|
FFA was pretty much the shit in Warcraft 3, but in Starcraft it was pretty broken because:
1. You have no incentive to leave your base and attack other players.
2. Zerg are weak because there are 6 people grabbing up all the expansions across the map, so the zerg has no way of competing against a 200/200 3/3 mech terran who is turtling on 3 bases. Protoss does okay because of high tech units like carriers and arbiters but zerg kind of suck unless someone gets steamrolled and they can take all their bases. Terrans also have the advantage of being the most "defensive" race, and defense is much more important in free for all than in solo play.
I have also noticed that SC is not as great of a "team game" as WC3 for many of the same reasons -- the game is balanced almost by accident on the ability of the races to expand. Terrans have the strongest army but are immobile and can't hold on to expansions -- zerg is the opposite and protoss are somewhere in the middle. If there is no way for the zerg to hold on to a lot of bases they are pretty useless in the late game. In team games these disadvantage isn't as obvious because most team games end in the early game with some kind of rush, but it's there.
I am wondering if you guys think FFA will be better in SC2. Maybe if the zerg has stronger "end game" tech units (it would be great if you could pick different tech routes that would favor a low-base or high-base build), or if the FFA maps were changed to allow zerg players to expand better or something. I also think that high resource mineral expansions or other kinds of "luxury expansion" areas could be used as incentive to "start shit" with other players instead of turtling.
What do you guys think? If you think I am wrong or whatever be sure to let me know, I'm not claiming to be an expert here.
|
FFA works well in War3 because the hero system encourages players to attack each other in order to gain levels. Also the upkeep levels make for a very interesting dynamic in FFA and adds a lot of depth to your strategy, because in FFA you can actually stay at no upkeep for a long period of time, unlike in 1on1 where you'll just get overrun if you pause production for more than a minute or two.
Starcraft 2 will have none of that. The only reason for players to attack each other will be fighting over expansions, so it's just going to come down to lots of turtling until someone gets bored and attacks (and usually loses).
|
It all depends on how the maps are designed and the people you have playing.
Even warcraft 3 FFA ladder had really really long drawn out games.
If they design the map well, and put yellow minerals in places people will conflict it would be and will be a fun game-type to play.
I assume it will be the least popular ladder, but still fun to play from time to time.
1v1 or 2v2 is kinda the same way with, war3 having more reasons to fight... creeps and hero levels.
Somehow though it all works out nicely.
|
With all the other issues of balance yet race difference I dont think blizzard will spend much time considering how to make ffa better, considering very very few people play it. They already took out LAN.
|
I used to play a lot of FFA for war3 and I used to be highly ranked. And I have to agree with you that FFA is like crack - it's highly addictive. However, this is due to the following:
1) Hero system which encourages players to fight enough other instead of turtling;
2) Creeping, which makes players busy while the game is still at the "peaceful" stages where players are growing instead of fighting each other;
3) Upkeep, which means that you cannot simply "dominate" with your army at the food limit.
SC2 do not have any of the mechanisms above. However, certain things can be done, such as:
1) Adding an upkeep system in FFA games (pretty easy, and reasonable to do).
2) Adding either creeps, or critters that occupy mineral patches to encourage players to build units.
3) FFA maps should have a lot of expansions (think Emerald Garden) but each expansion has low resources. This way players are encouraged to extend their presence on the map so they can take more resource points, which encourages conflicts. This also makes Terrans a little bit weaker and Zergs a little bit stronger.
4) Player receives resources from killing other players' units and buildings.
EDIT: I think the things I mentioned above will make FFA playable. However, the issue is that whether or not we want different game mechanism for FFA games than other gametypes.
|
another idea: adding control points to the game. players would want to attack and conquer a region(s), where holding an area for x amount of time would grant resource bonuses. there could be a handful, or enough to make players want to attack or deny such areas to other players
|
On November 01 2009 12:22 Simple wrote:
another idea: adding control points to the game. players would want to attack and conquer a region(s), where holding an area for x amount of time would grant resource bonuses. there could be a handful, or enough to make players want to attack or deny such areas to other players
Isn't that just an expansion...?
|
On November 01 2009 12:05 illu wrote:
I used to play a lot of FFA for war3 and I used to be highly ranked. And I have to agree with you that FFA is like crack - it's highly addictive. However, this is due to the following:
1) Hero system which encourages players to fight enough other instead of turtling;
2) Creeping, which makes players busy while the game is still at the "peaceful" stages where players are growing instead of fighting each other;
3) Upkeep, which means that you cannot simply "dominate" with your army at the food limit.
SC2 do not have any of the mechanisms above. However, certain things can be done, such as:
1) Adding an upkeep system in FFA games (pretty easy, and reasonable to do).
2) Adding either creeps, or critters that occupy mineral patches to encourage players to build units.
3) FFA maps should have a lot of expansions (think Emerald Garden) but each expansion has low resources. This way players are encouraged to extend their presence on the map so they can take more resource points, which encourages conflicts. This also makes Terrans a little bit weaker and Zergs a little bit stronger.
4) Player receives resources from killing other players' units and buildings.
EDIT: I think the things I mentioned above will make FFA playable. However, the issue is that whether or not we want different game mechanism for FFA games than other gametypes.
I Disagree with some of this.
The creeps in warcraft 3 were there for exp, and because there was only so many creeps on the map you had to fight over the creeps because they didn't re-spawn.
Adding creeps to a game without heroes or exp is pointless, since all it will do is making taking land harder and more risky which if anything would force players to play more safely there is no TP scroll after all. Plus creeps also make it harder to expand, which makes turtling even more viable.
I don't really see a reason to add upkeep, upkeep was a good idea in warcraft 3 but I don't think it suits the star-craft setting as much. With no TP scrolls low upkeep armys would be retarded, you wouldn't be able to separate your forces since your numbers are low. And moving into higher upkeep ( which would be the people actually fighting) would work against them and benefit the player sitting in his base turtled with 50 food.
Number 3 is right on point, lots of expands (perhaps low econ) with yellow minerals in high conflict areas will make for great games.
Not sure about number 4, however perhaps a reward for killing off another player would be in order...though I think these things could change on a map basis which would be pretty cool. Perhaps each "main" base area has a netrual building that provides some benefit so killing off the player would give you that land, provided you do it in a logical fashion that doesn't put your self in a vulnerable situation but being a FFA player yourself you know how that goes.
I think that with good map design the mode is fine and will function how it always has functioned, a fun addicting game-type...that not everyone enjoys but there is a community for it.
I remember many community FFAs that were a blast, in both games! ( granted more warcraft 3 than starcraft)
|
could make custom map features worth taking just for FFA, like a mercenary camp where you can pay to insta buy mercenaries
|
On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
I am wondering if you guys think FFA will be better in SC2. Maybe if the zerg has stronger "end game" tech units (it would be great if you could pick different tech routes that would favor a low-base or high-base build)
Sorry, but this idea is dumb. Either Zerg is balanced with other races when ahead by a few bases, or when they're even in bases, or when they're behind; there is no middle ground here. Being able to choose a "tech route" that will even you up when you're behind in # of bases means that with an even or stronger economy, this same "tech route" should be an instant win.
Should Zerg then be balanced at an even number of bases? I don't think so. It feels to me like it would take away a good deal of their racial identity. I'm not even sure this is Zerg's problem in FFA- it could just as well be the fact that their defenses are underwhelming; Zergs feel most comfortable with a lot of map control, lying in wait just out of the enemy base and not letting them out.
|
On November 01 2009 13:10 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
I am wondering if you guys think FFA will be better in SC2. Maybe if the zerg has stronger "end game" tech units (it would be great if you could pick different tech routes that would favor a low-base or high-base build) Sorry, but this idea is dumb. Either Zerg is balanced with other races when ahead by a few bases, or when they're even in bases, or when they're behind; there is no middle ground here. Being able to choose a "tech route" that will even you up when you're behind in # of bases means that with an even or stronger economy, this same "tech route" should be an instant win.
I don't know man. I think carriers are a good example of this. A maxed out Protoss army is much weaker than a maxed out Terran army and relies on having a higher # of expansions, but if the Protoss is able to make a successful tech switch to carriers the situation is reversed -- the toss will lose a bunch of expansions but the army is much stronger. In fact I think carriers are the top reason why protoss is able to beat turtle-terrans in FFA. A protoss comes out with carriers and stasis field arbiters and you have an army that can go head to head with 200/200 3/3 mech army. At least that's my understanding of the situation. The new "super ultralisk" that we have seen or the swarm guardian might fill this sort role somewhat.
|
On November 01 2009 12:56 Islandsnake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2009 12:05 illu wrote:
I used to play a lot of FFA for war3 and I used to be highly ranked. And I have to agree with you that FFA is like crack - it's highly addictive. However, this is due to the following:
1) Hero system which encourages players to fight enough other instead of turtling;
2) Creeping, which makes players busy while the game is still at the "peaceful" stages where players are growing instead of fighting each other;
3) Upkeep, which means that you cannot simply "dominate" with your army at the food limit.
SC2 do not have any of the mechanisms above. However, certain things can be done, such as:
1) Adding an upkeep system in FFA games (pretty easy, and reasonable to do).
2) Adding either creeps, or critters that occupy mineral patches to encourage players to build units.
3) FFA maps should have a lot of expansions (think Emerald Garden) but each expansion has low resources. This way players are encouraged to extend their presence on the map so they can take more resource points, which encourages conflicts. This also makes Terrans a little bit weaker and Zergs a little bit stronger.
4) Player receives resources from killing other players' units and buildings.
EDIT: I think the things I mentioned above will make FFA playable. However, the issue is that whether or not we want different game mechanism for FFA games than other gametypes. I Disagree with some of this. The creeps in warcraft 3 were there for exp, and because there was only so many creeps on the map you had to fight over the creeps because they didn't re-spawn. Adding creeps to a game without heroes or exp is pointless, since all it will do is making taking land harder and more risky which if anything would force players to play more safely there is no TP scroll after all. Plus creeps also make it harder to expand, which makes turtling even more viable. I don't really see a reason to add upkeep, upkeep was a good idea in warcraft 3 but I don't think it suits the star-craft setting as much. With no TP scrolls low upkeep armys would be retarded, you wouldn't be able to separate your forces since your numbers are low. And moving into higher upkeep ( which would be the people actually fighting) would work against them and benefit the player sitting in his base turtled with 50 food. Number 3 is right on point, lots of expands (perhaps low econ) with yellow minerals in high conflict areas will make for great games. Not sure about number 4, however perhaps a reward for killing off another player would be in order...though I think these things could change on a map basis which would be pretty cool. Perhaps each "main" base area has a netrual building that provides some benefit so killing off the player would give you that land, provided you do it in a logical fashion that doesn't put your self in a vulnerable situation but being a FFA player yourself you know how that goes. I think that with good map design the mode is fine and will function how it always has functioned, a fun addicting game-type...that not everyone enjoys but there is a community for it. I remember many community FFAs that were a blast, in both games! ( granted more warcraft 3 than starcraft)
1) Adding creeps without exp is to encourage players to build units instead of "naked" teching. Your criticism is valid though.
2) Even so, this will make someone who has the greatest presence on the map to win too easily. Adding Upkeep will also add more depth into gameplay. So I believe without a doubt Upkeep is useful, but I do not know if it is USEFUL ENOUGH to change FFA dramatically.
3) Thanks for your comments =]
4) I thought about that as well... but it is difficult to define "killing a player". For example, you destroyed Player B in our usual sense, but he fled a probe somewhere, built a pylon, only to be detected and destroyed by Player C. Then who killed B? You or C? It might be difficult to say. This is why I think killing units or structures is more fair.
|
team SC1 games have weak zergs because zergs often go mass muta ling to support the partner, and completely forgo any strong defensive things like lurker or swarm. zerg is not weak endgame in 2v2. Just zerg choose to be weak in end game for a strong early and mid game.
therefore your argument is invalid.
|
On November 01 2009 16:30 4clovers wrote:
team SC1 games have weak zergs because zergs often go mass muta ling to support the partner, and completely forgo any strong defensive things like lurker or swarm. zerg is not weak endgame in 2v2. Just zerg choose to be weak in end game for a strong early and mid game.
therefore your argument is invalid.
Anyone who knows anything about Starcraft realizes that with equal bases Terran or Protoss will stomp them... Zergs go on the offensive in team games is because they realize that they cannot compete with a strong late game Protoss or Terran army without having a large macro advantage, which can't be attained in a team game where a zerg can expect to hold MAYBE 3-4 bases that have gas. Take Lost Temple for example. A 2v2 with 2 Terrans and 2 Zerg. The Zerg plays defensive and expands at the natural, and later in the game they grab an island which are all the non-mineral-only expansions they can reasonably expect to get vs. decent opponents. The Terrans turtle and go mech off 3 bases -- main, natural, and maybe even an island with an early floating CC. Who do you think is going to win here? I will tell you what will happen, if the Zerg doesn't crush them in the early/mid game the Terran will push out with 3/3 200 food metal army and absolutely steamroll the Zerg. Same thing will happen with 2 Zergs vs 2 Protoss who go sair/reaver. The only chance the Zerg has is to play aggressive. If the Zergs had both gone quick mutas and gang-banged one of the Terrans, or went for quick double ling rush, there is a very good chance they would win.
|
"Anyone who knows anything about Starcraft realizes that with equal bases Terran or Protoss will stomp them..."
isn't 9 pool speedling 1 base vs 1 base?
I know what you mean, like 3 bases with gas for protoss > 3 bases with gas for zerg by far. I just feel like you are being too general. Having seen HTs sniped, and having seen marines chased by 5/3 ultras, can't you admit zerg has the potential to be dominant late game?
Also, people have been saying that "Terran do well in FFAs because they can turtle with 3/3 mech"
"Zerg is not defensive" etc.
Sunken, Swarm, Spore, Lurker is not defensive?
I feel like FFAs give zerg a chance to withhold its army and reach 200
|
On November 01 2009 17:50 gryffindor wrote:
"Anyone who knows anything about Starcraft realizes that with equal bases Terran or Protoss will stomp them..."
isn't 9 pool speedling 1 base vs 1 base?
I know what you mean, like 3 bases with gas for protoss > 3 bases with gas for zerg by far. I just feel like you are being too general. Having seen HTs sniped, and having seen marines chased by 5/3 ultras, can't you admit zerg has the potential to be dominant late game?
Also, people have been saying that "Terran do well in FFAs because they can turtle with 3/3 mech"
"Zerg is not defensive" etc.
Sunken, Swarm, Spore, Lurker is not defensive?
I feel like FFAs give zerg a chance to withhold its army and reach 200
A 200 food mech army or a large sair/reaver protoss army will rape any 200 food zerg army if the players are equal. Zergs beat this in 1v1 by taking advantage of the fact that mech/sair-reaver takes forever to assemble and the Terrans are very bad at holding expansions. 1v1 the Zerg can lose their entire army vs mech and have it rebuilt quickly because they have a shitload of hatcheries and a massive economy. They beat it in 2v2s by playing for the early or mid game -- if it gets to late game with maxed out armies it's extremely hard. In FFA you WILL be at a disadvantage as Zerg because you cannot possibly rush 4-5 other players. You have to count on them playing shitty to be able to win. You say, well "zerg can just build sunkens and lurkers and defend", but even if they do get a 200 food army they will still lose because their armies are far less powerful/cost-effective as a maxed out mech Terran -- they need to have an expansion advantage to stay relevant in the late game. A Zerg player ling rushing a unprepared Terran 3 minutes into the game doesn't really invalidate this concept since we are talking about late game in situations where the Zerg cannot gain an expansion advantage, such as what happens in FFA or team games.
|
Now I can't wait for someone to create a well-balanced 12-player FFA map when SC2 comes out...
Note: We're not sure if the player cap is 12 though.
|
On November 01 2009 13:18 SWOLE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2009 13:10 Zato-1 wrote:On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
I am wondering if you guys think FFA will be better in SC2. Maybe if the zerg has stronger "end game" tech units (it would be great if you could pick different tech routes that would favor a low-base or high-base build) Sorry, but this idea is dumb. Either Zerg is balanced with other races when ahead by a few bases, or when they're even in bases, or when they're behind; there is no middle ground here. Being able to choose a "tech route" that will even you up when you're behind in # of bases means that with an even or stronger economy, this same "tech route" should be an instant win. I don't know man. I think carriers are a good example of this. A maxed out Protoss army is much weaker than a maxed out Terran army and relies on having a higher # of expansions, but if the Protoss is able to make a successful tech switch to carriers the situation is reversed -- the toss will lose a bunch of expansions but the army is much stronger. In fact I think carriers are the top reason why protoss is able to beat turtle-terrans in FFA. A protoss comes out with carriers and stasis field arbiters and you have an army that can go head to head with 200/200 3/3 mech army. At least that's my understanding of the situation. The new "super ultralisk" that we have seen or the swarm guardian might fill this sort role somewhat.
Yes, Protoss players with a Carrier fleet can put up a good fight against Terran even when behind on bases, because Terran's counter to Carriers isn't very cost-effective. But just as I argued above, a Protoss player who has a large carrier fleet AND is ahead on bases will simply roll the Terran- for any given strategy, additional bases will always help, a lot. If you're even with your opponent at 2 mining bases, then you should be able to curbstomp him with that same setup at 4 mining bases.
|
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin.
|
I guess you could wait till the balance is more stable, then do appropriate FFA maps
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
