|
Feeding lowers the skill ceiling by providing a cushion for worse players. I'm not talking about premeditated strategies. I'm talking about situations where one players resources begin to accumulate due to:
1. Poor macro.
2. Production facilities destroyed persistently.
3. Supply destroyed persistently.
Now these problems become obsolete for worse players because they can just send their excess resources to their ally. People who can't spend their money need to be punished for it. Team play should not be a gimmick, it offers something that 1v1 cannot offer and that is team strategy. I do not want this to be ruined due to a lowered skill ceiling.
Edit: I agree that the mechanic should be kept so you can give your ally 400 minerals for a new nexus if they cannot afford one to start over. That's why I'm in favor of a 15-20% flat tax for resource trading.
|
So, pro strat I just though up. 2v2 team comprised of a Terran and Protoss. Terran masses up a crap ton of SCV's, and gets a Barracks on 10 for fast Orbital Command. Build Supply Depot afterward, no wall off done or anythings. T player starts spamming MUEL's and SCV production straight up for a while along with MUEL spam. He continues to feed money constantly to P, who when the T's money starts rolling in will do an early 9 gate Zealot push.
Plausible?
|
thatd still be ok since it's basically still the units of 2 guys just in one army.
this is different when it comes to tech. instead of having to lair up and throw in their own spire, they can shove the gas over to the ally who does and pump zerglings/marines/zealots himself.
so instead of the 6 mutas he'd normally pump out once the spire is done, he can add the 9 for his ally's gas.
|
On May 11 2010 05:09 Fruscainte wrote:
So, pro strat I just though up. 2v2 team comprised of a Terran and Protoss. Terran masses up a crap ton of SCV's, and gets a Barracks on 10 for fast Orbital Command. Build Supply Depot afterward, no wall off done or anythings. T player starts spamming MUEL's and SCV production straight up for a while along with MUEL spam. He continues to feed money constantly to P, who when the T's money starts rolling in will do an early 9 gate Zealot push.
Plausible?
Hmm, I don't think that would work to well. Most 2v2 maps currently are copies of Twilight Fortresss. (What is Blizzard thinking?) But yeah, Zealots get hard countered by most things, it would only work if the push came extremely early but you can't send in resources that fast. It would certainly freak people out but I don't think would work as a consistent strat.
The real problem is when Zerg get's feeded cash for Mutalisks. Even if the Mutalisks don't end the game, the ally will double expand and the Zerg once while pumping Mass Mutas / adding even more Hatcheries for extra larva. While the opponents will have a hard time moving out.
Personally I don't think money transfer should be in the game. It's cool that you can give cash to rebuild but yeah... Like people said, making not just 2v2, but 3v3 and 4v4 into transfer money fests isn't that much fun.
Also a big issue to this are the maps. Why the hell can't Blizzard stop making these horrible maps? Twilight Fortress was cool and acceptable, mainly because it was different from the rest. Now we have like 2 more of similiar maps and 1 other map where allys spawn close to each other. There is just 1 map that's worth of playing in 2v2 map pool currently.
The maps currently with long rush distance, shared naturals and shared chokes etc all just encourage the use of these feeding strats.
Blizzard needs to understand that NORMAL 1v1 maps like, Lost Temple, Kulas Ravine, Metalopolis etc are perfectly fine for 2v2's too. (They suck too but their better then those shared naturals map.) Yes yes, shared natural maps are probably more noob friendly and easier for noobs, but can't there be atleast some more competitive maps that actually have BOTH sides rushing / pressuring instead of just sitting in their choke expanding and making mass armies?
Metalopolis for example functioned way better as a 2v2 map then a 1v1 map imo.
Sorry for the small rant. I love 1v1, I love teamplay, meaning I love 2v2's, 3v3's and 4v4's especially when playing with friends. And it frustrates me that they butcher 2v2's with bad maps and bad calls upon game mechanics.
|
Congratulations, OP. You just introduced this strat to a few hundred more newbs so you will see it even more now. Oh irony.
|
On May 11 2010 05:09 Fruscainte wrote:
So, pro strat I just though up. 2v2 team comprised of a Terran and Protoss. Terran masses up a crap ton of SCV's, and gets a Barracks on 10 for fast Orbital Command. Build Supply Depot afterward, no wall off done or anythings. T player starts spamming MUEL's and SCV production straight up for a while along with MUEL spam. He continues to feed money constantly to P, who when the T's money starts rolling in will do an early 9 gate Zealot push.
Plausible?
Busted.
You can't trade resources for the first like 5 minutes of the game.
|
Feeding is just a way to get the most out of your team's resources. What I have seen is why it's more of an issue than WCIII. What I haven't seen is why it is an issue. Feeding is just making the most of your TEAM'S production, since 2v2 is a TEAM game. It's kinda like attacking with two armies (one from each player) at once. 2v2 is not 1v1v1v1, where you can't attack one player.
|
2v2 is meant to be a team game. You're removing the team aspect if all one player does is mine and the other one do all the work.
I see absolutely no reason to have resource trading in this game. Why does people want it? Is it fun to give resources to your ally all day?
Does people seriously think resource trading contributes anything to 2v2's? Pathetic.
|
I agree with the idea to put a "tax" on resource trading, would still allow it to retain usefulness but require a bit more thought than just randomly feeding your allie. With free resource trading.. well yeah I just don't see any way that could help the game more than it hurts it; at best feeding will be similar to wc3 and make for boring games, at worst it will be a requirement as those who don't feed will lose to those who do. Ideally you would want something where people trade resources occasionally allowing for some interesting 2v2s, but not so much that it ends up being forced or incredibly common; thus why I think a tax (or even diminishing returns as suggested on the first page) would be good here.
|
On May 11 2010 06:35 Cheezy wrote:
2v2 is meant to be a team game. You're removing the team aspect if all one player does is mine and the other one do all the work.
I see absolutely no reason to have resource trading in this game. Why does people want it? Is it fun to give resources to your ally all day?
Does people seriously think resource trading contributes anything to 2v2's? Pathetic.
But that's inherently teamwork. DUH >.>
Why is essentially playing as two entirely different entities better than the teamwork involved with resource trading? The extent to which "classic" 2v2 teamwork goes is "Oh, he's in trouble, I'll send the units I've been macroing by myself with little-to-no team collaboration over there to help him"
Sure, unit combinations with teams is great, but is "You mass X unit, I mass Y, we'll make a push in 20 minutes" REALLY much better than pooling all resources?
I'd much rather prefer the pooling of resources and dividing said resources to what needs it most. As of now, you may only see "Give all resources to X player, rush to Y unit," but I have no doubt that "Give me your gas so I can build X gas-intensive unit, I'll give you minerals so you can build Y complementary mineral-intesive unit" will happen sooner or later (which can't happen with the all-in outlined in the thread)
|
That is true, but it also contributes to ridiculous timings where you have an absurd number of one unit, and it also promotes the mentioned "feeding".
Furthermore, resource trading is hard to notice, and when you notice it, it might already be too late.
To address these two problems, I would add a tax as mentioned before, and add a notify that tells you when the enemy team uses resource trading, and how much.
I do think resource trading adds some depth to 2v2's, but not when it's just a "mass X unit while I give you all my gas/everything"
I will be against resource trading forever unless it is fixed in some way.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2010 06:44 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 06:35 Cheezy wrote:
2v2 is meant to be a team game. You're removing the team aspect if all one player does is mine and the other one do all the work.
I see absolutely no reason to have resource trading in this game. Why does people want it? Is it fun to give resources to your ally all day?
Does people seriously think resource trading contributes anything to 2v2's? Pathetic. But that's inherently teamwork. DUH >.> Why is essentially playing as two entirely different entities better than the teamwork involved with resource trading? The extent to which "classic" 2v2 teamwork goes is "Oh, he's in trouble, I'll send the units I've been macroing by myself with little-to-no team collaboration over there to help him" Sure, unit combinations with teams is great, but is "You mass X unit, I mass Y, we'll make a push in 20 minutes" REALLY much better than pooling all resources? I'd much rather prefer the pooling of resources and dividing said resources to what needs it most. As of now, you may only see "Give all resources to X player, rush to Y unit," but I have no doubt that "Give me your gas so I can build X gas-intensive unit, I'll give you minerals so you can build Y complementary mineral-intesive unit" will happen sooner or later (which can't happen with the all-in outlined in the thread)
I was just typing out pretty much exactly what you said. /agree
|
On May 11 2010 06:49 Cheezy wrote:
That is true, but it also contributes to ridiculous timings where you have an absurd number of one unit, and it also promotes the mentioned "feeding".
Furthermore, resource trading is hard to notice, and when you notice it, it might already be too late.
To address these two problems, I would add a tax as mentioned before, and add a notify that tells you when the enemy team uses resource trading, and how much.
I do think resource trading adds some depth to 2v2's, but not when it's just a "mass X unit while I give you all my gas/everything"
I will be against resource trading forever unless it is fixed in some way.
So, now you have one person with 10 Void Rays instead of two with 5 each? Doesn't seem much better.
|
On May 11 2010 06:57 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 06:49 Cheezy wrote:
That is true, but it also contributes to ridiculous timings where you have an absurd number of one unit, and it also promotes the mentioned "feeding".
Furthermore, resource trading is hard to notice, and when you notice it, it might already be too late.
To address these two problems, I would add a tax as mentioned before, and add a notify that tells you when the enemy team uses resource trading, and how much.
I do think resource trading adds some depth to 2v2's, but not when it's just a "mass X unit while I give you all my gas/everything"
I will be against resource trading forever unless it is fixed in some way. So, now you have one person with 10 Void Rays instead of two with 5 each? Doesn't seem much better.
As covered throughout the thread, it does not work that way. That's what bothers me with most of the people saying feeding is fine. It doesn't seem like you're making an effort to understand how it works or why so many of us are arguing that it can get really bad.
If you want to focus on any one thing, and this cannot be argued, you can have higher tech units sooner and in much larger numbers by feeding one player that techs than by not feeding. My specific examples are mutas, banshees and void rays. It seems the argument is whether or not that is game breaking or if it can be defended against.
I don't know why people are trying to make it sound like feeding is anything like 6pool or proxy reaper or proxy cannons. Those cheeses have a cost and can be scouted. Feeding has no cost. It only has benefits. Scouting feeding is really debatable especially when the zerg is being fed from one second to the next or a terran/toss builds their starports out of their base.
|
Also keep in mind Void Rays have an rather small tech-cost compared to standart protoss builds. Thats however not true about mutalisks or banshees. Saving lair-tech and spire for one player is huge in the early midgame and the mutalisk-guy can save even more ressources by skipping zergling-speed for example.
Its very hard to defend against for sure, but Im not yet sure if its a problem. 2v2 doesnt really feel as serious to me as 1v1 matches anyways. Its more like big battles, cool effekt and all that sort of stuff.
Now IF blizzard wanted it to be threatened seriously they'd be probably better off doing something about that issue.
|
On May 11 2010 06:57 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 06:49 Cheezy wrote:
That is true, but it also contributes to ridiculous timings where you have an absurd number of one unit, and it also promotes the mentioned "feeding".
Furthermore, resource trading is hard to notice, and when you notice it, it might already be too late.
To address these two problems, I would add a tax as mentioned before, and add a notify that tells you when the enemy team uses resource trading, and how much.
I do think resource trading adds some depth to 2v2's, but not when it's just a "mass X unit while I give you all my gas/everything"
I will be against resource trading forever unless it is fixed in some way. So, now you have one person with 10 Void Rays instead of two with 5 each? Doesn't seem much better.
Such a generic example, hardly worth any merit in an actual game. So let's say you are against two toss players, both planning on rushing 5 void rays each. You decide for a timing attack on one before the stargate is up and running. Now for the sake of an example, you destroy his stargate and his cybernetics core before his ally comes and saves him and the attack is defended against. In a world without resource sharing, you have deterred their plans by about 50% give or take. The toss player who lost his tech is now left with an accumulation of resources that he can not spend like he had planned to. Due to resource sharing the toss team can now compensate for this loss of tech. Second toss player uses the given resources to make up for the fact that his ally is in a recovery period and unable to spend his resources as planned.
A player who is unable to spend his resources, either at all, or not how he planned to, should be punished for it.
|
On May 11 2010 07:28 kidcrash wrote:
Such a generic example, hardly worth any merit in an actual game. So let's say you are against two toss players, both planning on rushing 5 void rays each. You decide for a timing attack on one before the stargate is up and running. Now for the sake of an example, you destroy his stargate and his cybernetics core before his ally comes and saves him and the attack is defended against. In a world without resource sharing, you have deterred their plans by about 50% give or take. The toss player who lost his tech is now left with an accumulation of resources that he can not spend like he had planned to. Due to resource sharing the toss team can now compensate for this loss of tech. Second toss player uses the given resources to make up for the fact that his ally is in a recovery period and unable to spend his resources as planned.
A player who is unable to spend his resources, either at all, or not how he planned to, should be punished for it.
But a person does have a way to spend those resources: giving them to their teammate. You know, because it's a team?
It's kinda like knocking out an expo in a 1v1: they still have the resources gathered from it and can use them. Resource sharing just allows the team to use them, just like one person might use them in a 1v1.
What I'm saying is, is that resource sharing allows team play and helping your teammate, just as an expansion can help the player in a 1v1.
The reduced need for tech with sharing is the same as each expo in a 1v1 not needing it's own rax just to help out the player.
|
Seems to me that there is definitely an opportunity cost to Feeding, which includes the inability to use the tech tree for the player who is feeding the resources. Also, crippling EITHER player will crush all feeding efforts, unlike in a "standard" 2v2, where crippling either player will always end up with both a tech and army competent player still in-game.
Also, if you can't scout feeding, I don't know what you've been doing. Do you not notice the lack of any production buildings?
Also, there is definitely punishment in not being able to spend resources as planned: You've destroyed their tech. That's ~300 Minerals and Gas wasting on the tech buildings that ended up being useless. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's the equivalent of losing 2 unsaturated expansions (3 for Zerg).
Sure, you can just donate your money to your partner, but what happens when the opposing team takes them out, too? They will obviously have no production buildings (or, at least, not enough to defend), and have no way of using the resources their partner just sends them.
|
On May 11 2010 07:46 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 07:28 kidcrash wrote:
Such a generic example, hardly worth any merit in an actual game. So let's say you are against two toss players, both planning on rushing 5 void rays each. You decide for a timing attack on one before the stargate is up and running. Now for the sake of an example, you destroy his stargate and his cybernetics core before his ally comes and saves him and the attack is defended against. In a world without resource sharing, you have deterred their plans by about 50% give or take. The toss player who lost his tech is now left with an accumulation of resources that he can not spend like he had planned to. Due to resource sharing the toss team can now compensate for this loss of tech. Second toss player uses the given resources to make up for the fact that his ally is in a recovery period and unable to spend his resources as planned.
A player who is unable to spend his resources, either at all, or not how he planned to, should be punished for it. But a person does have a way to spend those resources: giving them to their teammate. You know, because it's a team? It's kinda like knocking out an expo in a 1v1: they still have the resources gathered from it and can use them. Resource sharing just allows the team to use them, just like one person might use them in a 1v1.
Circular argument, completely ignoring the point that it's giving the player with a disadvantage a cushion, thus lowering the skill ceiling.
|
On May 11 2010 07:49 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 07:46 Omegalisk wrote:On May 11 2010 07:28 kidcrash wrote:
Such a generic example, hardly worth any merit in an actual game. So let's say you are against two toss players, both planning on rushing 5 void rays each. You decide for a timing attack on one before the stargate is up and running. Now for the sake of an example, you destroy his stargate and his cybernetics core before his ally comes and saves him and the attack is defended against. In a world without resource sharing, you have deterred their plans by about 50% give or take. The toss player who lost his tech is now left with an accumulation of resources that he can not spend like he had planned to. Due to resource sharing the toss team can now compensate for this loss of tech. Second toss player uses the given resources to make up for the fact that his ally is in a recovery period and unable to spend his resources as planned.
A player who is unable to spend his resources, either at all, or not how he planned to, should be punished for it. But a person does have a way to spend those resources: giving them to their teammate. You know, because it's a team? It's kinda like knocking out an expo in a 1v1: they still have the resources gathered from it and can use them. Resource sharing just allows the team to use them, just like one person might use them in a 1v1. Circular argument, completely ignoring the point that it's giving the player with a disadvantage a cushion, thus lowering the skill ceiling.
Cushion =/= Lower skill ceiling. That's like saying the skill ceiling is lowered because losing an expo doesn't automatically mean defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
