|
On May 11 2010 08:58 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 08:00 kidcrash wrote:
So are you saying 2v2 in SC:BW was too hard because you couldn't share resources?
No. Was I was doing was pointing out the flaw in the policy of "Anything that decreases skill necessary to play this game is horrible."
Then I guess it's just a matter of your opinion vs mine, which I respect. In my eyes, anything that decreases the skill ceiling is bad. Some might say the ability to share resources adds an interesting dynamic. However, when you lower the skill ceiling to tailor the less fortunate, I don't believe it's worth it.
|
On May 11 2010 10:42 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 08:58 Omegalisk wrote:On May 11 2010 08:00 kidcrash wrote:
So are you saying 2v2 in SC:BW was too hard because you couldn't share resources?
No. Was I was doing was pointing out the flaw in the policy of "Anything that decreases skill necessary to play this game is horrible." Then I guess it's just a matter of your opinion vs mine, which I respect. In my eyes, anything that decreases the skill ceiling is bad. Some might say the ability to share resources adds an interesting dynamic. However, when you lower the skill ceiling to tailor the less fortunate, I don't believe it's worth it.
It doesn't necessarily decrease the skill ceiling, though. If anything, it's a dynamic part of the game that requires you to broaden your view on the game in order to successfully develop a viable build. That in itself is increasing the skill ceiling.
|
On May 11 2010 09:31 MorroW wrote:
i think there should be some easier way to send money. when i played 2x2 with enivid i had to go into the menu then click on the boxes then click send then click close each time i wanted to send. they should make it easier to send imo
overall i think its pretty gay that u can send minerals gas to each other, a nerf on it would be good imo ^^
Being able to send huge amount of resources may be gay but on the other hand with proper macro it should be either impossible or really noticeable once one player does this.
Once most common strats like Void Ray proxy are figured out it shouldn't be as hard to win against this imo.
|
On May 11 2010 10:55 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 10:42 kidcrash wrote:On May 11 2010 08:58 Omegalisk wrote:On May 11 2010 08:00 kidcrash wrote:
So are you saying 2v2 in SC:BW was too hard because you couldn't share resources?
No. Was I was doing was pointing out the flaw in the policy of "Anything that decreases skill necessary to play this game is horrible." Then I guess it's just a matter of your opinion vs mine, which I respect. In my eyes, anything that decreases the skill ceiling is bad. Some might say the ability to share resources adds an interesting dynamic. However, when you lower the skill ceiling to tailor the less fortunate, I don't believe it's worth it. It doesn't necessarily decrease the skill ceiling, though. If anything, it's a dynamic part of the game that requires you to broaden your view on the game in order to successfully develop a viable build. That in itself is increasing the skill ceiling.
By allowing worse players to overcome disadvantages that should be game ending? If I can't spend my resources, for whatever reason, that is my fault and I should have to deal with the outcome.
If you keep killing my spire over and over again or if you don't even let me even build a spire to begin with due to constant and persistent attacking, I should have to deal with the fact that I can't spend my money on what I wanted to. In turn giving that money to my ally to use is undermining what my opponent has done to me. Yes it's still a setback as you said, I still had to pay for the spire. However, resources piling up is a direct result of not being able to spend my money on what I wanted. Why should this be undermined without a serious consequence (tax each transaction).
|
On May 11 2010 09:50 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 09:40 Kratisto wrote:
Sounds lame. I wouldn't mind if this were a viable strategy or a cheese build, but I don't want to be seeing it every 2v2. I don't want to be seeing it in one of every ten 2v2's. That's like saying you hate seeing 2 base plays every game rather than 1 base >.>
It's more like saying I'd hate to see two players playing against two other players get overshadowed by one player and a resource grinder play against another player and a resource grinder.
|
Ok, I just watched the replay.
Tell me, what the difference between ZZ with one Z feeding the other to make mass mutas (as in your replay) and a ZZ where they just mass mutas together?
It seems to me there would be no difference other than tech costs, which in your replay's case, would be liar + spire, which is only 3-4 mutas, which wouldn't have made a difference in your replay's case.
|
if the opponents feed each other you can even do the same to counter their feeding so it's fine imo. scouting might be tricky but as possible strategies become known there will be plenty of ways to adapt to them. people don't suddenly get free resources, it's their partner's. yeah, fast muta might be hard to deal with but even that can be scouted if you have a good knowledge of the game (noticing partner's units/unit production buildings or number of overlords of the massing player)
it's a little different than BW but that's SC2 and we might as well give it some time and see how it goes
|
sc2 resource sharing has a buffer of 2 minutes or something so you can't just outright share resources from the beginning. not like it matters, two average sized armies is always going to be better than one slightly above average sized army.
|
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.
|
Halo Wars had a very high tax on feeding. It would cost you 300, for every 200 you gave to a teammate. I think something like that should be put in to place for team matches in SC2 as well.
In Halo Wars I played on a team with 2 other people, and we had a strategy where two of us would feed 200 supplies each to our other teammate right at the start to bolster his rush, while we both went a heavy econ build. He would usually be able to knock out one player right at the start, and then the other two of us going heavy econ without being harrassed would be able to out produce the remaining to players for an easy win. I went 100-1 over a months time using this strategy. Feeding, by skilled players is definitely exploitable, and needs to be limited heavily.
Without some kind of tax or limit to how much you can send, it's very exploitable. I think you teammate should only get half of what you send. That way in an emergency, you can send them some money to get a new base up, but it wouldn't be used to bolster a normal build order.
|
The only thing that should change are shared-base maps.
That's how Jinro and TLO were able to take full advantage of trading.
If they were separate, Jinro would have to make defensive units, unless TLO put his army in Jinro's base, but then TLO might not have enough to deal with an attack on his main.
|
Resource trading makes for dumb games... but 2v2 isn't serious anyway. So who cares?
|
On June 30 2010 05:09 oxxo wrote:
Resource trading makes for dumb games... but 2v2 isn't serious anyway. So who cares?
That's the mindset that stops people from progressing in thought to MAKE 2v2's serious
|
Broodwar style 2v2 (no feeding, separate bases) was much more elegant than SC2 2v2.
I agree with the notion of splitting classic 2v2 from let's-be-friends-and-share-everything 2v2.
But I'd prefer to make feeding legal, but only for minerals. That way both players still need to participate (or you waste precious gas), but you can also do the fun version of feeding in which one person has a small, specialized or harassment-oriented force (using high-gas low-mineral units) and the other gets a big straight-up bruiser army.
|
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.
this is the answer. far too often, players take the challenge of the game designer/developers on their own shoulders, when they should always just find--and either emulate or counter--the most effective strategy out there. it's the dev's job to adjust if things get one-dimensional.
|
This plus when done by Terran feeding protoss or zerg, there is another unfair advantage, in which the terran "macro" mechanic of mules greatly increases income, while zerg and protoss larva and chrono boost allow for more expedient unit production and teching up.
|
On June 30 2010 05:12 Severedevil wrote:Broodwar style 2v2 (no feeding, separate bases) was much more elegant than SC2 2v2. I agree with the notion of splitting classic 2v2 from let's-be-friends-and-share-everything 2v2. Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 04:54 mahnini wrote:
sc2 resource sharing has a buffer of 2 minutes or something so you can't just outright share resources from the beginning. not like it matters, two average sized armies is always going to be better than one slightly above average sized army. No, and that's a ridiculous thing to suggest. If only one player has to build tech structures and purchase upgrades, you save a lot of money (particularly gas). That means a feeding team can afford a larger army than a non-feeding team.
that's assuming the feeding player is not getting harassed which is hard to believe since, relative to 1v1, 2v2 tends to be hyper-aggressive. you're also forgetting there's very little increase in efficiency when sharing minerals. you still have to build the production facilities and supply needed to use all the extra resources you're getting. the only advantage is you save X amount of tech buildings. you end up getting more stuff but you end up behind in the long run (since you're supply capped) and face the possibility of confronting complex army compositions that your one large army cannot deal with.
|
Keep in mind that this is a 2v2 so if one team can do a feeding strategy both teams can do it.
I'm going to make a list of 2v2 strats that I have seen. If I've missed something please feel free to mention it but this is what I see happen most of the time. Option 1 is the only one that feeding really helps.
1.) One person techs while the other uses a mild defense with(out) lots of early pressure.
2.) Duel turtle + tech
3.) Mild eco plus duel early rush.
4.) Insanely early rush with the other person either covering your attack or insanely early rushing the other player. (This is my favorite one to do actually. I reaper rush whichever player seems it will hurt the most. While my friend rushes for lots and he camps the entrance to the opponent I am hitting when the ally comes in for aid boom aid dies to the zeolots)
So option 1 should only have an advantage on option 2. Because in option 1 it would be something like 10Vrays (mutas banshees) vs 2 VRays (mutas banshees) from each of the other players. This should convince the teams that at least one of them needs to be aggressive.
I for one voted for the tax for this reason. Say you are in extremely awesome game. The game is going back and forth. Opponent 1 loses his nexus but gets spotted enough minerals to get it back just before the other opponent loses his CC. If this were to go back and forth. Where after the nexus finishes warping in again I would like to see not all 400minerals make a return (if that makes since)
Edit:
On June 30 2010 05:12 Severedevil wrote:
Broodwar style 2v2 (no feeding, separate bases) was much more elegant than SC2 2v2.
I agree with the notion of splitting classic 2v2 from let's-be-friends-and-share-everything 2v2.
In Broodwar 2v2's could be annoying. Say you played a 2v2 like hunters (as I can not think of a symetrical 8 player map off the top of my head) and team 1 spawned at 12 and 1 and the other spawned 11 and 3. Well obviously team 1 is at an advantage. Say you do it on Lost Temple and for both teams your team mate gets the cross position from you. It is still rather annoying.
I do not like the shared bases maps as much. There was one map in the beta pool for 2v2 that I really liked however (I forget its name) where you did not have a shared base but your bases were on the same side of the map but your ramps came down away from each other basically if I walked down my ramp I wasn't instantly at my allies base.
|
|
|
I don't see it as unfair, I do however think it takes the flavor out of the game. In my opinion it's only a problem on maps where each team shares a base and I don't see anyone playing those maps seriously once there are alternatives.
I'd say let it stay for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
