| 1 |
I have always been a fan of 1v1 and small teams games(2v2-4v4), strongly preferring them over big games. I often cite having a larger impact on the team as my primary reason for liking small teams. I recently thought of another aspect that significantly differs between small and big teams: the economy curve.
|
1 |
I have always been a fan of 1v1 and small teams games(2v2-4v4), strongly preferring them over big games. I often cite having a larger impact on the team as my primary reason for liking small teams. I recently thought of another aspect that significantly differs between small and big teams: the economy curve.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
In smaller games, particularly 1v1s, if you look at metal income over the course of the game, the curves typically show an exponential shape, throughout most, if not all of the game. In contrast, the team income for large teams games show a similar initial exponential shape, but much more quickly flatten out to plateau.
|
3 |
In smaller games, particularly 1v1s, if you look at metal income over the course of the game, the curves typically show an exponential shape, throughout most, if not all of the game. In contrast, the team income for large teams games show a similar initial exponential shape, but much more quickly flatten out to plateau.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
I'm not trying to start some deep, intense math debate over the exact shape of the curves, but the main idea behind this is that in large teams games, all of the mexes are quickly taken by one of the two teams. Any additional income comes from overdrive, which has a much lower payback time, as well as a diminishing returns effect, when compared with income from mex expansion. In contrast, in (high skill level) 1v1s and to some extent small teams, often times there will still be never-claimed mexes by the time the game ends via resign. As a result, we can conclude that there is open territory available throughout the game for players to expand into.
|
5 |
I'm not trying to start some deep, intense math debate over the exact shape of the curves, but the main idea behind this is that in large teams games, all of the mexes are quickly taken by one of the two teams. Any additional income comes from overdrive, which has a much lower payback time, as well as a diminishing returns effect, when compared with income from mex expansion. In contrast, in (high skill level) 1v1s and to some extent small teams, often times there will still be never-claimed mexes by the time the game ends via resign. As a result, we can conclude that there is open territory available throughout the game for players to expand into.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
This phenomena is also impacted by map size, and typically, large teams games have a much higher player density compared to 1v1s, resulting in the faster expansion over the whole map discussed above.
|
7 |
This phenomena is also impacted by map size, and typically, large teams games have a much higher player density compared to 1v1s, resulting in the faster expansion over the whole map discussed above.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I
personally
find
the
constant
ability
for
expansion
into
unclaimed
land,
while
simultaneously
trying
to
defend
my
own
claimed
land
and
raid
the
enemy,
one
of
the
most
challenging
and
rewarding
parts
of
Zero-k.
This
experience
is
lost
in
teams
games,
where
a
rather
static
frontline
between
the
two
teams
forms,
and
the
expansion
phase
ends.
At
that
point,
players
typically
begin
building
excessive
porc,
arty,
and
superweapons.
When
this
happens
the
interesting
and
unique
unit
interactions/counters
are
lost
in
the
sea
of
heavy
weapons
fire.
For
example,
skirms
rely
heavily
on
kiting,
which
requires
open
ground
to
perform.
With
strong
frontlines,
kiting
rarely
happens.
|
9 |
I
personally
find
the
constant
ability
for
expansion
into
unclaimed
land,
while
simultaneously
trying
to
defend
my
own
claimed
land
and
raid
the
enemy,
one
of
the
most
challenging
and
rewarding
parts
of
Zero-k.
This
experience
is
lost
in
teams
games,
where
a
rather
static
frontline
between
the
two
teams
forms,
and
the
expansion
phase
ends
early
in
the
game.
At
that
point,
players
typically
begin
building
excessive
porc,
arty,
and
superweapons.
When
this
happens
the
interesting
and
unique
unit
interactions/counters
are
lost
in
the
sea
of
heavy
weapons
fire.
For
example,
skirms
rely
heavily
on
kiting,
which
requires
open
ground
to
perform.
With
strong
frontlines,
kiting
rarely
happens.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Thank you for listening to my essay, please leave comments below. :)
|
11 |
Thank you for listening to my essay, please leave comments below. :)
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
[b]TL:DR[/b] Big teams games have a less interesting economic expansion profile and the high density of players results in frontline-centric play which limits unit interactions and pushes players toward less active porc/arty/superweapons plays.
|
15 |
[b]TL:DR[/b] Big teams games have a less interesting economic expansion profile and the high density of players results in frontline-centric play which limits unit interactions and pushes players toward less active porc/arty/superweapons plays.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
[b]TL:DR with extra salt[/b] Big teams games are boring and autohosts should be limited to 16 players, especially after the most recent poll indicated that the majority of players prefer small teams.
|
17 |
[b]TL:DR with extra salt[/b] Big teams games are boring and autohosts should be limited to 16 players, especially after the most recent poll indicated that the majority of players prefer small teams.
|
Commentary on big vs small teams economy/playstyle