|
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
|
On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin.
That makes perfect sense, considering the food max is 90?
|
On November 02 2009 06:24 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin. That makes perfect sense, considering the food max is 90?
It's 100 since July 2003, when The Frozen Throne was released.
And it's debatable, 100 food of hippo/chims is really hard to beat.
|
I think the FFA system would benefit from some sort of additional resourse system for killing enemy units/buildings.
Also to OP, generally in my FFA experience mass carrier/arb is the best and protoss tends to dominate moreso than terran. Of course most of my FFA's are played with a mixture of fellow half-competent players mixed in with clueless pubs, but P is by far the easiest race to win a FFA with.
|
On November 02 2009 06:24 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin. That makes perfect sense, considering the food max is 90?
I laughed so hard at this.
On November 02 2009 06:46 BlackSphinx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 06:24 Nevuk wrote:On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin. That makes perfect sense, considering the food max is 90? It's 100 since July 2003, when The Frozen Throne was released. And it's debatable, 100 food of hippo/chims is really hard to beat.
It is quite easy to beat as Undead... actually it's quite easy with any races unless you are Night Elf and you only have dotc. In FFA games DK + Lich + DL is standard, so with good vampiric aura + frost nova, garcs will dominate hippos. However, garcs can hit ground but hippos can't, so Night Elf needs to spend food on chims but UD does not need to spend on frost wyrms (although I usually will at least get one frost wyrm and one destroyer).
NE does not really have any valid options against UD going mass garcs. First of all, units-wise NE's best option is hippo, but they only hit air, and thus not flexible enough to be used especially on a three-way stand-off (worse if there is also an Orc somewhere). Hero-wise, the best options are panda (BoF + DH) and potm (starfall, ofc), but they are easily countered by good vampiric aura, sleep, tri-hero healing scrolls, and destroyers.
Hippo + chim is even worse against Orc because Orc has Unstable Concoction. Resource-wise, Unstable Concoction is not an economic anti-air strategy, but it gives the Orc player experience while giving the NE player none, and we know hero experience in important... unless it's a 10/10/10 situation. But despite common beliefs, it's difficult to get 10/10/10 even on FFA games.
Against Human, it really depends on if NE has panda, and the level of the panda.
|
This thought has been crossing my mind as well. Will FFA be playable in SC?
Wc3 FFA is the business.
You take the basic wc3 action and overlay a whole new method of strategy, manipulation and bullshit. It's like battle poker.
If you take away heroes and upkeep. How will matches play out? It sounds boring if is just turtled expansions.
I'm really interested in how this will play out. Some of my fondest wc3 memories are FFA games. There is nothing as satisfying as coming back from nothing and winning a game.
Who remembers the Golden Age of Invincible Rice, Pencil Warrior et al?
|
On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
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.
This is wrong, Zerg are really strong so annoying while scanning around the 256x256 bliz maps and seeing that they have like 12 bases.
|
On November 02 2009 09:52 d(O.o)a wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
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. This is wrong, Zerg are really strong so annoying while scanning around the 256x256 bliz maps and seeing that they have like 12 bases.
er in a 1v1 yeah, they can defend all those expansions, but not so much with multiple opponents..
|
On November 02 2009 10:10 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 09:52 d(O.o)a wrote:On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
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. This is wrong, Zerg are really strong so annoying while scanning around the 256x256 bliz maps and seeing that they have like 12 bases. er in a 1v1 yeah, they can defend all those expansions, but not so much with multiple opponents..
but in the 256x256 maps people don't realize how big the zerg is usually and bicker with their neighbors.
|
On November 01 2009 11:17 SWOLE wrote:
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.
Zergs have the Nydus Canal, and some of the fastest units in the game. So defending against expansions is not that difficult. If anything causes concerns it's Protoss defending against a crapload of bases.
|
On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin.
What gives you that idea?
Ud has a very hard time fighting orc in FFA. Necrowagon doesn't work because tauren+tricaster rips through it, gargs don't work particularly well either because they get destroyed by bats. A fiend-wyrm based army is decent, but assuming similar hero levels, tauren caster wyvern is stronger.
A maxed elf is indeed inferior to a maxed ud, because they have no good counter to gargs, apart from heroes.
Human is probably weaker than ud in a straight up fight, but then humans don't usually need to fight those kinds of battles. After all, they have the best base defense, are best at taking down base defense and with a level 6 Archmage, they are also more mobile than any other race.
Overall, I (and most of the FFA community) would say that ud is clearly the weakest race in FFA.
|
I hope SC2 still has FFA mode... I always enjoyed, and still do enjoy, a good FFA with my friends with LAN latency :D
|
On November 03 2009 08:11 TwilightStar wrote:
I hope SC2 still has FFA mode... I always enjoyed, and still do enjoy, a good FFA with my friends with LAN latency :D
Of course it'll have a FFA mode. Removing it would be retarded, kind of like removing LAN functionality... o wait...
|
There's no way they'd remove FFA, it will probably have no matchmaking/ranking tho.. Unlike 1v1 - 4v4 games.
Edit:spelling
|
I feel that Blizzard won't remove FFA. It's just retarded on their part if they would since that would just gain nothing.
|
On November 03 2009 09:14 lolaloc wrote:
I feel that Blizzard won't remove FFA. It's just retarded on their part if they would since that would just gain nothing.
Yeah, that's kind of how I felt on the LAN issue. I find Blizzard to be reasonable much more often than not, so FFA will most likely exist as a game mode. Then again, the LAN business is a nasty precedent, so I can't be completely certain.
|
On November 03 2009 09:21 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2009 09:14 lolaloc wrote:
I feel that Blizzard won't remove FFA. It's just retarded on their part if they would since that would just gain nothing. Yeah, that's kind of how I felt on the LAN issue. I find Blizzard to be reasonable much more often than not, so FFA will most likely exist as a game mode. Then again, the LAN business is a nasty precedent, so I can't be completely certain.
There is some vague reason for the LAN thing, even if it's not really great for the player base. What would taking FFA out accomplish for anyone?
Perhaps only pirates FFA.
|
On November 02 2009 06:24 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 03:38 illu wrote:
Well, in War3, a 100 food Undead Army is superior to 100 food army of any other race, by a great margin. That makes perfect sense, considering the food max is 90?
Oh good God...
|
FFA were pretty fun back in the day on the bnet ladder.
It is true however, that Zerg gets weaker and weaker as the game goes on. However, the winner of the game depends on how the game plays out, cause its not a simple 1v1.
I also agree with the earlier idea that there should be a considerable amount of yellow expansions so that a player who chooses to turtle will be punished. Also there should be some Xel Naga Temples that have a huge reveal radius, making it vital to control so that you can see what your opponents are up to.
|
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.
|
On the screenshots I didn't see FFA on any of the game types. =[
Perhaps Blizzard realise that SC is not suitable for FFA...
|
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
