggling already. Dustin Browden is a game designing genius. ROFL Please no. Not trying to be rude, but i think this is absurd. The game has minimum requirements. All anyone is asking for is maybe a few less maps under the size identifier "Small" maybe some more open "Medium" maps. How about 1-2 "Large" ones? How about if you can't run em, upgrade your comp, or veto them. This is common sense and only the 1,000th time blizzard has fallen short of the 2003 standards we're holding this game to. | ||
luckySe7en
148 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:50 Stratos_speAr wrote: This. Games in SC2 are shorter in general because macro is very limited by obscenely small maps and entirely too many narrow choke areas. Get larger maps into the map pool and you'll get a much more varied game and it'd blow the entire game wide open. It'd probably do a lot for the supposed ZvT problem as well. game length in sc and sc2 are limitted because both sides can 200 max out in 18 minutes flat. after that, it's just a few engagements before one side is dead. unless u are playing flash TvP style. | ||
junkacc
99 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:23 Motiva wrote: ROFL Please no. Not trying to be rude, but i think this is absurd. The game has minimum requirements. All anyone is asking for is maybe a few less maps under the size identifier "Small" maybe some more open "Medium" maps. How about 1-2 "Large" ones? How about if you can't run em, upgrade your comp, or veto them. This is common sense and only the 1,000th time blizzard has fallen short of the 2003 standards we're holding this game to. What? I wasn't making a suggestion but stating a fact. Not everyone is tech savvy as you (questionably) nor do they have the luxury to upgrade. Many people will wonder why a map that came out with the game stutters if Activision puts in larger maps. Since usermaps are severely curtailed in SC2, wait for the mappack Activision will sell for $20. They'll call it the "Insurgency Pack" or something. | ||
~Matthias
Canada56 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:36 junkacc wrote: What? I wasn't making a suggestion but stating a fact. Not everyone is tech savvy as you (questionably) nor do they have the luxury to upgrade. Many people will wonder why a map that came out with the game stutters if Activision puts in larger maps. Since usermaps are severely curtailed in SC2, wait for the mappack Activision will sell for $20. They'll call it the "Insurgency Pack" or something. Ahh fuck. We all know that is coming. The days of holy blizzard are over. Welcome to Activisions world. | ||
CheezDip
126 Posts
| ||
junkacc
99 Posts
Now, SC2 is all about your ball vs my ball, and the only interesting areas on the map are main base and expansions. Apart from the hardware limitations of larger maps mentioned earlier, other considerations that have diminished the siege tank's central role in the Terran army, like air and marauders, don't make larger maps very interesting. | ||
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:05 Jonoman92 wrote: Games aren't always short. I've had quite a few 30+ minutes games. I think it's just that sc2 is still young and big mistakes are made all the time even by good players. I'd throw my hat in with you on this. High level play seems to me to be based around planning army positioning, building and expanding in such a way that at this point in the game you can deal with what your opponent can throw at you. Being able to do this comes from lots and lots of practice games and acid testing builds again and again. Starcraft 2 has been played for a few months now, so no wonder there are tonnes of holes in gameplay that can be exploited (intentionally or unintentionally) for an immediate win. Give it some time and games will get longer | ||
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 03 2010 13:53 GG.Win wrote: Games seem faster because the entire pace of the game is sped up, starting from worker production(6v4). The game speed is identical to BW. There's no difference. The initial worker count is increased, but the rate of mining is still the same. In BW, workers mined 8 minerals/gas per trip, while they only mine 5/4 minerals/gas respectively per trip in SC2. The difference is that games in SC2 tend to be around 20 minutes or less, while games for BW usually last around 20-25, maybe 30 minutes. Enlarging the map pool will allow for longer games, not by too much, but enough to see more innovative play involving T3 and such. Right now games usually end by the time T2 is reached. (yes, there are exceptions, but I'm talking about the norm) | ||
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
i think bigger maps is better, the rush distances on some of the 4 player maps is pretty stupid imo. lost temple closespawn is like shorter then steppes, and steppes is just stupid. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
BW wasn't balanced on maps that small so I don't see why SC2 would be either. | ||
triumph
United States100 Posts
I'd make more if i got feed back from users like you. | ||
LeCastor
France234 Posts
Look at steps of war, small map, big turtle time, so long games if you aren"t agressive enough. If you have a huge map, with open wide bases, games won"t last that long. | ||
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
| ||
st3roids
Greece538 Posts
If u try to macro usually you get punished vs the vast majority of players who dont have a clue and they do these early 1 bases rush builds. | ||
iSTime
1579 Posts
EDIT: On August 03 2010 20:34 st3roids wrote: If u try to macro usually you get punished vs the vast majority of players who dont have a clue and they do these early 1 bases rush builds. LOL. Looks like someone didn't know how to defend against a timing attack and is blaming his opponent for being bad. | ||
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
Sure map size is an issue but i think games are short cos u can lose ur main buildings so fast to a handful of marauders. a void ray or a mass of tier 1-1.5 units. | ||
HubertFelix
France631 Posts
If I defend it, I win. If I don't, I lose. Kind of dumb. | ||
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:28 luckySe7en wrote: game length in sc and sc2 are limitted because both sides can 200 max out in 18 minutes flat. after that, it's just a few engagements before one side is dead. unless u are playing flash TvP style. in SCBW both sides can max out in 14 minutes flat. | ||
Latham
9509 Posts
There should be larger and more open maps than Steppes or Blistering. Honestly, those maps are such a pain to play, because early cheeses and very strong aggressive builds dominate them. Make your 160x160 maps and don't worry about criticism, if the map will be good, people will play it. Anyway, I'm more afraid of Blizz not changing their map pool. I can see them being conservative for the ladder, and not wanting to include old BW remakes or new larger maps which would kick ass. They seem to have adopted a "smaller with frequent skirmishes" type of maps. | ||
ooni
Australia1498 Posts
MULE -> More money, builds more units simultanously Spawn Lava -> Build units faster So... What does this actually mean? How does this affect the game speed significantly? Builds faster -> More units on the field More units on the field -> Kill things faster Kill things faster -> Game ends faster | ||
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On August 03 2010 14:10 junkacc wrote: Once again, I don't think there's much room for bigger maps. More memory needed when many systems are struggling already. Dustin Browden is a game designing genius. Rob Pardo is much better than him at designing he designed Brood War | ||
kyarisan
United States346 Posts
| ||
figq
12519 Posts
As of now the game looks closer to arena than positional strategy - the choice and use of battle units, and just the number of mining units - turn out way more important than how many /or which/ bases players are able to claim at any given time. They usually lose the macro game because they don't have enough workers, not because they don't have enough bases. The fight over the bases themselves should be more important, which would make the gameplay more dynamic and multi-forked. | ||
| ||