EPT[D] Feeding. - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
armalite
Sweden10 Posts
I played a lot of 2v2 in the beta and the only map me and my mate lost was on Twilight Fortress. Why? Because that map is the best map to feed on. Even if we scouted early and knew they feeded it was so hard to counter, mid/late game. That made us doing something we really dont like to do, cheese strat or really early push(10 rack/6/10 pool. After somewhat 20-30+ games that was our only strat on that map because for us 90% of the games on that map our opponents feeded. We played top platinum/diamond league, our best rank was 1. I dont even wanna know how its gonna be 3v3/4v4. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
I vote solution 3. Which will either be someone finds a way that feeders will die 98% of the time, or Blizzard nerfs the trading times or tax, or w.e. | ||
|
Cerion
213 Posts
| ||
|
ZomgTossRush
United States1041 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:18 SichuanPanda wrote: I think this adds another depth of strategy to team-games not detracts from it. There's no reason to remove it from the game. I think a better method would be to have a 'max trade able resources' such as 5000 maximum for the entire game, meaning at higher levels players will have to be very strategic about trading as they have a limit on how much can be sent, however at the same time lower-end players can use trading as needed as most lower-end games are shorter. That's probably the best solution to this problem, but since I am not pro-feeding, I say decrease it to like 1000. But nice thinking, this should be added in the poll. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
1. The current system 2. A system that incurs a tax of 10% every time a set amount of resources is traded (chosen by the game creator, a flat number covering both types), up to a maximum of 50% (or the max could even be configurable as well). This would allow various leagues to configure the system however way they see fit, such that they could have the tax be every time 100 resources is traded - essentially making trading resources a waste of resources entirely. Or they could have at a reasonable level of something like 650 resources so that allies could trade resources in emergency situations to get counters or switch tech faster, but straight-up feeding would not be possible (or economical for any competent players to do so). | ||
|
Peekay.switch
Canada285 Posts
There's still the exact same amount of resources in the game, just spent differently If you scout properly, you'll notice the feeding, and the weird army comp. There is nothing holding you from countering properly. While countering, if you notice your own gas is high, ask if your team mate could use it. It's not exactly hard, that's how you play team games. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
I'm going to use an SC1 scenario as an example so everyone can see how ridiculous is it, however this could easily be a scenario in SC2 as well. Let's say the teams are pz v pz. Toss player A successfully catches zerg player B with his pants down with a sair DT strategy and effectively wipes out all of zerg player B's overlords. Toss player A also penetrates zerg player B's base with DTs and completely cripples his tech. He snipes his spire and all his overlords and zerg player B's resources skyrocket to 2600 in minerals and 1400 in gas because he is completely supply blocked and cannot get the mutas he was hoping for. Now in SC1 those 2600 in minerals and 1400 gas would sit in limbo never to be spent, or at least, not to be spent as zerg player B had planned. This is this fair outcome of the scenario. Those minerals do not deserve to be spent because the player was harassed and paid the consequence for it. Those resources deserve to pile up and never see the light of day due to successful harassment. Now let's put feeding into above scenario. Zerg player B gives his unusable resources to protoss player C to use in mass carrier scheme (or whatever). Are toss player and zerg player B and C behind from the original harassment still? To an extent, yes. However a huge portion of the harassment has now been seriously undermined. Feeding has granted a cushion to the team who should have been punished for their shortcoming and much further behind than they end up being. The outcome is that certain harassment techniques become a lot less effective than others due to feeding. Destroying ones supply buildings or production facilities becomes considerably less effective than going straight for ones economy because if they can't spend their resources, their ally will. Now of course going straight for a nexus or probes usually is the main target of a harassment, but sometimes we settle for what we can get. The bottom line is, being unable to spend your resources and macro properly should be punished, end of story. EDIT: Resource sharing is fine in terms giving your ally x minerals to rebuild a base after losing his main. I support a 15% tax so resource sharing is seriously contemplated and not overly abused. | ||
|
DanielD
United States192 Posts
On June 30 2010 08:16 kidcrash wrote: I happen to be strongly against the concept of feeding so excuse me in advance if my words sound a bit outspoken. Feeding dumbs down the game of starcraft by catering to the weak because it undermines harassment. I don't care about cheesy all in strategies where one player defends and macros and the other play invests everything into one big push. I'm talking about games where a players harass is effectively undermined due to giving his resources to his ally. I'm going to use an SC1 scenario as an example so everyone can see how ridiculous is it, however this could easily be a scenario in SC2 as well. Let's say the teams are pz v pz. Toss player A successfully catches zerg player B with his pants down with a sair DT strategy and effectively wipes out all of zerg player B's overlords. Toss player A also penetrates zerg player B's base with DTs and completely cripples his tech. He snipes his spire and all his overlords and zerg player B's resources skyrocket to 2600 in minerals and 1400 in gas because he is completely supply blocked and cannot get the mutas he was hoping for. Now in SC1 those 2600 in minerals and 1400 gas would sit in limbo never to be spent, or at least, not to be spent as zerg player B had planned. This is this fair outcome of the scenario. Those minerals do not deserve to be spent because the player was harassed and paid the consequence for it. Those resources deserve to pile up and never see the light of day due to successful harassment. Now let's put feeding into above scenario. Zerg player B gives his unusable resources to protoss player C to use in mass carrier scheme (or whatever). Are toss player and zerg player B and C behind from the original harassment still? To an extent, yes. However a huge portion of the harassment has now been seriously undermined. Feeding has granted a cushion to the team who should have been punished for their shortcoming and much further behind than they end up being. The outcome is that certain harassment techniques become a lot less effective than others due to feeding. Destroying ones supply buildings or production facilities becomes considerably less effective than going straight for ones economy because if they can't spend their resources, their ally will. Now of course going straight for a nexus or probes usually is the main target of a harassment, but sometimes we settle for what we can get. The bottom line is, being unable to spend your resources and macro properly should be punished, end of story. EDIT: Resource sharing is fine in terms giving your ally x minerals to rebuild a base after losing his main. I support a 15% tax so resource sharing is seriously contemplated and not overly abused. All this means is you can't effectively utilize supply-blocking to harass. And as far as sniping tech buildings that's still useful because it makes their army comp simpler. | ||
|
jamesr12
United States1549 Posts
| ||
|
Noelani
55 Posts
lol, how would they have fielded a larger mass of mutas? he got HARRASSED TO SHIT in the early game, lost his FE, and was basically totally dead. Except because he kept drones on gas, he had enough to give his partner. Please don't comment if you didnt watch the rep. wow.. This comment here makes me want to go download the replay. Sounds like an amazing game where a player on the verge of defeat sent his resources to his partner and they pulled of an amazing comeback against some newbies that didn't account for feeding. Sounds like the makings of an amazing strategy game, rather than a big "welp I can click faster than you, so I win" game. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On June 30 2010 05:49 terranghost wrote: In Broodwar 2v2's could be annoying. Say you played a 2v2 on hunters 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. If you're playing "The Hunters" seriously, you're doing it wrong. It's clearly not balanced or symmetrical. Playing 2v2 with partners crossmap is lots of fun, though. It makes the game much more aggressive. No, you can't group your team's two armies into a giant ball... but it's not necessary to do so. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 30 2010 08:28 DanielD wrote: All this means is you can't effectively utilize supply-blocking to harass. And as far as sniping tech buildings that's still useful because it makes their army comp simpler. It's not just undermining supply-blocking and tech sniping harass. You ever not have enough gateways to spend all your money properly? What happens if this is due to your enemy destroying said gateways limiting your resource spending options? Well, no matter, my ally can just spend my resources for me due to resource sharing. Basically, taking out anything that's not a nexus or worker results in considerable less effectiveness. Having too much resources should be a bad thing (due to bad macro/persistent harass). Too bad you can just take the easy way out and send everything your allies way, who has remained untouched all game and given the chance to build whatever. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
OneBlueAugust
United States153 Posts
The guy that was using the rock / paper / scissors analogy seriously didn't think his comparison through very well. If the only counter to trading resources (feeding) is doing it yourself, then it's really just rock and scissors. And that makes the game really lame, as you're (in essence) forced to do a resource trading strat to have an equal chance of winning. This isn't something that's vulnerable to a hard rush, as the econ player builds static defense for both players, or on some maps just masses marines / zerglings, while the teching player does the same. With a feeding strat, minerals are pretty unimportant, as it revolves completely around the teching player getting to tier 2 air as fast as possible. It's easy to support the mineral requirements of mutas / banshees / voidrays, so spending on static defense and mineral-only tier 1 units isn't a limiting factor. It's also not vulnerable to a tier 1.5 timing push, because of the aformentioned static defenses and the fact that the teching player is in tier 2 so incredibly quickly, and is also able to pump out hard-counter air units before the proper counters have a chance to hit the field for the other team. As I said before though, this would be solved by only allowing mineral trading, not gas. My partner and I were Diamond league 2v2, and were the top of our ladder for the last couple of weeks before the beta ended, so I'm not just theory-crafting. The resource trading dynamic caused us to thumb down the maps with shared bases simply because it made the game so incredibly lame. Removing the advantage gained by killing one player's unit building structures or tech structures does nothing but lower the skill threshold. More and more often at the end of the beta we would scout, only to see mass spine crawlers or canons going up. It just puts a bad taste in your mouth, which is why I agree with the original poster's assertion that it will drive people away from 2v2. There really can't be a good argument for why this makes the game better, as the "strategies" it creates are all cheeses, and are all disproportionately hard to counter when playing standard. | ||
|
andyrichdale
New Zealand90 Posts
On June 30 2010 09:41 OneBlueAugust wrote: The guy that was using the rock / paper / scissors analogy seriously didn't think his comparison through very well. If the only counter to trading resources (feeding) is doing it yourself, then it's really just rock and scissors. And that makes the game really lame, as you're (in essence) forced to do a resource trading strat to have an equal chance of winning. If it's something that both teams need to do to avoid being at a disadvantage then that is just like "building units" or "collecting resources". Just because both teams need to do it doesn't mean the game is lame because of it. It's just a different game from 1v1s which is fine by me. The issue of lessening the importance of destroying certain opposing structures (eg supply buildings) is potentially an issue however - and the only valid point I've read against resource trading. All these "FEEDING IS NEWB" comments are just meaningless. | ||
|
vizniz
United States120 Posts
On June 30 2010 08:53 kidcrash wrote: It's not just undermining supply-blocking and tech sniping harass. You ever not have enough gateways to spend all your money properly? What happens if this is due to your enemy destroying said gateways limiting your resource spending options? Well, no matter, my ally can just spend my resources for me due to resource sharing. Basically, taking out anything that's not a nexus or worker results in considerable less effectiveness. Having too much resources should be a bad thing (due to bad macro/persistent harass). Too bad you can just take the easy way out and send everything your allies way, who has remained untouched all game and given the chance to build whatever. Scenario: -Player 1 has bad macro. Constantly has money over 1k. -His partner, player 2, has great macro. Minerals below 500 consistently. -The solution to player 1's problem is to build more production structures, thus consuming resources then, and faster in the long run. -Instead, he gives minerals to player 2. Now P2 has more minerals than he's used to spending, so to efficiently use, he'd have to build more tech structures also. Taking this into consideration, I don't see an issue. In the replay, they saw a roach/ling army, and fed to get mutas to hard counter. The other team gave way to much time between their penultimate and final push, the final push being the one that got countered by fed mutas. Had they pushed again sooner, they would have wiped them out. Also, the hydra transition they had planned would have been better too. 2 bases of hydras would have easily countered those 15 or so mutas. Scouting would have helped. They could have scouted during that long gap and seen no units, and pushed for the win. They could have scouted to see the spire and know to make anti air. I don't think there is a problem with resource trading. | ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On June 30 2010 08:51 Severedevil wrote: If you're playing "The Hunters" seriously, you're doing it wrong. It's clearly not balanced or symmetrical. Playing 2v2 with partners crossmap is lots of fun, though. It makes the game much more aggressive. No, you can't group your team's two armies into a giant ball... but it's not necessary to do so. Just to clarify I (I will edit this accordingly) I meant a map like hunters as I don't know of a symmetrical 8player map off the top of my head. and on 2v2 cross positions I did not say it was not fun I believe the word I used was annoying =P | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 30 2010 10:07 vizniz wrote: Scenario: -Player 1 has bad macro. Constantly has money over 1k. -His partner, player 2, has great macro. Minerals below 500 consistently. -The solution to player 1's problem is to build more production structures, thus consuming resources then, and faster in the long run. -Instead, he gives minerals to player 2. Now P2 has more minerals than he's used to spending, so to efficiently use, he'd have to build more tech structures also. Taking this into consideration, I don't see an issue. In the replay, they saw a roach/ling army, and fed to get mutas to hard counter. The other team gave way to much time between their penultimate and final push, the final push being the one that got countered by fed mutas. Had they pushed again sooner, they would have wiped them out. Also, the hydra transition they had planned would have been better too. 2 bases of hydras would have easily countered those 15 or so mutas. Scouting would have helped. They could have scouted during that long gap and seen no units, and pushed for the win. They could have scouted to see the spire and know to make anti air. I don't think there is a problem with resource trading. Agreed, that the replay does not really emphasis my point, however I feel that there are many games where this would become an issue. I think this becomes more apparent in a consistent harassment scenario more so than in a bad macro case. This is especially true with terran, when scvs can be destroyed while building, thus halting production. Yes, in your scenario player 2 would have to build more tech buildings and more production buildings to compensate for the additional income. This is much easier when the enemy isn't in your base stopping you from building however. The key word here is persistent, in that player 1, instead of having bad macro, is constantly being denied the opportunity to build, thus creating a surplus of resources on his end. It's a lot easier for player 2 to put those resources to work on his end because he is being left alone. Although I've played many more team games in Sc1 than in SC2 I believe this truth remains the same from experience. Being attacked can make your minerals sky rocket for a number of reasons. Whether it's because your buildings are being destroyed, or your attention is just plain diverted at the time, this in huge factor in team games. Being able to spend your money while you're being attacked is a huge skill that should not be undermined by such a concept as resource sharing | ||
| ||
