EPTIs it because there's more options to choose?
Does 4v4 take more skill than 1v1? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
Is it because there's more options to choose? | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:35 TheDougler wrote: 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. I feel like you really hit it on the head. Just because you disagree with something, or something goes in the face of conventional wisdom, it's not a "troll post." There's absolutely no need for that kind of mindless spamming. In an attempt to be on topic: I feel like it's more balanced around 1v1. I feel like the 1v1 aspect tends to develop into longer more macro oriented game, which is the "gold standard" for skill level. The better you are at macro, the better you are period. Edit: is this really necessary? I don't think so. Reading this thread is making me sad. Because no one even wants to discuss it, they all just want to sit around and say "troll OP" On December 23 2011 05:11 zyglrox wrote: must be troll On December 23 2011 05:13 ishyishy wrote: What is the purpose of this thread? This has to be another troll thread. Have you watched the 2v2 tournaments? You rarely see either team make a second base. Try watching some pro team games before you go theorizing about this nonsense. On December 23 2011 05:13 ishyishy wrote: What is the purpose of this thread? This has to be another troll thread. Have you watched the 2v2 tournaments? You rarely see either team make a second base. Try watching some pro team games before you go theorizing about this nonsense. On December 23 2011 05:23 ambrosiaa wrote: OP be trolling. On December 23 2011 05:30 Triky wrote: troll post :O This one kind of assumed he was trolling, but gave a quick reply "just in case not": On December 23 2011 05:37 Kickboxer wrote: 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? | ||
|
Cycle
United States300 Posts
If there was an environment where 4v4 was actually competitive, then I'd say it takes just as much skill as 1v1. Most people brush off the team part of sc2 mostly because no one's sat down and taken the time to actually come up with efficient and effective strategies. There are some for 2v2, and a lot of the "good" strategies are very aggressive pushes or just straight up dirty cheese. In 1v1 these strategies are effective, but since there's only 1 player who's being attacked, they know the response to the aggression. In 4v4, if your team gets cheesed, all 4 players must know and execute the proper response in order to overcome it. Since there's no real meta for 4v4 right now, I can almost assuredly say that no one has good plans and follow ups after being attacked early on. In a similar sense, there aren't very concise strategies right now for 4v4 either. I've found that a ton of people, for whatever reason, treat 4v4s like monobattles where they declare "OKAY I'M GOING CARRIERS DON'T LET ME DIE" or "i cannon u dt rush kk?" without any thought of when to secure expansions, deny expansions, hit timings, when to harass, etc. These things absolutely exist in 1v1 games because players have dedicated time to practicing and thinking about it, while no one has or wants to dedicate time to 4v4s. tldr I think 4v4 can require just as much skill as 1v1, but no one really cares/has put in the effort. Plus any 4 -man team who does put in the effort will probably stand unopposed since most people care about 1v1s anyways. If there haven't been any significant 2v2 tournaments (in which it'd be easier to determine the metagame), there won't be any for 4v4s for a long time. | ||
Ncutable
Romania99 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:33 infinity2k9 wrote: 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. I dont know at what level u played these 3v3/4v4 hunters (what is that btw? im sc2 noob) but my point is that for 1v1 at the highest level it is possible to develop a relative stable metagame. Strategies that have proved to be solid and strong. When you look at 4v4. It starts with the possible combinations for the race compostion (81 not counting random). So 1 of 81 possible combinations facing another 1 of 81 possible combinations. Do you think it would be possible to develop something like a stable metagame? It would take so long until every possible strategy is tried out and proved to be good/bad. You would have a situation like GSL1/2/3 for quite some years i believe. I hope I made myself clear, it´s hard for me to discuss something like that with my restricted English vocabulary. | ||
|
FatkiddsLag
United States413 Posts
| ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
As one said, your comparing apples to horses and asking which is better. | ||
|
mayneeahk
Canada279 Posts
| ||
|
CCa1ss1e
Canada3231 Posts
XD | ||
|
Scraps
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
bunnymuncher
Canada112 Posts
| ||
|
jtp118
United States137 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:37 Kickboxer wrote: 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? Yes, I think that 4v4 street fighter would take more skill. Super smash brothers is an example of a fighting game that has had 2v2 tournaments, which are generally thought to require more skill than 1v1s. On December 23 2011 05:43 Synwave wrote: I think the OP is confusing the skill required for coordinated team work with the skill required to tactically react correctly combined with a strategic setup and preparation. They are both skills of a sort and trying to compare which skill requires more skill is a bit silly. I know this sounds like semantics but the skill in halo 4v4 is almost strictly coordinated team based ability. As one said, your comparing apples to horses and asking which is better. Actually I would argue that Halo requires both. 1v1s in Halo require tactical reactions, strategic setup, etc.; 4v4s require all of these things PLUS teamwork, which adds a huge level of complexity and a massive skill gap, which is why players in Halo 2 (e.g.) were always better at FFA/1v1s before 4v4s, because the latter took more skill. a theoretical "high-level" 4v4 in SC2 would still require all of the 1v1 skills (micro/macro/decision-making, etc.) | ||
|
sopas
509 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:48 bunnymuncher wrote: I havent played a 4v4 game with my friends where our opponents all havent done some sort of 1 base cheese (10 pool, 4 gate, 3 rax). I'm sorry, but that's not skill. a zerg 6 poold on 1v1. 1v1 doesnt take skill makes sense | ||
|
FrodaN
754 Posts
| ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
| ||
|
SilentShout
686 Posts
I actually tried to get first place in random master 4's during season 3. I did with ease. I was a 10th place master in 1's at the time. So no, it really doesn't take more skill. | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
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 Pretty much this. Games like Halo and CS are created in a way to make it fair and even in bigger numbers of players, Starcraft (or RTS in general I suppose) is not. Admittedly 4v4 is a lot of fun to watch...(Hint hint TL when is the second 4v4 open?) | ||
|
jtp118
United States137 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:55 acrimoneyius wrote: Starcraft is balanced around 1v1 and already requires more multi-tasking abilities than most FPS team games. The reason 4v4 halo requires more skill than 1v1 is because you have to have awareness, positioning, communication, and strategy in 4v4 halo. 1v1 is strafing/shooting, that's about it. i'm not hating, but this is COMPLETELY false; if you watch any top 1v1 player (in Quake, Halo, etc.), it's all about positioning, timing powerups/power weapons, controlling spawns, and map movement. it is not just strafing and shooting. On December 23 2011 05:54 FrodaN wrote: Haha interesting read...Halo CE 1v1 used to be extremely skillful because of TSK and leading your pistol shots. Oh how the times have changed. as I recall the consensus was that CE was best for 2v2s (4v4s had chaotic spawns), like that 2v2s showed skill best? | ||
|
spena
Canada116 Posts
i do think 4s/3s is more diffcult than 1s if your playing with in a random team since you have no control or idea on what your teammates' are going to do | ||
|
BoggieMan
520 Posts
(ultralisk medivac? vorex nuke? zerg/terran tech that gets chronoboosted? resource trading?) | ||
|
LawGambit
United States14 Posts
Couldn't the same evolution happen in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4, given people actually play it? Or is it just inherently imbalanced? (BTW, on the topic of "people don't expand in team games", go watch Protech and the high master 2v2 players. They expand and play macro games just like in 1v1, because they can handle the abusive rush strategies) | ||
| ||
