EPTDoes 4v4 take more skill than 1v1? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Effay
United States153 Posts
| ||
|
ronpaul012
United States769 Posts
| ||
|
Pazuzu
United States632 Posts
| ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
4v4 is ridiculously luck based and volatile, part of the reason being the maps (ESPECIALLY THE MAPS) are the match ups are insanely unbalanced. No pros would ever play serious 4v4s, the game would be over based on build orders alone. | ||
|
jtp118
United States137 Posts
On December 23 2011 06:04 Figgy wrote: This is a stupid question, unfortunately. 4v4 is ridiculously luck based and volatile, part of the reason being the maps (ESPECIALLY THE MAPS) are the match ups are insanely unbalanced. just because this is the current state of 4v4 doesn't mean that it's inherent in 4v4 ... with bigger/better maps, and a developed metagame, could this change? is it just that people haven't taken 4v4 seriously? On December 23 2011 06:02 Pazuzu wrote: people have claimed this from time to time...there was a tournament with the highest rank NA 2v2 players on a team (Protech and someone else) and they got completely rocked by a combo of drewbie and one of his teammates. Having played multis almost exclusively when i started it allows you to fall back on your teammates, not macro as well as you should etc because you can be carried. From a diamond 4v4 i placed into gold in 1v1 since i no longer could rely on my teammates. its an interesting point but if you ever tried playing both you'd quickly realize how much harder it is for a player to do 1v1 since theres no one to rely on but yourself people will often argue this in Halo 4v4 as well (players 'get carried'), but if you have four extremely good players playing against four other extremely good players, everyone has to pull their weight. | ||
|
SCPhineas
Netherlands119 Posts
| ||
|
DrAbuse
Germany209 Posts
One important point has already been stated a couple of times in this thread: The game is balanced for 1v1. This doesnt mean 4v4 is completely unbalanced but certain strategies are dominant: I´m very active in the european 4v4 scene (yes, there is one) and with an arranged team that follows a dominant strategy you will easily get a >95% win ratio. At the moment this strategies revolve around two players going 10pool, one player going hellion and the last guy teching to DTs. Theres some variations of that, but basically ling/hell is pretty damn strong. Randomly asserted teams dont stand a chance against that as the rushing team takes down a player one after another. It´s only when an arranged team meets another arranged team when things get interesting. I think the majority of posters in this thread play 4v4 in a random team vs random team manner where things really are (you guessed it) random. But when you have a game where an arranged team meets another arranged team theres actually some strategic thinking involved regarding the chosen builds (get roach instead of 10p, 4g instead of dt?) that is similar to the scouting and choosing builds based on that scouting in 1v1. In those kind of situations late-games may very well occur. Additionally, in an optimal situation both teams do have teamspeak to coordinate attacks. Those games are very rare though and due to this fact it´s hard to gather experience in those situations. To answer the question whether or not more "skill"(whatever that is) is required: This cannot be judged at the moment. There is (unfortunately) no environment to properly play 4v4 games. Theres no tournament for that and on the ladder you very rarely get fair games. | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
| ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:59 LawGambit wrote: I may be a noob here, but wasn't it true early on in 1v1 SC2 that a lot of people 1 base rushed and did abusive all-in strategies? And now the meta-game is focused on expansions and macro, because those 1-base all-in plays were figured out and were rendered ineffective against good players? 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) The maps kind of prevent the evolution from happening. There aren't many good expansions to take (usually an easy nat and rediculously hard 3rds+), and a 4v4 rush is much more difficult to hold due to different unit combos and the fact that it is a huge amount of units. | ||
|
Fealthas
607 Posts
In 4v4 you need to mass 1 unit per race to win : terran tanks, protoss collosus , zerg roach And 4v4 is much more confusing to watch. | ||
|
jtp118
United States137 Posts
On December 23 2011 06:10 DrAbuse wrote: It´s only when an arranged team meets another arranged team when things get interesting. I think the majority of posters in this thread play 4v4 in a random team vs random team manner where things really are (you guessed it) random. But when you have a game where an arranged team meets another arranged team theres actually some strategic thinking involved regarding the chosen builds (get roach instead of 10p, 4g instead of dt?) that is similar to the scouting and choosing builds based on that scouting in 1v1. In those kind of situations late-games may very well occur. Additionally, in an optimal situation both teams do have teamspeak to coordinate attacks. Those games are very rare though and due to this fact it´s hard to gather experience in those situations. To answer the question whether or not more "skill"(whatever that is) is required: This cannot be judged at the moment. There is (unfortunately) no environment to properly play 4v4 games. Theres no tournament for that and on the ladder you very rarely get fair games. this is extremely interesting and helpful, i'm going to add this to the OP if you don't mind | ||
|
Ncutable
Romania99 Posts
On December 23 2011 05:59 LawGambit wrote: I may be a noob here, but wasn't it true early on in 1v1 SC2 that a lot of people 1 base rushed and did abusive all-in strategies? And now the meta-game is focused on expansions and macro, because those 1-base all-in plays were figured out and were rendered ineffective against good players? Couldn't the same evolution happen in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4, given people actually play it? Or is it just inherently imbalanced? I dont think this is possible, at least not in like 1 year or something. In 1v1 you play against 1 of 3 races which all have a certain amount of possible things they can throw at you. This brings you in a position to figure out builds that are economically stronger, yet leave you a good chance to hold most of that stuff. In 4v4 there are so many timings for so many different things. It would take an arrow in the knee to figure all of that out. | ||
Ares[Effort]
DEMACIA6550 Posts
| ||
| ||
