Apologies in advance for the long post...
Personally, I don't like to play competitive 1v1s unless I'm playing a lot at that time, as otherwise I make a lot of frustrating mistakes due to rustiness (e.g. forgetting to build enough e). If I feel like I had my best stuff (baseball picther's analogy) and still get beat, that's fine, I know I'll learn something from it. If I lose and I'm not playing enough and I know exactly what I was doing wrong, just not executing everything properly, that's frustrating and not particularly fun. That's why when flop PMs me every single day for game (or it seems like it
) I tell him to get lost, if I'm not really playing much at the time. Also, if I work a full day, get home, I usually don't have the energy/concentration required to play a 1v1 well against a good opponent.
TradeMark wrote:
"brilliant strategies" huh, never seen such thing in spring games, there is no time to think strategies, really. once you think something, you see its pointless because enemy just attacked you, and so on... if spring was turn based game, then 1v1 would be more popular, then there is time for strategies, time for thinking. Now everything is just pre-learned dirty tricks, bug abusing, and other crap.
If spring had possibility to put the LOS off and allow permanent sight to enemy base, then 1v1 games would be even more popular... Its just such an annoyance to try guess what is the enemy doing... yeah of course "send scouts" sure, but can i really send scouts all the time to every possible place on the map, no...
Good players come up with game winning strategies on the fly all the time. You might not be able to recognize what they're doing, and what specifically leads to the win, however. Or your post may have been sarcasm, in which case it was funny.
neddiedrow wrote:I enjoyed 1v1, I might actually play them, but stripping the diplomatic aspect between allies and the value of working with people makes RTS dull to me, and always has.
The diplomatic aspect? Would that be what happens when when two people fight over a mex and someone gets dgunned? When I play team games, I typically meet four kinds of players 1) Good players, who don't need to be told what to do, and can see from your moves what you're doing without you explaining it. 2) Complete Nubs who don't have a clue at all what they're doing, let alone what you are. 3) Average players, who, if you tell them what to do will play a good game and hopefully learn something from the experience (I always try to remember to tell one of these players he did a good job after the game, and I sure wish there were more of them). 4) Average players, who ignore what you say and then lose the game because they ignored and thus didn't coordinate properly, or missed opportunities (I can't stand these people, but I guarantee they make up the bulk of the perminubs that play spring).
neddiedrow wrote:
The sentiment that 1v1 is inherently more skill-based, enjoyable or in any way superior has always and will always offend me, for it downplays my experiences in fifteen years of RTS games, and it devalues the games I enjoy.
1v1s require you to have the most skill to win, otherwise, because no one else wins for you, you lose. It is the simple fact that you must win or lose the game ALONE that makes 1v1s require more skill. As others in the thread said, you must manage everything the whole map, all of the resources, all of the units, and what your enemy does. This is inherently harder than playing as a part of a team, and this is why 1v1 players will play well in teams (assuming they aren't starved for metal because there are far too many players on the map) and team players will lose at 1v1s.
neddiedrow wrote:
All this aside, I stopped playing 1v1 because of the people I had to pick from and the feedback I would receive from them.
I played you once 1v1 on BB, and we didn't get out of the early raiding phase of the game. I don't think I was mean to you, but you also didn't ask for any help figuring out how you could have improved. I do remember you had been posting tonnes on the forums about how you were gonna get back into 1v1s around then though.
neddiedrow wrote:every other match has merely been dull, uninteresting, and ultimately, a waste of my time.
Losses are a waste unless you take the time to learn something from them. No one was born a good 1v1 player, but we were all nubs at one time. Good players take the time to learn why they lost, watch other good players to see how they win, play some more, and repeat.
neddiedrow wrote:Uh, Trademark, the reason why balance in BA is so terrible is because they balance for 1v1. Nearly no games move beyond Tier 1.
How about you go in the BA thread and post in detail why balance is so bad (not just that you don't like BBs that are actually useful) and watch as good players give explanations as to why you're wrong (or, who knows, you might have some good ideas, things that other people agree with).
DemO wrote: Once you get used to this pace, team games feel slow and extremely easy to manage.
Exactly. If you have competent allies (e.g. Lionheart
) all you have to do is watch over a fraction of the battlefield, which takes much less concentration.
DemO wrote:Usually I find 1v1s far more rewarding and enjoyable (but also more tireing) than team games but I also enjoy the occasional team game, if only to do funny stuff or hone macro skills.
I agree there's nothing better than beating a good player in a 1v1, but as you say team games are good for practising macro (which is my weakness), and I'm also trying to learn the lvl 2 units at somewhere near the level I know the lvl 1s.
1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
i used to be afraid of 1v1 because i didnt like being outflanked, and the teamgame means there are people covering your sides. it takes a while for your head to develop through the various stages of RTS player: porcer-->push fowarder-->push in all directioner-->agressive attacker and rusher.
Exactly, but playing team games only stunts your growth, as flop and demo say.
