|
On November 03 2009 19:56 Unentschieden wrote:
The idea is to include (Map?)features that reward aggressive action. It´s bad if everyone wants to be the "laughing third". As far as we can see "winning" a combat in SC(2) leaves the winner temporarily weaker and gives no benefit besides the loosers Expansion spots - practically nil compared to just taking unclaimed ones if you can even utilise it (defense issues).
In WC3 the benefit was experience a unworkable concept for SC2.
Zerg might possibly get to infest the loosers structures, Terrans might be allowed to dismantel enemy buildings - but these are unintroduced gameplay comcepts that might unbalance 1v1 the primary mode or more likely Teamgames.
Well yes, in wc3 ffa if one person drops or gets quickly eliminated the game can descend into a "three-way" stalemate. Because you are at some disadvantage when attacking, plus you are leaving your base exposed, and the third player like a vulture will come and eat up all the remains. I never heard the term "laughing third" before but it is perfect. It is very funny as you sit back and watch your opponents take each other out. Exhausted and ruined, you, fresh as a daisy, stroll up "what is this? a win? I will have that thank you".
For the uninitiated, wc3 ffa has 4 players. It didn't use to be that way, there used to be any number of players, but at some point they changed it to 4, maybe for competitive reasons. Again, at some point they chose to hide player names, to prevent recognized good players getting teamed up the ass.
As a general rule of thumb in FFA you always want to be attacking the strongest player and encouraging the other players to do so. The trick is knowing when to become the strongest player, and recognizing when to switch allegiances. i.e. some idiots team up on the strongest player and beat him into the ground and keep doing so until he is eliminated, stupidly not seeing that the guy they are teaming with has an advantage over them and they eventually lose. It is much more in their interest to keep the weakened player in the game as an ally. So the game theoretically should be very dynamic. It isn't always like this in practice, as players are only people, and you can pissed off to such an extent that all you want to do is suicide the guy that ruined your game, and that becomes your new goal.
Add in player chat, and you can imagine a whole lot of bluffing, manipulation, private chat. Because basically the ideal position is to be the strongest player without the others knowing you are the strongest.
Not everyone plays FFA in the same way, which makes it thoroughly interesting, and very annoying.
You meet all types. Some, who I term "Russians", are like some mad barbarian that lashes out at anything it comes across. you do not want to be trapped nest to one of these guys.
Then you get more considered aggressive players who will scout out the weakest player and treat them like a tome of experience, levelling up their heroes for the advantage. the idea is to get stronger and stronger like a snowball building up size. I would recommend this strategy for strong micro players.
Some players prefer to horde up a large amount of resources staying at low food count in towered up bases. Even though they have weak heroes, after a few 100 food army clashes they will level up in the late game, because even if they lose the battles and have to TP the are bound to kill something, and they will have a huge gold advantage for rebuilding armies in the late game when the gold mines are depleted. If you see someone hoarding you should take them out.
Well Im only giving you a general idea, it is possible to write a LOT more on the subject, but I hope you get the idea that the complexities of wc3 consummate the ffa experience.
SC FFA could still be fun, like a game of RISK. but when I was playing the wc3 RISK maps it was all human units. I'm not sure how balanced SC races will be in a FFA setting.
|
Altho I have no doubt at all that FFA is in SC2, if it is not a game mode it is a very simple UMS.
And given the points raised above about how certain map layouts and features could improve the FFA experience, I can potentially see maps being specifically designed for FFA play, just like the are for 2vs2 in SC2.
|
On November 03 2009 20:41 teapot wrote:
On the screenshots I didn't see FFA on any of the game types. =[
Perhaps Blizzard realise that SC is not suitable for FFA... Awww crap
|
Don't worry about the lack of an option in one screenshot or another. It's bloody alpha! Adding an FFA game mode if people demand it would be easy as pie even after release.
Worst comes to worst, FFA UMS maps would be simple to make.
|
On November 03 2009 21:20 teapot wrote: I never heard the term "laughing third" before but it is perfect.
It´s a German saying. "Wenn zwei sich streiten freut sich der dritte". Literally: When two are quarreling/fighting the third is happy. It means exactly what you described it as.
FFA as competitive mode is iff exactly because of that. "Politics" are a major issue and one of the most fun aspects of Free For Alls. A lot of the issues you describe are inherent in any FFA mode in any game.
The easiest option would of course be to declare FFA uncompetative and skip it in terms of design/balancing. But it would be a waste of a pretty popular gamemode.
|
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.
agree
|
I think the only way that FFA could work well in Starcraft would be if the maps were absolutely **ENORMOUS**. That way, people could basically expand forever. It would be a lot more about where you attack and when. Without a shortage of bases, turtling becomes less smart.
|
Yeah if the maps were HUGE that would make it more balanced. If you try to play an FFA on a map like Lost Temple Zerg are absolutely screwed because it turns into 2-3base zerg vs 2-3base 3/3 Mech Terran or SairReaver toss... An absolutely hopeless situation. I remember playing an FFA on Python where I was toss (D+ rank and not even main race) and after the first guy got wiped I was completely stomping these two C+ zergs with 12+ reavers and like 2 control groups of sairs and there wasn't shit they could do about it even as they gangbanged me. At one point I was charged with like 36 ultras and they just evaporated before they could even get close to my reaversair ball. It was pretty ridiculous.
|
I hope 2v2 is better in sc2, I like playing 2v2 in wc3 a lot.
|
On November 04 2009 02:48 Unentschieden wrote:The easiest option would of course be to declare FFA uncompetative and skip it in terms of design/balancing. But it would be a waste of a pretty popular gamemode.
I think they should do that actually. Balancing the game for 1v1 play is hard enough in itself. It wont kill FFA even if there is slight imbalance, and FFA is still much more messy than 1v1 so imbalance is harder to spot early anyway.
With proper maps it should still be enjoyable enough to all races, and also politics can play against the perceived strong race player...
|
i never played FFA games for a balanced fight
just good old fun
|
I used to play a lot of FFA on wc3. The main things I learned from it were:
Don't attack players when there are creeps left on the map because, 1) you lose out on items, 2) you weaken yourself and enemy, and 3) you create a hostile enemy who will take priority on you for the entire game.
So it's the same shit as in SC really. You don't wanna be attacking people until late game or when you need a base.
|
If balance is the most important thing for you, play solo... I'll be playing ffa and I'll be playing random!
There were definitely imbalances in ffa in war3, I'd say undead > human > orc > night elf. This only really applies in the super-lategame, night elf can have an advantage in the start and orc can have an advantage in the mid-game and if they push this hard enough they can level their heroes and stand a chance against the inevitable mass frosty / mass teleport nightmare lategame.
But in FFA having a good game-sense is the most important thing by far.
|
A map feature I thought about is 'salvaging' for lack of a better name. It means an object that can be salvaged by a worker in maybe 10 seconds, disappears after and gives an amount of resources to the player. To prevent people from just sending out workers at the start, destructible rocks could spawn the objects.
What I hope this might accomplish is encouraging the player to send his armies out and fight with his enemies over finite resources in a way that is unlike setting up an expansion. The latter often requires heavy investments and only gives benefit after several minutes and if the enemy destroys your expansion it's mostly still there for him to take, while salvagable objects give immediate rewards but go away after.
Coupled with good map design that makes sure the action gravitates to the center in the endgame/midgame, it ..might encourage more aggressive play. (It's like creeping in WC3, a bit, you can't hide in your base and build towers too much, since you'll lose the resources being out in the map gives you)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
