|
Hello everyone. *waves* My name is Lucian and I think Starcraft is awesome!
Since my friends and I had gotten into SC2 our first impulse was to make a team to play together and without hesitation that's what we did. Meeting up a couple times a week to play games is a lot of fun. We have noticed a couple things though. Looking around the net for strategy, builds, even video tutorials or replays of 3v3 games hasn't yielded a lot of results. There just seems to be so little information about it out there. Reading through TL, ROOT, and bnet forums hasn't done a lot for us either. There's a lot of tiny tidbits but nothing really compiled or organized. We're really looking to up our game, but haven't found a place to go. Since TL is awesome and was the first fan site I came across when I got SC2 I figured this would be the best place to ask about it. Who else here plays 3v3s?
The maps have been driving us crazy. Here's what I think about them.
Monsoon is terrible. Monsoon's shared base layout means if one person gets broken the entire team is suddenly at risk. There is also only a single gold expansion on either side of the map. Being stuck with only two bases puts a very hard cap on the time you have to win and doesn't leave much room for doing anything. I feel very restricted and vulnerable playing on it.
Ulaan Depths has some similar problems. There's a main/nat for everyone then a single gold expo at the north and south sides of the map. The difference from monsoon is that the bases are separate and each player has a ramp to wall off at. Two of the ramps exit toward each other while the third is further away by itself. Individual bases are made only slightly safer by being solo with ramps. The issue with that is multi-army pushes against the isolated base being difficult to defend and reinforcing the attacked player is sometimes futile because of the unit advantage they have from their combined armies. It's pretty good still.
Arakan Citadel is another shared base with two expos in it blocked with destructible rocks. There are many expansions on this map, two of which are golds, and an additional two are mineral-only golds. This map is good to play on except that the main base is very wide open and has a lot of avenues for drop or air play. Our losses are always due to air on this map because of the excessive ground distance AA units need to cover to defend the far corners of the base. There is also a large area behind for flyers to move out of reach of static defenses. Not such a big fan of this one due to all the aerial punishment. We don't know whether to try and get air units first ourselves or to build mass AA on ground.
Quicksand is awesome, but I can see where a lot of people would dislike it. It's extremely small and doesn't quite have enough naturals for all players involved. There are three gold expos close to each other in the center. Games on this map are very chaotic and fast paced. A lot of early rushes seem to occur. It's laid out like a pizza with destructible rocks connecting the slices near the crust. Things happen very quickly on here, but that's how I like to play anyway so it suits me rather well.
Bio Lab is another map I really enjoy. Separate mains with shared naturals and two ramps leading up. The mains can be walled with two buildings and by combining armies and defense the naturals can be held easily. There's a fistfull of expansions on this map as well which includes two golds. Similar to Arakan Citadel air is very powerful on this map because of the paths between the different mains.
Frontier is another map I like. There are plentiful expansions including two islands and two golds. Mains are separate and have two ramps leading up to each one. It's difficult to defend early pressure on this map because of the two ramps. Each main is also susceptible to drops because the minerals sit a good distance back from their opposite edge.
Colony 426 is another map I enjoy like quicksand, It typically plays fast and is relatively short. The mains are separate and strewn about the map with two in the middle. I like how the mains are split it and dislike it at the same time. It's easy for a combined army to catch another by itself and ruin it. There's three ground attack channels and the middle player's bases are vulnerable to air.
Dig Site I like a lot. It has expansions, separate mains, and is pretty big. I've got no complains about it and play my best on it. I wish I had more to say, but it's hard to identify what makes it play so well for me.
Typhon is a map I feel is very well made on paper, but somehow seems to fall short in actual use. Shared mains and naturals in a very wide open area with a wide ramp at the front and a path behind covered with destructible rocks. The distance between naturals from the two halves is very short by air. Air harass and drops are particularly effective here. There's a handful of expansions at the bottom including two islands, but it's difficult to expand to them when under pressure because your entire base is connected as one giant blob that's hard to step away from safely. It's so big that covering ground distance from one side to another to defend a multi directional push makes it a real headache.
Strategy is a whole other monster. It's just bizarre or maybe I simply don't grasp it yet. I'm still comparatively new to SC2 and RTS games in general, but I read more than I play usually.
Triple same race teams? Race combinations are completely lost on me. My first reaction was to say TPZ and take one of everything then call it "good", However after playing a while I've noticed that triple of the same race is powerful in that it lets you use all possible tech paths. Protoss can have one person go mass gateway units, another mass stargate, and another handles robo tech. Terran get bioball, mech, and air. Zerg get well... zerg seem to always be able to spawn whatever is most convenient at the time due to how larva works so they just get really scary when in massed. I think that's more psychological than anything. Infestor baneling muta harass roach hyrdra is something I saw once. normally that series of words should never be together. Triple zerg also lends to a nasty early triple 6 pool to try and get someone out very early then someone gets banes and the other go into spire/hydra/roach.
One of everything is what we happened to play today. We've generally been playing whatever race we want and changing around occasionally. We're having a difficult time splitting up the tech when being different races. In a one of everything setup the easiest long-range attack to get is terran tanks. Collosi and Broodlords take much longer to get. Terran and Protoss seem to have the easier to obtain anti-air units with the viking and phoenix. Zerg and protoss seem to dominate ground to ground with speedlings and zealots. Lings can contain units until the slower zealots can catch up and put on the hurt. Medivacs work well with gateway units because they can heal zealots and templar. combined with guardian shield it's very strong. Works great with roach/hydra or zerg air too. We haven't done too much experimenting with cross race unit comps, but we're working on that.
Rushing or tech'ing is a question we never know the answer to usually. Should we attack with two armies while the other techs? Doing a triple rush with ZZT speedling, baneling, marine has performed well. However defensive macro play with the same comp was also strong. Most of our losses are due to the other team pooling all their of their armies and then slamming one of us into nothingness then using their then-overwhelming numbers to kill the remaining two armies without difficulty due to numbers superiority. It feels difficult to get back into a 3v3 game because there's more enemy players to worry about sniping your base during the rebuild. In 1v1 and 2v2 it's easier to cover a rebuild, but in 3v3 and 4v4 it just takes one member of their team to take it out leaving a fair size behind still.
When do we quit? It's sometimes difficult to know when we've lost or are going to lose shortly because of the multiple players. I've seen a crippled team pull off an absurd victory before. In 1v1 it's easy to tell when I've lost a game, but in 3v3 it seems harder to discern especially with the resource and unit control sharing within team games.
Who else out there actively plays 3v3s? My friends and I would love to hear about this seemingly less talked about mode of gaming which we enjoy very much. Have you played a particularly awesome game? Tell us about it. Post a replay if you've got one. Know some strategies? We wanna hear about those too and I'm sure we're not the only ones. What do you think of the maps? Maybe someone likes Monsoon. I'd love to hear someone defend that map or trash talk Quicksand. Do you have a favorite race comp? Maybe you just hate 3v3s all together. We'd like to know why.
Let's talk about 3v3s.
|
Day9 Daily #210 Youtube link BlipTV link
He talks about 2v2 but everything he talks about is applicable to 3v3 and 4v4. I did my 4v4 and 3v3 random placement matches and got put in silver. After watching this daily I did my 2v2 placements and got placed in platinum. It's a pretty good video about how to defend and when to attack in team games.
|
I'm a fan of Day9 and that video did help a lot for some basic overall stuff, but 3v3 is still different from 2v2 in a way I have trouble putting into words. The idea of "die as slowly as possible so your ally can tech and build" doesn't work as well because three armies are harder to defend against then two armies. Somehow it's always the same guy regardless of where he spawns or if he gets scouted or what ever race he plays. Gets triple teamed and wiped out or he gets triple teamed loses a crippling portion of his stuff then our remaining two armies show up and defend it costing us his base and all 3 of our armies. If we don't pull to defend his base gets wiped before we have time to really "Tech" or build anything meaningful. In 2v2 it's a smaller atttack force.
It doesn't touch on the maps either. We're having huge problems on Monsoon, Ulaan, and Typhon. The themes from that video have definitely helped out. I want to refine it more though. thanks for linking it. That is an amazing video to watch for understanding differences between 1v1 and teams.
|
The biggest change I've noticed in 3v3 from 2v2 is the talent level increases significantly. My team is generally comprised of silvers (either silver zerg, silver toss and gold terran, or bronze and gold terran and silver toss, depending on whose wife won't let them play that night), and we're bronze/silver in 3v3 (generally play a couple hours on Friday and Saturday nights, but that's it). Most of our games are against random teams that are usually platinum and diamond (surprisingly enough, we lose most of these :O).
The two strategies that have worked the best against us are heavy harassment from one or two players while the remaining player(s) does a fast tech, and early zealot, marine or ling pushes (especially on quicksand). There have been some early cannon rushes and stuff like that, but not as much as I would've thought, and we can usually do pretty well against those.
Generally, we try to do a big push around 7:30 with PT, and our zerg does some speedling harass into muties. It's effective against players close to our skill level - we haven't found anything that diamonds won't crush (big surprise).
Map-wise, we're much more effective with a shared main.
|
Yeah i think there needs to be more of a discussion about team games. The 1v1 emphasis whilst i understand is almost fanatical in its nature with many users here. As for the maps well lets just say you are completely correct. However in team games it is as day9 demonstarted that it is much more effective to take out 1 player to make the game a 2v3 (hence the split ramp games) but becuase the already 1v1 focused game takes precedent over everything else getting new maps isnt likely. Besides it would turn 3v3s into twilight fortress...stalemates until teching is done.
|
While all these strats for team games are somewhat important, the most important thing is the skill of the players that compose the team. If you guys have 3 silver players, don't expect to get to platinum with standard play. The most useful thing is having 3 players that all scout, macro, micro, and respond well. For example, if they're doing a big 6 minute push it's more useful for everyone on your team to see it, make units, and micro them well in the fight than it is for you guys to know these strategies that are being talked about. 1v1 skill almost always carries directly into team game skill, but it does not work the other way around. If you wanna get better at 3v3 just get better at 1v1
|
On December 31 2010 11:21 Wink and the Gun wrote:
The biggest change I've noticed in 3v3 from 2v2 is the talent level increases significantly.
I don't know about that. I'm Plat/Diamond in 3v3/4v4, but I'm stuck in bronze for 2v2. I keep going up against people with 500+ games (still bronze) who execute harsh double timing attacks while my ally is stuck wondering why his mass defensive cannon strategy isn't working.
In 3v3, there's typically two people who have a vague idea of what they're doing, and one guy who spawns in the center but for some reason thinks he can get away with rushing void rays while getting supply blocked every cycle. All you have to do is figure out who to crush first.
Macro is definitely very, very important in team games, arguably even more so than in 1v1. Even in Diamond 3v3/4v4, one player can get an army that destroys the armies of two or even three other players, and win the game basically alone (or with the help of some banshee/voidray/muta-rushing allies).
|
I think team matchups are very cool, If pro 3v3 players existed and played each-other I think the strategy would be at least as complex, the macro at least at challenging and the micro at least as important as in 1v1, the games would be awesome to watch,
Unfortunately there is one HUGE problem, the game cant be balanced in 1v1 and 2v2 and 3v3 and 4v4, and balancing all race combos in next to impossible after 1v1, at the same time higher player match ups are fun and definitely take skill, regardless of what anyone wants to say and there should be a place on these formus for discussion of it
BTW I never play anything but 1v1 but I don't really have friends who play starcraft at my level and I hate being at the mercy of random teams
|
if you want to win in 3v3, then just work out your strats so that they are fairly safe vs cheese, and pick a time in the game to attack, and just build up toward that point so that you have the biggest possible army at that point in time. For instance, a terran going 3 rax and attacking when stim/combat shields finished / combined with a protoss going 4 warp gate ( if he makes a bunch of sentries then they should have almost max energy by the time the t's stim/shields is done ) and a zerg could go 15pool and just shit out roaches until his allies are ready to go. It's a bit risky to do this though, if your opponents decided to play even cheesier then you could be in trouble. Something like 2 gate zealots + 11\13\15 3rax + 14g 13p into mass banes could be pretty good
|
Thank you for the suggestion drewbie. Builds have been a plague mostly because the opposite team likes to push our protoss player very early, but not the zerg. The zerg seems easier to wreck since they can't wall although he does occasionally get the push instead. We're really not sure what to do about that or why it happens. This is for separate bases obviously. When together it's different.
Edit: I forgot how adverbs work, but I fixed it.
|
I'm diamond 3v3 random. I've played mostly 3v3s with two friends and our team is #1 in our plat division. We started at bronze during placement. We're usually ZZT sometimes ZPT.
In the 3v3 early game, I think it's better to be on the offensive since you can initiate the attack with combined armies while the other team's armies have to gather to help. Our general strategy is to make units and push at 6 minutes to take out one guy. With decent scouting we usually find the most vulnerable target. One z is speedlings, other z is roaches, while T is marines. It's important the the T marines stay behind the roaches and sometimes we share control. the speedlings is for run-by when other team leave their base to come help his ally. Early expand builds are very risky in 3v3 as it's hard to defend 3 armies. If one guy walls-in completely and tech to VR/Banshees/DTs it might work, but at highly levels it's not as effective as when everyone in the team has an army by 6 or 7 minutes.
We use to do shared control attacks with all 3 armies but find that it wasn't as effective once we got in plat. We found that it was better for the team that we each controlled our own armies and so that we all were able to get better at roughly the same rate. Also there were no confusing when two people were fighting for control of one big army.
Midgame, the speedling Z techs mutas while the roach Z adds infestors, terran gets medivacs for drops. We usually push to stop expansions while securing more of our own.
Late game, it's thors, mutas in mass and ultralisks. To be honest, most 3v3 don't last this long. We usually starve the enemy out and win with late mid-game push.
Hope this helps
|
Team games are usually one team rushes and the other team techs up.
I'm usually on the team that techs up so I prefer to stick to 1v1. I get tired of getting frustrated at my teammates.
|
3v3 players are usually not that good at macro games and usually rely on ill-timed pushes (AT teams time them sighly better than RT though).
For instance, as terran you usually have time to get tanks out before they arrive.
Most of the time, once you handle that initial push and get rid of the incoming cheese (usually DT or Banshee), you shouldn't avec much trouble winning the game as long as you don't forget to macro properly yourself (getting enough expansions and so on).
|
My friends and I do team games all of the time, and were diamond in most all of them
i think one of the biggest thing that helps us is that we skype while playing.
the easier communication makes things so much easier to coordinate, warn, and help other players, whether its attack or defense.
My friends and i also give each other share control, because sometimes your ally will notice hellions slipping in your main, or your army out of place.
as far as actual strategy goes. you want to act as one. That means dont have 2 people rush and 1 fast tech. because it will be 2 people attacking 3, you are really hoping that they just werent prepared for your fast banshees or w/e.
when you get to 4's theres a little bit more leniency when it comes to acting as one, because theres more flexibility. 3v4 is easier than 2v3
when your team expands, make sure you all expand in the same direction.
it will make defending your expantions a million times easier.
while Monsoon is all about breaking one, and the everyone is at risk, it just means you need to focus on holding the middle, its a map that really encourages aggression, so dont try and turtle up on this map
when one of you are about to get killed (3v1 and the 1 player is going to die) dont go for the save.
Have the guy that is going to die, run everything possible, and die as slowly as possible. i know how hard it is to die slowly as possible, but the longer it takes to kill you the better. if there is no escaping, Say your toss and all of your probes will die, gather as much as possible to give to your allies.
What your allies should be doing is 1 of 2 things
a) counter attack, this can sometimes even end up saving yourself. and at the very least make it 2v2
b) contain their army in your base, wait for a favorable time to attack. If he already has high ground, it would be bad to run 2 armies in a choke/ramp vs a 3 army concave
anyways, i hope this helps
and honestly, i think the best thing for team battles is skype with them
|
Use voice comm. It's a godsend for team play.
If you're the ones getting attacked, I think you're playing too passively. As ZZT, you should be pushing out well before your opponents decide to attack. One Zerg should go mass lings into +1 or banelings and then expand. The other should go Roaches and expand. Terran should go MM push or get tanks for map control. Hit earlier, your team should be the ones deciding when to engage.
As ZPT, you should still be aggressors. I'm diamond 3's as this composition. My Terran will go MM Stim or Marine tank. Zerg will go mass lings with +1 attack. As Protoss, I open 3-Gate expand. Our timing attack is centered around when Zerg is ready to push out. We're in position well before +1 is done, and engage right when it finishes.
Most 3's games end up as one-base pushes. One player get knocked out, and now it's a 3v2. If you harass in the early game, you delay this push and potentially throw people off their game. It's very important to pressure your opponents. This allows you to either get ahead in tech or economy. Scouting is also very important. So many players scout on 9, and then never think to check up on their opponents again. I laugh every time someone scouts my 4-Gate feint, and I'm really going 3-Gate DT.
|
|
|
While the team game strategy could be more complex than 1v1 strategy, its not even remotely close tot hat point yet. The best teams do a fast timing push and are able to take someone out, then beat up on the team with 1 man down.
|
I play a lot of 3v3's as random and also with mates. With my mates what we do is share control early and then send a drone each - normally to harass a terran dude while he tries to get supply depots or barracks up. If there are no terran then attack a pylon or bully probes. It can be very productive to knock guys off their stride so early in the game and watching the opponent send every scv he owns to benny hill you is quite satisfying.
Another nice trick with a protoss / zerg combo is to give toss overlord vision so he can warp guys into a base. You can catch people with their pants down with this. It can be a very good form of harass but shouldn't be considered a game ender.
I agree with the attck first philosophy, or at least have guys in one close spot so that your mate gets rolled while you are half the map away.
Random team mates are a mixed bag. Some spend the first 10 minutes making 100 photon cannons at their choke only to be dropped at the back 5 seconds later. Others gel really nicely and complement you.
I have to agree with the maps. Araken citidel I have thumbed down. It plays like a turtle map where people try to get doom armies while one guy annoys the shit out of you with mutas. Totally not my style of play. I also dislike typhon, mostly because I get caught with my pants down on it too often.
One downside, like you said is some tectics become a bit imba on small maps. A 6 pool is easy to hold off solo but 3 zerg opponents all 6 pooling will roll over one person irrespective of skill level. Add to that you normally then get your random team mate pinging screaming HELP!!! HELP!!!111ELEVEN!!! as 18 zerglings kill him while you have 1 marine. I have mixed feelings about this (happy it wasn't me they rolled and sad for my team mate!)
All in all I enjoy the team aspect. Sometimes it disappoints but when you get a good matchup it can be very satisfying.
|
I was playing in the morning and they decided to pair a bronze on my team... I didn't even think that was possible, his APM was between 20 and 30..
|
3s are such a joke, trying to play macro with it is nearly impossible
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
