|
On May 10 2010 09:06 crate wrote:
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.
...
You could argue that it's less fun this way, but I don't think I'd agree with you right now.
This is exactly how I see it as a problem. So Team1 decides to make use of resource trading while Team2 doesn't. Team1's advantage is so severe, that this one action has literally decided the game in their favor.
So now we set a precedent that just in case the other team has decided to trade, you now must also have preplanned trading as part of your play, lest you get overrun by their more powerful tech.
It just detracts from the fun of it, but that's just opinion.
|
Well, StarCraft 2 is all about scouting. If you can see that they're teching unusually quickly there's that critical timing window where you can push in before they have much of an army and end it right there. Applying constant pressure for the entire game would also make them change their mind about trading resources as it would leave one player completely vulnerable to be taken out, then the game would just be 2v1. The other team CAN retaliate with their own resource swap, but there are other options besides that.
|
Reason trading was so strong on war3 is because one partner can sit on low food with max income while the other masses.
I haven't messed with trading much on sc2 so I don't really know about its effectiveness.
|
|
|
How can something be imbalanced or unfair if its available to all players? Nothings stopping you from doing the same or countering. You even said it yourself:
"Number five: Any idiot can trade resources."
Except your team?
|
Don't think he wants 2v2+ to be entirely reliant on this to be competitive.
|
As someone who played at high ranks on the wc3 ladder in team games. I can see why you're frustrated by the feed strategy. For newer teams it is very hard to beat. However, feeding is not that great of a strategy. It requires the fed player to do almost all of the work. You do different things like divert his attention to many places at once and also just go counter heavy against that one player. When someone is feeding the feeder has very few defense and relies off his partner to do all the damage and defend both players.
Feeding wasn't a top strategy in wc3 team games it was more like a strong amateur strategy. Although I remember being thrown off guard completely the first 10 times I played against it.
|
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.
No his partner couldn't have. He didn't even have lair and sure as hell didn't have a spire. They skipped all the disadvantages of double teching.
|
|
|
On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
No his partner couldn't have. He didn't even have lair and sure as hell didn't have a spire. They skipped all the disadvantages of double teching.
There is a disadvantage in double teching? Last time i checked it made your timings just as potent.
Picture that both teched to lair, picture that both these people teched to muta. They would still have fielded a larger mass of mutas, because of their ling heavy ground army and the op would still have lost.
And i didnt include that part of the replay in my argument. The statement about mutas was more to make a point being that since there is no upkeep in this game it dosnt matter.
|
On May 10 2010 09:17 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:14 faction123 wrote: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.
Wrong. If they didn't share gas, purple would have had to delay saturating his expo or ling production by investing in lair tech (probably losing in the process). Additionally, he would have had to spend another 200 gas on his own spire (+ the drone) and he would have needed more overlords for the mutas.
Second of all, how is the argument flawed by the existence of upkeep in WC3? I already suggested that a tax on trading be put in place (exactly what upkeep did). Sure, the guy being fed is receiving only 70% of the traded minerals eventually, but his two allies are still gathering 100% at no upkeep. Please, explain to me how this detracts from the argument in any way. Are you saying that WC3 had more measures in place against feeding?
No one is arguing that resource trading should be removed from the game. Noobs can keep all the crutches they want. My argument is that this one "strategy" is too strong with no risk and no effort and some sort of tax should be placed on it.
A couple posters want me to definitively prove that this is going to be bad. Hello, have you played warcraft 3 recently? Here is a RTS from Blizzard that has been around for years so you can go ahead and login and tell me what team ladder looks like. Only 1v1 is taken seriously there.
And to the guy that said that "feeding" is an inappropriate title because it's not immediately clear what is being discussed. What were you expecting? A discussion on what to make for dinner?
My argument is for the sake of the health of the 2v2 ladder. You can argue that feeding is a strategy like any other and that if that's what it takes to win or beat feeders, you should do it too. This is the equivalent of pissing in the pool and you're suggesting we all do it. What do you think will happen?
You're not going to change human nature. The average gamer is going to aim to cheese their win ratio as easily as possible. The average gamer has no consideration for the long term effects of their stupid playstyle. I've seen the results and I'd rather SC2 had a successful and fun team ladder than a dead ladder full of cheese or feeding or both like WC3.
|
People are forgetting here true there is no diminishing returns with higher food cap but it means one player can tech and the other one can just pump workers/supply. Meaning overall the players feeding will have a higher resource income than the other team who has to balance between Workers and army.
It also means the less skilled player can focus on macro while the one with more micro can dominate solo with units.
This also means if the team who are both fielding their own armys get pushed at, and one is slightly out of position or distracted one army can get rolled before his ally can respond and get in to a good position.
|
See your already very biased against resource trading in general. DO you even get the upkeep system at all? The mechanic that promoted feeding in wc3 in the first place because it put people with 100/100 food armies at a disadvantage. Feeding was a way to cope with having a large mass.
Its not some cheese. Its another level of strategy scout spire, counter approriately.YOur just biased and butthurt because of your previous wc3 experience with it, your not broadening your horisons or thinking properly. YOur just envisioning how it will turn out. It may take a year or so but people will counter it by double teching and doing it right as they always have.
|
I think a tax would solve the problem, It'll prevent excessive feeding and also add more depth about the game.
It's nothing like the upkeep system in WC3.
|
On May 10 2010 10:03 Vexx wrote:
A couple posters want me to definitively prove that this is going to be bad. Hello, have you played warcraft 3 recently? Here is a RTS from Blizzard that has been around for years so you can go ahead and login and tell me what team ladder looks like. Only 1v1 is taken seriously there.
I've never played competitive WC3 (or in fact multiplayer WC3 at all). I do know that the game is vastly different from SC2 and I'm not sure how you can be so sure that resource trading will work the same in SC2 and WC3.
And to the guy that said that "feeding" is an inappropriate title because it's not immediately clear what is being discussed. What were you expecting? A discussion on what to make for dinner?
The only context I'd heard it in before was in LoL/DotA ... so I was really wondering how this was going to be about your ally dying to the opponent.
|
On May 10 2010 10:07 KovuTalli wrote:
People are forgetting here true there is no diminishing returns with higher food cap but it means one player can tech and the other one can just pump workers/supply. Meaning overall the players feeding will have a higher resource income than the other team who has to balance between Workers and army.
It also means the less skilled player can focus on macro while the one with more micro can dominate solo with units.
This also means if the team who are both fielding their own armys get pushed at, and one is slightly out of position or distracted one army can get rolled before his ally can respond and get in to a good position.
HA, both players will have to saturate their own mains and supply goes equally for both and in the long run its no less effective than two players doing both.
The timings will be different sure, but in the end it evens itself out,
|
On May 10 2010 10:14 Ryuu314 wrote:
I think a tax would solve the problem, It'll prevent excessive feeding and also add more depth about the game.
It's nothing like the upkeep system in WC3.
Or it would remove depth from 2v2, a tax system this early in the game would potentially harm a playstyle before it begins and thats detrimental to everyone.
|
i think feeding is an extreme example of one of the many options available to you in the game. while straight feeding gas can end up with largly skewed armies to a higher tech, it is certainly not impossible to beat.
what beats 10 void-rays at the normal time you have (3 or 4.. comon.. lets be realistic.. even with 4 stargates at the time u have 1 or 2 u'll have 4 - 6 , not 10) anyways.. what beats that fast tech?
well.. if he went straight for 4 stargates, even with his massive amounts of resources from his allie, he's not going to have early zealots stalkers or sentries is he? and if he does, his allie isn't going to have that many marines does he? therefore you can just go yawn-rape them with a timing push because they won't have those voidrays yet...
this just goes to show that resource sharing is a factor that creates more variables that you have to adapt to fight against. it isnt a cheese and it isnt unfair in anyway. its simply a strategy that you have to face like the current 11-rax maurauder bunker push vs protoss
not impossible to beat and there are 2 or 3 different answers as protoss to deal with it. i am sure that there being a large number of team combinations (ZT, ZZ, PZ, PP, PT etc etc) there are even more ways to deal with this particular sort of feed strategy of rushing to air-tech.
feeding does not need to be regulated. if you keep losing to it, there is something you are missing, not the game imbalances. while feeding is more efficient (especially if you are both the same race and don't have to produce the same tech structures to get the same unit) it also has its disadvantages... you just have to seek out those disadvantages and take advantage of them.
|
While you have made a good read and arguement vexx its like putting a restriction on cheesy proxy rushes, which are quite common on the ladder as well. I think having less restrictions make way for more creative ways to play. Besides if it gets out of hand then blizz usually makes a patch - for instance the mass ancient of war building rush after the lord of the rings 2 movie..... While it may create havoc in certain games, its quite similar to cheese strats that dont get scouted early also.
In war3 after numerous games of playing abusive humans i.e. mass mortar with bloodmage invis by sorcs I have a solid counter build against these so called cheese strats as an orc player. ward sentries around my base for scouting purposes, some towers and good building placements. with my army consisting of chainwave, docs, raiders and some grunts. with heal scroll and speed scroll for battle.
I would say its better to scout early and be prepared for lame strats...
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:06 crate wrote:
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 think it follows from the fact that it shifts the importance of various players in the game, and thus reduces the pressure on others. The player with more resources is naturally going to make up a larger bulk of the army from a team trading resources, and his decisions are naturally going to have a greater impact on the ultimate outcome of the game than those of the player with less resources. At this point, it becomes subjective whether you think that a game that makes one player's decisions more important and another's less important is more skilled than one that values their decisions equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
