|
Added poll since thread got popular:
Poll: Should feeding be restricted in team games?No, resource trading is fine. (394) 65% Yes, there should be a flat tax on traded resources. (158) 26% Yes, make the resource trading timer higher than 5 minutes. (30) 5% Yes, with some other system (please comment) (24) 4% 606 total votes Your vote: Should feeding be restricted in team games? (Vote): Yes, make the resource trading timer higher than 5 minutes.
(Vote): Yes, there should be a flat tax on traded resources.
(Vote): Yes, with some other system (please comment)
(Vote): No, resource trading is fine.
Watch this replay as it is a good example of why feeding needs to be discussed and regulated now.
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4408
Problems with feeding in team games:
Number one: In WC3, resource trading had no limits, not even a 5 minute timer like SC2. It was not impossible to defeat feeding in WC3 because minerals (gold) could only be harvested by 5 workers per base. This meant that you could either build a base and an army or feed resources, not both. In SC2, the opposite is true because gas is the limiting factor. This means that the feeder is free to use his minerals to create a base, static defense and a mineral heavy army. For example, a terran might build raxxes and pump marines while keeping just enough gas to upgrade them. (And if you haven't faced 3/3 stimmed marines, you're in for a shock when you see what they do even against higher tier upgraded armies).
Number two: Feeding in WC3 was easily scouted. The feeder had no base. He only had his main building and an altar to make his hero. Meanwhile, his friend had way too many production buildings for that stage of the game. In SC2, the 5 minute timer makes feeding impossible to scout. Because you go from facing typical tier 1 armies and maybe catch an expansion, to suddenly having 10 void rays in your base instead of the typical 1-2.
Number three: Feeding is not a linear exchange of resources. Because one player is not spending money on heavy tech purposes, there are more resources to be traded. This is extremely strong when teamed with a zerg player who only needs to plop down a spire to mass produce (and to complement point 2, you can't scout a zerg's mass production). As an added subtlety, upgrades are that much cheaper and more effective.
Number four:: Timing. The entire issue in starcraft 2 with feeding is timing. Some strategies are built to catch you off guard but they are not impossible to defeat. Your banshee rush will be significantly delayed in numbers and time if you want to research cloak. With feeding, you can have 6-8 cloaked banshees in your base by the time there are usually only 1 or 2. Replace banshees with 20 mutas, or 10 void rays.
Number five: Any idiot can trade resources.
My personal experience with feeding:
+ Show Spoiler +Over 50% of the teams in the 3v3 ladder in WC3 use feeding (even at the top). In 4v4, it is far worse. It is not impossible to counter in WC3, but over time, as you and your friends keep playing against the same cheesy strategy, you start losing the will to play because you're no longer playing a strategy game, your micro no longer matters, you no longer need to scout. You're almost playing a whole different game like a UMS. But that's not why you ladder in the first place, is it? You're not facing diverse strategies or challenging opponents, you're facing a couple of kids using the easy mode to cheese wins. It is draining.
I think resource trading should be regulated. I think it is fair to spot your ally 400 minerals to rebuild his nexus. I don't think it's interesting to spot him 1000 gas at the 5 minute mark so he can power build a high tech timing push.
2v2 has a very good chance of developing into a fun and respectable environment for team skill. However, if feeding remains the way it is, I guarantee that 2v2 will crash and that the only way 2v2 will linger on in any entertaining way is if tournaments make rules against it. However, for regular 2v2 ladder, few players will play consistently because of feeding and the ladder population will dwindle.
If you haven't played a game where feeding is rampant, take my word for it. It is so easy and so powerful that the masses of noobs will do it until 2v2 ladder (and higher) is a joke and people only take 1v1 seriously. 1v1 will always be the ultimate test of skill but it shouldn't be the only medium for players to compete.
Suggestions: Either set a timer cap for resource trading (you can only trade 1 mineral and 1 gas per second elapsed) or put a tax on resource trading of 25%.
The strength of feeding in SC2 is disproportionate to the difficulty and risk involved. As any idiot can do it and experience great success, I recommend that this community voice its concern so that Blizzard knows that they should add a feature to tweak it.
|
Good read,thank God I don't do 2v2.
|
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
|
am I blind or is the feeding example in this rep not obvious?
edit: oh i'm dumb, thought it would've been earlier
|
On May 10 2010 08:44 bakedace wrote:
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
+1 for this idea. Would solve most problems, yet be balanced enough so that at high level play you could send small amounts of resources to help a friend get back on track, or improve your timing just a little better. But it shouldn't be the core strategy to have one player feed throughout the game.
|
Rather than discuss it why not use feeding and give blizzard the cheesiest and best examples so they eventually patch it into balance?
|
|
|
Feeding is part of the strategy of high player count team games, is it not? I don't remember anybody bitching hard or being upset that people would feed in 3s or 4s in WC3, it was part of the game.
|
On May 10 2010 08:56 Weasel- wrote:
Feeding is part of the strategy of high player count team games, is it not? I don't remember anybody bitching hard or being upset that people would feed in 3s or 4s in WC3, it was part of the game.
haha, what? Have you not played against garg or wyv feeds?
|
I assumed as soon as I saw resource trading that it would eventually be necessary to play 2v2 at top level (once people realized how potentially powerful it is). I do not see a priori why this is a bad thing other than the cumbersome interface you have to go through (but this means the interface should be improved regardless imo).
I watched the replay. The team that took advantage of resource trading won, and the team that didn't lost horribly when they could have taken advantage of it to be even. I don't see the problem with that.
For me to definitely see that it's a problem you'd have to show me that it really limits the possible options in a 2v2, which one replay definitively does not show. You say that it makes WC3 less diverse, but I think that we'd all agree that WC3 is a vastly different game from SC2. I don't think we have any sort of proof that it makes SC2 less diverse; only time will tell.
You could argue that it's less fun this way, but I don't think I'd agree with you right now.
As an aside I do not like your title because it's not immediately obvious what you're talking about.
edit: As far as saying it makes 2v2 less skillful ... normally I'd say "go prove it" but it doesn't seem likely that we'll see 2v2 tournaments where you could seriously do so. The problem here is you need to show that a 2v2 involving resource trading from both sides boils down into something less skillful than a 2v2 with no/limited resource trading.
I don't think requiring you take advantage of a built-in game mechanic is a bad thing. That's like complaining you lose because you don't use warpgates and your opponent does or somesuch imo.
|
I agree big time. Never thought of it this way (didn't play war3).
But indeed, trading resources at this way is not good at all for game-play.
I think there should not be any trading at all.
Why the hell is it every implement anyway?
Back in the days where some things weren't possible to create in a game, made some great things. Now when everything is possible, we get the weirdest worthless things that only mess up the good things.
Blizzard, remove it from the game.
|
Perhaps make it a 10 minute timer or something. That way it will leave them vulnerable to a timing push if they do decide to wait to feed resources. I think it's a perfectly viable strategy that should stay in the game though.
|
A small tax seems simple, mean, but effective. I'm up for it.
Trading resources is something I think players should definitely have available but 150 speedlings is a big threat [especially if they avoid the army confrontation and go for the bases] that should not be complemented with a person with substantially (near twice) as much gas as he normally would.
One different solution might be to just eliminate gas trading. It might make some sense seeing that minerals are simply cut into pieces from their natural source while the gas needs to be processed (refinery, assimilator, extractor) in a way that makes it volatile and unsafe for trading long distances. (Despite the fact that a SCV can obviously just hold vespene gas in it's hands for eternity).
|
Ok, i saw the replay in fastest and its true teal got fed gas in order to power mutas, Zerg is most prevalent and these players you presented are not the best of players and it was only about 2k Vespene ergo the result would have been just the same amount of mutas regardless.
ZERG cannot share larva so naturally the one with the most larvae (perhaps saved up with intent) asked his friend for gas so he could make them all into mutas.
There is no upkeep in this game, so your argument is slightly flawed that way around too, no heroes either and wc3 was very hero based ( see blademaster for referance). This seems to me that you dont want to adapt, win and have fun at the same time.
Rule number uno in a RTS: If you find something op, do it yourself and get both sides, your very biased.
|
On May 10 2010 09:12 Madkipz wrote:
Ok, i saw the replay in fastest and its true teal got fed gas in order to power mutas, Zerg is most prevalent and these players you presented are not the best of players and it was only about 2k Vespene ergo the result would have been just the same amount of mutas regardless.
ZERG cannot share larva so naturally the one with the most larvae (perhaps saved up with intent) asked his friend for gas so he could make them all into mutas.
There is no upkeep in this game, so your argument is slightly flawed that way around too, no heroes either and wc3 was very hero based ( see blademaster for referance). This seems to me that you dont want to adapt, win and have fun at the same time.
Rule number uno in a RTS: If you find something op, do it yourself and get both sides, your very biased.
well he's completely right that making 17 mutas all at once 12 minutes into the same is stupid as shit. (and that is EXACTLY) what happened
yes, he should have fed to, yes, this will also detract from the fun of 2v2.
|
On May 10 2010 08:44 bakedace wrote:
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
very much like the idea,
also, when player X gives player Y resources tax would increase, but when player Y gives resources back to player X tax should decrease back ....... also there should be 2 taxes : 1 for minerals, one for gas, to prevent resource swapping
|
On May 10 2010 09:14 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:12 Madkipz wrote:
Ok, i saw the replay in fastest and its true teal got fed gas in order to power mutas, Zerg is most prevalent and these players you presented are not the best of players and it was only about 2k Vespene ergo the result would have been just the same amount of mutas regardless.
ZERG cannot share larva so naturally the one with the most larvae (perhaps saved up with intent) asked his friend for gas so he could make them all into mutas.
There is no upkeep in this game, so your argument is slightly flawed that way around too, no heroes either and wc3 was very hero based ( see blademaster for referance). This seems to me that you dont want to adapt, win and have fun at the same time.
Rule number uno in a RTS: If you find something op, do it yourself and get both sides, your very biased.
well he's completely right that making 17 mutas all at once 12 minutes into the same is stupid as shit. (and that is EXACTLY) what happened yes, he should have fed to, yes, this will also detract from the fun of 2v2.
But your not getting the core issue. THE OP here has a past in wc3 and in sc2 minerals and vespene dont suffer diminishing returns from upkeep and thus his entire point is moot. Had the dude not been given the gas, his partner could simply have made an equal amount of mutas.
Op dosnt even grasp this fact and thus fails to argument his chase.
|
I think this adds another depth of strategy to team-games not detracts from it. There's no reason to remove it from the game. I think a better method would be to have a 'max trade able resources' such as 5000 maximum for the entire game, meaning at higher levels players will have to be very strategic about trading as they have a limit on how much can be sent, however at the same time lower-end players can use trading as needed as most lower-end games are shorter.
|
Why is feeding unfair? Both teams can do it. If you're losing to feeders, either find a way to scout and beat it, or do it yourself.
|
I think this well become especially problematic in SC2 because of how the damage system works. Most units are not a huge problem to combat in the numbers you see them in from any single player. But if you encounter 6 or more of banshees or voidrays it's pretty much gg even if you have a sizeable army because they deal so much damage that even if you just leave your base and try to kill the feeder (so that you dont loose your army), the rate a which the fed player can kill everything on the map is too high. Basically instead of there being a linear ramp in power there is an exponential ramp which makes fed armies like that far far better than any combination of 2 players' combined armies at the equivalent timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
