|
When shifting from Red Alert to StarCraft, I was surprised that you could only build up to 200 units. According to the game-play video, it appears that the Protoss can only build up to 157 units? [EDIT: Fool! You cannot save the boy! Now you shall join him... In Hell] [EDIT: You cannot defeat me! I am the heart of the land]
Anyhow, I don't see what would be wrong with removing a limit altogether. I think the limit in Warcraft III was what made the game rather crap, as you could pretty much only have one army at a time and it was pretty much whoever got the largest army first wins.
A removal of this unit limit would also make the game more skillful I reckon, as an opponent would have to do their best to prevent the other player from having the opportunity to get big armies by constantly attacking them.
What do youse think?
Poll: Should there be a maximum unit limit?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I am gay
|
United States12240 Posts
The unit cap increases as you control more Pylons. Had the Protoss player controlled more Pylons his unit cap would have eventually reached 200, which is still the unit cap for the sequel. There needs to be SOME form of unit cap to discourage turtling as well as ensure a wide range of supported hardware.
|
United States4991 Posts
Haha 157? I somewhat doubt that the game-play limit is 157 o_O. Right now it says 8/9 at the start, for example. The 9 is current maximum allowed, not absolute maximum. If you saw /157, that was probably the current max.
|
On May 21 2007 14:37 Excalibur_Z wrote:
The unit cap increases as you control more Pylons.
Whoops, I completely forgot about that!
|
I'm in support of 200, if things stay as they are in terms of game speed ect, perhaps more or less depending on the power of each unit. Removing the unit cap would just make the game that much more painful on low power systems (i'm already goin to have to buy a new computer) and would just be stalemate constant macros =/. Having the unit cap forces the enemy to have to attack because of a weaker resource position instead of a preventative action.
|
Vatican City State1176 Posts
removing the unit cap would be a real disaster, similar to auto-lockdown or some shit like this O_o
200/200 are indeed enought units
|
yea, the amount of units in bw is enough. Maybe allow up to 250, but no more than that
I think pop limit and pop costs of all units should be multiplied by some factor to allow more finegrained control over the costs (actually it's already measured in halves in case of zerglings), some units, like vulture, need to cost 1.5 or 1.75 supply in bw terms. I think tank should be 2.5 supply at least.
|
United States7488 Posts
I am in favor of 200 max, or some similar maximum unit control that isn't ridiculously high. Restricyions bring about creativity I always say, or hear, or something like that. A limit means that an entire army has to be more thought out as to the concentration of different kinds of units and things along those lines. Placing a limit increases decision-making as far as I can tell, which is good both for gameplay and progaming.
...and just imagine the armies oov could cheat out if he didn't have a control limit.
|
On May 21 2007 15:08 semioldguy wrote:
[I]magine the armies oov could cheat out if he didn't have a control limit.
That's the point though - if a pro-gamer can't manage that, then Iloveoov is effectively a better player than them and there should be no limit on his ability to overrun them (the only limit should be their ability to destroy his armies). It would be similar to saying Nal_rA is only allowed to build x number of cannons to defend his expansions, otherwise he cheats his way out of defending them. That would just be silly.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
I honestly don't think there should be a unit limit. It introduces a gameplay factor to have a max-out, to be sure, and I accept the argument that TvT would otherwise get wayyyy too boring. But it just seems so antithetical to the spirit of the game to have such a cap =/
|
Sweden33719 Posts
1) PvZ with 5000 units is going to kill even the most high tech computer currently available. Kill it dead.
It would never start again, ever.
2) It would probably mean less come backs which I guess could be seen as good or as bad.. But it would definitely allow for some hardcore turtling which is bad for sure ;p
|
On May 21 2007 15:20 FrozenArbiter wrote:
1) PvZ with 5000 units is going to kill even the most high tech computer currently available. Kill it dead.
It would never start again, ever.
2) It would probably mean less come backs which I guess could be seen as good or as bad.. But it would definitely allow for some hardcore turtling which is bad for sure ;p
You're assuming there's no way of beating your opponent before they get that many units. How is turtling different at 100 units, 150 units, 200 units? Games end at either of those counts. And you don't always wait until you have 200 units before you attack. The only people who would ever get up to 5000 units are idiots that play unlimited money maps like BGH and too pussy to ever go 1v1 LT.
|
Unit limit gives more strategy to the game
|
Can you imagine how many supply depots, pylons, and overlords there are going to be? -_-...
|
You are most noob aren'tcha?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 21 2007 15:27 RebelHeart wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2007 15:20 FrozenArbiter wrote:
1) PvZ with 5000 units is going to kill even the most high tech computer currently available. Kill it dead.
It would never start again, ever.
2) It would probably mean less come backs which I guess could be seen as good or as bad.. But it would definitely allow for some hardcore turtling which is bad for sure ;p
You're assuming there's no way of beating your opponent before they get that many units. How is turtling different at 100 units, 150 units, 200 units? Games end at either of those counts. And you don't always wait until you have 200 units before you attack. The only people who would ever get up to 5000 units are idiots that play unlimited money maps like BGH and too pussy to ever go 1v1 LT.
Have you ever seen a TvP on forte? Terran strategy on this map is basically -> Expand, build units -> expand again -> build more units -> expand (while upgrading to 3-3), expan, expand expand until expanding combines with attacking the protoss expansions...
Now if there wasn't a 200 limit, terrans would have 1000 supply pretty quickly ;<
When you have a 200 unit cap, you don't really gain anymore from turtling. Turtling past the 200 mark only builds up resources but doesnt increase your army.
The limit must stay for performance (lag) reasons if no other. There have been millions of games of starcraft in which both sides have like 10 000 minerals and 200/200, 50 hatcheries/gateways. Can you imagine what those games would have looked like without a unit limit? Brrr, would have been crazy laggy.
|
On May 21 2007 15:42 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2007 15:27 RebelHeart wrote:On May 21 2007 15:20 FrozenArbiter wrote:
1) PvZ with 5000 units is going to kill even the most high tech computer currently available. Kill it dead.
It would never start again, ever.
2) It would probably mean less come backs which I guess could be seen as good or as bad.. But it would definitely allow for some hardcore turtling which is bad for sure ;p
You're assuming there's no way of beating your opponent before they get that many units. How is turtling different at 100 units, 150 units, 200 units? Games end at either of those counts. And you don't always wait until you have 200 units before you attack. The only people who would ever get up to 5000 units are idiots that play unlimited money maps like BGH and too pussy to ever go 1v1 LT. Have you ever seen a TvP on forte? Terran strategy on this map is basically -> Expand, build units -> expand again -> build more units -> expand (while upgrading to 3-3), expan, expand expand until expanding combines with attacking the protoss expansions... Now if there wasn't a 200 limit, terrans would have 1000 supply pretty quickly ;< When you have a 200 unit cap, you don't really gain anymore from turtling. Turtling past the 200 mark only builds up resources but doesnt increase your army. The limit must stay for performance (lag) reasons if no other. There have been millions of games of starcraft in which both sides have like 10 000 minerals and 200/200, 50 hatcheries/gateways. Can you imagine what those games would have looked like without a unit limit? Brrr, would have been crazy laggy.
Perhaps the new game engine will allow for larger unit counts? ;D
|
Sweden33719 Posts
As long as it isn't so huge that it causes lag.
|
There should be a limit for the mere factor that is oov.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the unit limit is one of the central things that define starcraft gameplay. i dont think you can take that away while maintaining the same game.
|
no unit limit = massing w/e or everything into a huge huge army.
this combined with the idea of no unit selection cap just create a huge battle mid game and whoever wins that wins the game.
|
As long as the graphics works I wouldn't mind having a higher limit, but you have to have a limit to force people to use their troups.
|
With a higher limit raids against the enemy supply depos/pylons and Overlords could become devastatingly effective late game. Imagine getting shot down from 400 suppy to 200 when you're using 350, then the nail in the coffin would be harrasment against your builders. When you're that high above your supply you won't be able to build new builders any time soon.
I think they'll probably raise it above 200, I can't guess how high though.
|
this thread is stupid, it would ruin micro and strategy itself : x
kill all those who turtle, there should be a timelimit for turtling : o
|
Yeah, Warcraft just sucked because 100 unit limit + huge supply usage per unit was way to small scale.
|
I thought that the limited amount of resources in your starting location was the time limit to turtling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
