Warzone 2100 Forums

Just a couple of humble opinions. I hope my english won't fail me today. And i'm still not sure if anyone will be able to read this many letters

In good old days, i've been playing this Starcraft game. I had no way or thought of playing it online yet, so i've just been trying to beat all kidns of AIs included in the game. How did i do it? I've made a map with almost-unlimited amount of minerals and several gas geisers for both sides, then turtled up my base with all sort of towers, then built 12 or 24 carriers/battlecruisers/whatever and wiped them out. And it was easy enough. But i could not play any of the stock maps: i've just ran out of minerals, and eventually died.

When i started playing Warzone2100 (it was only recently, and i've got a little grown up, and i didn't play Starcraft for quite some time), i've been pretty much trying to do the same thing with one difference: i couldn't make my own maps, so i had to cope with the stock ones. But the AI wasn't that good at that time yet, so even on that Rush2 map i could beat 3 bots with simply turtling up my 4-oils base until i researched everything and then won by better micromanagement etc.

See anything familiar here? That's what all noobs around here do. Only when i started playing warzone online, i've realized how much of a noob i was. And i've quickly learned a few lessons and got a little better.

But i also realized that my old addiction to high-power is not something unique around here. And all these high-power flat maps did a good job: they made it easy to understand the different weapon types in a very refined manner, i.e. without any influence of strategy or power issues. Of course, i've seen people blaming high-power maps for contradicting the original idea of the game (i.e. "this is not warzone"), but i didn't really realize what exactly do they mean.

But something changed recently. The news of upcoming Starcraft II woke up the old memories, and i ran upon "iccup" server and realized how easy it is to play Starcraft online nowadays, so i gave it a try. And - guess what - i was wiped out very very very quickly. Even though they have a rating system there, i.e. noobs play only with noobs, i got crushed quite a few times. Then i've started to look at some strategy guides on the web and found some wiki (you may want to have a look) and i was stunned and shocked by the amount of theory developed inside this one game. It's more of a chess now than of any computer game. In a pro game, every unit and every second counts. And i don't believe any of our greatest warzone players understands warzone game better than a very average C-ranked player understands Starcraft.

What else did i notice up there? All the maps look very similar, and they seem to be created according to very strict guidelines. There is some exact understanding of how much power there should be, how it should be located (natural expansion, second expansion, choke points, etc).

And now i wonder if these two things - the great amount of theory developed and the strict mapping guidelines - are somehow connected. And i feel they actually are. And these guidelines did exist before starcraft was released, since it was bundled with a lot of maps pretty similar to what is played now (though some things have changed).

Of course, starcraft is just a great game, and thus has more fans and evolves more quickly.

Of course, warzone is different from starcraft in a great many ways, including a totally different resource management model and units design and tech tree and number of different buildings, etc.

So don't tell me warzone has its own unique way. Being from Russia, i know that the unique way is not always the good way*.

But i still think that to evolve the game any further than it already is, strict mapping guidelines are absolutely necessary. And high-power maps, being good for newbies who want to learn the game basics, are an absolute evil for the pros who actually push the game theory forward. Right now, i think it would be best for the game if all pros throw away all these "squared" and "ntw" and start to playing "startup", "rush" and "mountain" 1vs1 hundreds of times and publish strategy guides based on their experience. But so far, warzone online gaming is still in its infancy.

And also, map makers should know what kind of maps should they actually do (at least i don't know it right now ). And, more importantly, they should know these maps will actually be played if they follow the guidelines (right now, addons.wz2100.net is a great collection of maps no one ever played well, i'm exaggerating a little on this one)

P.S. A couple of remarks here. I don't mean i am a Starcraft fan. Any amazing gameplay would not outweight the spirit of free soft Warzone posesses (no matter how they Blizzard calls their new game , and it's not about money). And, secondly, i personally am ready to play these original low-power maps and get beaten over and over (since i'm not that good).
___________
* There are quite some political leaders in Russia who say that democracy just won't work in Russia because Russia is very different from the western civilization and has some unique way in the history of mankind, which always is supposed to be some sort of totalitarism.

I agree, there should be a general return to low power maps.

Bannanas I think is a great map for 8 player FFA.

Startup has balance issues - so they made startup 2, im not sure that fixes them.

High ground is fairly balanced, but has some balance issues in that its a little easier for the northern player to get to the high ground first.

Mountain is very good imo.
Rush is good IMO, as is Fishnets.

Mizamaze is good, as is rolling hills (I think its called?)

Another thing that makes strategy interesting, is turning on Scavs on low power maps....
Prevents rushing on some maps (particularly Fishnets, if playing 2v2, or 1v1 on opposite sides of the center isle)

One thing WZ doesn't really lend itself to, is expansions, as you don't need a resource dropoff point, you can keep your Pgens back at your base.
Though some low power maps I do decentralize my factories, and put up some defenses around forward factories, and sometimes for the sake of expediency, put pGens there as well.

Also, one can build anywhere, which is sort of a terran only thing in SC.

Homeworld 1 and 2 had "expansions" in the form of resource controllers going to other resource pockets, and later in the game, carriers
HW2 gave you a carrier to start with, which really makes it an "expansion on wheels" since they are mobile factories as well

HW's very nature got rid of chokepoints, except on that one HW single player map where everywhere had damaging radiation except within veins of dust clouds.
HW also kept the races very similar, simplifying the balance that starcraft has.

Starcraft has too many caster units for my tastes- the specilizations seemed forced.

HW was very very good imo, not sure if I liked HW2 gameplay better or not.
HW had a lot of micro, without having a lot of "casters" (grav well gens, cloak, and Heavy corvette charged burst attack aside)

Anyway, I liked HW better than starcraft, starcraft's balance seemed forced or arbitrary.

*needs to see if I can get HW running on my mac, and if its still got ppl playing it online.

of random note. Have you ever played games of spring rts?
Talking fairly specifically about speedmetal maps (the spring equivalent of unlimited resource maps)..
As someone who spent a great deal of time in spring,(/me polishes his shiny 200 hours ingame award) i can rather say that theres a finesse to it.. players who spend time loligagging and enjoying the vistas will find themselves with even more time after their commander gets killed by a peewee rush, because they still dont have a factory up. In games of speedmetal, the game is often won by whoever has the most precise buildorder.. high resource maps are generally just an excuse to get shiny explosions without effort it seems: in spring games of speedmetal generally have lots of stuff going boom somewhere..

in spring, the one thing i tell new people is 'spend metal on tanks'. This holds true for pretty much everything: If you arent building tanks, your generally doing something wrong. In homeworld, if you dont have something making something that makes bad people's somethings go boom, your generally in a bad position (because its guaranteed that the bad guy will be making something to make YOUR somethings go boom). In wz, it seems the same way - making stuff go boom is what the game is all about after all

As for map making, I cant really comment at all. Maps in spring generally dont include choke points, and generally done have 'zones' to expand in (expansion is usually done as close to your main battle group as possible..)

Of random note, when i started playing spring, apparently there was a fad for 'green field' maps.. maps that lacked metal at all. Of course, there are other ways of making metal than harvesting it, so it isnt a completely impossible game, but it was very different in the expansion department.. and a slow game overall.

Right, im sure I completely went around the entire point of this thread somewhere, so ill leave it at that.

Why insist on restrictions to WZ, whether for maps or mods? Let each person play the game he wants to play, and the same for mp groups.

It seems that when peeps suggest limiting/focusing gameplay in WZ, they always have another - once favoured - game as their model. The answer should always be: this is Warzone, not any other game. The great thing about WZ is its near universality. You can play so many different kinds of game. What's wrong if some guys want to spread their tanks out on the front room carpet in Squared and have a good old bash? That's what the map is designed for, as are many of the high oil maps. There are also loads of tight-space maps, big and small, that demand the closest attention - and that's what they are designed for.

My advice to noobs would be: expand your options. Play different types of game as the mood takes you. That way you find out just how unique Warzone is.

@zydonk, people generally have a game they come from, of their 'ideal rts' that they kinda expect everything to be like. Ill mostly agree that spring rts (and by extension, the nota mod) is what I consider to be one of the best games... but of course, thats only multiplayer.. and, well, why would i be here if i wasnt playing different types of games as my mood took me?

One thing you learn in online gaming is that there never is "your way" or "my way", but only "the good way" and "a bad way"

I don't insist any restrictions, and i admit that high-power maps are some fun, but they just don't allow you to improve your skills beyond a certain point, and this point is imho very low.

Ever wondered why no one really likes all different variations of chess?

I like high power mainly because i can focus on weapon type, and countering enemy weapons using those types.

hao wrote:Then i've started to look at some strategy guides on the web and found some wiki (you may want to have a look) and i was stunned and shocked by the amount of theory developed inside this one game. It's more of a chess now than of any computer game. In a pro game, every unit and every second counts. And i don't believe any of our greatest warzone players understands warzone game better than a very average C-ranked player understands Starcraft.

Oh, believe me, I know plenty of the theory behind games.

Warzone in general has a far more complex tech tree than StarCraft. Its metagame isn't as well developed, either, because of a smaller number of players. But, for instance, StarCraft metagame is much further along in South Korea than in the US, for the same reason. That doesn't have that much to do with how well any player understands the game, though.

Any pro plays like every second counts. Let me show you how I truck rush:

Both trucks on Research Facility.
RF finishes: Hit Machinegun, both trucks on Command Center.
MG finishes: Hit Hardened MG Bullets.
CC finishes: Interrupt Hardened MG, hit MG Tower. One truck on factory, one truck moving towards enemy base.
Truck moving towards enemy base caps oil resources on its way there.
MG Tower finishes: Continue Hardened MG, start building MG towers in enemy base.

As refined as any StarCraft tactic.

hao wrote: And now i wonder if these two things - the great amount of theory developed and the strict mapping guidelines - are somehow connected. And i feel they actually are. And these guidelines did exist before starcraft was released, since it was bundled with a lot of maps pretty similar to what is played now (though some things have changed).

The map guidelines? That's just basic game design. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that too much oil and chokepoints too easy to defend are bad for interesting gameplay.

How much theory there is in StarCraft really doesn't have much to do with it.

hao wrote:Of course, starcraft is just a great game, and thus has more fans and evolves more quickly.

It's often said that Warzone never took off because it was never marketed well. StarCraft may be a great game, but don't think its popularity lead over Warzone is entirely due to its quality.

hao wrote:But i still think that to evolve the game any further than it already is, strict mapping guidelines are absolutely necessary. And high-power maps, being good for newbies who want to learn the game basics, are an absolute evil for the pros who actually push the game theory forward. Right now, i think it would be best for the game if all pros throw away all these "squared" and "ntw" and start to playing "startup", "rush" and "mountain" 1vs1 hundreds of times and publish strategy guides based on their experience. But so far, warzone online gaming is still in its infancy.

Big Game Hunters is a high resource map for StarCraft - the equivalent of Squared (heck, if you look at it, even its layout resembles Squared). According to SC Wiki, it's one of the most popular maps for public games on Battle.net.

All popular RTSes suffer from this. Unskilled players want a high resource map with only a single chokepoint to defend. Skilled players will play meticulously balanced maps with sane resource levels, generally similar to the levels of the maps bundled with the game. StarCraft is no different from Warzone in that regard.

3drts wrote:Also, one can build anywhere, which is sort of a terran only thing in SC.

Terrans can build anywhere because they don't have any structure that can attack ground units. Hence, no balance problems with truck rushes.

I still don't know how I'm going to fix truck rushes in Warzone.

in spring the commander usually has a high powered lowrange weapon.. can we uh... make people start out with a special dual-turret tank that involves an incredibly slow tank (say, 50 speed or so) that can build, and has a gun? :p

Lancefighter wrote:can we uh... make people start out with a special dual-turret tank that involves an incredibly slow tank (say, 50 speed or so) that can build, and has a gun? :p

You mean like a "Truck/Medium cannon - Dragon - Half-tracks?"

Sorry but Dragon only allows 2 weapon turrets or 1 system turret.

Thanks for The Reply, Zarel, you've put me back to my nooby place (: and shown yourself as a great truck rusher never mind, where were we?

Zarel wrote:All popular RTSes suffer from this. Unskilled players want a high resource map with only a single chokepoint to defend. Skilled players will play meticulously balanced maps with sane resource levels, generally similar to the levels of the maps bundled with the game. StarCraft is no different from Warzone in that regard.

Well, to be honest, in a few weeks of playing starcraft online, i've never seen anyone playing anything high-power. And i was mostly playing with noobs. And almost every not-the-last-noob-around knows by heart quite a few of these precise strategies. What do we see in warzone? Most of the cool players host only squared and ntw, and hardly a handful of pros managed to invent any clever builds. I'm not sure it should be called `no different' (though it still might me a scaling effect)

____________________________

Well, one problem with forum talking is that you always end up proving something you never wanted to.

There's more in this game than just "cannons vs. rockets" or "plasmites vs. archangels". And all i wanted to say is i've just realized how much more. But we can't get to this "much more" unless we stick to somewhat more narrow way of playing and mapping. And high-power is no better choice than no choice at all in this sense.

hao wrote:Well, to be honest, in a few weeks of playing starcraft online, i've never seen anyone playing anything high-power. And i was mostly playing with noobs. And almost every not-the-last-noob-around knows by heart quite a few of these precise strategies. What do we see in warzone? Most of the cool players host only squared and ntw, and hardly a handful of pros managed to invent any clever builds. I'm not sure it should be called `no different' (though it still might me a scaling effect)

iirc, you were playing on iccup (whose tagline, by the way, is "Top World Gaming"), not Battle.net. So I'm not sure if the people you were playing against could really be called "noobs".

I'm not sure who you call a "pro" in Warzone, but most of the pros I know rarely play in Squared-likes. I think like 80% of the games I play are on maps with 8 oil or less in base.

Warzone is balanced in a way that it's difficult to make a clever build in a Squaredlike. Most of the choices are in what to do with your power, and if you have so much power you can do everything, that cuts down substantially on the choices you need to make.

About truck rushes: well, there are quite a few workarounds the map makers can implement (and i'm sure you are aware of it, so i'm telling it just for the public (:):
1. Walls of destructible features (houses etc, like on Clutch).
2. Scavengers (if they are turned on and stretched all over the middle).
3. Pre-built defences (if starting with advanced bases).

But i'm not exactly sure anything *should* be done about it. If you can afford sending one truck away to the enemy, the enemy definitely can afford an even easier task of building some early MG towers to defend himself.

I'm not sure who you call a "pro" in Warzone, but most of the pros I know rarely play in Squared-likes. I think like 80% of the games I play are on maps with 8 oil or less in base.

That's good news, but the fact is i hardly ever saw such games

So I'm not sure if the people you were playing against could really be called "noobs".

Heh, maybe you're right. Yeah, i've never played on battle.net.

hao wrote:That's good news, but the fact is i hardly ever saw such games

Do you set up games in #warzone2100-games? That's where you would.

Zarel wrote:Do you set up games in #warzone2100-games? That's where you would.

Yup, that's where the good guys set up their games. Over public lobby you'll find nothing but high-power and/or NTW maps.