|
edit: The thread title should be "Could 4v4..." not "Does 4v4..."
I played BW years ago (2000-01) but recently became interested in competitive SC2 through MLG --- I play Halo and have followed MLG since 2007 --- and there's something I've wondered about for a while.
In Halo, there's a clear differentiation between 1v1 skill and 4v4 skill; some of the players who were best at FFA or 1v1 were not always great at 4v4. In general, I would say that most of the Halo community agreed that being good at 4v4 required more skill, because there are more factors to master. Just as SC2 takes more skill than Checkers because better players have more 'ways' to be better in SC2 (a huge skill gap for build orders, macro, micro, unit control, decision-making ...), 4v4 takes more skill than 1v1, because you have to take into account so many other teamwork-related factors (communication, more complex map positioning, etc.).
Obviously BW and SC2 have had occasional 2v2 leagues, but the community will often refer to this as taking a 'different' sort of skill, but not necessarily 'more' skill. But am I missing something in thinking that a 4v4 in SC2 would take more individual skill AND teamwork-related skill than a 1v1?
A match where IdrA, InControl, Machine, and DeMuslim played against HerO, Ret, Jinro, and TLO would require insane amounts of team strategizing/communication, coordinating pushes, coordinating build orders (maybe two players for each team would go heavy gas while the others didn't, etc.), coordinating units between races (figuring out which P units go well with Z units against an opposing team of T players, etc.); all of the metagame stuff from 1v1 would be even more insanely complex in 4v4, and would require even more skill, if developed.
Some might say that SC2 players don't have time to get good at both, they have to choose 1v1 or 4v4. But in Halo (well, only in Halo 2, when MLG had FFA/1v1 tournaments), a player had to be good at both; you need to learn a whole new set of strategies/skills for 4v4, and play in an FFA/1v1 and 4v4 tournament on the same weekend (usually the FFA/1v1 was on Friday). Obviously an FPS shooter has a lower skill ceiling than SC2, but why couldn't players do this for SC2?
Anyway, obviously this will never happen, lol ... but I'm just curious if I'm missing something. Would 4v4s in SC2 take more skill, or not? Like if maps were bigger, etc?
edit: ... so 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? Or 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?
|
must be troll
User was warned for this post
|
uh oh lol, i'm not trolling ... does the community have a settled opinion on this that i'm not aware of?
|
|
|
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.
|
4v4 is just for fun and certainly 1v1 takes a lot more skill than 4v4
|
o_O
Uh, have you tried playing 4v4's before? They are way too volatile and luck based. SC2 was designed to be a 1v1 game, the developers have said this themselves
|
are we really discussing this?
the discussion should be: which is more fun?
|
No, there are certain combinations of units that just become to powerful to NOT use them, I'm pretty sure the meta game would would not be as full, and result in the same powerful rushes over and over.
Also, you must be new =p.
|
The 1v1 metagame is infinitely more developed. As such it is far more skill-requiring than 4v4. The opposite is true in fps games such as halo and cod.
|
Uh, if the game was balanced around 4v4 then sure it could, but right now you can just do a cheesy early build or an imbalanced unit combo collosus, marine, infestor, or something like that and just win. It works in halo cause everyone can get the same weapons, same vehicles etc, not in sc2. No it does not atm.
|
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
|
16978 Posts
As it turns out, Starcraft isn't Halo.
|
In general for SC2, aggression is exponentially more powerful in team games than 1vs1, and this "waters" the game down, reducing the number of viable strategies. It becomes worse as you move from 2vs2 to 3vs3 or 4vs4.
|
On December 23 2011 05:12 jtp118 wrote:
uh oh lol, i'm not trolling ... does the community have a settled opinion on this that i'm not aware of?
To put it in a nutshell.
Starcraft 2 is balanced around 1v1 and 4v4 is just goofing around and nowhere near a competetive level.
|
4vs4 lacks any flow to the game that 1vs1 has. team games are in general about getting map control, then retaining map control so your team may force a 4vs1 fight at any point in time.
|
Team match-ups aren't balanced, require far less skill, are almost never played professionally, and have far fewer tournaments.
|
Isn't some matchups in 4vs4 insanely imbalanced?
|
Troll? Multiplayer is just a huge cheesefest. It is very rare that anyone puts down an expansion. 1v1 will always be the more skillful game bceause there is no one else to cover up your flaws.
|
Starcraft 2 is created and balanced around 1vs1, it would not even make sense to have high level 4vs4
|
United Kingdom20285 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
|
Why do you think it would take more skill?
Is it because there's more options to choose?
|
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?
|
I want to take a sec to write a fully serious response to this, because I've played a ton of 4v4 (as well as 1v1).
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.
|
On December 23 2011 05:33 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
yes. i also hear that next season gomtv is switching gsl format to 4v4's instead of 1v1s
|
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.
|
Seeing as how the consensus of this thread is Starcraft 2 is balanced around 1v1 and things of that nature, I wonder what will be the big competitive Team-Play RTS for e-sports, if there ever is one.
|
Not too sure.. I played a lot of UT99 TDM and 1v1 with people on irc.. the top tier players kicking around were just godly at all mods of the game.. that's FPS though.. hehe.. for SC2 I'd say 1v1 takes more skill.. but good team games I'm sure take their own types of skill too.. meh.. heh.
XD
|
|
|
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.
|
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.)
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
lol?
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.
|
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?)
|
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?
|
i watch alot of stream at work but when i get home I only play 3s and 4s with my buddies. I dont enjoying playing 1v1s after playing WoW, cod and other similar team based games.
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
|
the game is balanced after 1v1 so i guess it isen't viable for competitive use, and because of that some stuff is imbalanced.
(ultralisk medivac? vorex nuke? zerg/terran tech that gets chronoboosted? resource trading?)
|
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)
|
Currently SC2 is only balanced for 1v1 (i'm not sure if it's possible to balance for team games and 1v1 simultaneously). Team games COULD be deep and interesting, but the fact that there's money sharing (makes reading timings impossible) and the maps are bad make it difficult to take any sort of team game seriously.
|
More skill? No way, a different type of skill, yes. However we will never see 4v4 actually taken seriously for viewing reasons. Think about watching a cast where the casters can't keep up with all the action. Then multiply that by 4. 4v4 would just be way more chaotic and funny to watch, but not something people seriously watch and judge skill by.
|
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
|
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.
No pros would ever play serious 4v4s, the game would be over based on build orders alone.
|
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.
|
Sure, SC2 is balanced around 1v1. The maps are terrible for 4v4 too, but given the right maps, I guess it's only dedication and interest of a community of players before you establish a better metagame then all-in'ing. People haven't explored 4v4 well enough I feel. In this state 4v4 is a laugh as far as competitiveness goes, but think about the first GSLs, how rare it was to see a macrogame 1v1.. I think that is basically where 4v4 is, the maps are too small and the players do not know how to play 4v4 in a macro-oriented way. This makes it no fun for people to watch, and it will continue to be underdeveloped because there is no prizemoney to draw people in. That, and of course that SC2 is balanced around 1v1.
|
Heres the opinion of a player that played over 4000 4v4 games and was the #1 4v4 player (random team, not arranged) on Europe during season 1. I also do play 1v1 on the masters-level and watch a whole lot of 1v1 games, so I think I´m qualified to make a comparison. Follow the link in my signature or type my nickname into sc2ranks.com if you require any proof.
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.
|
There are way too many things you can abuse in 4v4 that lowers the skillcap considerably.
|
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.
|
In all seriousness:
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.
|
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
|
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
It takes more skill to stay sane as a mod, this is asdjashdajsdh.................
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
