|
Well, after playing a few 4v4s, I can safely say that my first impression is that it's a congregation of all the worst StarCraft II players on bnet 2.0. Every game is basically one or two good/decent players on either team carrying the whole group while the other players just spam cannons or something stupid like that. I am playing random because I don't have a 4v4 crew so I ended up in platinum. I figured things would get better from there but nope, still get matched up with a whole slew of terrible players who are in bronze league in 1v1...
I have a feeling that leagues really won't mean much for 4v4s. Since so many players get carried by their teammates, we'll always have plenty of bronze level players ending up in platinum/diamond 4v4 random. It's so frustrating playing random team matches because the majority of the time your teammate is terrible and doesn't listen so it's basically you trying to take everyone on alone while also trying to save your teammates (because even them making a few units is a little helpful).
Also, I haven't had a chance to test this yet since I don't have a 4v4 crew, but I would assume early rush all-ins in 4v4 are basically unstoppable. StarCraft II isn't like WarCraft III where you get a hero out early and can't mass units too quickly. In StarCraft II you can mass up a small army a couple minutes into the game. I fail to see what the other team can do against a 4-player all-in rush (like all players going 6pool) aside from doing the exact same thing. Perhaps if they end up coming out with maps where the other teams are spread further apart, but currently the only map is Extinction and it doesn't take very long at all to reach the other player. Anyways, that is my rant :\
|
Yeah not many skilled players in 4v4 so far
|
its random teams.... 4v4.... Of course it isnt going to be much of a competitive field man, just go in there to kick back and have some fun...
|
what i feel is the problem with both 3v3 and 4v4 is the completelly useless shared bases maps blizzard threw toghether. A wild guess is that there is about 15 000 melee maps 3v3 and 4v4 custom made out there that is allready better than these two gimmic maps theyve put togheter.
|
It's hard to have fun when everyone is uncooperative. You say rush, they go tech up and expand. You say tech up a bit, they keep massing tier 1 units. You tell them to attack and they take 3 minutes to prep up for it. WC3 4v4 was a lot more fun and the majority of the time people actually coordinated decently. It's hard to find 3 other SC2 players who want to 4v4 and play the same time as you consistently.
|
Meh, this is all pretty standard to anyone who played RT in WC3. I used to unwind after some tough solo games by screwing around in 4v4 on a smurf account. It's a lot more fun if you don't care about winning and just try to enjoy the randomness.
|
i think your an Idiot op. Just CHill out and Have Some Fun Man.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Don't forget that in WC3, there's *always* someone in 4v4 that TPs to your base and kills it just for laughs. Sometimes that person is me. Speaking of which, I miss the backstabbing days of BW...
|
On May 24 2010 18:52 Kantutan wrote:
Also, I haven't had a chance to test this yet since I don't have a 4v4 crew, but I would assume early rush all-ins in 4v4 are basically unstoppable.
I played about 10 3v3's and my friends and me proxied in every game. We lost only 1 so far only because the other team was way better. It's especially strong when you have 2 terrans (we play P R R) with proxy reapers.
We played once against 3 Z with 8 pool but it's not that hard to defend when you scout it early enough (I'm sending my first scout at about 8 supply).
I think those rushes and proxy attacks are a lot stronger early in SC2 because of the reapers. Maps like Hunters would make it even harder. When you get proxy Reaper'ed by more than one person you are absolutely screwed when you teammates need a minute to send some units over.
Edit: Just talking about 3v3 here, but I guess most of it is true for 4v4 as well.
|
4v4 is so awesome, so many qeird strats to pull (if you have a 4v4 team of IRL friends that is)
|
I don't believe anyone will take 3v3 or 4v4 as serious business. For me it's a great way to get my copper friends into the game or just have some fun when drunk. I believe Blizzard even stated, that it's there mainly for newer players as a step between playing against AI and going for 1on1 ladder.
|
Well, the problem lies in the ranking system. Since in placement you get matched up with random people, chances are each team will end up having two higher level players and two lower level players. One team will win because their higher level players ended up being able to carry their team to victory, and so the lower level players will leech off that work. In the end, this works out so that there is a fairly even mix of both good and bad players in platinum/diamond. So even though one player might be a good player and in platinum, when he searches for a random game he'll have 4 4v4 platinum players in his team and one or two of them are likely to be more suited for bronze. The same works for lower leagues. A platinum/diamond 1v1 player will end up in bronze because he managed to get stuck with 3 bad teammates in all his placement matches so there's hardly any difference between the leagues.
Perhaps the players' scores relative to the others needs to be taken into consideration for 3v3/4v4. It's kind of sad looking at end game results where the top player is at 150,000 points and the lowest is at 15,000. Of course it isn't always accurate for every game since someone might get crippled early on due to being targeted from a rush, but with a large sample size and a good algorithm, end-game scores should be usable to be able to figure out if a player is more suited for a lower league. I know with random teams you'll occasionally have a teammate that is just out to ruin it for everyone, but it would be nice if you got matched up with people who actually have a similar skill level on a regular basis.
These scores = joke
+ Show Spoiler +
|
3v3 and 4v4 is more for casual gaming IMO, if you are so competative you should stick to 1v1 and 2v2 laddering 
The new maps though is horribly imbalanced, almost everygame we end up fighting about who should take the safe bases and who has to go outside.
Blizzard should have just made a BGH or Allied Fortress remake for 3v3/4v4s 
|
In 4v4 there's always going to be expos that are safer than others. There's really no way around that unless in every 4v4 map the expo is always in the direction of the other team and every expo has a direct attack path from the other side of the map.
You do get where I'm coming from though right? Sure 4v4 is more casual, which is actually why I want to play it over 1v1 (It makes me feel too pressured for whatever reason). However, you can basically compare it to playing your placement matches where in the first one you end up playing some newbie who goes gateway to forge not because they want to FE, but because they have no clue what a build order is. You just crush them and there's no point to it at all. Now imagine that those kind of players are spread throughout both teams... Frustration ensues all around amongst the higher level players :\ I understand in 4v4 you're going to end up with plenty of stupid losses because of bad teammates, but I want actual platinum/diamond level players in my game for the majority of the time.
|
You can go and play 3v3 and 4v4 on Bw thats been out over 10 years and find just as bad players as in brand new Sc2 beta. Your expectations seem way off for the larger player games.
The ranking system can't be 100% relibale for each individuals effort in larger player games since there is so many more factors involved but over time there is a greater chance they will be weined out as the weaker player and cause more losses not to proceed up faster?
On the whole 3v3 and 4v4 is all about fun games/mess arounds/mixed abilitys so just enjoy it.
|
3v3 and 4v4 should probably have more placement matches. A player's weakness will eventually show in his win rate; you just need a larger sample size.
Of course, 3v3 and 4v4 generally devolve into chaos (or each team massing one sprawling ball of units and attacking) because there's too much to keep track of and coordinate. I'd like to see team-on-team matches in which each team has one non-playing commander who coordinates everyone else via voice chat and pings.
|
|
|
On May 24 2010 22:37 Severedevil wrote:
3v3 and 4v4 should probably have more placement matches. A player's weakness will eventually show in his win rate; you just need a larger sample size.
Of course, 3v3 and 4v4 generally devolve into chaos (or each team massing one sprawling ball of units and attacking) because there's too much to keep track of and coordinate. I'd like to see team-on-team matches in which each team has one non-playing commander who coordinates everyone else via voice chat and pings.
Good idea but nobody would listen...
|
On May 24 2010 23:47 madnessman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2010 22:37 Severedevil wrote:
3v3 and 4v4 should probably have more placement matches. A player's weakness will eventually show in his win rate; you just need a larger sample size.
Of course, 3v3 and 4v4 generally devolve into chaos (or each team massing one sprawling ball of units and attacking) because there's too much to keep track of and coordinate. I'd like to see team-on-team matches in which each team has one non-playing commander who coordinates everyone else via voice chat and pings. Good idea but nobody would listen...
Maybe, maybe not. If you don't want to listen to a commander, you probably shouldn't be searching for random team games in the commander format. (Matchmaking would be difficult, though; likely there would be too many or too few people who want to command. Certainly it would be easier as an arranged team format.)
Hmm... what if (for random team games with commanders) instead of signing up separately as commander or player, the highest ranking participant on each team is automatically the commander? That way they have automatic authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UrzUA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JUnhS.jpg)
