|
United Kingdom20299 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:16 Whole wrote:
the game isn't balanced at 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4...so it doesn't take more skill. it would come down to who can abuse the most imbalances
This, and also, there is only on average about 2 expansions per player, and because of the way bases are set up to heavily promote turtling and make non all-in aggression near impossible, it would not be entertaining to watch at all.
If esports focused 4v4 maps were created and a team of pros balanced around a custom map system 4v4s could be amazing, but they are not the focus of the game, because of the way 4v4s are swarmed to (ladder anxiety in 1v1s etc) you can get into the top 2% of 4v4 teams extremely easily if you are even in platinum 1v1 (most people i played even back then were masters) because players on average are so bad at the game in team games relative to 1v1 skill levels, mechanics, macro etc, blizzard focused the level of play on 4v4 maps around those players and as such it would be boring to watch and imbalanced for high level play
|
I had a good laugh thanks OP
|
Technically, it has the potential to be harder because of the amount of map awareness needed and the insane units combination, but like other people said, the game balance was not revolved around such immense combination of units and there will be dominating strategies that would causes huge imbalance.
|
All team games are just for funsies. If you try to play competative 2s or more, you just end up bum rushing a player and taking then down one by one, seeing as you have 2x+ more units. Competative 2s all rely around who can get the better rush off faster
|
|
|
People are so focused on 1v1 nowadays, even to a point where the patches are balanced only on 1v1's.
It's just that 3v3's and 4v4's are never played professionally, and have never been explored enough; we don't know the capabilities once people start practicing only those match-ups.
And there was a comment stated somewhere above where 4v4s are luck based: 1v1s were luck based when the game first came out, until people started coming up with build orders and race-specific strategies.
|
I think the skill difference your thinking of between team fps and single player rts is due to the fact that in FPS you can only control 1 shooter.
In team fps game, ur team is trying to achieve a goal through coordinated strategies and control. If you equate it to RTS, it'd be like playing the custom version of team melee in BW where 2 or more people can control the same player (1v1, but more than 1 person controlling each base), this way you can have 1 person microing, 1 person macroing, 1 person scouting, 1 person dealing with harass and army positioning, etc.
Now, in 1v1 rts, 1 person can do all of the above on their own. Imagine if there was a way for 1 player to control and coordinate all the individuals in a team fps game, IMO this is basically what RTS players are doing. And i feel that 1 player controlling all aspects of strategy, execution, coordination and timing takes much more skill than 4-5 people each playing a role in team FPS.
The only difference for the skill requirement in team FPS is good communication and execution of a strategy as a team, otherwise the overall skill requirement for the individual is much higher in BW and SC2.
*the skill im refering to includes everything, not just better aim or higher apm*
*and to all the people talking about balance, that has nothing to do with what the OP asked. If people really wanted to play 4v4, they could do it like team melee in BW, its the same concept*
|
4v4 takes as much skill as starjeweled
|
The game isn't even balaned or designed for 4v4. And on the ladder, 1 solid player can just dominate a 4v4 game to the point they can win the game nearly single handedly.
There is no way you actually thought this through for more than a couple of minutes.
|
Not a single comment addresses what the OP is saying.... OP is saying that the additional element of teamwork, and the new strategies that would be created by the additional players, that having a good 4v4 team would be as difficult as being good at 1v1 ladder. He uses two tenses in this, present and future, but his final line begins in "Would 4v4s...."
There hasn't been much development into 4v4 strategies because it is not viewed seriously. The massive cheese fest it is now could be because it is not taken seriously and not from some fundamental problem with an eight player game.
And if you think that was a troll post, why did you even bother commenting?
|
Putting the possibility to balance a complex game like SC2 around 4v4s beside... I don´t think any single human being would have the cognitive ability to compute everything what´s going on in a high level 4v4 if the game might be able to go in a mid/late game scenario. So there would be a lot more guessing involved since nobody fully understands whats going on. If you are familiar with the game of Go: there the playing field is 19x19 and it is a very good game where even these best of the best genius type players can always find something new. If the playing field would be 25x25 or even bigger, the game wouldn´t be as good since there would be way too many possibilities to conclude what might be best to do next.
tl;dr: I think you are right that (if balanced) 4v4s would take a lot more skill. But since SC2 is way more complex then Halo, nobody would be able to compute all the information which is not good for a skill based game.
|
|
|
TL hosted a TL Open where it was 4v4 format. Go watch the finals of that then go watch pretty much any top level 1v1. You will see why 1v1 is the better format.
|
Ignore the haters that haven't played any other game than starcraft.
Here's a quick and short answer: The game is balanced around 1v1. Halo is balanced around 4v4.
|
Not even close in my opinion.
|
On December 23 2011 05:29 Ncutable wrote:
Putting the possibility to balance a complex game like SC2 around 4v4s beside... I don´t think any single human being would have the cognitive ability to compute everything what´s going on in a high level 4v4 if the game might be able to go in a mid/late game scenario. So there would be a lot more guessing involved since nobody fully understands whats going on. If you are familiar with the game of Go: there the playing field is 19x19 and it is a very good game where even these best of the best genius type players can always find something new. If the playing field would be 25x25 or even bigger, the game wouldn´t be as good since there would be way too many possibilities to conclude what might be best to do next.
tl;dr: I think you are right that (if balanced) 4v4s would take a lot more skill. But since SC2 is way more complex then Halo, nobody would be able to compute all the information which is not good for a skill based game.
What the fuck are you talking about... having played a shitload of 3v3/4v4 hunters in BW (which works ok and can go lategame regularly) it's easy to figure out what's going on, if by scouting or by assumptions.
|
Jesus some people in this community make me sick.
We don't need to ridicule a guy for asking a simple, well worded question. Obviously he is not trolling, stop being ridiculous.
To the OP: 4v4 actually requires less skill because starcraft2 is a strategy game and is not designed for 4v4 play. For example, Zerg doesn't play like Zerg in 4v4s. Zerg is meant to be able to react to any situation from one individual player, but they can't react to a team's strategy.
Also, certain units are incredibly powerful in 4v4s due to things such as splash damage and the importance of map control. It's a nice thought, that I think most of us have had at some time or another, but 4v4 starcraft will never be competitive like 1v1 is.
|
On December 23 2011 05:28 Hollow27 wrote:
There hasn't been much development into 4v4 strategies because it is not viewed seriously. The massive cheese fest it is now could be because it is not taken seriously and not from some fundamental problem with an eight player game.
this. but I think everyone has a point, i.e., it turns out that SC2 is balanced around 1v1 and is not meant to be played seriously in 4v4. Is the problem that it's impossible to balance in 4v4? i.e., there are too many factors to control, and it's impossible to avoid imbalance? Could there be a way to fix 4v4 (larger maps? ...) to make it more balanced? In a perfect world, if 4v4 could be balanced as equally as 1v1, would people consider this to require more skill?
On December 23 2011 05:31 FoeHamr wrote:
TL hosted a TL Open where it was 4v4 format. Go watch the finals of that then go watch pretty much any top level 1v1. You will see why 1v1 is the better format.
but i guess this is partially due to the fact that players haven't put in the effort to get better at 4v4, and then partially because the game is imbalanced in 4v4 and people can use abusive strategies?
On December 23 2011 05:29 Ncutable wrote:
I think you are right that (if balanced) 4v4s would take a lot more skill. But since SC2 is way more complex then Halo, nobody would be able to compute all the information which is not good for a skill based game.
this is why team communication is so important; with four people helping each other to compute all the information ... though yeah, it may just be too complex after a certain point, like to where it becomes chaotic.
|
In case you're not trolling, let me just point out you're comparing horses to bananas. There is no connection between Halo and Starcraft apart from the fact they are both computer games. Would you say 4v4 Street Fighter takes more skill than 1v1?
|
On December 23 2011 05:19 jemag wrote:
Starcraft 2 is created and balanced around 1vs1, it would not even make sense to have high level 4vs4
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this, the game has been balanced for 1v1. There could be fun tournaments for that, but nothing pro level. The thing is, 4v4 has no room for anything more than 2 base so most zergs are forced into 2 base roach or muta, toss and terran have some options but once the main army dies of any 1 player, the game is over. Its mostly a game of luck and cheese to see who didn't think of what and who got lucky. you can watch tourneys like the Holiday 2v2 and its fun even if its not as balanced, but its not balanced even remotely for 4v4
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
