What keeps you guys from playing more 1v1 games? I've noticed the 1v1 servers are almost always empty when I join, but if I wait for a while (maybe 15-20 minutes) players start to join and snowball, and suddenly the 1v1 room is one of the most populated on the list. But, it's mostly the same dozen or so veterans, and almost never other newbies like myself. For me, 1v1 is much more rewarding than the clusterfuck of team games. There's a lot less luck in it, and no one to blame but yourself. I guess this makes it really hard when you're starting out but less frustrating as you get better (since a noob can never lose the game for you). Maybe the biggest factor in the small size of the 1v1 scene is that when you start, you just lose and lose and lose some more. If you don't have a healthy tolerance of defeat and a positive mindset focused on improvement, I guess you'd get discouraged pretty quickly. But I think this speaks to the core issue, namely that the small number of 1v1 players means the skill distribution is skewed toward the high end, which gives new players an even harder time playing 1v1s, so it's really a feedback loop. Anyway, I have a lot of fun in 1v1, and I think you could too. What keeps you from playing 1v1?
+8 / -0
|
quote:
Maybe the biggest factor in the small size of the 1v1 scene is that when you start, you just lose and lose and lose some more. If you don't have a healthy tolerance of defeat and a positive mindset focused on improvement, I guess you'd get discouraged pretty quickly. |
Agreed. Positive mindset is extremely important. I like to think positively of a game even if I lose - losing often gives valuable feedback on what to do better next time and as such serves the goal of getting better at the game. When I started out I had no experiece whatsoever with any other RTS than SC2. I did like 1v1 though and wasn't bothered about losing - I was simply trying to get better in the long run without worrying about the outcome of individual games. For a while it seemed like I wasn't improving, but then something clicked. It felt pretty good to beat a top 50 player for the first time. Same about top 20. Felt pretty good to realise I could actually play against other top 20 players on even terms - something I had not anticipated to happen. Later it also felt pretty good to beat rank 1 and 2 players for the first time - I realised that I can beat anybody if I truly manage to bring my A game to the table. I've seen similar things happen with others as well. Pretty much everybody who keeps stubbornly practising will get better eventually. As for why duels aren't very popular, I guess there's multiple reasons. Perhaps on reason is that there seems to be a historical bias with Spring games towards piling into large team game rooms. Not that it's necessarily bad, but it will mean that 1v1 gets played less. In SC2 for example, 1v1 is by far the most popular ranked gamemode, probably heavily influenced by 1v1 being THE format for Starcraft esports. Even though 1v1 is not exceptionally popular right now in ZK it was much less popular in the past and it seems to be getting more and more popular all the time. Hopefully this trend will continue.
+4 / -0
|
the problem is noone excluding godde and randy will play more then 1 game with me... the "i want to preserve my elo" mindset of 1v1 players is silly, all your elo belongs to me
+0 / -0
|
The only thing that makes me not play 1 vs 1 is my bad micro. I cant micro like 3-4 different armies like other players do. Instead of this i think a lot in games and i make endgame strategy most of the time in team games. A simple terraform that stops a cluster of reapers or ravagers(10-15 ravagers, 10 reapers)(terraform costs 200 metal) usually ends a game in the way i mentioned. A missile silo that targets commanders, emp's shield balls, kills mohos and singularities is another advantage. Strong terraforming on the hills stardusts, stingers, antiair again gives me a strong advantage against my enemies. So i chose team games cause i think more in the game and watch all things from perspective than microwing lots of units or many armies. I do well, and i am confident in team games, even 2 vs 2, but in 1 vs 1 i have problems thats for sure.
+0 / -0
|
 Everyone loves to sit as a spectator - making for intense lobby chat action. If people somehow come into the room, its always 2 people and 10 spectators. Remember, using more than one 1v1 room at a time makes you a worse person than hitler. If we got a 1v1 matchmaker it would probably increase the number of 1v1 players by a lot, especially if it gave an indicator somewhere "NooberMcNoob is searching for a 1v1 game. Join?" @Kubey I think its because everyone(including me) doesn't want to press their luck and takes a few days to rebuild confidence. Also its pretty rare that I get to play more than 1 or 2 games with a higher elo person, and if you lose it takes quite a while stomping nabs to get your rightful elo back. I really wish 0k got more players. It has so much potential as a game, and has a good(when it runs) engine to back it up. The only RTS games with sizable communities I can think of are SC2, supcom:fa, and AOE2 - all of which the spring engine beats in terms of control, UI, and other fun stuff. To get back on topic, what stops me from playing more 1v1 is that not many people play 1v1. When I see an empty room, I don't want to sit there waiting for someone to come ; I'd rather go play something like DOTA or EU4 instead where I can reliably get into a game in 1 or 2 minutes.
+7 / -0
|
quote:
I think its because everyone(including me) doesn't want to press their luck and takes a few days to rebuild confidence. |
That is why I didn't play 1v1 very often when I was in the top10. I took the game way too seriously (and still do) and got frustrated with 1v1 after a few losses. It was especially annoying to make the same mistakes again and again (countering shieldballs). More 1v1 players would be great, especially more low-mid skill players because then it would be easier to get into 1v1 without only having the top20 to play against.
+1 / -0
|
I do take 1v1 seriously. I avoid playing when i'm not at the top of my ability, because i feel that would be "betraying the art". Same goes for playing during any sort of technological breakdown.
+0 / -0
|
Well, I blame split system. Split works (and annoys) ppl in all welcome room which is meant to be a massive clusterfuck, but there is literally no split in 1v1 and small teams. There is just a players limit. There should be an option to unspec in 1v1 and small team rooms even if player limit is already reached, then (when started) players should be juggled and paired according to their skill (elo) and distributed over the empty rooms. If it happens to be an uneven number of unspecced players in 1v1 room Springiee (or whatever the 1v1 host is) should simply ask players to wait for one more player, or one to spec. Preceeding future questions - it is much simpler to unpec and believe that the script will pair players siutably, than to search through the spec list for a good enemy, then spamming his PM (becasue hes propably doing sth else than staring at the other idle spectators).
+1 / -0
|
quote:
What keeps you from playing 1v1? |
I detest playing it. The idea of forcing quick reflexes, high apm and punishing a lack of concentration in a strategy game is bad, especially in games that can last more than half an hour. Teamgames don't have this in such an extreme way, you can rely on allies calling you up on mistakes and filling gaps. That, plus you get more variety with teammates also shaping the game.
+2 / -1
|
i love playing 1v1, but then again i find playing 1v1 more relaxing then teams (which i am told is a rarety). i find when i play 1v1 the only screwups that can happen are my own, in teams the game is mostly out of my controll and its really painfull to lose because noob #1024 forgets to build llt/units also remember even if you in the top 10 ZK is just a game, play it to have fun
+0 / -0
|
|
|
1v1 lobby would actualy be pretty epic it would definetly get more 1v1 games running if it just did the match making for you but we would need some way of rejoining ongoing games people want to spec, if they just came to watch the games
+1 / -0
|
I second the idea of an all-play lobby. I do still think that quickmatching will be useful as well, but with the number of players we have now an all-play lobby would work better.
+0 / -0
|
The scrum 1v1 lobby sounds good.
+0 / -0
|
Interesting thoughts from everyone. It's strange how many people will spec a 1v1 room for hours. I was able to get all three 1v1 rooms running this weekend by joining, waiting, playing, speccing, then joining a new room to look for a new opponent to jump in. This might have been helped by this thread. National socialism never came up when I (or others) would shard off to another room. An all-in lobby is an interesting idea. I don't really have any thoughts to offer there, except that spec'ing 1v1s is a fun social activity, and a good way to pick up the basics. When you get that many specs on a battle between good players, some interesting discussion comes up. It's also nice to have a handful of pros watching me and pointing out my rookie mistakes. On the note of rookie mistakes, I think protecting your elo is kind of silly. I will happily trade elo for knowledge. I don't learn much by playing people I beat easily. If you need a noob to stomp so you can recover your precious elrons, come find me.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
National socialism never came up when I (or others) would shard off to another room. |
What?
+1 / -0
|
quote:
On the note of rookie mistakes, I think protecting your elo is kind of silly. I will happily trade elo for knowledge. I don't learn much by playing people I beat easily. If you need a noob to stomp so you can recover your precious elrons, come find me. |
I noticed this a few moths ago. I played a load of games against randy and google and kept getting beaten but my macro skill improved a huge amount. Playing against people significantly better than yourself, watching the replays and trying to learn off your opponent is an excellent way to improve.
+0 / -0
|
I am an ok player but I've never been fond of 1v1. For me in 1v1 there is a fairly small range of options as to what you should be doing if you want to be good. Everyone knows the opening moves etc pretty well. In teams there is different roles and teamwork that for me make it a less calculating more dynamic game. Its also less APM intensive and more macro than micro (ping time seems to be more important in 1v1 too). Most of the devs are keen on 1v1 afaik, which means strange balance tweaks for teams that made sense in 1v1 but not so much larger matches. ZK has been 1v1 focused in its history tho.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Its also less APM intensive and more macro than micro (ping time seems to be more important in 1v1 too). |
I will dispute that. Macro is more important in 1v1 than in teams due to quick saturation of available space in crowded teamgames, and due to low amount of materiel each player gets in such cases. Most high-elo teams players play by trying to maintain zero attrition. Look at Forever, sfireman. They win by getting a "super unit" and then not losing it while inflicting massive casualties to critical enemy elements. That's micro, almost completely. Very often it's dotamicro, even, since you control 1-2 units.
+3 / -0
|
I think that is why most 1v1 players don't play many huge team games. When you are used to 1v1 it can be boring to play 10v10 optimally.
+0 / -0
|
