EPTI really hope Blizz has a look at it.
The food cap : a spectator's point of view - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
I really hope Blizz has a look at it. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
| ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
If the food cap increased, the action would be even more hard to follow, and turtles would turtle even longer which would produce less exciting games. | ||
|
BalZer
Italy44 Posts
BW was a mix of great balance, hard gameplay, old-style mechanics, retarded AI and... some sort of luck. This mix was great. As as a spectator point of view, modern mechanics, infinite group selection, gameplay speed of SC2 etc etc are making the matches boring, | ||
|
BalZer
Italy44 Posts
On March 23 2011 21:26 Spekulatius wrote: The problem is not a unit cap, the problem is that players don't feel the need (or the possibility) to engage before max. If engaging before 200/200 would be worth it, zergs wouldn't be sitting around, waiting for T and P to attack This. There isnt any advantage to engage befor 200/200, except some little marine drops, 4 DT running each at any expansion and a couple of burrow banelings, that's all. If u split your army too much around the map you can't face the incoming deathball and it's insta gg. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On March 23 2011 21:36 BalZer wrote: This. There isnt any advantage to engage befor 200/200, except some little marine drops, 4 DT running each at any expansion and a couple of burrow banelings, that's all. If u split your army too much around the map you can't face the incoming deathball and it's insta gg. such statement show that people don't know how to play the game. so what, if food cap was 300 everyone would wait for 300 then engage? | ||
|
azzu
Germany141 Posts
But to be honest: I never played nor watched any sc1. I don't know how units look, battles look etc. When I watch SC2 maxed battles, they look huge to me taking up the whole screen, because I don't compare to other games. I only see the difference between SC2 battles. So I could care less about any army size increase. | ||
|
BalZer
Italy44 Posts
On March 23 2011 21:40 freetgy wrote: such statement show that people don't know how to play the game. so what, if food cap was 300 everyone would wait for 300 then engage? the problem is not people need 200/200 to engage, the problem there is only one big engagement in the game 200/200 engagements are so popular cos everyone right now is capable to sit and defend until 200/200 and then move out, one big battle and boom, one lose and one win, gg. 80% (or even more) of the games end like this. | ||
|
VvyzZ
United States26 Posts
Not only might increasing the collision radius on some units make the game more fun to watch, it could help with some of the existing balance problems. If marines/marauders had a larger collision radius (I mean fuck, that actually *overlap* right now, it looks ridiculous), fewer of them could attack the same target at the same time, reducing their insane ball-DPS. Simultaneously this would have the effect of nerfing psi-storm/collos as fewer total units could be hit at a time. | ||
|
Zeroxk
Norway1244 Posts
The deathball arguments are just how the current players play and the distances between bases on some map. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
Blizzard is not going to make a higher foodcap until they are sure it won't effect performance, so unless there's a great breakthrough in pathing algorithm efficiency or something, don't expect it. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 23 2011 21:40 freetgy wrote: such statement show that people don't know how to play the game. so what, if food cap was 300 everyone would wait for 300 then engage? I believe a huge part of the problem is spellcasters. There are all sorts of spells in BW that allow you to chip away at the opposing army which are missing in SC2 or easily counterable by a-move units. Units such as mutalisks and reavers in BW are also much better snipers than their BW counterparts. It's not so much that people don't know how to play the game but many of the tools are gone. That and many units got their supply increased in SC2. For example, hydras went from 1 to 2 and siege tanks went from 2 to 3. | ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
I believe in team games, things are much much more epics. Yes, even in 3s and 4s! Of course, it is less competitive, but the amount of battles happening all over the map will obviously outmatch 1v1 games. If you play alot of team games, perhaps you can understand me. But the feeling of grandeur in these games can be quite exciting. There's just too many things happening at once. Its chaos, like war should be. The worst team games are when all maxed army face other maxed armies. Not only does it lags, but nobody has any idea what is happening. Just too many units shooting at each other. I think some of you have a biased opinion of how games should be, because I find them interesting. Build order, what the opponent is doing, how is he reacting? Perhaps more POV stream for tournaments would be even more amazing? I think the game where Idra played against IMMVP (in his stream) was epic because alot of things were unknown to Idra. When Artosis (?) recasted it with the spectator POV, the game lost some of its magic. You were able to see where MVP could have attacked to take down Idra, you knew when the game was over, when in fact, when played by Idra, he had no clue of what was happening. Spectator POV removes the 'fear' and unknown of individual player. Some watcher, like myself, can enjoy player POV over spectator POV. Although, my tastes are not that defined, so I really don't mind spectator POV, and even enjoy them. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
| ||
| ||
