EPT[D] Feeding. - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sabu113
United States11111 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 30 2010 05:05 Paramore wrote: Just watched TLO + Jinro vs QXC Artosis, great feed strat :D!!!! I'm all for pro-feed strategies because they are beatable if you are good enough at what you do. Me and Travin have played dozens of 2v2s with this strat, and I really think our only losses were to double gate zealot rushes when we tried to do it on that desert map with the gigantic choke ;p I mean, it's not unbeatable but it's a bit stupidly strong. Same story holds mostly true for me + TLO doing it, just that I've played the build more times with Travin :p I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem | ||
|
Lemure
189 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On June 30 2010 11:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem We used to wall our Zerg opponent in with 3-5 zealots all the time in BW 2v2. It's only natural that controlling an opponent's choke point will give you the advantage. | ||
|
yomi
United States773 Posts
| ||
|
kAra
Germany1467 Posts
| ||
|
Onioncookie
Germany624 Posts
But right now its fair i think cuz lets say 1 player is feeding the other it means they will have less costs cuz they dont have to build prod. buildings .... But it means they will mostly have only 1 tech ! So the other team who didnt feed will have 2 different techs but little less smaller army due to prod. buildings ... Am i rights? Looks pretty fair to me | ||
|
Crosswind
United States279 Posts
This seems sort of reasonably balanced, no? Feeding requires good teamwork and a good sense of timing. It doesn't work on all maps, or against all strategies. Is it that broken? | ||
|
shawabawa
United Kingdom417 Posts
On June 30 2010 18:11 kAra wrote: > make a hq building (nexus/cc/hatch) mandatory for trading, would be a good start for a change what? That would mean you can't get your ally back in if his main gets assassinated, but wouldn't stop feeding at all... | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
On June 30 2010 11:13 FrozenArbiter wrote: Me and Travin have played dozens of 2v2s with this strat, and I really think our only losses were to double gate zealot rushes when we tried to do it on that desert map with the gigantic choke ;p I mean, it's not unbeatable but it's a bit stupidly strong. Same story holds mostly true for me + TLO doing it, just that I've played the build more times with Travin :p I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem don't you get completely handled by reapers doing that build? i know in that game you were playing against pz and thats why you did it so i dont know if you're talking about matchup specifics, but judging from your post here you sound like you're doing it vs all races and getting away with it | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 30 2010 22:16 Crosswind wrote: Jinro - seemed to me like, in the TLO v. QXC/Artosis games, the feeding strategy lost pretty cleanly when you guys weren't able to do a joint wall-off. It won cleanly once (when you were able to double-wall off and they weren't expecting it) and won in a bit closer game the second time, when they expended resources trying to get through your wall-off and couldn't. This seems sort of reasonably balanced, no? Feeding requires good teamwork and a good sense of timing. It doesn't work on all maps, or against all strategies. Is it that broken? Uhhh we only did it on the shared bases maps, we didn't do any feeding in the other games  On June 30 2010 22:52 Tropics wrote: don't you get completely handled by reapers doing that build? i know in that game you were playing against pz and thats why you did it so i dont know if you're talking about matchup specifics, but judging from your post here you sound like you're doing it vs all races and getting away with it Maybe vs double reapers... You still make marines and P techs quickly so vs single reaper, it's fine. | ||
|
freestalker
469 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:14 faction123 wrote: 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. Do we ban 6 pools too? because 3x 6 pool in 3v3 is strong as hell.. and some people do it over and over again and it's no fun at all. | ||
|
groms
Canada1017 Posts
Honestly though this kind of stuff(resource trading) is what makes 2v2 different than 1v1 and I think that's a good thing. I personally love watching 1v1 and I don't think 2v2 will ever rival it in any way but having some variety is always a good thing. Also since both teams can easily resource share I see no reason why it should be banned. In wc3 you would have teams giving an ally gold right away to boost his econ but in this at least u can't feed within the first few mins.(not sure how long it is) tl;dr its fine as is imo | ||
|
Maji
Australia82 Posts
Another good reason for the resource trading in wc3 was if allies droped you had to play 2 teams but it better to play his team and feed resource more sucessful offense that way at least sc2 may allow such recovery from disconnects as well. | ||
|
TDC
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
I am not saying it should be removed, but a flat tax like 10-20% of the resources transferred lost seems like a fair nerf. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On July 04 2010 23:16 TDC wrote: i don't think it's such a big deal since the other team can easily do the same If marines were stupidly overpowered it wouldn't be a big deal, because you can also pick terran and mass marines, right? | ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On July 04 2010 23:32 Ghad wrote: TLO and FrozenArbiter showed exactly why feeding is massively flawed in its present state as far as I am concerned. I am not saying it should be removed, but a flat tax like 10-20% of the resources transferred lost seems like a fair nerf. On July 04 2010 18:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: Uhhh we only did it on the shared bases maps, we didn't do any feeding in the other games If one person can wall of both players if he wants to with little to no wall in support from his opponent you should expect feeding. That's what I liked about the 2v2 map pool there were shared bases maps and there were nonshared bases maps. Now I do like the nonshared base ones more Edit:switched quotes Edit: I voted for a tax not because feeding is broken (as it is not both teams can do it for crying outloud) but because I think it makes it interesting. And as arbiter mentioned they only fed on shared bases this is not to say there aren't strategies for feeding on non shared. For example when me and my friend do a 2v2 we have our strategy and starting unit and transition all figured out during the loading screen and as we scout we may or may not move away from this plan. Say I am going to go marine opening transition to hellions. Do I need my gas? no. Say he is going ling to heavy muta. does he need lots of gas? yes then we see our opponents transition into void rays and mutas/corruptors. I'm not going to give my ally as much gas because I will need to tranisition and get vikings. The best way to stop feeding is to force both of your opponents into needing their vespene gas as this will be the primarily traded resource | ||
| ||
