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. | ||
| ||