|
On July 04 2010 23:55 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Logical fail. Feeding is available to all 3 races, in other words all players. Racial imbalances are not.
However, it may be too strong, or it may not. But let's not turn immediately on shared control and resources because it's too dissimilar to BW or to 1v1. It opens up a wealth of new potential strategies and tactics. Perhaps these are unhealthy. But shouldn't we at least let it flourish for a little while to see what happens? Ultimately I think it's better if 2v2 plays entirely differently than 1v1. If there's enough balance to make competitions possible, then having less overlap between the two modes is great, imho.
Though it may not have been an instance of feeding, the G1 of Artosis+QXC vs Jinro/TLO on Metalopolis was perhaps the coolest game I've seen in the beta just in terms of the visceral emotions of watching lots and lots of things dying with crazy good particle effects. Having a decent 2v2 scene for fun showmatches like this is a great thing, I feel.
|
you should only be able to feed if you are revealed(no nexus/CC/hatch).
|
I think it's fine to remain in the game. I wouldn't mind increasing the time on it though.
|
I like the idea of taxing resource trading should it be deemed too powerful. It should definitely be a viable strategy, though not mandatory.
|
Feeding is going to be incorporated into all the best strategies down the road. Feeding is always optimal because two people investing in tech, tech structures, and production structures is inefficient whereas one person can invest in those structures and the other person can feed them, turning the cost of one player's production facilities, military tech, and tech structures entirely into military production.
|
I agree with the idea of diminishing returns.
Feeding isn't 'unfair', but it makes the game much less interesting from both a player and spectator point of view.
|
I think there should be a limit on how much you can trade, but I would strongly oppose any sort of tax on traded resources. You could limit the amount available for trade based on how long into the game, how much resources you have, how much resources you have mined, or some other way.
|
On May 10 2010 09:22 pyr0ma5ta wrote:
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.
his point is that if there's no way to beat a general strategy of "feeding" w/ a more standard approach that does not involve this, then it defeats the purpose for 2v2 players to implement any deviant strategy, which then limits the possibilities early game 2v2 itself.
a parallel to chess is in the early game, if it were discovered that the best opening for white is e4, and every black player only responded w/ Sicilian Defense, if it were discovered that that was the best response. It just limits the possibilities of the early game and makes for a stale, mechanical and predicted pattern of play.
btw, i'm not saying whether feeding is unfair or not...i'm just stating the problem if it turns out that the strategy proves to be a clear cut winner over more "conventional" play.
|
Ya, exactly. Feeding isnt unfair, it just forces the other team to feed, which limits the viable strategies and has the potential to make team play boring.
|
What makes feeding one person so powerful? I don't see how giving all the money to one player would make a big difference compared to just keeping the money and spending it yourself. In the replay provided, wouldn't it have been just as deadly if both of them made 7-8 mutas each intead of just light blue making 15 or however many for himself?
|
On July 05 2010 00:38 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 23:55 lololol wrote: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? Logical fail. Feeding is available to all 3 races, in other words all players. Racial imbalances are not. However, it may be too strong, or it may not. But let's not turn immediately on shared control and resources because it's too dissimilar to BW or to 1v1. It opens up a wealth of new potential strategies and tactics. Perhaps these are unhealthy. But shouldn't we at least let it flourish for a little while to see what happens? Ultimately I think it's better if 2v2 plays entirely differently than 1v1. If there's enough balance to make competitions possible, then having less overlap between the two modes is great, imho. Though it may not have been an instance of feeding, the G1 of Artosis+QXC vs Jinro/TLO on Metalopolis was perhaps the coolest game I've seen in the beta just in terms of the visceral emotions of watching lots and lots of things dying with crazy good particle effects. Having a decent 2v2 scene for fun showmatches like this is a great thing, I feel.
WTF? Is there some divine force stopping you from picking terran? This is the same as saying it's not even available to all terrans, since some terrans may not build marines. The logical fail is in your post.
As I implied just because something is available to everyone(or not) does not mean it's not an imbalance. Stating the opposite is devoid of any logic whatsoever.
Whether the specific mechanic is imbalanced is debatable, but will probably become pretty clear after release and some Korean 2v2s.
|
cutting out the 2nd liar and 2nd spire gives you 3 extra mutas. Instead of 15 they would have 18.
|
I really really dislike how you immediately dismiss scouting as a way to see it coming. Maps with shared bases, its so ridiculously easy to see it coming its ridiculous. My 2v2 partner and I were always rank 1 in our division of platinum (didn't play as much when it switched to diamond) and those "unstoppable pushes" you speak of aren't nearly as game breaking as you make them out to me.
For the example where you mention zerg getting fed. We run terran/protoss, so WHEN we scout the spire, I get phoenixes and micro my heart out and we immediately win the game because one player has nothing. This game isn't Warcraft 3, the counters are way stronger.
In the example of protoss being fed: Again, shared bases are the only place this is remotely viable and I'll explain after this. In the event of stargates and void rays, we just build defense structures (as they are super strong in this game) and prepare accordingly (vikings/blink stalkers/whatever). The 10 gate push is a lot scarier actually, but since we play so aggressively, we usually match their numbers with huge amounts of marauders and zealot/sentry.
Now the reason why I say it's not viable on non-shared bases is because of the general atmosphere of 2v2s. In my experiences, 2v2 games are incredibly aggressive and there are always early pushes (like seriously around the 25-30 food mark). Against a competent scouting opponent, the feeding team will have a very hard time winning the game if after the 5 minute mark, one player is only making marines or zealots. I can tell you from experience, they'd just get steam-rolled.
imo, feeding is fine at the moment
|
constant aggressive pressure will reduce feeding, and can lead to a win...
|
I think there should be an option to disable feeding and shared resources for custom games (tournaments). There should be some kind of tax system instead of removing it completely from the ladder as I like players to be able to help their teammate rebuild their main but not commit a whole game to feeding.
|
I think feeding is okay. You're reducing your own economy to benefit your partner's. The weakness is that you'll be the one in trouble.
What they really should do is allow how much minerals or gas is transferred at a time so spectators can know what's happening.
|
Feeding was strong in Warcraft III because it allowed one player to stay in no upkeep without an overall loss in units. That's not the case here.
It may be the case that the system is flawed but I don't think it should be changed without giving it a chance.
|
So I played a few 2v2 games where my team was feeding on shared base maps.
We won every game.
We're actually not sure what to do when the other team is feeding.
What's a good counter to feeding?
|
Feeding works wonders in Nexus Wars, too, as it happens.
|
On May 10 2010 10:07 KovuTalli wrote:
It also means the less skilled player can focus on macro while the one with more micro can dominate solo with units.
.
This can be done without the use of resource trading. It's called giving control of units to your ally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
