The state of gameplay; Economy vs. unit tactics vs. expansion
Posted: 07 Jun 2015, 13:14
Recently I've come to think of how much the gameplay has changed over the years. Compared today to 2008, I can see that maps that were traditional vehicle maps see a lot more kbots. Games ending to T1 are decently rare; As I started, I can recall Comet Catcher Redux as a quintessential T1 vehicle map. Now, seeing it go to T2 and T3 is hardly rare. Some maps that used to either be dominantly vehicles or feature roughly a fifty-fifty split of vehicles and kbots seem to be solely kbots.
I can recall a lot of matches ending to a succesful rush to T2 to produce ~5 bulldogs and taking down porc to drive into enemy base; This, too, seems rarer nowadays, with more focus being on using the cost of those 5 bulldogs to build even more of the ever-exponential economy.
This has two big questions occur to me; One, is this perceived change in the metagame real and if so, why has it occurred? Two, what is the actual ideal for Balanced Annihilation gameplay and should Balanced Annihilation make any changes to accommodate a different direction for gameplay?
For the question one, I do believe that there is actual, substantial change having taken place. However, I don't think the reasons are due to balance changes per-say, but rather an overall change in how players conduct their game.
I dug out SVN revisions from 4 years ago. The major energy and metal production buildings have not changed. The vast majority of units used today have not changed. Few things have changed; Pathfinding is different, but this isn't BA's beef really. Regardless, I do think that the actual change in gameplay is thus due to player behaviour. Overtly aggressive gameplay is deemed as both difficult and very risky; Losing 10 flash while taking out only one mex and a few LLT is not cost-effective. Hence, players use units predominantly to defend rather than to harass. The map choice does have a huge part in this, too, but in general, I feel that it's more the player behaviour that has changed than the choice of maps.
Additionally, the economy production strategies used nowadays are extremely optimal. In fact, they are so optimal, that it's not exactly impossible to gain such an economical advantage, that you can cost-effectively counter the 5 bulldogs built by your opponent during the economy boost you get while they drive across the map.
For the question two, then! What kind of gameplay should BA have? The difficulty of this question is of course the fact that maps change gameplay drastically, but lets try to consider maps with decently many open pathways of combat. Personally, my view is that there should be a little more room for unit tactics over economy based unit spam. Accurately microing combat loses effectiveness rapidly after the 20th minute mark; Often, even great players just focus on blind spam by 40th minute. I also feel that the prevelance of games ending to T2 or T3 should be slightly less; T2 endings should happen on around half or little over half of the games in medium-sized games on maps that have not been made predominantly for porc. T3 should also be rarer; Even in DSD, it really shouldn't be almost a norm.
Right, this came out as a pretty long post! Any thought on this? The question I am most interested in, is what do people actually feel to be ideal for BA? Should staple of BA be epic, hour-long T3 struggles? Or should the average match be a struggle of careful T1 unit kiting? Should only maps with a lot of metal in the middle be worthy of aggressive expansing in, or should even a few mexes be worth it to fight over? Is the current state of affairs exactly right, or should better economy be worth more than now, or less?
I can recall a lot of matches ending to a succesful rush to T2 to produce ~5 bulldogs and taking down porc to drive into enemy base; This, too, seems rarer nowadays, with more focus being on using the cost of those 5 bulldogs to build even more of the ever-exponential economy.
This has two big questions occur to me; One, is this perceived change in the metagame real and if so, why has it occurred? Two, what is the actual ideal for Balanced Annihilation gameplay and should Balanced Annihilation make any changes to accommodate a different direction for gameplay?
For the question one, I do believe that there is actual, substantial change having taken place. However, I don't think the reasons are due to balance changes per-say, but rather an overall change in how players conduct their game.
I dug out SVN revisions from 4 years ago. The major energy and metal production buildings have not changed. The vast majority of units used today have not changed. Few things have changed; Pathfinding is different, but this isn't BA's beef really. Regardless, I do think that the actual change in gameplay is thus due to player behaviour. Overtly aggressive gameplay is deemed as both difficult and very risky; Losing 10 flash while taking out only one mex and a few LLT is not cost-effective. Hence, players use units predominantly to defend rather than to harass. The map choice does have a huge part in this, too, but in general, I feel that it's more the player behaviour that has changed than the choice of maps.
Additionally, the economy production strategies used nowadays are extremely optimal. In fact, they are so optimal, that it's not exactly impossible to gain such an economical advantage, that you can cost-effectively counter the 5 bulldogs built by your opponent during the economy boost you get while they drive across the map.
For the question two, then! What kind of gameplay should BA have? The difficulty of this question is of course the fact that maps change gameplay drastically, but lets try to consider maps with decently many open pathways of combat. Personally, my view is that there should be a little more room for unit tactics over economy based unit spam. Accurately microing combat loses effectiveness rapidly after the 20th minute mark; Often, even great players just focus on blind spam by 40th minute. I also feel that the prevelance of games ending to T2 or T3 should be slightly less; T2 endings should happen on around half or little over half of the games in medium-sized games on maps that have not been made predominantly for porc. T3 should also be rarer; Even in DSD, it really shouldn't be almost a norm.
Right, this came out as a pretty long post! Any thought on this? The question I am most interested in, is what do people actually feel to be ideal for BA? Should staple of BA be epic, hour-long T3 struggles? Or should the average match be a struggle of careful T1 unit kiting? Should only maps with a lot of metal in the middle be worthy of aggressive expansing in, or should even a few mexes be worth it to fight over? Is the current state of affairs exactly right, or should better economy be worth more than now, or less?