|
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.
|
On August 03 2010 13:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 13:35 TheYango wrote: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. 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.
|
On August 03 2010 14:23 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On August 03 2010 14:36 junkacc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 14:23 Motiva wrote: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. 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.
|
Bigger maps amplify the defender's advantage because movement across the map takes you away from your production buildings. This makes people want to spend more time building up an awesome force and acquire the capability to rebuild an army. If you try to attack early, you'll arrive outnumbered. It would be difficult to balance a very large map for Terran because they lack rapid transit like warp-in/recall and nydus.
|
But that's what made SC1 so exciting. Terran had slow mobility but had the siege tank which was great at holding positions. Because of this, each game involving Terrans evolved across the map forming definative frontlines where the opponent would try to break the siege line with counterattacks and encirclement before more Terran reinforcements arrived. This made for very tense and entertaining situations.
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.
|
Games are short because units do much more damage than they do in BW. Having larger maps would create situations where it's not the best idea to go all in all the time. Xel'naga tower placement is also another issue with promoting short games because many of them are very easy to defend and they give field of view advantage for certain units e.g. siege tanks on the smaller maps or generally any map.
|
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
|
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)
|
the biggest most macro maps in bw were never 30-45 minutes, games could still be decided with cheese and early timing attacks.
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.
|
Nearly all the maps are too small. BW wasn't balanced on maps that small so I don't see why SC2 would be either.
|
Tournaments are transfering over to new maps and old BW remakes. If you want to try a large macro style map just go look for them on bnet and keep requesting that the mappers make more of them. All it takes is effort from you.
I'd make more if i got feed back from users like you.
|
Game duration is not related to map size, but with the fact that you can turtle or not.
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.
|
The majority of people would prefer playing a game that on average lasts under 20 minutes than one that lasts 40 minutes. I prefer the small smaps and short games. Short games are also better overall for broadcasting, most people wouldn't have the patience or the time to watch a game being played out for an hour.
|
their short cause it seems to me most players opting for 6 pools , 2 gate push or vray rush , 1 base terran mm push or banshee rushes.
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.
|
Games end early because players are still bad and don't understand how to survive mid game attacks yet. Have you watched games between top players? Sure, every like 1 in 10 games in actually good, but most of them are horribly 1 sided still.
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.
|
its cos the game is faster and just as cutthroat. Cutthroat in that all races have very cost effecient units that can raze buildings stupidly fast.
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.
|
I try to play macro games but with this map pool it's all about big timing attack. If I defend it, I win. If I don't, I lose.
Kind of dumb.
|
On August 03 2010 14:28 luckySe7en wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 13:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 03 2010 13:35 TheYango wrote: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. 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. in SCBW both sides can max out in 14 minutes flat.
|
There is a new map called Delta Quadrant in the ladder. I like the map as a Z player because it's open, and it's the 1st map that truly allows you to flank, backstab, or move around an enemy's army.
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.
|
|
|
|