Shared bases in team games - Page 2

On March 02 2011 11:55 sushiman wrote:
They should at least mix it up and make some hunters-style maps - if people are so worried about rushing, make the paths between bases longer. Or just force people to scout and react. Actually, it should cut down on cheesing since countering would be way way stronger.

On December 01 2010 05:41 Sein wrote:

I was wondering if there are many other people who would like more variety in 2v2 ladder maps, or if I was in a small minority wanting this. Currently, almost every single 2v2 map is "shared base" type.

I personally prefer maps where the four players are about equally distanced from one another, because it makes counterattacking your opponent bases while your ally is under attack a much more potent option than in shared base maps. "Shared base" maps make either helping your ally or sitting in your base building up an army while your ally is dying almost always better choices than trying to attack your enemy bases at the same time.

Why? Your ally's base is 5 steps away, so why not just help him when your enemy bases are so far away? Chances are the opponent players will have a good number of reinforcement units by the time you get to their bases, and since the two enemy bases are very close to each other, you are basically attacking two players instead of one, which put you at a disadvantage. It also puts your own base in a very vulnerable position because if the opponent units are attacking your ally, that means they are also right in front of your own base. Quick air units like mutas and banshees are a few exceptions.

Of course, people have different preferences. Some of my friends really like these shared base maps, and I respect their opinions. However, I would just like to see more variety, as in a good mix of shared base and non-shared base type (where the four players are about equally distanced from one another) maps. I liked LT and Metalopolis when they were in the 2v2 map pool, and I don't really understand why they were taken out.

On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.

While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts).

On March 02 2011 11:32 Mercury- wrote:
How many team games did you play in SC2? Non-shared bases means you lose people instantly to any kind of mass t1 allin + lings. Outpost is actually a great map btw since you can still rush but it's still defendable and later on the expo positions can lead to the game being spli into 2 seperate 2v2s.

Also the poll is biased, non-shared bases wouldn't be "too difficult", it would just dumb 4v4 down into mass lings + x, kinda like 2v2 and 3v3 mostly already is.

On March 02 2011 12:20 Whitewing wrote:
BGH wasn't on a ladder system.

On March 02 2011 12:20 Whitewing wrote:
BGH wasn't on a ladder system.

On March 02 2011 12:25 Rotodyne wrote:
I have fond memories of playing 3v3 @ Hunters in SC:BW. Anyone who played with a set team in pubbies may remember the glorious horrors of attempting to join and host games. Most people couldn't host games, battle.net seemed finicky in this regard. Although most of these people probably didn't understand basic port forwarding. This lack of hosts sometimes caused the classic 3 man join maneuver. Attempting to join a pub game and beg the host to put you on the same team as your buddies. It was annoying for the host, and a big hassle for players trying to play on the same team.

For teams that could host games, it was easier, but there were still hardships. Constantly people will join and instantly quit your games. They either realized you were a set team about to crush 3 pub players, or they were too impatient to wait more than 3 seconds for more players to join. Every attempt to play a 3v3 was a journey, a mission, a battle of Man vs. Battle.net
The glory of the first battle in the middle of the map was unmatched. It was a beautiful thing, and I hope it shall continue in SC2. Everyone sent out their first zealot or lings. The problem is that the maps in sc2 team games just straight up suck for early game micro games. I don't know, I'm sure they are just trying to be noob friendly -_-

Thanks to the excellent matchmaker, we no longer have the joining and hosting problems but they introduced a whole new problem with the map pool.

I actually wrote that thing about joining and hosting games a while ago, I just thought it was too stupid to actually make a blog or thread based on that.

That being said, I completely and fully agree with intrigue

On March 02 2011 12:31 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem with split base maps is that they actually kills creativity. In Brood War, pro 2v2 died because there was a single strategy for PZ which dominated every possible strategy for every other race combination. Thus, more or less every 2v2 was PZvPZ, with both Zergs opening 9-pool speed into 1-hatch muta with no further drones pumped, while the Protoss both opened 2-gate into 3-gate Dragoon into Templar tech. There were a few TZ teams that tried, but Mutalisks force the Terran to play MM + Vessels, and Templar + Dark Archons shut that down hard. There was one 2v2 map, however, that didn't follow this pattern. Hunters. Hunters was even worse. Whichever team had a player that tried to tech past Zerglings, Zealots, or Marines first, lost.

The principles which caused this problem exist in SC2, as well. Mass speedling yields map control. This prevents players on the other team from moving out without being immediately faced with a 2v1 situation. They can't join armies and fight together. The only unit that can match the threat and mobility of Zerglings is Zerglings of your own. Furthermore, Mutalisks force every player to be able to defend against Mutalisks, unless that team has an equal air force. Their are some units that could match the mobility of the mutalisk (corsair, phoenix), but they don't match the threat, so the Mutalisks were always the aggressive group, which gives them the advantage.

As an addendum, proleague rules didn't allow teams to have both players select Zerg. There were some teams that played Zerg Random in hopes of getting two Zergs, because two Zerg far and away dominated 2v2, for the principles described above.
In general, these principles apply to 3v3 and 4v4 as well. A team with 1 Zerg will almost always have that Zerg killed by early aggression of 2 Zergs on the other team, and from there, that team is down a player and down map control, and the non-zerg on the team that has map control can essentially have opened Nexus or CC first (in fact, in BW 2v2, PZ against TT, if the Zerg opened 9-pool speed, the Protoss could open Nexus first and then tech right to Dragoons, because of the map control provided by the mass speedling), or tech rapidly to something which will crush players forced to play against mass ling, such as cloaked Banshees, DTs, or Colossi. This works because every player on the team with less Zerg players is forced to have enough units to defend against Speedlings, while the players on the team with more Zergs can often cut units for econ or tech.

Shared bases alleviates more or less all of these problems, allowing a variety of strategies to be effective, and making the game more about player skill and decision making than ability to execute the one superior strategy.

TL;DR
Shared base maps allow for more varied play because of the mechanics of pressure and map control.

Also, the poll sucks. There's no option for non-shared base maps are worse than shared base maps.

On March 02 2011 12:35 Highways wrote:
It much more better having allies on the same side as you.

BGH was massively lucked based depending where everybody spwans.