|
Hello,
Don't you think the army sizes at 200/200 look very small?
It does not look that much bigger than a tier3 war3 army, which I find a bit sad, especially when big units like colossus or ultralisks are used, with high food requirements.
Do you think the current balance of the game would be broken if the food limit was raised to something like 300 or even more?
Also, one thing I noticed is that the food limit feels much more present in starcraft 2 than it did in brood war : I reach it very often in sc2 ladder games while in BW, games which finish at 200/200 were a rarity.
Maybe for now it's not much of a problem because the maps also feel smaller than they did in BW, but when bigger map will come out (if they do) I think it will feel even worse.
|
umm a lot more games probably reach 200/200 couse most people are not used to early attack timings and the strength of smaller units and feel much safer with a larger army.
|
I feel like 200/200 is also easier to reach economy-wise, especially with gold expansions, while in bw it practically required expansions on half of the map.
|
Blizzard alredy said that they don't want to increase the supply because of perf issue. A lot of people don't have PCs powerfull enough for 300 supply vs 300 supply..
|
200 is good enough, don't want it to have rome total war scale wars
|
whats wrong with total war.... anyways I would love an option to allow custom games to go up to 400 v 400 food.... just rebuilt my PC for this game and I kinda want to stress it.
|
nothing is wrong with rome total war, I accually really like that game but it's a different game than sc2 and I feel that the 200 cap is good enough. It might be cool for costum maps tho..
|
I think the 200 cap is good enough... I don't know though... If I get up to 200/200 and have 8-10 Ultralisks out, add in a mix of ling/roaches/hydras... it still looks pretty big.
|
Of course you reach 200/200 easier in SC2, and they designed it that way on purpose. The additions of MBS, infinite control groups, and most especially the super-macro ability each race gets makes it much easier and less labor intensive to get up to 200/200.
|
200 is the right "feel" for StarCraft. More than that, and you get into a different, more strategic style of game and sacrifice tactical play. Any less (like WC3) and you lose too much strategy and end up in a very tactical, micro intense game.
|
On August 20 2010 20:40 Noocta wrote:
Blizzard alredy said that they don't want to increase the supply because of perf issue. A lot of people don't have PCs powerfull enough for 300 supply vs 300 supply..
2v2 can be 400 vs 400 and 4v4 can be 800 vs 800
|
Yeah, sc2 kinda feels like fastest in brood war especially with the reactors, warp gates, and spawn larvae. Except for the minerals and gas cuz they don't come as fast as they did in fastest
|
On August 20 2010 23:51 Liquorshot_852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 20:40 Noocta wrote:
Blizzard alredy said that they don't want to increase the supply because of perf issue. A lot of people don't have PCs powerfull enough for 300 supply vs 300 supply.. 2v2 can be 400 vs 400 and 4v4 can be 800 vs 800
yeah and that's part of the part of the reason I dont do 3v3/4v4, because my computer starts to shit the bed when there are that many units in the game, add in a mother ship and oh boy. The other reason is 3s and 4s is retarded.
I think the current army sizes feel good. individual units were larger in WC3 and you were less likely to have an air/ground mix so you can have a bunch of units in the same place. Add in colossi which can stand on top of your army and no the unit ball doesn't look all that big, but its a hell of a lot of firepower
|
its because the clump together and can push through one another unlike bw
|
This may very well be just an optical illusion. Since units can be clumped up a lot more than in BW, a 200 supply army just takes less space.. A 200 supply army of zerglings is 400 zerglings, whether it's in BW or SC2.... just make a 150 supply army of zerlings and watch it move around... looks awesome.. even more fun with banelings 
|
with the way the economy works in this game getting 200/200 then moving out is just very very popular. in BW there were more small forces action, still thought the thing about the armies looking big is just cause of the better pathing and the units taking less space and so on.
though doesn't it seem that you move out of the small forces time of the game much much faster in sc2? in bw you could have 20 minute games with small forces while in sc2 you already have a really big army by that time
|
On August 20 2010 23:57 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
Add in colossi which can stand on top of your army and no the unit ball doesn't look all that big, but its a hell of a lot of firepower
that's the point : it feels like the army grows more in firepower than in number of units, which I don't like that much...
I think this late game concentrated firepower in a relatively small unit ball encourages big pushes with all the army at one point (=> blob vs blob battles, very common in mid level play, even in diamond league) instead of army split to attack multiple areas at the same time or drops/nydus/recall (which all are very underused btw), because if you dare split your army, you risk half of it being exposed to the concentrated firepower of your opponent's blob, which is instant gg in many cases.
the exception to this would be the zerg's flanking of course
|
On August 20 2010 23:57 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 23:51 Liquorshot_852 wrote:On August 20 2010 20:40 Noocta wrote:
Blizzard alredy said that they don't want to increase the supply because of perf issue. A lot of people don't have PCs powerfull enough for 300 supply vs 300 supply.. 2v2 can be 400 vs 400 and 4v4 can be 800 vs 800 yeah and that's part of the part of the reason I dont do 3v3/4v4, because my computer starts to shit the bed when there are that many units in the game, add in a mother ship and oh boy. The other reason is 3s and 4s is retarded. I think the current army sizes feel good. individual units were larger in WC3 and you were less likely to have an air/ground mix so you can have a bunch of units in the same place. Add in colossi which can stand on top of your army and no the unit ball doesn't look all that big, but its a hell of a lot of firepower
Yeah, last 3x3 game I did, the message "XXXX is slowing down the game" suddenly poped eevn if there was no fight involved.
It was like "warning we are regrouping in order to attack, prepare yourselves"
|
On August 20 2010 20:20 confipote wrote:
Hello,
Don't you think the army sizes at 200/200 look very small?
It does not look that much bigger than a tier3 war3 army, which I find a bit sad, especially when big units like colossus or ultralisks are used, with high food requirements.
Do you think the current balance of the game would be broken if the food limit was raised to something like 300 or even more?
Also, one thing I noticed is that the food limit feels much more present in starcraft 2 than it did in brood war : I reach it very often in sc2 ladder games while in BW, games which finish at 200/200 were a rarity.
Maybe for now it's not much of a problem because the maps also feel smaller than they did in BW, but when bigger map will come out (if they do) I think it will feel even worse.
One thing i noticed is that this thread is made every 2 weeks (in fact older threads were better and included polls) and its always the same result... Stop wasting peoples time instead of using the search function.
|
On August 20 2010 23:51 Liquorshot_852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 20:40 Noocta wrote:
Blizzard alredy said that they don't want to increase the supply because of perf issue. A lot of people don't have PCs powerfull enough for 300 supply vs 300 supply.. 2v2 can be 400 vs 400 and 4v4 can be 800 vs 800
Except that everything above 1v1 is a massive cheesefest that more often than not ends up lasting about 5 minutes..
|
On August 21 2010 00:01 Morphs wrote:This may very well be just an optical illusion. Since units can be clumped up a lot more than in BW, a 200 supply army just takes less space.. A 200 supply army of zerglings is 400 zerglings, whether it's in BW or SC2.... just make a 150 supply army of zerlings and watch it move around... looks awesome.. even more fun with banelings
BW Hydra vs SC2 Hydra: 1 vs 2 supply
BW Hydra vs SC2 Roach: 1 vs 2 supply
BW Guardian vs SC2 Brood Lord: 2 vs 6 supply
Also you have to waste 2 supply for each hatchery for queens. Also scourge are missing which was a 0.5 supply unit.
|
Banelings are another .5 supply unit, instead of scourge. And even though brood lords take up more supply than guardians, the broodlings they add to the battle go a long way towards making your force look like a true swarm of units.
But yeah, hydras aren't as massable. Do any other units cost more supply now? I think Ultras cost two more than they did in BW, but they also look much more impressive now, so that's okay. I think siege tanks take one more supply.
|
On August 20 2010 21:21 Selemender wrote:
200 is good enough, don't want it to have rome total war scale wars
This.
200 supply armies are big enough already. There's no reason to make them any bigger. Blizzard has no intention of doing this anyway.
If you're suggesting that units should cost less supply then you have to remember that most PCs have barely enough RAM to cope with 2x 200 supply armies.
|
I do not see a problem with 200 food cap. I think it helps games move along (especially at lower levels where everyone is too scared to move out with small armies).
4v4 games with 2400 food worth of units will become obnoxious as well. There are no computers that could operate through that smoothly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
