Spring RTS Engine

Sorry lads, my superior is busting my balls. Peace out, another thread, and all that.

i would think that the choice of team games over 1v1s also stems from the hosting "issues" of spring. Why try and spend 30+ min with one guy trying to figure out why you guys can't play when the guy spamming main with,"5v5 DSD BA5.8 NEED 3 MOAR" will do it for you.

also note that their are no dedicated 1v1 autohosts i.e. they have 2 players max.

if you could say hit a Quickmatch button that set you up in a 1v1 with a player of similar skill on a map and mod that you both had then im sure you would see a massive increase in both 1v1 games and 1v1 players. But as it stands there isn't anything even remotely approaching that in spring.

Not to mention team games allow you to try out crazy strats and make the more generic ones (like airdrops) easier with people helping you and covering you.

And people do play games to have fun... the reason i first started playing Spring was because i wanted to watch a massive battle with airdrops, amphib assaults, naval engagements, massive air squadrons, and huge ground battles. Not watch as my opponent micros one Peewee to destroy my base or to do the same to my opponent(and the only time i've done that was in a com shared game, something we need more of).

(by the by all this talk of skill levels can only hurt your cause not to mention the attitudes of some of the players of that game style)

This needs to be quoted some more.

You'd get more new 1v1ers if the current 1v1ers werent mostly pricks.

Saktoth wrote:This needs to be quoted some more.

You'd get more new 1v1ers if the current 1v1ers werent mostly pricks.

Ohhh the irony...

j5mello wrote: Not to mention team games allow you to try out crazy strats and make the more generic ones (like airdrops) easier with people helping you and covering you.

And why you can't do that in single player? Watch cows games, we do crazy things all the time .

j5mello wrote:Not watch as my opponent micros one Peewee to destroy my base or to do the same to my opponent(and the only time i've done that was in a com shared game, something we need more of).

Peewee/flea/jeff micro is a big reason why I play the game. It's lots of fun to find the smallest holes in someone's base and reduce them to nothing with the weakest units in the game.

j5mello wrote:also note that their are no dedicated 1v1 autohosts i.e. they have 2 players max.

This is a really good idea IMO. I know lion sometimes ran a 1v1 autohost when he was online, but if there were 4 or 5 of them in the lobby at all times that would probably increase the amount of 1v1s being played.

my point wasn't that micro is bad its just that some of us don't find that style of gaming fun...

hell i don' doubt that you guys do but if an average player tries some crazy strat, and that strat falls thru chance are its game over (unless his opponent is trying some just as unique)

Crazy strats are easier to do in a 1v1. Why? Nobody else to answer to. If you take it easy and are playing an equally easygoing opponent you can do some really mad, experimental stuff. In a team game, you have a responsibility to the rest of the team to try and put in your best effort. If you do a crazy strat ('I know, ill combomb them while they have more support in the area than we do and there is no hope we can possibly get the wrecks' or 'I know, Ill start air then spam air cons and adv solar farm my way to victory'- these happen FAR TOO OFTEN) you'll ruin the game for the rest of the players.

1v1 also allows the strats to be tested entirely on its own merit, meaning its success or failure depends entirely on its strength as a legitimate strategy. In a team game, you can win the game by using a totally stupid strat just because you have good allies (Or porcing for 3 hours until you finally contribute to the battle, then feel like you really won it because it was only after you started participating that your team won).

Who cares if you lose a 1v1 game because you used a new strat which didnt pan out? You learnt something, it took 5 minutes of your time (God, this is the best thing about BA- short games), and you can have a rematch game going in a few seconds. Stop caring about winning so much and just play some 1v1's.

No, what team games allows is not 'weird strats' but stupidity. Blatant, blind, stupidity. You can seriously mess up really, really bad and still go on to win the game...

This is one of the reasons that 1v1's make you a better player.

BloX for the win. I've never had a game in BloX I hated, and infact, I've tried more tactics in free-for-all games then 1v1, so, at least for me, Free-for-all has been more fun[It's my fault that every tactic can work in BloX]. Team Games are just as fun though, my team mates like to spam, while I tactically move my whole base around and build a little team for sneak attacks.

i thought u quit?

I should try 1v1s. Maybe it'll be like soloing north in Delta Siege Dry, except without south randomly failing.

Evil4Zerggin wrote:I should try 1v1s. Maybe it'll be like soloing north in Delta Siege Dry, except without south randomly failing.

And here we have isolated part of the problem - North on DSD has lots of chokepoints. Most of the popular 1v1 maps are very open - even the hilly ones have very few barriers to kbots. This requires frantic use of mobile units to mount any kind of effective defense. That's what makes 1v1s so stressful - the moment an enemy radar dot appears you have to franticly recon, move your troops for defense, and prey like hell his forces will wander into your forces or won't find that one hole you haven't LLTd yet.

It's hard. Really hard, and really intense. Of course you can be good at it (obviously, I'm not).

Now, let's compare this with StarCraft maps - every start-base in SC has generally only 2 entries, with lots of chokepoints leading to other bases. Yes, it's less sophisticated, but it's also much lower-stress.

Perhaps more chokepoint-oriented 1v1 maps would help reduce that feeling of "1v1s are too damned hard!". You might even see some artillery-combat instead of the usual raider-spam.

for chokepoint-heavy maps to work, you'd need most static defenses nerfed almost into oblivion, because the usual TA mechanics lead to a quick stalemate. notice how starcraft's static defenses all mostly suck.

nothing sucks in starcraft

having built my share of pylons in enemy nub bases, I agree. compared to AA/BA static defenses, strarcraft's are poo though.

You cant compare starcraft and spring ota based mods.

the problem with dsd north isn't the chokepoints its that its all sloped down from the defenders side so everything takes forever to get up.

neddiedrow wrote:I started playing BA when it was WarC Annihilation.

Ha! It used to be called Cabbage annihilation until noize made day change it!

Cabbage wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:I started playing BA when it was WarC Annihilation.

Ha! It used to be called Cabbage annihilation until noize made day change it!

Nobody can keep stuff secret around here !!!

The People have a right to know! It's time the sordid truth of this disgusting affair was expunged once and for all!

Yes it's true! i am the mastermind behind BA, Noize and Day are but mere puppets in web of deceit! However, i can't go on living a lie, and i hereby cede full control of BA over to Noize.

I apologise over this inexcusable fabrication ive built up over the months, i hope you all find it within yourselves to forgive me at somepoint.

Forgive me.