Spring RTS Engine

skill standards in the spring community is so low, there are only a few players that can play competitive 1v1's in spring.

i attribute this to a few things. first, the small playerbase. spring has less players, so they will also have less top players. but that doesnt explain why springs average skill level is so low and there are so many more average/noob players than top players.

people are just afraid to play 1v1's because for some reason, the spring playerbase got the idea that team games were better, and since then, players have gotten used to team games and adopted the attitude that "i cant 1v1" and when these team game playing players DO 1v1, they hate losing even more because they cant blame thier losses on thier allies. from here on its a downward spiral.

since there are so few people playing 1v1 and getting competitive with spring, there are rarely any new players introduced into the circle of players that play 1v1 competitively. Example: [Nub]Joe is joining a game. there are 8 games open, 7 team games and one 1v1. He is 7 times as likely to join the team game, and from then on only team games.

Your probably all thinking, "what does 1v1 have to do with being competitive and skilled?" Everything in springs case. Since the average skill level in spring is quite low, most team games, even if they are balanced, are won or lost because of noob mistakes, not brilliant strategies. Even if there is one or two below average players in a game, they will have more of an effect than the rest of the average or even skilled players. High end team games are very rare, although enjoyable. These are usually 2v2's because its very hard to get more than 4 skilled players in a team game. in the average team game i can just tech to nuke/t3 and whore mms and win. ~_~ strategy needed? no.

I DONT CARE IF YOU SUCK, EVERYONE SUCKED AT ONE POINT, PLAY 1v1s, GET SKILLS

1V1 IS MORE REWARDING AND SPRING NEEDS MORE TOP PLAYERS

I NEED MORE GOOD PEOPLE TO PLAY

also by posting in this thead you agree to being attacked by a tombom

1v1 is NOT universally more rewarding, you're just arrogantly writing your opinion over those of your peers.

read post plz not just capital letters, i stated why i think its more rewarding :D (if your still stumped see paragraph 5)

anyways that was not the main point of this thread, if u want to pick at a small detail like that go ahead.

Im too lazy to act like elite again... its so stressful job, always needs to be the best of the best... who really likes to be like that? yeah.. indeed...

"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...

Most of the 1v1 games ive watched were just dirty tricks and dirty tactics, like nuke and bertha, etc... i dont see that very funny.

Dont try to change people, change the game. Its even open source...

I read your entire post, it doesn't change the raw presumption in what you've said as a whole.

I do agree that we need more 1v1 players, but we need more players in general. If only 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 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.

All this aside, I stopped playing 1v1 because of the people I had to pick from and the feedback I would receive from them. The only person who even made the experience one worth making an attempt against was Dem0, and every other match has merely been dull, uninteresting, and ultimately, a waste of my time.

TradeMark wrote: 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...

Most of the 1v1 games ive watched were just dirty tricks and dirty tactics, like nuke and bertha, etc... i dont see that very funny.

Uh, Trademark, the reason why balance in BA is so terrible is because they balance for 1v1. Nearly no games move beyond Tier 1.

Scouting is essential in any game. I assert that we would see even more mirror matches if one could simply watch the enemy base without effort.

1v1s are shootouts, team games are wars.

You state your opinion like it is fact.

The fact is, if more people wanted to play 1v1 they would. They dont. Maybe they aren't interested, not "afraid".

Spring is not just BA

We play quite a few xta 1v1s. We also have regular clan games, ergo "high skill" team games often ended by skilled teamwork as opposed to nub errors.

He is right in the sense that playing 1v1 regularly will (for the most part in Spring) VASTLY improve a players success in all other game types. One thing for sure is that 1v1 is more execution based. Some people percieve this execution as the players skill/ability. Its an undeniable fact that playing 1v1 games requires the player to manage, coordinate and control a lot more at a quicker pace than any team game in Spring. Once you get used to this pace, team games feel slow and extremely easy to manage.

Still, 1v1 and Team games are two different beasts. It's certainly not true that 1v1 players are more experienced than team-game players, but it is percieved this way because the 1v1 players will, for the most part, tend to win over the players who only play team games.

After playing 1v1s for a while, beating the player you're up against (or two players or sometimes even three) in an average team game can seem like a walk in the park.

I myself hold a similar opinion to flop, but I am curious as to what it actually is about team games that make them so much more appealing to the vast majority of the player base? What extra do they have, or perhaps what do they NOT have that 1v1's do which makes them more appealing/fun for the majority?

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.

EDIT: And yeah, team games are definately far more forgiving to noob players, so I don't think flop's point really stands about new players joining 1v1's, unless it happens to be two noob players who are relatively equal in experience/skill, in which case, they should have a fun game.

If a newcomer to spring joined a 1v1 against any of the skilled players, you can guarantee that it won't be enjoyable for either player. The game would last between 5-8 minutes and he'd have no chance to get to grips with even the simplest elements of the mod he was playing, due to constant pressure and harassment from opponent.

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.

only people who feel on top of their game want to play 1v1s because otherwise they just feel hopelessly out of their depth. 1v1s fun value comes from the competitive element of high end play, but if you are not good that isnt so much fun. teamgames are fun because competent or not your just part of a much bigger war and you have freinds by your sides. teamgames span all techs, starting L1 spam reaching uberweapons while 1v1s are just flash micro. if you are a proffesional flash microer then 1v1 is the bees knees but for the plain fun value teamgames are more entertaining most the time.

profesional flash microer.. hmmmm i wouldnt mind being paid to micro flashes, anyone wanna sponsor me?

Day wrote:profesional flash microer.. hmmmm i wouldnt mind being paid to micro flashes, anyone wanna sponsor me?

Or me.

We all know I still hold this http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/KoFS .

also i released flashspam 1.2 a while ago, i think its rea;;ay balanced.

at demo about the noobs joining 1v1s -

if noobs started joining 1v1s they could play each other. this is a rare thing since noobs are more likely to join more popular team games though. if all new players were trying 1v1 as well as team games, there would be plenty of fair, balanced, newb 1v1 games going on. the way it is right now theres no way thats going to happen though, its a downward spiral.

at neddie and anyone else who says anything in my original post is BS:

were all entitled to our own opinions. that post represents my opinion. if your opinion is different, thats ok, but dont attack me for it :D

NOiZE wrote:also i released flashspam 1.2 a while ago, i think its rea;;ay balanced.

Truth, we might need to change rules <_<.

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.

I would add that it doesnt stunt your growth, not even close. People can learn how to play through team games. Its just much less likely that they will reach a high level, and if they do, it's likely to take a lot longer.

Basically I think what you were trying to say is that playing team games compared to playing 1v1 will take longer to establish skills and reach your limits. 1v1 play inherently pushes a player to his capable limit (provided he is trying as hard as he can), whereas in Team games it is often the case that several players will play a very casual, relaxed game, not giving full effort, and not being tested to maximum ability (myself included).

does anyone want a 1v1

No, its too stressful and frustrating and annoying and unrelaxed and that way unfun type of playing.