|
Obviously, 3v3 is taken less seriously that 1s or 2s, but does anyone have any philosophies or theorems that are specific to 3v3? I am ranked much higher in 1v1, and have quickly discovered that superior macro is hardly a factor when you're taking on 2 people at once. Preferably, I'm interested in ideas pertaining to random teams. What are good cues about when to power and tech? what openings are best in what situations?
I've seen the day9 ep. on the concept of dying slowly, and that doesn't really work for me. My mechanics tend to be better than my allies', and so I find it is usually up to me to strike the killing blow.
for reference I'm 1500 diamond zerg with about 90 apm in longer games (which is a pretty fancy way of saying noob). I play random in 2v2 and 3v3, so ideas from all race perspectives are welcome. I am only plat in 3v3, so I think there is something important missing from my understanding of the 6 player game.
|
What I have noticed in 3v3 and 4v4 (and a bit less, 2v2) is which ever team can do an attack together first, wins. Me and my 3 friends that 4v4 have a nice 5 minute push where we all cut a few workers to get an overwhelming force out early, then all 4 push one person at the same time. Once it is 4v3, it's pretty much gg.
|
Specifically, I try to goad or rally my teammates into taking out or otherwise screwing over one opponent early. As long as we can get out without suffering heavy losses, the other side generally gets put on the back foot, playing a slightly more defensive game due to being down one guy.
Then it's just a matter of teching to my kill army while not dying to mass Protoss air.
Other considerations are the resources. If you've got a teammate going mass carrier, and you're going gas-light, then start donating resources to him.
And always make sure that at least one person is getting the anti-air.
|
Agreed, solid teamwork and a simple strategy will win a lot of games in random team games. Just make sure the zealot army is in front of the marine army and a-move to victory
|
I find 3v3 to be the worst of all of the team match-ups, I'll elaborate on that in a bit. In short; 3v3 maps are too difficult to defend allies on; 3v3 random is just that; random, because you could end up being a dead weight or a superstar; and the trick to multiplayer games is coordination and coming up with a plan for everyone to follow.
TLDR version
+ Show Spoiler +
All of the team games depend heavily on assembling armies, as above. The ability to attack one person while the others are unable to defend them magnifies the effect of any sort of rush strategy. Because of this, if you see that the opponents are doing a rushing strategy, you have to have a very solid defense. The only two times you should divide your forces are for harass and multi-pronged attacks (which usually don't work well because you will have one army crushed, and then the other, only slightly delayed).
If you are playing games with friends, all you need to do is make sure that your army compositions are complementary. When I play with mine, I tend to stay away from 3 of the same race (all have the same weaknesses) and then exploit the advantages of each of the races in order to leverage an advantage. For instance, in 2v2, I play Z in a ZP duo. I do a heavy econ build while my buddy masses a large army for defense. As I am getting close to a really good econ, I get a large army quickly, and use zerg mobility for map control while my friend gets his econ up. Once we feel comfortable we set up a contain that allows us to expand freely, eventually starving the opponent out.
I severely dislike 3v3 however, because the map pool seems as if its designed to have short distances between enemy bases, and long distances between allied bases. Notice how many of the 2v2 or 4v4 maps have bases sharing an entrance, or having close entrances. The 3v3 maps are the opposite, where players tend to be spread out, with very short rush distances. One for instance, may put you @10, 2 allies @8, 2 enemies @2, and 1 enemy @4 with the distance between each group roughly equal. In that case, if you are under attack, you allies have to run waay across the map to get to you, and by that time you will be screwed.
My friend does a lot of 2v2/3v3/4v4 random games, and I think the name describes it all; random. You really need to get together a gameplan with your allies if you are going to win as coordination is key. You ask for cues to power and tech, but its less about that, and more about whether one of your allies decides to be a hero and suicide his army into their combined armies. Stick together, macro properly, and you should be fine I think.
What sort of stuff are you finding you are losing too?
|
I never choose a composition that doesn't suit my mineral/gas income ratio. Even if it is taking a lot of gas to counter the enemy, I will use up my extra mins on rines/lings/zealots/warpgates etc. Is that bad?
|
On December 21 2010 14:29 Danger-dog wrote:
I never choose a composition that doesn't suit my mineral/gas income ratio. Even if it is taking a lot of gas to counter the enemy, I will use up my extra mins on rines/lings/zealots/warpgates etc. Is that bad?
Well, curiously enough, if I find my game is limited by gas, I take the extra minerals and expand somewhere, or pass it onto my teammates while begging for their gas.
Team matches are different from 1v1 in that you don't need a well balanced army composition by yourself. If each one of your team members specializes in something and gets it fully upgraded, that's probably more efficient than teching out a well-balanced army.
Of course, if your teammates are bronze-level players with bad macro, then you do what you gotta do.
|
You ask for cues to power and tech, but its less about that, and more about whether one of your allies decides to be a hero and suicide his army into their combined armies. Stick together, macro properly, and you should be fine I think.
Yes, this happens to me a lot. Also, people suffer a minor loss and leave a lot, when I am in a good position still and expect to even the score soon.
I'm asking, what strats are augmented by but don't depend on the competence of your allies? Keep in mind that both teams often have someone who isn't totally on the same level, so theoretically you shouldn't be totally dependent on help, right?
|
as a general rule, the more units you or your side has, the better. obviously, do proper builds and not just mass marines or such which can be annihilated by a couple of banelings.
but the serious issue with 3v3, 4v4 is being matched with players of significantly lower skill levels. or playing with idiots that only build-and-rush-to brood lords or carriers. the worst thing you can do is rely on your teammates to be competent in their play. by massing as many units as you can, you can help alleviate the skill difference by atleast having enough forces and static defense to survive an attack.
|
3v3 and 4v4 are too open to cheesy ideas, like having 3 people go mass marine and feed all their gas to a zerg player who has 2 dozen mutas the instant his spire finishes.
|
Really, whoever performs as a team better usually wins. Player skill itself generally comes secondary to teamwork in 3v3 and 4v4. Don't sit in your base with your units though, knowing where your opponents army is and shadowing it is a key.
If you allow your combined armies to be split and must fight separately against all 4 of the other team combined, you have generally lost. You want to rally your army together as soon as possible (not immediately though incase somebody on the other team does something like 6pool etc).
Past that, its just a matter of knowing when/where to fight or when it is better to base trade.
|
On December 21 2010 14:53 DiracMonopole wrote:
3v3 and 4v4 are too open to cheesy ideas, like having 3 people go mass marine and feed all their gas to a zerg player who has 2 dozen mutas the instant his spire finishes.
TL definitely needs a rolleyes emoticon.
|
On December 21 2010 15:14 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 14:53 DiracMonopole wrote:
3v3 and 4v4 are too open to cheesy ideas, like having 3 people go mass marine and feed all their gas to a zerg player who has 2 dozen mutas the instant his spire finishes. TL definitely needs a rolleyes emoticon.
Actually, I do a variation on this with a couple friends of mine. We vote down any map without at least two bases sharing a ramp (except one where we have to play standard), and then both protoss players wall the entrances to our bases with cannons. I play zerg and I go 14 pool, gas, queen & second gas when pool finishes, lair when queen finishes, spire when lair finishes, save larvae and build a few overlords while the spire builds and then, with gas fed from my teammates, have ~10 mutas when the spire pops. We don't win every time, but it's surprisingly effective.
|
Danger-dog wrote:
I never choose a composition that doesn't suit my mineral/gas income ratio. Even if it is taking a lot of gas to counter the enemy
Of course you should use up extra minerals, and expand when you think you can get away with it. Let me give you an example though to illustrate the army composition idea. Say you have a 3 terran team and you notice the enemy is getting a large colossus force and none of you are on starport tech. Rather than everyone rushing for vikings, you should all just stick with a marine-light force (probably marauder heavy). Why? Should you all rush to vikings, you lose 3x starports, plus whatever you sink into vikings, which means a large portion of your resources have been sunk into tech rather than army. Chances are that had you just stuck with a balanced army composition, you would have been better off.
I'm not saying that going for a high tech is a bad idea in team games, just that sudden tech switches in response to army compositions are. Get a gameplan and choose a generally good tech route, and stick to it IMO.
a176 wrote:
as a general rule, the more units you or your side has, the better. obviously, do proper builds and not just mass marines or such which can be annihilated by a couple of banelings.
but the serious issue with 3v3, 4v4 is being matched with players of significantly lower skill levels. or playing with idiots that only build-and-rush-to brood lords or carriers. the worst thing you can do is rely on your teammates to be competent in their play. by massing as many units as you can, you can help alleviate the skill difference by atleast having enough forces and static defense to survive an attack.
I'll second that: be prepared to defend your allies.
|
On December 21 2010 23:10 DFarce wrote:Show nested quote +Danger-dog wrote:
I never choose a composition that doesn't suit my mineral/gas income ratio. Even if it is taking a lot of gas to counter the enemy Of course you should use up extra minerals, and expand when you think you can get away with it. Let me give you an example though to illustrate the army composition idea. Say you have a 3 terran team and you notice the enemy is getting a large colossus force and none of you are on starport tech. Rather than everyone rushing for vikings, you should all just stick with a marine-light force (probably marauder heavy). Why? Should you all rush to vikings, you lose 3x starports, plus whatever you sink into vikings, which means a large portion of your resources have been sunk into tech rather than army. Chances are that had you just stuck with a balanced army composition, you would have been better off. I'm not saying that going for a high tech is a bad idea in team games, just that sudden tech switches in response to army compositions are. Get a gameplan and choose a generally good tech route, and stick to it IMO..
Having at just one player on compulsory tech switching mode has also proven to be a good idea in the matches I've played... If a Terran does it, it would be the player who opens 1-1-1 and goes with 1 reactor and 2 techs amongst them and switch amongst them until you or your teams economy really kicks in and allows you to switch to your macro game.
In the times I've had this duty as Zerg, as long as I didn't get screwed over by map position, I've found that an Infestor Rush BO is a pretty adaptive build in 3v3 and 4v4. You can Hive if you find yourself in need of Hive Tech while having quick access to Hydras, Roaches, Banelings Mutas and Corruptors as well as lvl 2 Upgrades and Overseers. Because Observers take away from Colossi construction, I've found that my Overseers tend to become the primary means for offensive detection.
Protoss more than the other two races really have to commit to a tech tree once they start down one path.
|
While people are generally right to say the first team that strikes a strong blow together and catches the other team offguard gets the advantage, but with better players you tend
To have better team work, better scouting (no suprises!) and higher quality macro that allows you to beat cheesy allins. It's not uncommon at all in 2's and 3's for one teammate to be able to carry after one of his allies gets cheesed (hopefully they went down kicking and screaming to buy time)
|
Mass tier 1 push is almost always the best way to play 3v3 and 4v4.
|
I play 3v3 Gold and it is just rush city. Doesn't matter what kind: Cannons, Zerglings, Marines, anything. As Protoss, this is especially hard, and it is made all the more worse when your teammates cannot defend or send help. Most 3v3 maps make this harder still (with the exception of Arrakan Citadel and Typon).
The hardest stuff to beat is the type of early mass 1-unit all-ins when done by all three opponents. This is unfortunately the most common too. You'll be getting up your 4 gates and all of a sudden (or scouted - doesn't matter) get hit with Marines, Speedlings, and Zealots all at once. Anyone teching or with teching allies will lose.
The best bet in 3v3 is to defend a central point (which can only be done with teamwork) or have everyone respond to the rush with a slightly safer response. Or, simply, everyone on your team can rush. Most games I win will consist of stopping a rush and teching better or rushing half-heartedly to put pressure and then teching.
If you want to talk 'Meta-game' then all you need to know is this: Cannons, Zerglings, Marines, Zealots.
I think another problem (at least for me) is that people play 3v3s like they would a 1v1 and that just doesn't often fly. A Terran/Protoss wall can hold Zealot pressure easily but imagine if that is followed by Marines shooting from the low ground.....
|
I play only 3v3 random, I see too much players using 1v1 builds yelling at their team how they are noobs. I play terran, i defend zerg ally early with a bunker (no wall = first target). when they are more than 1 toss I go marines and ghosts, works wonder against mass void rays, mass stalkers. I "give" units to my allies, a couple medivacs following a group of mutas is awesome. When an ally has taken damage, I give him ressources right away to rebuild, One game I just built CCs and scvs, giving any ressources i mined, it worked very well,
|
@thegiz:I am pretty good at holding back rushes. the only problem I have is with roach/stalker/rauderrine pushes that hit me right before I get tanks if I am terran. This same push gives me real trouble with the other races too, I only mention seige tanks because that seems to be the best way to predict when this rush will come; when I'm half done with siege mode. It busts my front 'cause all I have are rines behind a wall, or just a small stalker/roach army, and my allies never seem to help. I think it is very important to try to join your armies before this time, because it is the first time that all 3 players together can create a critical mass of ranged units to overwhelm d. I have solid probe micro, so I find that earlier rushes aren't such a problem. If you have trouble with them, as zreg, 11ovi/11pool for safety. as terran, wall off early with 2 rax and a depot. toss is trickier. try mineralwalk to the minerals in your ally's base if you need to get back to a gateway at your ramp. Also, stack your probes all on one mineral patch by repeatedly walking toward it, and then turn around and FF to pick off lings. But sentries actually make toss the best at surviving the big push, because you can force field your ramp and never let them up.
One big protoss question, though: is it better to go 2gate so that you can rescue an ally from a ling rush, but risk getting 7rr'd? The other opening I do is 1gatecore for a few sentries, into 4warp or robo+3warp if there are a lot of armored units.
I think that the meta-game is more than just a list of T-1 units and static d. On bigger maps, games routinely go long. Also, players have a lot of success with mutalisks, colossi/stalker, hydra/roach, and thor. Yeah games are short on maps with close positions and few expos, but of course they do. That's like playing blood bath and then complaining that it's impossible to get out of t1 in BW.
@woo, good to hear that mass macro is viable. I sometimes find myself overmacroing, left with 3k. I quickly give 1k to each ally. It seems to help, but you never know when your ally is a newb and already has 2k built up even though he is on 1 base. I wish you could view your ally's mineral/gas/supply count.
|
Also, anybody have tips on getting allies to listen to you? I feel like I'm losing games because we are sitting still, but I can't seem to convince people to harass or push with me when I know we have an opportunity to do so.
|
it might be useful to define what the 'standard' 3v3 looks like. I think the most successful 3v3 strats (long term) tend to be ones that follow this pattern:
1. all three players do an early push
2. expand behind the push
3. rebuild army, deny expos/3rds for opponents, take thirds
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
that seem right to everybody? thats what my 3v3 team does.
you need to be aware when playing team games that early pushes are the best pushes, and that you can expo a LOT safer because you have two other people building an army to help you defend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
