|
I have mixed feelings with this. I have played SC2/WC3, and I have seen the effects of feeding. Needless to say, the results can be pretty devastating--I have personally been at both ends of this: I have done tri-panda huntress rushes, and I have died horribly to a wave of gargoyles out of nowhere. But while there will always be teams that use resource trading to "cheese" their opponents, I truly do not believe that many of the better teams (n.b. the term "better" is used loosely) will focus on resource trading as their sole strategy. It may be fun the first half dozen times, but eventually it will get boring, and they will go back to playing the game as is...and then perhaps feeding again.
My point is, while feeding resources will give one side a great advantage not normally attainable, I do not believe that this will be so predominant on the ladder such that the fun of 2v2 games (or 3v3, or what-have-you) will be completely ruined. So to the OP:
1) I agree with you that resource trading, as it is right now in SC2, is too easy to perform, and confers an advantage that is normally not attainable, and has no drawbacks
2) I also agree that Blizzard could test and consider some sort of tax system
3) I do not agree that in the long run, the integrity and "fun factor" of the ladder will be ruined
All of the above points have been taken from several years of WC3 experience (Azeroth), as well as many 2v2 games since early March.
|
Solution :
A little Tax (10%) (Im against making a tax growing up... its the 1st trade in most game that is the big problem... no the others)
and... when a player give cash or gas to the other... SAY IT to the other team... like that they know there is something fishy if they see "1200 gas from X to Y"
|
Here are 4 recent games (one is patch 10) of simply being fed 100-200 gas (maybe some minerals) from my allie. I am IWinToLose and my allies, Gibbly and Amadeus, are my real life friends. A 10% tax would only slow down this strategy by a couple seconds. We have done it probably 15+ times and have only lost twice with it. One loss was when the proxy was found and the 2nd loss was when the Zerg went straight to muta tech with gas feed and I was about 60 seconds late due to me messing up the build order.
Amadeus and I are currently 1500 platinum in 2v2 (rising every day). Our actual "skill" level with this strategy is probably 1800+ due to how effective it is (however we both play random and just recently started doing this strategy. We only do this when I am Protoss). Individually, I am a 1600-1700 platinum 2v2'er with randoms.
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4508
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4509
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4510
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4511
This strategy is a hard counter to the early/mid-game timing push as well as most FE builds (which is what 90% of non-cheese strategies are in 2v2). The strategy is a proxy Void Ray rush while the Void Rayer is fed a bit (not much) of resources. My timing for this build isn't precise because we adjust our game to any cheese my early scout may detect and I am just an average player.
The strength of this build is the metagame. As soon as my base is unscoutable (block off/stalker), they are left completely in the dark. They have essentially no time frame where they can stop my production of void rays minus killing the Stargates. You'll notice in one of the replays, they take out my main with a bunker rush when I just start the voidrays and that barely slowed down the attack due to feeding. As soon as they see the Void Rays, they are tempted to attack the Void Rayer, however doing this will lose them the game.
The build for the Protoss Void Rusher is as follows:
1 Gateway
Double gas (not necessary, if they steal your gas, your allie gets double gas and feeds you 33% more than normal)
Cybernetics Core
Proxy Pylon
2 Proxy Stargates at Proxy Pylon
Get 4 Void Rays and attack. Pump out more while attacking.
Leave Base VULNERABLE. It is crucial for the enemy to waste time killing your base and not your allie.
The build for the allie is as follows (best done as T/P):
Get double gas
Get mineral heavy defense (bunker, marines, marauders, cannons, zeals, stalkers, etc)
Feed gas, maybe a small amount of minerals to Void Ray Rusher
Survive
Hard Counters:
Find the Proxy
Kill the proxy before the Void Rays are out
Fast muta/hydra tech preferably with gas feed
10 pool, proxy rax reaper, cheese, etc (hence my early scout)
Mass Stalkers at base (if they are out of position, you'll lose your nexus) and Blink
Mass Marines at base
Fast Vikings at base
Steamroll through the Allie's base with a large enough anti-air force to kill the Void Rays
I am certain that there are tons of ways to exploit this. My friends and I are simply exploiting this with Void Rays because they come out extremely quickly due to how easy it is to get a cybernetics core and 2 Stargates along with Chrono Boost.
Is it broken? Watch the replays and you tell me  . However, both teams can do it. Does it lead to more hard counters? Certainly. I think it's an interesting dynamic from 1v1. Whether it should stay in the game isn't too important to me since I just play to enjoy the game and will adjust regardless of the situation.
|
this can only be broken if you, although scouted, cannot do anything about it unless you pull off miracle microes. like in tvp before they made concussive shells an upgrade.
or it made the strategy A MUST and hence taking all the variations out of the matchups.
i actually like the fact that i can trade ressources to my ally if he is in need of some gas/minerals or has spare stuff i might take advantage of.
maybe if you have scissors and get crushed by rock every single time you should stop whining about how imba rock is but use paper instead?
i could like the idea of putting up a tax cause it only matters if you share larger amounts of stuff and does not effect emergency trades to a noteworthy degree. but i doubt it is necessary...
i call this a cheese and unless scouted it should have a good chance of succeeding. (strictly refering to huge trade offs at key timings) if it has a bad chance of winning if scouted in time i would even call it balanced. (its beta, remember?)
and trying scissors even harder if you scouted rock might not be as successful as you hope it to be :D
|
if 2v2 is where blizzard are suggesting people will learn to play the game, this is forcing them to learn a different game to 1v1s.
i'm playing 2v2s as random to learn some terran and protoss play, and its helping.. i don't want to be forced to play 2v2 specific strategies that won't help 1v1 play.
|
2v2 is a totally different game to 1v1...
it's not 1+1 v 1+1
if you're relying on the timing from 1v1 then you're not playing it right.
i'm undecided whether feeding is a good or bad idea, but while it's in the game you have to adapt to it.
|
doesn't matter anyways.
2n2 does not require any skill at all right now. partly because of the maps...
so screw feeding, 2n2 sucks and is hardcore skillless anyways
|
Can't say I can argue this. I played a custom 2v2 with my friend. He sat on one base for a while, I had 2... then I scouted and noticed the other team was on 2 base/3 base and had reaper'd my friend.
Rough.
Barely surviving some pushing, I finally take my third while my friend gets pushed into oblivion. He is left with 5 vikings. Fun times.
Now, he does the friend thing, flexs his macro, and gifts me 3.5k/2k... I immediately c-boost some colossi, drop 7 more gateways, and macro a fucking storm.
Back down to 0 resources in minutes, I take the last base in the game, go 3/3 stalker colossi immortal voidray and procede to crush the other team.
With regulated mineral trading, we had that game lost.... but because the opponents didn't press their edge quickly, and my friend died and wasn't the best macro'er (nor am i, but meh) we won via ragequit.
:D
|
On May 10 2010 22:34 sCuMBaG wrote:
doesn't matter anyways.
2n2 does not require any skill at all right now. partly because of the maps...
so screw feeding, 2n2 sucks and is hardcore skillless anyways
See, that's the attitude we want to avoid. 2v2 shouldn't be considered a no-skill zone and removing gimmicks like feeding is a step in the right direction. 1v1 is the true test. We know. But 2v2, to me, is fun and much more dynamic and I'd like the 2v2 ladder to succeed too. Maybe even 2v2 tournaments!
Added a poll to the original post.
|
If feeding is a better strategy, then use it. The aim of the game is to find the best strategy in order to win. No more, no less.
I enjoy the fact that 2v2 games are NOT like two 1v1 games on the same map. Strategies are differents, and that's the whole purpose of 2v2.
|
what about a "public" announcement that stuff was traded - so the opposing party knows which one is pumping the mass mutas before they arrive?
|
On May 11 2010 02:41 NewbiZ wrote:
If feeding is a better strategy, then use it. The aim of the game is to find the best strategy in order to win. No more, no less.
I enjoy the fact that 2v2 games are NOT like two 1v1 games on the same map. Strategies are differents, and that's the whole purpose of 2v2.
That's a very short sighted approach to the discussion because yes, you can leave it as is and "all that matters is winning," but when no one is playing team ladder anymore and you need to wait 15+minutes for a game only to face feeding again, it's self defeating. There is more to this discussion than just how fair/viable it is in the scope of one game. You need to consider the greater effects on the people and their will to play.
This is a game and the most important factor is fun. Let's not forget it.
On May 11 2010 02:44 roemy wrote:
what about a "public" announcement that stuff was traded - so the opposing party knows which one is pumping the mass mutas before they arrive?
I don't really want the enemy to know that I am giving my buddy 300 so he can rebuild the base he just lost. So what's the solution?
A) the announcement only happens if you trade more than X resources at a time (pointless because people will just make multiple small transactions).
B) The announcement happens at certain landmarks ("500 gas has been traded")
Not really a fan.
|
Not going to play anything else than 1v1 if the resorce feeding is as it is ...
terrible terrible feeding frenzy
|
"when no one is playing team ladder anymore and you need to wait 15+minutes for a game only to face feeding again, it's self defeating."
You will still need to demonstrate that feeding is the key factor of people not keen on playing 2v2...
2v2 may be quite empty, but there are always people in the lobby games. I just think that people are more likely to play 2v2 with a stranger when games are not ranked.
I actually like the idea of feeding. You won't end up with anything viable by adding tons of rules to restrict resource exchange in-game.
What may work:
Make resource trading a "map preference" that you can vote for/against.
|
Calgary25963 Posts
I think it's fine to be honest. You haven't convinced me. Your exaggeration of "With feeding, you can have 6-8 cloaked banshees in your base by the time there are usually only 1 or 2." doesn't help your cause.
|
What I found most interesting about that replay was that Vex was so childish and called ReaZon a Child right before leaving.
Anyhow, I pretty much am always hesitant to get something in a game changed unless I'm really sure. Team games arent very serious anyways.
|
as far as i'm concerned the only reason there's mineral transfers in the game is because it was really annoying in brood war to lose a nexus and not have 400 minerals, or lose all your probes and not have 50 but still have a main. And thus your ally could help you get back on your feet, instead of basically having to GG right there since he'd lost his ally.
WC3 had an in-place tax with the upkeep system so while you were welcome to feed one player lots of crap, you wouldn't be utilizing one players supply very much, while the other was at medium to high upkeep. End result is a smaller but more high-tech overall army. Also there are way more hard counters in WC3 than SC. Teching to bears or chims or frosties without some sort of anti-magic and the other team just gets polymorph or something.
Resource trading messes up all sorts of timings and fucks with whatever balance they have. If I give all my gas to player B and he makes 20 mutas as soon as his spire's up off of one base?
That just ruins the whole scouting aspect of the game. Since there are way too many possibilities to account for when you throw in all the resources your ally can give you.
And yes it can theoretically be countered by doing it yourself, which is a boring system. I want to see 2v2 matches where the players work together with their strategies, not one player econ-whoring to the other while he pumps marines or something.
Also playing random ladder matches would suck, since currently random teams are playing in the bracket against Arranged Teams. I'm not sure if they're planning to continue with that. But it's already difficult enough to play against a team with a plan when you're 2 strangers.
Also I've never understood the mentality of "who cares if its lame its balanced because you can do it yourself." If it makes the game suck, how is that good? Also if everyone HAS to do it to compete, how is that good? It just ruins variation and makes matches more cookie-cutter.
Anyway my solution..... just only allow them to send minerals for free. Put a tax on gas or don't allow it to be x-ferred at all. Since the units you're really worried about them massing require gas. This also doesn't inhibit them from helping their buddy put up a nexus or building probes, ever.
i'd rather just see like... you can send 400 mins or 200 gas every 5 minutes.
|
Meh more I think about it, if you tied in shared resources into your gameplan, the mode would become more dynamic.
My teammate double gases early, so I can FE early, and he can gift my gas to help me expo. I play defense for us, so we can do 1 expo, then another, safely.
It doesn't need to be 'o shit the Z FE'd so his T teamate could marauder push like an asshole'
Hell if anything, help your teammate get speed scouting measures (heres shit for quick robo (obs) or heres gas for quick reaper, or heres gas for quick lair (ol speed), or heres minerals for a second OC, etc etc)
Might have some issues with some comps, but seems like intelligent design could make for interesting games.
Cuz if I feed pure money into my teammates pure army, he has time before his shit is in full production. hit the army guy and hold him back, or hit the feeder and break the strat early.
|
I can't help but thinking you're exaggerating the issue greatly. One player can make 5 mutas, but with feeding he can get 17? If both players went muta they would have 10 mutas total, and having one guy not making lair/spire does not make up the difference to get 7 more mutas on top of that. I don't remember how much a spire costs but at most, the feeding team will have 2-3 more mutas than if they both went mutas on their own, assuming nobody got harassed/lost their base. If you did manage to kill one guy's spire/lair, then why shouldn't he give his resources to his partner? You seem to be under the mindset that you should be able to cruise to victory once you kill one guy's tech/production. In 1v1 you wouldn't complain that you killed someone's hidden expo and he still gets to use the minerals he got from there in his main base would you?
|
Since you decided to flame me via pm for not contributing anything with my sarcasm (which, by the way, is a legitimate rhetorical device. Sort of like how feeding is a legitimate strategy), I'll just say:
Prove that feeding ruins the game.
I, for one, think it adds a new aspect to the game. It encourages well-thought team strategy, and it comes at a very large risk at that (hello, double 6-pool)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
