|
Added poll since thread got popular:
Poll: Should feeding be restricted in team games?No, resource trading is fine. (394) 65% Yes, there should be a flat tax on traded resources. (158) 26% Yes, make the resource trading timer higher than 5 minutes. (30) 5% Yes, with some other system (please comment) (24) 4% 606 total votes Your vote: Should feeding be restricted in team games? (Vote): Yes, make the resource trading timer higher than 5 minutes.
(Vote): Yes, there should be a flat tax on traded resources.
(Vote): Yes, with some other system (please comment)
(Vote): No, resource trading is fine.
Watch this replay as it is a good example of why feeding needs to be discussed and regulated now.
http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/4408
Problems with feeding in team games:
Number one: In WC3, resource trading had no limits, not even a 5 minute timer like SC2. It was not impossible to defeat feeding in WC3 because minerals (gold) could only be harvested by 5 workers per base. This meant that you could either build a base and an army or feed resources, not both. In SC2, the opposite is true because gas is the limiting factor. This means that the feeder is free to use his minerals to create a base, static defense and a mineral heavy army. For example, a terran might build raxxes and pump marines while keeping just enough gas to upgrade them. (And if you haven't faced 3/3 stimmed marines, you're in for a shock when you see what they do even against higher tier upgraded armies).
Number two: Feeding in WC3 was easily scouted. The feeder had no base. He only had his main building and an altar to make his hero. Meanwhile, his friend had way too many production buildings for that stage of the game. In SC2, the 5 minute timer makes feeding impossible to scout. Because you go from facing typical tier 1 armies and maybe catch an expansion, to suddenly having 10 void rays in your base instead of the typical 1-2.
Number three: Feeding is not a linear exchange of resources. Because one player is not spending money on heavy tech purposes, there are more resources to be traded. This is extremely strong when teamed with a zerg player who only needs to plop down a spire to mass produce (and to complement point 2, you can't scout a zerg's mass production). As an added subtlety, upgrades are that much cheaper and more effective.
Number four:: Timing. The entire issue in starcraft 2 with feeding is timing. Some strategies are built to catch you off guard but they are not impossible to defeat. Your banshee rush will be significantly delayed in numbers and time if you want to research cloak. With feeding, you can have 6-8 cloaked banshees in your base by the time there are usually only 1 or 2. Replace banshees with 20 mutas, or 10 void rays.
Number five: Any idiot can trade resources.
My personal experience with feeding:
+ Show Spoiler +Over 50% of the teams in the 3v3 ladder in WC3 use feeding (even at the top). In 4v4, it is far worse. It is not impossible to counter in WC3, but over time, as you and your friends keep playing against the same cheesy strategy, you start losing the will to play because you're no longer playing a strategy game, your micro no longer matters, you no longer need to scout. You're almost playing a whole different game like a UMS. But that's not why you ladder in the first place, is it? You're not facing diverse strategies or challenging opponents, you're facing a couple of kids using the easy mode to cheese wins. It is draining.
I think resource trading should be regulated. I think it is fair to spot your ally 400 minerals to rebuild his nexus. I don't think it's interesting to spot him 1000 gas at the 5 minute mark so he can power build a high tech timing push.
2v2 has a very good chance of developing into a fun and respectable environment for team skill. However, if feeding remains the way it is, I guarantee that 2v2 will crash and that the only way 2v2 will linger on in any entertaining way is if tournaments make rules against it. However, for regular 2v2 ladder, few players will play consistently because of feeding and the ladder population will dwindle.
If you haven't played a game where feeding is rampant, take my word for it. It is so easy and so powerful that the masses of noobs will do it until 2v2 ladder (and higher) is a joke and people only take 1v1 seriously. 1v1 will always be the ultimate test of skill but it shouldn't be the only medium for players to compete.
Suggestions: Either set a timer cap for resource trading (you can only trade 1 mineral and 1 gas per second elapsed) or put a tax on resource trading of 25%.
The strength of feeding in SC2 is disproportionate to the difficulty and risk involved. As any idiot can do it and experience great success, I recommend that this community voice its concern so that Blizzard knows that they should add a feature to tweak it.
|
Good read,thank God I don't do 2v2.
|
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
|
am I blind or is the feeding example in this rep not obvious?
edit: oh i'm dumb, thought it would've been earlier
|
On May 10 2010 08:44 bakedace wrote:
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
+1 for this idea. Would solve most problems, yet be balanced enough so that at high level play you could send small amounts of resources to help a friend get back on track, or improve your timing just a little better. But it shouldn't be the core strategy to have one player feed throughout the game.
|
Rather than discuss it why not use feeding and give blizzard the cheesiest and best examples so they eventually patch it into balance?
|
|
|
Feeding is part of the strategy of high player count team games, is it not? I don't remember anybody bitching hard or being upset that people would feed in 3s or 4s in WC3, it was part of the game.
|
On May 10 2010 08:56 Weasel- wrote:
Feeding is part of the strategy of high player count team games, is it not? I don't remember anybody bitching hard or being upset that people would feed in 3s or 4s in WC3, it was part of the game.
haha, what? Have you not played against garg or wyv feeds?
|
I assumed as soon as I saw resource trading that it would eventually be necessary to play 2v2 at top level (once people realized how potentially powerful it is). I do not see a priori why this is a bad thing other than the cumbersome interface you have to go through (but this means the interface should be improved regardless imo).
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.
For me to definitely see that it's a problem you'd have to show me that it really limits the possible options in a 2v2, which one replay definitively does not show. You say that it makes WC3 less diverse, but I think that we'd all agree that WC3 is a vastly different game from SC2. I don't think we have any sort of proof that it makes SC2 less diverse; only time will tell.
You could argue that it's less fun this way, but I don't think I'd agree with you right now.
As an aside I do not like your title because it's not immediately obvious what you're talking about.
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 don't think requiring you take advantage of a built-in game mechanic is a bad thing. That's like complaining you lose because you don't use warpgates and your opponent does or somesuch imo.
|
I agree big time. Never thought of it this way (didn't play war3).
But indeed, trading resources at this way is not good at all for game-play.
I think there should not be any trading at all.
Why the hell is it every implement anyway?
Back in the days where some things weren't possible to create in a game, made some great things. Now when everything is possible, we get the weirdest worthless things that only mess up the good things.
Blizzard, remove it from the game.
|
Perhaps make it a 10 minute timer or something. That way it will leave them vulnerable to a timing push if they do decide to wait to feed resources. I think it's a perfectly viable strategy that should stay in the game though.
|
A small tax seems simple, mean, but effective. I'm up for it.
Trading resources is something I think players should definitely have available but 150 speedlings is a big threat [especially if they avoid the army confrontation and go for the bases] that should not be complemented with a person with substantially (near twice) as much gas as he normally would.
One different solution might be to just eliminate gas trading. It might make some sense seeing that minerals are simply cut into pieces from their natural source while the gas needs to be processed (refinery, assimilator, extractor) in a way that makes it volatile and unsafe for trading long distances. (Despite the fact that a SCV can obviously just hold vespene gas in it's hands for eternity).
|
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.
|
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.
|
On May 10 2010 08:44 bakedace wrote:
I still stand with the idea that it should work exactly like diminishing returns.
Basically it would begin at 100%, but the more you feed, the "tax" would increase.
very much like the idea,
also, when player X gives player Y resources tax would increase, but when player Y gives resources back to player X tax should decrease back ....... also there should be 2 taxes : 1 for minerals, one for gas, to prevent resource swapping
|
On May 10 2010 09:14 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think this well become especially problematic in SC2 because of how the damage system works. Most units are not a huge problem to combat in the numbers you see them in from any single player. But if you encounter 6 or more of banshees or voidrays it's pretty much gg even if you have a sizeable army because they deal so much damage that even if you just leave your base and try to kill the feeder (so that you dont loose your army), the rate a which the fed player can kill everything on the map is too high. Basically instead of there being a linear ramp in power there is an exponential ramp which makes fed armies like that far far better than any combination of 2 players' combined armies at the equivalent timing.
|
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.
|
On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
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.
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.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
It adds strategy and depth, instead of "mass my own units and win."
I think you're basically QQing because you don't know how to effectively trade resources to your advantage.
|
On May 10 2010 10:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not sure I buy this because of shared control. Play a 2v2, turn on shared control, have one player just macro and the other just micro. This doesn't seem very different to me from sharing resources and ending up with one player collecting lots of resources and doing little else, and the other making lots of units and controlling those units. In fact I think in the latter case they'd still benefit from shared control; have one player get resources, send to his ally, and then build stuff with those resources from his ally's buildings while the other guy controls the army. Splits the burden more evenly and in this case ends up nearly identical to the not-sharing case.
|
Madkipz, what the fuck are you still on about?
On May 10 2010 10:12 Madkipz wrote:
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.
Why would being at 100/100 food, earning 40% income and receiving 40% from trades encourage feeding? Staying under 40 food and feeding is what promoted the mechanic because you took no penalties and you could play your hero like a dota hero. Feeding in WC3 is obviously an early game strategy that stops being effective when the main army is at 80/100.
On May 10 2010 10:12 Madkipz wrote:
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.
First of all, "you're."
Second of all, I scout the spire. Then what? There is nothing that tells me whether, in 33 seconds, I will be facing 5 or 17 mutas.
If you think that the OP is not a proper argument for how WC3 feeding was regulated and how unregulated SC2 feeding is, then whatever. Go troll some other thread. Seriously. Stop posting in my thread. Your 1st grade spelling is painful to read.
On May 10 2010 10:15 crate wrote:Show nested quote +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.
WC3 and SC are vastly different only where hero/creeps are concerned. Otherwise, base building, resource gathering, army production etc are all very similar. Feeding falls within the area where both games play similarly.
NightOne,
I think your intentions are good but you're just talking out of your ass. I suggest you watch the replay to see that my numbers are not exaggerated.
My argument isn't that resource sharing is impossible to fight, it's that it is too strong, unscoutable etc for how easy it is to do.
I don't want to give up on you guys because you obviously have not grasped the power of feeding. I understand why you may have doubts and want to argue, but when you say things like "if you lose to feeding, you are missing something", it's clear to me why you're not seeing the potential.
I'm all for countering strategies and improving your game, but I also know that facing feeding game after game makes you feel like you're not playing an RTS anymore and when you stop playing team ladder because of it, it will be too late for us to save the team ladders.
I disapprove of plenty of crap like proxy cannons and mass static defense but I'm not arguing for them to be removed. But feeding is in it's own little category.
Remember: my concern is keeping 2v2 competitive and fun and making sure the ladders maintain a healthy population not just in 1v1. By the time you see for a fact that feeding is ruining team ladder in SC2, it will be way too late.
On May 10 2010 10:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
It adds strategy and depth, instead of "mass my own units and win."
I think you're basically QQing because you don't know how to effectively trade resources to your advantage.
Yea, I'm QQing because I don't know how to effectively trade resources. Shit, it's so hard for me to grasp saving my gas until 5 minutes and then clicking the trade resource button and dumping it on my ally so he can build 10 cloaked banshees. Engaging in feeding myself is just pissing in the pool and I will not be to blame for team ladder going to shit because 2 digit IQ idiots thought they were being intelligent when they thought up great ways to feed.
|
In Age of Empires II there was like a 25% cost to donating any resource. You could research something to make it like 10%. I don't know if anyone high level ever donated except maybe enough to make a new base if they were dead, or donate extra res if they were near max population.
Ofcourse u also had to research something to share vision with your allies and that wasnt viable until 20 minutes into the game sometimes.
|
By the time you see for a fact that feeding is ruining team ladder in SC2, it will be way too late.
I would suggest you go find a teammate and go ruin the ladder in the beta then so Blizzard sees the problem. Try to convince everyone you can to do the same thing with you. If it's broken and you show Blizzard, I hope they'd take action. If not, then I doubt this topic matters anyway.
edit: I know once/if I find a partner I'd be all for abusing this for all its worth.
edit2:Shit, it's so hard for me to grasp saving my gas until 5 minutes and then clicking the trade resource button and dumping it on my ally so he can build 10 cloaked banshees.
I would like to point out that while the Zerg equivalent is basically unscoutable (but then so are most Zerg tech switches), in this case you need a bunch of starports, which is entirely scoutable.
|
On May 10 2010 10:44 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
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. 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.
Watched it twice, on FASTEST not some retarded 6x. and you know what? he was not practically dead, he had enough to help himself and his partner survive while the opponent rages about feeding. ITS A CLEAR CUT CHASE OF LOW TIER PLAYERS WHO BITCH about something they should instead account for, it takes them over 30 seconds to even begin fielding some amount of spore crawlers and you know what? Feeding didnt kill the op, mutas did.
HAD his ally spent all of his minerals and gas on himself instead, there would barely have been any difference in the outcome and no reason to have ever brought it up. But he does, because he is a biased wc3 player and should be treated as such.
|
On May 10 2010 10:57 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 10:44 faction123 wrote:On May 10 2010 09:58 Madkipz wrote:On May 10 2010 09:46 faction123 wrote:
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. 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. Watched it twice, on FASTEST not some retarded 6x. and you know what? he was not practically dead, he had enough to help himself and his partner survive while the opponent rages about feeding. ITS A CLEAR CUT CHASE OF LOW TIER PLAYERS WHO BITCH about something they should instead account for, it takes them over 30 seconds to even begin fielding some amount of spore crawlers and you know what? Feeding didnt kill the op, mutas did. HAD his ally spent all of his minerals and gas on himself instead, there would barely have been any difference in the outcome and no reason to have ever brought it up. But he does, because he is a biased wc3 player and should be treated as such.
Are you trying to claim that a player who lost his nat and who was sitting on 1 base would have been able to match his partners lair/spire timing and get just as many mutas as they had out at the same time his partner did?
Just wondering here. (No, his spire would've been heavily, heavily delayed and actually going muta as well would've been an awful idea with how far behind he was)
That's pretty much what your argument was, and it's flat out awful. I see you've changed to "he's bad" now, nicely done. Glad you realized you're wrong. They set one player far behind, the one who wasn't touched matched the OP's Spire timing, except instead of 7-8 mutas, he comes out with 17 all spawning at the same time because his partner had a ton of gas he couldn't use due to keeping drones on it when he otherwise had no use for it. Yes, resource changing 100% drastically changed how the game in the OP went.
|
If feeding result in interesting strategy, I'm all for it. It is too early to tell without someone finding the "100% super always win feeding" strategy or something like that.
|
I’m trying to state that if they had both teched lair in a similar fashion they would both have been able to field mutas at about the same time with just about the same result, although its hard to predict because its bad play from both sides. While resource changing helped during the actual game, no it’s not game breaking.
It will not "Ruin 2v2" as the op claims and if I am wrong and it turns out that the op is true,
He can come back half a year or so from now and exclaim that he told me so, and I would gladly hand him 20 bucks.
Quote from this post, if you got to Vexx but I think at the bottom of my heart that what you are suggesting is not for the good of the game.
|
Actually I can see it being pretty devastating to 2v2. I know it's hardly an RTS to compare to Starcraft, but I remember in my high-level play Halo Wars days when the prominent 2v2 strat was for one guy to mass up Supply Pads and feed his teammate money and they fast tech Gauss Hog. And they could get 10 Gauss Hogs in less than 3 minutes, which should be the normal number normally at about 8 minutes or so and it was just impossible to beat.
I can imagine something similar erupting in modern play in Starcraft, one player like a T fast Orbital Commanding and spamming MUEL's and SCV's while feeding his Protoss or Zerg teammate as they stream units to their opponents base. And imagine a Protoss with double the economy, or even triple possibly due to feeding doing a like, 8 gate early push or something. That would just be ridiculous.
I am not proposing a nerf of any kind, I personally believe it can add some depth to strategy. But it's not something that should be overlooked.
|
On May 10 2010 11:20 Madkipz wrote:
I’m trying to state that if they had both teched lair in a similar fashion they would both have been able to field mutas at about the same time with just about the same result, although its hard to predict because its bad play from both sides. While resource changing helped during the actual game, no it’s not game breaking.
It will not "Ruin 2v2" as the op claims and if I am wrong and it turns out that the op is true,
He can come back half a year or so from now and exclaim that he told me so, and I would gladly hand him 20 bucks.
Quote from this post, if you got to Vexx but I think at the bottom of my heart that what you are suggesting is not for the good of the game.
That's just not true though, because to field equally upgraded muta armies they'd both have to spend resources on the lair, spire, and upgrades. The timing of the lair/spire will be faster due to having more gas than one could possibly have at that point in the game, and you aren't trading off any eco to get this production. The player feeding can still get a huge mineral only army, or mass static defense, they aren't just naked for some early rush.
|
I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I can see how trading like this could lead to some really obnoxious tech patterns or a unit composition that gains a clear, unpreventable advantage. On the other hand, that's a purely speculative suggestion. Even if you lose a game where the opposition fed gas, it's hard to definitively say you would have won if they did not. There are a lot of other factors. This game is an example of just that.
You (it seems) were playing with a random partner while it is more likely that your opposition was a queued team. They (probably) had a long term plan going in, which makes a difference in execution. You did not coordinate your first attack, which could have been decisive. Since it failed, you were left with a weaker starting econ which can be significant. Blue harvester count was low all game. One of you should have built a baneling nest in a 4 zerg match; this shouldn't have needed a prompt, but it was especially evident at the 6 min mark when you saw 30 zerglings and would be clued in to their spire intentions. If you had hit 20-30 seconds later with 6 banelings in tow, it wouldn't have even been close. Both players getting lair/spire would have cut the number of mutalisks, but they still would have had more because they were able to rely on zerglings for 12 minutes. There are other factors as well.
If you really think this is a significant problem, do as others have mentioned and abuse it as hard as possible. Come up with strats based around it. Test them repeatedly against equally skilled practice partners that know they're going to be dealing with it. This is a beta, and this is exactly the sort of thing Bliz wants tested, so in a way I'm glad this thread exists. Just don't base your opinion on past knowledge of a completely different set of mechanics (wc3) and one loss in the ladder.
|
On May 10 2010 11:04 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If feeding result in interesting strategy, I'm all for it. It is too early to tell without someone finding the "100% super always win feeding" strategy or something like that.
i've seen some pretty near unbeatable 1 base pushes from a terran with a zerg just drone powering and feeding.
it's not so much that it's unbeatable or "gay", it's more that it takes depth away from the game. past mid game there's no real way to tell where the resources are which becomes even dumber on these new "shared base" maps.
|
If you don't like ressource trading, say it directly, don't post a 2vs2 replay where a team uses it effectively to somehow make it obvious that this is an out-of-control game-breaking feature that has to be deleted.
No one yet knows what part ressource-trading will take in competitive team games, no one, so at this point you either like or not the mecanisms, and don't pretend otherwise, you would be a liar.
|
It was definitely game breaking in this situation. He posted the rep as an example of how it can be game breaking. In agame playing against people who do 0 harrass or attacks and just sit back and tech the whole game sure, you can do your builds at the exact same times. Except... in games people usually do stuff.
|
From another point of view, if resource-trading (and shared control) becomes the dominant strategy, we could think of "2v2" as simply "a super version of 1v1 with two races, 400 supply cap, and two players' APM", which I feel is a very interesting thing in itself.
If it turns out to have very different gameplay from the "2v2 as we think of it now", why not just make resource-trading a toggleable option (or possibly with parameters for max resources/time to share)? Then players get the flexibility to decide what sort of game they want to play.
|
On May 10 2010 12:03 pschiu wrote:
From another point of view, if resource-trading (and shared control) becomes the dominant strategy, we could think of "2v2" as simply "a super version of 1v1 with two races, 400 supply cap, and two players' APM", which I feel is a very interesting thing in itself.
If it turns out to have very different gameplay from the "2v2 as we think of it now", why not just make resource-trading a toggleable option (or possibly with parameters for max resources/time to share)? Then players get the flexibility to decide what sort of game they want to play.
I like this idea. There should be two different kinds of 2v2. One in which it's two separate players, no feeding, no funny business, no shared control. This would be the traditional view.
Then we could have another one where you can do whatever you want basically. Shared control, 400 food, one player macros the other micros...etc. I think that could be REALLY fun seeing who has the best chemistry. And think of the racial combination's you could use. You would see a lot more chemistry between different races units than you do in normal 2v2.
|
Yeah it's true that one person doesn't have to invest in tech while the other person techs, eliminating redundancy. Trading is without a doubt beneficial. But I think it's not true to say that this decreases the amount of interesting play you can have in 2v2, it increases it. Say in this game one of you got a roach warren and spawned a whole bunch of roaches in the beginning instead of both, trading minerals to the roaching player. Then while you did that, the non roach player techs to lair and gets a spire. Trade gas to the mutalisk player. You will have a million roaches and a million mutas. Both player have to participate and play well to make this work.
I think that there are tons of interesting things you can do with resource trading compared to without it. Saying that because you lost this one game to people doing the most basic of trading shows that trading is powerful, but doesn't show that it's game breaking.
|
Hey, while we're at it, let's implement a NR 5 Min rule to every game, as well as disallowing Proxy Buildings and Terran Lift Off to High Yield.
|
my teammate and i do this on twilight, i'll rush muta skipping queen and he'll make some D and give me money to mass muta asap.. its pretty retarded
|
Logically/mathematically resource trading has to be the most optimal strategy as it eliminates the redundant cost of tech buildings. One lair, one spire, one set of upgrades researched, etc.
The only way this strategy could not be optimal is if the gain of unit mixes that only two separate races can create would outweigh the benefit in cost savings resulting from only one player building the production structures. I don't think this is the case. Perhaps something like sentry forcefields to protect siege tanks or some such thing could be strong enough to beat the gain of resource trading.
Also I believe the feeding player should always be Zerg, but it remains to be seen what the most optimal race to be fed is.
I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings.
|
On May 10 2010 13:19 yomi wrote:
I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings.
This is quite possible, but I think it needs to be tested. Yes Zerg can get drones faster than T or P can get SCVs/Probes, but T has MULEs so they mine faster on saturated bases and they can more easily take island bases (I think P is just a bad choice for econ compared to the other two though, since you can't Chrono allied buildings). Z does spend less on a hatchery than T on a CC of course.
It's also possible, though probably exceedingly unlikely if the map pool remains similar to what it currently is, that early aggression would force enough spending from each player to make early trading (right when it becomes available) a nonissue.
If 2v2 does end up being a "bigger 1v1" essentially, then yeah, something should definitely be changed since that's pretty boring.
|
I'd rather there not be feeding it didn't seem to be a prob in sc1.
|
On May 10 2010 13:19 yomi wrote:
Logically/mathematically resource trading has to be the most optimal strategy as it eliminates the redundant cost of tech buildings. One lair, one spire, one set of upgrades researched, etc.
The only way this strategy could not be optimal is if the gain of unit mixes that only two separate races can create would outweigh the benefit in cost savings resulting from only one player building the production structures. I don't think this is the case. Perhaps something like sentry forcefields to protect siege tanks or some such thing could be strong enough to beat the gain of resource trading.
Also I believe the feeding player should always be Zerg, but it remains to be seen what the most optimal race to be fed is.
I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings.
I think he's right. If the game is balanced for 1v1's, then 2v2 optimal builds have to be feeding centric. And I don't think that 2v2s should look like fastest 1v1s with 2 feeder players. I think it would be best to just not have resource trading. I dunno why it makes the game better.
|
not a fan of this at all, u're two players and have to use ur own damn resources... a tax might help prevent this but i'd rather just see it allowed to let your ally rebuild a base. if i see a zerg whoring drones then i want to see that zerg later making the units :p it might just be me trying to keep in a comfort zone but i don't see the fun of having to do feeder strategies myself just to keep competitive.
|
feeding is no different then getting 7 pooled and proxyed reaper rush... gay as hell but part of the game so have to learn to adapt and learn new strategies to beat those strategies.
|
game would be fine without resource trading
|
Being a WC3 player, I know that resource feeding was very common in 3v3 and 4v4 (garg feed with 3 pandas etc.) and it was quite annoying but effective. When I heard that Starcraft 2 enabled resource trading, I thought it would be abused like it was in WC3. However, the 5 minute delay makes feeding not as viable. I've played quite a bit of 2v2 and have tried the feeding strats to decent success, but in no ways is it broken. It's just another strategy and is fine as it is currently.
|
If one team feeding forces the other team to feed in order to compete, then I feel it's limiting game play options. I'm for removing the resource sharing option all together or at least implementing a flat tax to keep it from being abused. Team play should not be a gimmick.
I've been in situations during team games where my production facilities were destroyed but my harvesters were unharmed causing a pile up of resources. All i wanted to do was plant a pylon to power my gateways or build a barracks so I have a means to spend this accumulation but the enemy was persitent in destroying these buildings. IMO I should have to pay the price of not being able to spend my resources instead of negating the disadvantage by giving those resources to my ally.
The bottom line is, acquiring resources is easy. I'm not saying it's so easy that a noob can do it (keeping constant probe production is a skill) but it's easier than spending resources and macroing. It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player.
|
feeding in 2v2 ladder is fun :s
|
yea not liking the whole 2v2 twilight fortress feed the zerg 4 gas mutas in like 8 mins :/
|
Honestly i think this dynamic makes 2v2 more interesting and should definately be kept in
Stop trying to make 2v2 like 1v1, its a different game lol
|
this post just seems dumb... post your elo and your team ranking please.
never encountered this problem, ever.
|
On May 10 2010 16:05 kidcrash wrote:
It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player.
You can do that anyway by sharing control.
|
Remove gas trading but keep mineral trading imo. 40 mutas of one base is retarded.
|
On May 10 2010 16:55 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 16:05 kidcrash wrote:
It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player. You can do that anyway by sharing control.
Wow everyone looks at things in such a broad and general sense. Please read my whole post for a very specific example.
Your production buildings are destroyed. Your workers remain unharmed and continue to mine the entire time. You have an abundance of minerals and gas that you want to spend but you cannot because the opponent is persistently destroying your buildings. In sc1 this would be an obvious disadvantage. In sc2, this disadvantage is almost completely negated. You should pay the price for being unable to spend your resources. Same thing when your supply is destroyed. Your minerals start to build up (a very bad thing in macro terms). This should be a serious problem that severely penalizes the worse player/team.
edit: I'm all for keeping the mechanic, there just needs to be a tax of some sort to deter players for abusing it.
|
On May 10 2010 09:33 yarkO wrote:Show nested quote +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 keyboards and hotkeys 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 use keyboards and hotkeys, you now must also have implemented playing with a keyboard as part of your play, lest you get overrun by their better executionIt just detracts from the fun of it, but that's just opinion.
-.-. Trading resources is fine. Don't cry about it that it gives an unfair advantage because you can do it also. Just because a few strats rely on trading resources doesn't mean the game is broken. These strats rely on timing. Scout them and watch replays to find their weak points, and later abuse them.
|
On May 10 2010 17:09 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 16:55 crate wrote:On May 10 2010 16:05 kidcrash wrote:
It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player. You can do that anyway by sharing control. Wow everyone looks at things in such a broad and general sense. Please read my whole post for a very specific example.
Well, your third paragraph was in general terms. I'm sorry if it was meant to continue from the situation you described in the second and I misinterpreted.
|
On May 10 2010 17:33 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 17:09 kidcrash wrote:On May 10 2010 16:55 crate wrote:On May 10 2010 16:05 kidcrash wrote:
It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player. You can do that anyway by sharing control. Wow everyone looks at things in such a broad and general sense. Please read my whole post for a very specific example. Well, your third paragraph was in general terms. I'm sorry if it was meant to continue from the situation you described in the second and I misinterpreted.
Sorry, I see how you could of interpreted it like that. Yes, the statement in the third paragraph was in direct relation to the situation given previously. Basically what I'm saying is this function is giving a "cushion" to players that are worse off thus lowering the skill ceiling. If you can't spend your resources fast enough for whatever reason, that should be your problem. I'm not even talking about premeditated strategies.
|
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.
|
Calgary25980 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)
|
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.
|
On May 11 2010 07:49 kidcrash wrote:
Circular argument, completely ignoring the point that it's giving the player with a disadvantage a cushion, thus lowering the skill ceiling.
Yes, it does lower the skill ceiling, just as each expo bringing all the resources to you lowers the skill ceiling. Do we really want to make the game as hard as possible, just so it takes a very high amount of skill to play?
Also, how is it circular? If I am as dumb as you imply, you will actually have to explain how your points matter.
|
On May 11 2010 07:48 Zeke50100 wrote:
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.
If both players are getting their tech buildings sniped, I don't think feeding is an issue at that point, it's pretty much gg.
|
Didn't bother to read all the answers, but here are my 2 cents : feeding is a tool, everyone has access to it, so if it is any good, it will become a key tool in any teamplay. Where is the problem ? I mean if both team use it, the better one will prevail. You say tha in "no time" you can get 6-8 cloaked banshees to attack, whch mean you can also get 20 mutaliks to defend isn't it ?
|
On May 11 2010 07:53 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 07:49 kidcrash wrote:
Circular argument, completely ignoring the point that it's giving the player with a disadvantage a cushion, thus lowering the skill ceiling. Yes, it does lower the skill ceiling, just as each expo bringing all the resources to you lowers the skill ceiling. Do we really want to make the game as hard as possible, just so it takes a very high amount of skill to play? Also, how is it circular? If I am as dumb as you imply, you will actually have to explain how your points matter.
So are you saying 2v2 in SC:BW was too hard because you couldn't share resources?
|
Option: Make an enable/disable button
BAM! Problem solved.
|
On May 11 2010 07:55 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 07:48 Zeke50100 wrote:
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. If both players are getting their tech buildings sniped, I don't think feeding is an issue at that point, it's pretty much gg.
The thing is, beating just ONE of the players will grant you a near-instant victory (depending on how good you and your partner actually are, which is why it's not always an auto-win). Either they have no source of units despite having plenty of resources, or a dwindling resource supply that cannot support the source of units that they DO have.
In short:
If you're P, make a 2 Gate Push
If you're Z, push with Lings and/or Roaches
If you're T, push with Stimrauders
Of course, do this in conjunction with your partner after you scout that one player doesn't have...anything.
At best, Z can have a Pool and a Lair and a Spire on the way, T can have a Starport in production, and P can have a Stargate in production, and this is assuming they skipped the steps in between.
|
On May 11 2010 07:48 Zeke50100 wrote:
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.
See, you're adding words that I didn't use in order to make a weak argument. Consider a terran building marines and marauders (a standard opening). He uses little gas on the labs and the marauders and sends 600 off to his friend at the 5 minute mark. Or a zerg going speedlings for the first few minutes of the game with some roaches. The opportunity cost is negligible because these openings are strong enough to hold the fort while the feed takes place.
On May 11 2010 07:48 Zeke50100 wrote:
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?
That's not how it works. There are production buildings because the feeder can afford to build a base and an army and still feed. Look at the replays posted by others in this thread. Even my replay showcases that.
I kept it to PMs last time but this is too much. You're an idiot, and you haven't read the thread.
On May 11 2010 07:48 Zeke50100 wrote:
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).
I can't believe I still make the mistake of assuming that people posting are intelligent individuals. "that's the equivalent of 2 unsaturated expansions." Are you sure it's not the equivalent of two pieces of string and a yellow button?
If stupidity was met with bans, this discussion wouldn't have reached 25 replies.
|
I think feeding strategies are something that should be taken seriously by Blizzard. This could easily get out of hand if someone uses a very heavy mineral strategy, then sends all the free gas to their ally. I can only imagine the ridiculous amount of tech you can get early in the game due to exploiting this.
Taxation is the obvious solution, as feeding is bad for team games. It can lead to situations where you have a large amount of high tech units that usually should not be available so early in the game.
|
And as I said in pms, you're the stubborn idiot who can't accept that it's a legitimate strategy. It adds depth to the game, period.
Also, the extreme cases you posted (getting 17 mutas soon after the 5 minute mark) and the example provided here (saving your gas because you don't use it) are entirely different. One is cheese-esque, and the other is just being conservative.
If stupidity was met with bans, you wouldn't be here.
You see how easy it is to call people idiots without even acknowledging the fact that others' arguments are legitimate?
|
On May 10 2010 08:40 Vexx wrote:
With feeding, you can have 6-8 cloaked banshees in your base by the time there are usually only 1 or 2. Replace banshees with 20 mutas, or 10 void rays.
LIAR!! NOOB! FRAUD!
And all those that responded here T.T
he's not srs. Or is he????
I think mistruths should be bannable.
Lying like this in your points is =(.
And noobs get trolled easily and so SC2 becomes =(.
Then it's all like =(.
=(. Get people to have an idea. Or it's all like =(
=( =( =(
He even used a [D] when it's bs! =(!
|
Your argument revolves a lot about you not knowing this is happening.
Is scouting banned in 2v2? In this replay there is no feeding at all at 5 minutes, that's about the time the other Zerg starts mining his gas.
Keep in mind this is not W3, I don't know how much can you scout there without doing it with your entire army or windwalking Blademaster or some random drop Sentries (this is how Witch Doctor's spell is called right?) or single summoned units but I don't think you can do this as well as in SC2.
If you say this is imbalanced then you should be able to easily provide more replays TBH and I know someone wrote about proxy Void Rays and gave 4 replays of that.
BTW shouldn't feeder be weaker to take out? Isn't 2v2 all about finding weak points and attacking them together? Just scout them early enough?
edit: about your rep: I guess if someone doesn't have anything else than Roach Warren for something that requires gas but is still harvesting from 2 geysers you can tell he's going to feed.
He didn't even make Lair!
You can be passive or you can use that he's weaker to take him out before the other player really uses any fed resources right?
Also when your opponents are doing mostly zerglings why you don't mix in few Banelings even though you have more than enough resources for that?
Your macro sucked at the point you took down that hatch. All it took was to swarm top right Zerg's main as he refused to use resources he stockpiled.
|
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."
|
they should remove the system completely
|
I watched the replay, he gave him like 400 mins too make your mutas worthless it was good play but he had 17 mutas and you had 4 i looked at the replay carefully and he only gave him 400 mins and no gas so why do just assume that you woulda won and he was a noob, without the 400 he still woulda had more mutas and won so quit your whining, and by the way terrible BM
|
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 ^^
|
On May 11 2010 09:20 MIKE HUTN EASY wrote:
I watched the replay, he gave him like 400 mins too make your mutas worthless it was good play but he had 17 mutas and you had 4 i looked at the replay carefully and he only gave him 400 mins and no gas so why do just assume that you woulda won and he was a noob, without the 400 he still woulda had more mutas and won so quit your whining, and by the way terrible BM
Do you really think that 7 pages into the thread, no one but you would have noticed something like that? He gets 1000 gas, watch closely.
Sorry for the BM, someone must have forgotten to teach me to keep my opinion to myself. Someone hand me some sheep skin so I can join the herd and GG after every match.
|
Pretty good strategy, I should try more of that.
It brings a lot of variety to the game, it's a pretty cool system.
Maybe feeding counters feeding? I shall try that.
|
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.
|
In random 2v2's if i'm terran with a zerg partner i will almost 100% of the time lift off and land at the gold mineral and feed minerals while 11 porting.
|
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 >.>
|
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.
|
Good one. I haven't gotten into the 2v2 side of things yet.
|
I think feeding should be restricted. I dont know how.
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.
|
All I can say is that it will do 1 of 2 things: Either you don't feed vs a feeding team and lose, or everybody just feeds (On close 2p maps) and this game seriously fails because regardless of what you say, think, or has happened in WC3 "pro" level, feeding resources IS FUCKING DUMB, CHEESY, down right NEW PLAYER and should definitely not be such a viable strategy, but more of a lame, silver, newb strat.
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.
|
I think the tax is the best solution, it worked well in other games such as Age of Empires to make it a more difficult choice whether to feed or not. As it currently stands, only needing to invest in one set of tech and upgrades is too clearcut of a midgame advantage.
|
While the OP has some valid arguments, i think more time is needed to tell how well players use feeding and if there are timings or counters. I am pretty sure me and my teammates have defeated people trying to feed due to timing pushes we pull off before the 5 minute mark. With the exception of maybe twilight, before the 5 minute mark a teammate gearing up to only mine resources can be taking out due to their lack of units/production.
|
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.
|
I really believe that 2v2 would be quite interesting and fun to watch competitively if there was an option to host games with two different types of resource trading:
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).
|
I Don't see how you guys are seeing anything wrong in this...
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I vote no resource trading or shared control at all
|
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.
|
On June 30 2010 05:49 terranghost wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
On June 30 2010 08:28 DanielD wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
|
|
I think the best solution I've read is to only allow mineral trading, not gas. It's a cool feature to be able to spot your ally some money to rebuild their base in a close game, but it's really lame to play against mass air at 6-7 minutes, especially with these "shared bases" maps where the economy guy can build tons of static defenses to prevent a rush while his partner hard techs.
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.
|
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.
|
On June 30 2010 08:53 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 08:28 DanielD wrote: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. 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.
|
On June 30 2010 08:51 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 05:49 terranghost wrote: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 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.
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
|
On June 30 2010 10:07 vizniz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 08:53 kidcrash wrote:On June 30 2010 08:28 DanielD wrote: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. 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.
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
|
agree with the OP. It will keep the team matchups interesting IMO. Feeding will lead to cheesing one offs.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 30 2010 05:05 Paramore wrote:
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.
Me and Travin have played dozens of 2v2s with this strat, and I really think our only losses were to double gate zealot rushes when we tried to do it on that desert map with the gigantic choke ;p
I mean, it's not unbeatable but it's a bit stupidly strong.
Same story holds mostly true for me + TLO doing it, just that I've played the build more times with Travin :p
I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem
|
I don't know what needs to be done but I don't want team matches in SC2 to end up like WC3. The larger the teams (2v2+) the more powerful feeding strategies became, most games were won by which team could feed better. Because feeding strats are strong, most team ended up using strats that always revolved around feeding. It becomes boring and ends up ruining team games.
|
Until mechanics to trade resources are a fast and convenient part of the interface, rather than clumsily tacked on, players should not be expected to use them frequently.
On June 30 2010 11:13 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem
We used to wall our Zerg opponent in with 3-5 zealots all the time in BW 2v2. It's only natural that controlling an opponent's choke point will give you the advantage.
|
yes, some other system > ban it completely
|
> make a hq building (nexus/cc/hatch) mandatory for trading, would be a good start for a change
|
I think its pretty much ok ... taxes would be some nice additions ...
But right now its fair i think cuz lets say 1 player is feeding the other it means they will have less costs cuz they dont have to build prod. buildings .... But it means they will mostly have only 1 tech !
So the other team who didnt feed will have 2 different techs but little less smaller army due to prod. buildings ...
Am i rights? Looks pretty fair to me
|
Jinro - seemed to me like, in the TLO v. QXC/Artosis games, the feeding strategy lost pretty cleanly when you guys weren't able to do a joint wall-off. It won cleanly once (when you were able to double-wall off and they weren't expecting it) and won in a bit closer game the second time, when they expended resources trying to get through your wall-off and couldn't.
This seems sort of reasonably balanced, no? Feeding requires good teamwork and a good sense of timing. It doesn't work on all maps, or against all strategies. Is it that broken?
|
On June 30 2010 18:11 kAra wrote:
> make a hq building (nexus/cc/hatch) mandatory for trading, would be a good start for a change
what? That would mean you can't get your ally back in if his main gets assassinated, but wouldn't stop feeding at all...
|
I havnt read through the whole thread. But since am an experienced Wc3 player I can add that Feeding is indeed fairly common, but doesnt in no way imbalances the games in my opinion. Its also ~easily (kinda) beatable if you're doing it right. Lets say we have the match ups, N|UvN|O (Nelf, Undead vs Nelf, Orc). The Nelf will feed the undead a LOT in this game, but if the N/O team plays the game correctly with proper positioning and micro they shouldnt have any problems overcoming the rush that's gonna come against them.
|
On June 30 2010 11:13 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 05:05 Paramore wrote:
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. Me and Travin have played dozens of 2v2s with this strat, and I really think our only losses were to double gate zealot rushes when we tried to do it on that desert map with the gigantic choke ;p I mean, it's not unbeatable but it's a bit stupidly strong. Same story holds mostly true for me + TLO doing it, just that I've played the build more times with Travin :p I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem
don't you get completely handled by reapers doing that build? i know in that game you were playing against pz and thats why you did it so i dont know if you're talking about matchup specifics, but judging from your post here you sound like you're doing it vs all races and getting away with it
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 30 2010 22:16 Crosswind wrote:
Jinro - seemed to me like, in the TLO v. QXC/Artosis games, the feeding strategy lost pretty cleanly when you guys weren't able to do a joint wall-off. It won cleanly once (when you were able to double-wall off and they weren't expecting it) and won in a bit closer game the second time, when they expended resources trying to get through your wall-off and couldn't.
This seems sort of reasonably balanced, no? Feeding requires good teamwork and a good sense of timing. It doesn't work on all maps, or against all strategies. Is it that broken?
Uhhh we only did it on the shared bases maps, we didn't do any feeding in the other games 
On June 30 2010 22:52 Tropics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 11:13 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 30 2010 05:05 Paramore wrote:
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. Me and Travin have played dozens of 2v2s with this strat, and I really think our only losses were to double gate zealot rushes when we tried to do it on that desert map with the gigantic choke ;p I mean, it's not unbeatable but it's a bit stupidly strong. Same story holds mostly true for me + TLO doing it, just that I've played the build more times with Travin :p I really don't like the "shared bases on EVERY MAP HURRRRR" syndrome of the new team maps, but at the same time I can see why - force field trapping one player forever in their main with 2-3 sentries and a proxy pylon, while ganging up on the other player... Well, it would be a problem don't you get completely handled by reapers doing that build? i know in that game you were playing against pz and thats why you did it so i dont know if you're talking about matchup specifics, but judging from your post here you sound like you're doing it vs all races and getting away with it
Maybe vs double reapers... You still make marines and P techs quickly so vs single reaper, it's fine.
|
On May 10 2010 09:14 faction123 wrote:
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.
Do we ban 6 pools too? because 3x 6 pool in 3v3 is strong as hell.. and some people do it over and over again and it's no fun at all.
|
I don't know if feeding is necessarily a problem I thought the Jinro/TLO game w/ Artosis/QXC was really entertaining especially the one with "carpet storms" lol.
Honestly though this kind of stuff(resource trading) is what makes 2v2 different than 1v1 and I think that's a good thing. I personally love watching 1v1 and I don't think 2v2 will ever rival it in any way but having some variety is always a good thing.
Also since both teams can easily resource share I see no reason why it should be banned. In wc3 you would have teams giving an ally gold right away to boost his econ but in this at least u can't feed within the first few mins.(not sure how long it is)
tl;dr its fine as is imo
|
how is having 17muta by 12mins any issue people can do that in 1v1 quite easily with right build order, I dont think resource trading is a bad idea it opens new team build strats and also allows to recover unlike in sc bw where if you didnt have enough for say a hatch and lost all bases cept maybe a extractor you cant just rebuild your out for the match with resource trading it allows to feed allie for recovery as well so people whining need to stop complaining about topics not worth speaking about.
Another good reason for the resource trading in wc3 was if allies droped you had to play 2 teams but it better to play his team and feed resource more sucessful offense that way at least sc2 may allow such recovery from disconnects as well.
|
i don't think it's such a big deal since the other team can easily do the same
|
TLO and FrozenArbiter showed exactly why feeding is massively flawed in its present state as far as I am concerned.
I am not saying it should be removed, but a flat tax like 10-20% of the resources transferred lost seems like a fair nerf.
|
On July 04 2010 23:16 TDC wrote:
i don't think it's such a big deal since the other team can easily do the same
If marines were stupidly overpowered it wouldn't be a big deal, because you can also pick terran and mass marines, right?
|
On July 04 2010 23:32 Ghad wrote:
TLO and FrozenArbiter showed exactly why feeding is massively flawed in its present state as far as I am concerned.
I am not saying it should be removed, but a flat tax like 10-20% of the resources transferred lost seems like a fair nerf.
On July 04 2010 18:32 FrozenArbiter wrote:Uhhh we only did it on the shared bases maps, we didn't do any feeding in the other games
If one person can wall of both players if he wants to with little to no wall in support from his opponent you should expect feeding. That's what I liked about the 2v2 map pool there were shared bases maps and there were nonshared bases maps.
Now I do like the nonshared base ones more
Edit:switched quotes
Edit: I voted for a tax not because feeding is broken (as it is not both teams can do it for crying outloud) but because I think it makes it interesting. And as arbiter mentioned they only fed on shared bases this is not to say there aren't strategies for feeding on non shared. For example when me and my friend do a 2v2 we have our strategy and starting unit and transition all figured out during the loading screen and as we scout we may or may not move away from this plan. Say I am going to go marine opening transition to hellions. Do I need my gas? no. Say he is going ling to heavy muta. does he need lots of gas? yes then we see our opponents transition into void rays and mutas/corruptors. I'm not going to give my ally as much gas because I will need to tranisition and get vikings.
The best way to stop feeding is to force both of your opponents into needing their vespene gas as this will be the primarily traded resource
|
On July 04 2010 23:55 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 23:16 TDC wrote:
i don't think it's such a big deal since the other team can easily do the same If marines were stupidly overpowered it wouldn't be a big deal, because you can also pick terran and mass marines, right?
Logical fail. Feeding is available to all 3 races, in other words all players. Racial imbalances are not.
However, it may be too strong, or it may not. But let's not turn immediately on shared control and resources because it's too dissimilar to BW or to 1v1. It opens up a wealth of new potential strategies and tactics. Perhaps these are unhealthy. But shouldn't we at least let it flourish for a little while to see what happens? Ultimately I think it's better if 2v2 plays entirely differently than 1v1. If there's enough balance to make competitions possible, then having less overlap between the two modes is great, imho.
Though it may not have been an instance of feeding, the G1 of Artosis+QXC vs Jinro/TLO on Metalopolis was perhaps the coolest game I've seen in the beta just in terms of the visceral emotions of watching lots and lots of things dying with crazy good particle effects. Having a decent 2v2 scene for fun showmatches like this is a great thing, I feel.
|
you should only be able to feed if you are revealed(no nexus/CC/hatch).
|
I think it's fine to remain in the game. I wouldn't mind increasing the time on it though.
|
I like the idea of taxing resource trading should it be deemed too powerful. It should definitely be a viable strategy, though not mandatory.
|
Feeding is going to be incorporated into all the best strategies down the road. Feeding is always optimal because two people investing in tech, tech structures, and production structures is inefficient whereas one person can invest in those structures and the other person can feed them, turning the cost of one player's production facilities, military tech, and tech structures entirely into military production.
|
I agree with the idea of diminishing returns.
Feeding isn't 'unfair', but it makes the game much less interesting from both a player and spectator point of view.
|
I think there should be a limit on how much you can trade, but I would strongly oppose any sort of tax on traded resources. You could limit the amount available for trade based on how long into the game, how much resources you have, how much resources you have mined, or some other way.
|
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.
his point is that if there's no way to beat a general strategy of "feeding" w/ a more standard approach that does not involve this, then it defeats the purpose for 2v2 players to implement any deviant strategy, which then limits the possibilities early game 2v2 itself.
a parallel to chess is in the early game, if it were discovered that the best opening for white is e4, and every black player only responded w/ Sicilian Defense, if it were discovered that that was the best response. It just limits the possibilities of the early game and makes for a stale, mechanical and predicted pattern of play.
btw, i'm not saying whether feeding is unfair or not...i'm just stating the problem if it turns out that the strategy proves to be a clear cut winner over more "conventional" play.
|
Ya, exactly. Feeding isnt unfair, it just forces the other team to feed, which limits the viable strategies and has the potential to make team play boring.
|
What makes feeding one person so powerful? I don't see how giving all the money to one player would make a big difference compared to just keeping the money and spending it yourself. In the replay provided, wouldn't it have been just as deadly if both of them made 7-8 mutas each intead of just light blue making 15 or however many for himself?
|
On July 05 2010 00:38 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 23:55 lololol wrote:On July 04 2010 23:16 TDC wrote:
i don't think it's such a big deal since the other team can easily do the same If marines were stupidly overpowered it wouldn't be a big deal, because you can also pick terran and mass marines, right? Logical fail. Feeding is available to all 3 races, in other words all players. Racial imbalances are not. However, it may be too strong, or it may not. But let's not turn immediately on shared control and resources because it's too dissimilar to BW or to 1v1. It opens up a wealth of new potential strategies and tactics. Perhaps these are unhealthy. But shouldn't we at least let it flourish for a little while to see what happens? Ultimately I think it's better if 2v2 plays entirely differently than 1v1. If there's enough balance to make competitions possible, then having less overlap between the two modes is great, imho. Though it may not have been an instance of feeding, the G1 of Artosis+QXC vs Jinro/TLO on Metalopolis was perhaps the coolest game I've seen in the beta just in terms of the visceral emotions of watching lots and lots of things dying with crazy good particle effects. Having a decent 2v2 scene for fun showmatches like this is a great thing, I feel.
WTF? Is there some divine force stopping you from picking terran? This is the same as saying it's not even available to all terrans, since some terrans may not build marines. The logical fail is in your post.
As I implied just because something is available to everyone(or not) does not mean it's not an imbalance. Stating the opposite is devoid of any logic whatsoever.
Whether the specific mechanic is imbalanced is debatable, but will probably become pretty clear after release and some Korean 2v2s.
|
cutting out the 2nd liar and 2nd spire gives you 3 extra mutas. Instead of 15 they would have 18.
|
I really really dislike how you immediately dismiss scouting as a way to see it coming. Maps with shared bases, its so ridiculously easy to see it coming its ridiculous. My 2v2 partner and I were always rank 1 in our division of platinum (didn't play as much when it switched to diamond) and those "unstoppable pushes" you speak of aren't nearly as game breaking as you make them out to me.
For the example where you mention zerg getting fed. We run terran/protoss, so WHEN we scout the spire, I get phoenixes and micro my heart out and we immediately win the game because one player has nothing. This game isn't Warcraft 3, the counters are way stronger.
In the example of protoss being fed: Again, shared bases are the only place this is remotely viable and I'll explain after this. In the event of stargates and void rays, we just build defense structures (as they are super strong in this game) and prepare accordingly (vikings/blink stalkers/whatever). The 10 gate push is a lot scarier actually, but since we play so aggressively, we usually match their numbers with huge amounts of marauders and zealot/sentry.
Now the reason why I say it's not viable on non-shared bases is because of the general atmosphere of 2v2s. In my experiences, 2v2 games are incredibly aggressive and there are always early pushes (like seriously around the 25-30 food mark). Against a competent scouting opponent, the feeding team will have a very hard time winning the game if after the 5 minute mark, one player is only making marines or zealots. I can tell you from experience, they'd just get steam-rolled.
imo, feeding is fine at the moment
|
constant aggressive pressure will reduce feeding, and can lead to a win...
|
I think there should be an option to disable feeding and shared resources for custom games (tournaments). There should be some kind of tax system instead of removing it completely from the ladder as I like players to be able to help their teammate rebuild their main but not commit a whole game to feeding.
|
I think feeding is okay. You're reducing your own economy to benefit your partner's. The weakness is that you'll be the one in trouble.
What they really should do is allow how much minerals or gas is transferred at a time so spectators can know what's happening.
|
Feeding was strong in Warcraft III because it allowed one player to stay in no upkeep without an overall loss in units. That's not the case here.
It may be the case that the system is flawed but I don't think it should be changed without giving it a chance.
|
So I played a few 2v2 games where my team was feeding on shared base maps.
We won every game.
We're actually not sure what to do when the other team is feeding.
What's a good counter to feeding?
|
Feeding works wonders in Nexus Wars, too, as it happens.
|
On May 10 2010 10:07 KovuTalli wrote:
It also means the less skilled player can focus on macro while the one with more micro can dominate solo with units.
.
This can be done without the use of resource trading. It's called giving control of units to your ally.
|
On July 13 2010 02:28 ultratorr wrote:
So I played a few 2v2 games where my team was feeding on shared base maps.
We won every game.
We're actually not sure what to do when the other team is feeding.
What's a good counter to feeding?
You have to rush the the guy with the production buildings, not the feeder. The obvious counter is to attack the feeder, but no, they have nothing but money (i.e. no threat vs other guy with units coming out). Both of you attack the guy that's being fed and take out his production making buildings.
It all depends on you scouting it properly though which is kinda hard in SC2 as was pointed out already.
Feeding is a very strong strategy but very boring to use if your aim is to have fun. If your aim is to win in whatever way that works, then it's a very effective strat.
|
I've played 2vs2 as terran and my ally leaves early, then I have a very early 2-3 tank w/ siegeupgrade/bioball and my opponents have a very hard time stopping me unless they all-in, cheesed rush/cheesed shared resource.
It isn't that I *want* to cheese them (i wouldn't share resources in 2vs2 unless need it to rebuild or it is a small amount like 100 gas) but in a 1vs2 i have to finish it immediately or I get outmacroed/outmicroed by two players.
-----
This does make 'practicing' shared resource cheese do-able.
Play a 2vs2 with friends, have your ally start his harvest production/harvesting (up to building first gas harvest) and then have him quit.
You get all the resources (continually from his harvest) and can figure out what is the right amount of resources/gas that he needs to give you to get the right imba early tech/push out until it is polished. Then turn on shared control and your ally can feed you and help micro/macro with you.
Corv
|
On July 13 2010 03:03 Kinslayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 02:28 ultratorr wrote:
So I played a few 2v2 games where my team was feeding on shared base maps.
We won every game.
We're actually not sure what to do when the other team is feeding.
What's a good counter to feeding? You have to rush the the guy with the production buildings, not the feeder. The obvious counter is to attack the feeder, but no, they have nothing but money (i.e. no threat vs other guy with units coming out). Both of you attack the guy that's being fed and take out his production making buildings. It all depends on you scouting it properly though which is kinda hard in SC2 as was pointed out already. Feeding is a very strong strategy but very boring to use if your aim is to have fun. If your aim is to win in whatever way that works, then it's a very effective strat.
That sounds like the right thing to do. In a few of our games, the opponent scouted that we were feeding. They started to attack me, the feeder. I did lose a base, but I still have 2 more bases, and in the end, we still won.
Thanks for the insight.
On another note, I do believe implementing a tax is the right way to go.
|
Lol, I just played a game where all the the terran did was feeding the prot. Nothing else. How is that 2vs2? You can multibox that. Though who knows, maybe that's what he did. I dunno, this and many other things will probably make me cancel my preorder. I don't only wanna have fun playing 1vs1.
|
I dunno, this and many other things will probably make me cancel my preorder. I don't only wanna have fun playing 1vs1.
Whaaaat?
The campaign alone is more than a reason to buy the game!
Don't give up on a potentially great game yet! Get a buddy of yours to play with you and kick some fed protoss buttocks and you will see how much fun 2on2 can be (Even FFA makes for some fun games)! If you are playing on EU i would even give you my I.D. and play some games on release just to keep a fellow gamer interested in such an awesome game.
|
On July 13 2010 11:41 quasit wrote:
Lol, I just played a game where all the the terran did was feeding the prot. Nothing else. How is that 2vs2? You can multibox that. Though who knows, maybe that's what he did. I dunno, this and many other things will probably make me cancel my preorder. I don't only wanna have fun playing 1vs1.
Pretty sure the game is balanced around competitive 1v1... not some campaign noob.
|
On July 13 2010 12:01 xbayrockx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 11:41 quasit wrote:
Lol, I just played a game where all the the terran did was feeding the prot. Nothing else. How is that 2vs2? You can multibox that. Though who knows, maybe that's what he did. I dunno, this and many other things will probably make me cancel my preorder. I don't only wanna have fun playing 1vs1. Pretty sure the game is balanced around competitive 1v1... not some campaign noob.
Then why even have resource trading? What are you going to use that for in 1v1?
|
Meh, playing against AI (campaigns) is boring. Sure, I guess you could win against a fed prot. I'm in bronze though.
Still, how is it 2vs2 when one of them just press SSSSSS then 5 minutes later transfer-transfer-SSSSSS. Why not then allow one player to control two races in 2vs2 with one account? It wouldn't be any different, would it?
|
From the perspective of someone who played competitive 2v2 at the highest level in wc3(wc3l and similar) Feeding strats are part of the game, but they are by no means uncounterable, they were popular for a while but people found ways to overcome and they mostly evolved into a gimick sort of play that could give you an advantage - but mainly because of the unexpected nature of the strategy.
Resource trading was however used a lot early game to transfer little amounts of resources to allow for more lean builds, which I felt was exactley how it was supposed to work.
(sorry if all of this has been mentioned before, didnt make it through the entire thread)
|
How is feeding affecting the game after launch? Are people still having problems with this (or, if you are using it, having success with it)?
|
duh!!! 1vs1 is real starcraft, 2vs2 is for fun stop crying, on a side note, feeding is the most viable 2s strat i had in beta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
