Why I stopped playing 1v1

I thought of some reasons why I stopped playing 1v1 and I think they're worth sharing with the community and devs.

I have 128 games under my belt and I was somewhere in Uber 3-6 when I stopped playing (can't remember the exact number), and I can say for a fact that I had fun in every single one of those games. My issue with 1v1 is balance, but it's not the conventional balance concerns that you might think of that really made me stop.

The balance is honestly really great except for some tweaks with air and AA. So what is wrong? Well I just don't like the balance. In a perfect world, every single unit should be used in a good match. And simply put, there's rarely more than 6 unit types used in high level games because that's just they way the game is balanced. Just plain dox, bolos, T1 bombers, T2 fighters, fabbers, and scouts (and then we have the naval units, but that's the same story).

Clearly there's something missing if such a low amount of units are being used in an RTS game with ~ 100 units.

This isn't a balance thread, and I'm not going to propose any changes here because this isn't the balance sub-forum, but I definitely want to say one thing:

Every single unit should have some sort of viable role in a high level 1v1 match. It's up to the player to make their own unit combinations that fit well and play well, which is lacking.

Else, it's boring to me.

I see the low level players building MULTPLE types of T2 factories, which is unheard of in top gold - uber matches simply because you can't win by building lots of unit types.

In games like Starcraft you see players going for multiple strategies including a diverse unit roster, there's lots of different possibilities and they all are viable (some require more skill). In PA, the tactics are mostly limited to:

• Dox spam
  • Grenaiders seem to be a little better now, good start to lengthen this list
• Dox spam with air
• Bolo spam (it's smart to include spinners)
• Bolo spam with air
• Dox + bolo spam
• Dox + bolo spam with air
• Naval (same story except for the water)

Not many viable strategies for high level games it seems. And rarely is T2 used unless there's a Forge stalemate.

Obviously these combinations vary based on terrain (like Meso, my favorite map because it has much more unit variety) and maps definitely play a role in the list, of course.

So, take that list and try to expand it. That's the thing that will make me come back to the 1v1 ladder.

I'll edit this post if anything else comes to mind.

EDIT: I could not agree with this more:

Spoiler

i feel like even the limited amount of viable units you could still be creative?
like i learn a lot of new strats playing against elodea, clopse and such i.e. fabber spamming on meso, different ways of defending and etc???

but sadly i agree 1v1s get boring quickly *tear*

T1 isn't so bad, although it's still lakcing in possibilities (you have to admit that dox and bolos dominate the rosters). The main thing I dislike is the rare - impossible T2.

Hey! Someone else discovered it!

Amazing.

This is why I love playing FFAs and Team Games so much, especially with randoms - I can relax and do something more interesting than tank spam.

Or Dox spam.

Or whatever.

You get the picture.

Anyway, sorry, but I have to say it:

Told ya so.

yeah FFAs and such are more fun only because of that reason, more units can be used.

I disagree with the idea that every single unit should be useable in every single top level match. You shouldn't see ants on water only maps. You shouldn't see bluebottles on land only maps.

Aside from the obvious stuff, situational units are good. Situational units are where we get variety because they are only used occasionally, but if you have enough of them you'll see at least one of them in a match. We need units that you sometimes use if the situation is right for it. This is why Statera and especially RCBM were/are so much better than the Uber balance ever has been. They had units that you would use sometimes, but not every game.

The problem with the unit variety in the balance isn't that we're only using a few units each game, but that we're only using the same few units every game. If we had a couple more combat units that we would use on occasion, the game would feel so much better.

Are you trying to burn my glorious Random Planet FFA Master Race? ;D

Wow, someone said the S word (starcraft) .

But yea, there isn't alot of depth in PA unit variety and player interaction. You don't necessarily need a bazillion different units, just better viability and interaction between the ones we already have, and maybe one or two new units to fill out the gaps. The obvious t2 viability issues continuing to be unfixed for so long is starting to get a bit ridiculous tbh.

On the positive side, PA does well keeping the unit roster tight and functional (the ones that are viable anyway). Unlike the super diluted and flabby RCBM and statera silliness. Fair enough, some people might like that, but I believe the best solutions always follow complexity through simplicity, not complexity through complexity.

Complexity is not a vice. As long as someone who wants to get into it is able to do so without trouble, then complexity is fine. Complexity without reason is the problem. Increasing the depth of unit interactions to more than "Tanks beat bots, but bots raid and tanks don't" is not needless complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Like i said, if people want to get into those type of games that's kool. People like what they like and should be free to spend their time how they want. Who am i to say otherwise.

However, when you look at literally every single game that has achieved great popularity, success, or cultural presence, the one thing they all have in common across genres is complexity through simplicity. For example look at chess. The rules are simple, there are only 6 different unit types, 1 faction type, but an almost endless amount of interesting variation and player interaction.

There comes a point at which adding the 10th different type of dox stops adding to the game. When it comes to RTS in particular, there can be alot said about the benefit of one unit being useful in 3 different circumstances, instead of 3 different units being useful in 1 unique circumstance, but this probably isn't the thread to do that.

To be honest, I like the minimalism of the PA unit roster. I might be biased here, because I always like boiling down things until you get to the core of it.
On the other hand, I have no idea how to increase unit interactions in such a scenario. I would guess that a huge factor here is map design (Meso is a good example that shows how maps can influence game strategies), the other thing would be to look at unit pairs and increase their efficiency to work together, like:
You want ground fire power and AA? Use ants and spinners.
You want high arc damage and hit points? Use grenadiers and infernos.
You want to raid and AA? Use dox and hummingbirds.
etc ...
But when you mass out units (and this is one of the main features of PA) composition like the above start to lose their importance. because if you have 100 ants, it is no effort to put 10 spinners in and maybe another 10 infernos for good measure.

It is a shame that there aren't more interesting units which allow for playing different strategies. If you look at SupCom2 you have 3 factions which all played quite differently. Despite this they were balanced. You could play each faction differently as well, several different viable strategies for each. With PA you pretty much have only one 'best way' to play a match. FFA opens this up but it's so unbalanced that a bad player can win just based on their spawn location.

We need more interesting terrain and more interesting units to interact with it. The devs are keen to work on asteroids however which will add NOTHING to the game.

You're asking for depth without unnecessary complexity. In that regard, I agree. Just remember that obliterating all complexity is just as bad as swamping the player with it.

We need a good balance between the two. We need more depth.

<dead horse>
OWOM does a great job of this
</dead horse>

I guess you hit the nail why I don't really play much 1vs1 these days either. well not in PA....
Though I would obviously add "no wreckages" to the list. There just is no feeling of massive destruction if units just disappear in a little puff when killed.

T1 unit balance is pretty spot on right now if you ask me. In my last few games I have used all units and can think of common scenarios where they are useful. I had practiced a lot of builds for the last tournament and had a different into composition for every map.

T2 was rarely seen on land maps in TA 1v1's so I don't see a problem there. Emphasis on the "I". You shouldn't be allowed build it unless as kiwi said there is a stalemate.

For me the problem is the player base which is a vicious circle of not enough similar ranked players searching the ranked 1v1 matches which makes me lose interest which makes 1 less person searching.

Shout out to wreckages- you should be rewarded for the enemy crashing units into your base or controlling key battle fields.

i agree with clopse i think t1 has both good ballance and enough units to be generaly used .. its more a case of players figuring out what works when and where ...

some critic i have is that i think we still don't have many maps that allow
to use everything across the board .. amplus is imo a good example

the other is as someone else mentioned that t2 other than naval isn't as commonly used .. i am still of the opinion that t2 air bots and vehicle factories should be a bit cheaper ...

as for more ground units realy what i can see being more intresting would be more stealthunits and units like nukebots

the one thing that one ups the game fairly effectively is when people would be able to use tactical drops more ... so multiunittransports

It's because they didn't balance around what was fun. They tried to make it fair. PA should never have been a game that focused on competitive 1v1s. It is a game with giant death lasers, nukes, throwing planets and entire orbital layer of combat. 1v1s do not allow for that. I still hold a small hope that they can turn the game around and focus on having those fun massive cluster fucks.

They need to focus on the larger scale warfare's. Those epic games that drag on and you linger in your memory long after. I still clearly remember some of the high level epic 4v4 matches that we had during clan wars. Those games were fantastic and I dare say some of the most exciting matches that competitive PA had. I mean that is what they set out to make right from the start. It was the hook that got so many people interested. A game that allows you to do these massive grand attacks.

Dear Uber, if you do read this please bring back the fun lan-like team games.

imbalance isn't fun. Also 1vs1 do allow for everything you balance them for.

and this game is dying so i think my point is somewhat valid

I don't want to start a discussion whether or not any game is dying. If a game would die just because somebody says so then there would not be any gaming industry at all. According to forum critics PA died a few years ago I think...
But even if, just because some thing X happens does not mean your explanation for X is correct.