EPTShared bases in team games - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
kamui8899
81 Posts
| ||
|
RyuChus
Canada442 Posts
On March 02 2011 14:03 Chicane wrote: I am being constructive. Notice I am not flaming you and I never even said I disagreed with your statement. My comments are completely valid and I feel I am being fair about it. It is alright that you don't like my input, but that doesn't mean you have to claim it is not constructive. Most people would agree that being fair to both view points (whether needed or not) is perfectly acceptable to bring up as criticism. I was hoping to bring this up for you to consider in future posts so that they seem more valid... it is simply how arguments are traditionally supposed to go. My intention was not to get people upset over it. Dear God, his OP wasn't biased what so ever jeezus. You should get over it. Be constructive, saying that he's biased isn't constructive at all. You're also quietly flaming him by saying he's biased. What are you trying to say anyways with your post? Besides him being "biased". The reason he presented his information like that, is because oh i dunno it actually is like that? Think about it first. BGH was crazy. Ridiculously crazy. Units everywhere, and depending on where the people were on the map they were attacked. Now Outpost. There's like, 2 attack paths, but everyone uses that one that Intrigue showed, because its pretty much the closest one. Also, if you haven't noticed its Intrigue, he has like 20k posts, I think he knows what are good posts and what aren't. Now on topic: Totally agree  That's actually what it feels like. Thank you. My only problem is that without shared bases in SC2 someone gets rushed and its just too hard to help the people hold off against that rush, so I guess its okay for it to be shared bases, because it makes sense, to have everyone close together, so that the games aren't like 5 minutes long. Just to make it easier for the more casual players.EDIT: Grossly overestimated the amount of posts Intrigue has but still, that's a lot. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
It would be nice to see some maps bring that back but I really don't see it happening  . | ||
|
Chicane
United States7875 Posts
On March 02 2011 14:23 RyuChus wrote: Dear God, his OP wasn't biased what so ever jeezus. You should get over it. Be constructive, saying that he's biased isn't constructive at all. You're also quietly flaming him by saying he's biased. What? Well then can you please inform me how I am supposed to claim someone is biased without "quietly flaming them"? What are you trying to say anyways with your post? Besides him being "biased". That's about it. I clearly stated that I am not even disagreeing, but in order to make an argument look more valid to everyone (especially those who disagree but may be convinced by this kind of post) he may want to change some things. I really didn't think so many people would get so pissed about it... my god. The reason he presented his information like that, is because oh i dunno it actually is like that? Alright, I really didn't want to get this literal, but do you really think that there is only one path to go on that map for all 4 players who don't even spawn in the same section of the map? Do you really think that there is only 1 place to do a drop? No. More importantly, do you think every single path was used in BGH for battles? No. Often they were controlled by a team. I am not saying he should draw every single path, but he should be more fair with both the maps. It really is easy to see, someone else on the previous page even drew out a good picture of what I am saying. On March 02 2011 14:03 Kyadytim wrote: First, I think the point that Chicane was making was that the BGH image might have looked something like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jdXuj.jpg) while the Outpost image might looked like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CjrPz.jpg) Suddenly, the Outpost game looks a whole lot more interesting than the BGH game. Think about it first. BGH was crazy. Ridiculously crazy. Units everywhere, and depending on where the people were on the map they were attacked. Now Outpost. There's like, 3 attack paths, but everyone uses that one in the middle, because its the easiest, direct path to the base, the others just are not really necessary, because they are around the outside of the bases, and natural. Again... this doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I agree BGH has more viable paths to go which caused for "crazier" games. Also, if you haven't noticed its Intrigue, he has like 20k posts, I think he knows what are good posts and what aren't. This has no relevance to what I am saying. Seriously guys... I didn't think this would get people pissed off. It really isn't a big deal. I am bringing up my points, and if you would like to say why I am wrong go ahead (AND BE SPECIFIC) but other than that forget it. This is still a good and relevant thread for many reasons and the topic is an interesting one. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On March 02 2011 14:36 Chicane wrote: What? Well then can you please inform me how I am supposed to claim someone is biased without "quietly flaming them"? That's about it. I clearly stated that I am not even disagreeing, but in order to make an argument look more valid to everyone (especially those who disagree but may be convinced by this kind of post) he may want to change some things. I really didn't think so many people would get so pissed about it... my god. Alright, I really didn't want to get this literal, but do you really think that there is only one path to go on that map for all 4 players who don't even spawn in the same section of the map? Do you really think that there is only 1 place to do a drop? No. More importantly, do you think every single path was used in BGH for battles? No. Often they were controlled by a team. I am not saying he should draw every single path, but he should be more fair with both the maps. It really is easy to see, someone else on the previous page even drew out a good picture of what I am saying. To be honest, claiming his post is biased honestly doesn't bring anything to the topic. On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote: 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). This post serves the same purpose as as your post, except I edited the part about being biased and does not attack the poster. Back to the subject, if you actually look at the implications and forget the images (since they were drawn probably in less than a minute or two), you'll notice some very good points are raised, which do in fact exists in 4vs4 play. In order words, forget the images, look at the implications. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
The problem isn't shared base or not, it's map design. Compared to 1v1 maps, there is a real lack of expansions per player in the 4v4 maps. The fewest bases per player any single player map currently in the ladder map pool has is 5, on Slag Pits. Outpost doesn't even have 4 per player. A good number of the problems with 4v4 maps would probably be alleviated if they had similar complexity to maps like Xel'Naga Caverns or Typhon Peaks. Yes, Warshop, those images were drawn in a few minutes total, but I did assign races, builds, and strategies to each of the players in both fictitious games. | ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
I hate that all 4v4 games are going the same way - everyone sits back turtles up to get a deathball both armys a move and the one with the better composition wins. Or one team allins. There are drops and harrassment possibilities but everything is expected, there is a zerg in the opponents team?- scan at about 10 minutes to look at his spire and prepare... Blizzard has to do something about the current state of 3v3/4v4 play - but iam pretty sure they wont be able to fix that unless they remove/nerf warpgate and or macromechanics in generell. Because of that i think its hard to translate BGH 1:1 into Sc2 just because macromechanics give you units faster - warpgate technology can be abused ridicilously. BGH in Bw worked because you couldnt warp in 12 units at the doorstep of your opponent base. Especially problematic is the ZvZ problem in teamgames. If its nonshared bases and your team is ZZP and the other team ZPT - you can almost always kill the other Zerg, and you dont need to pool early - you can just go your standard speedling expand (or speedling baneling) and run into the zergs main and kill him. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On March 02 2011 14:56 Kyadytim wrote: I agree with Chicane here. There is a relevant discussion here, but I think it's being overshadowed by shared base vs separate base. Manicshock did mention, it, though, when he mentioned that there's a lack of thirds. The problem isn't shared base or not, it's map design. Compared to 1v1 maps, there is a real lack of expansions per player in the 4v4 maps. The fewest bases per player any single player map currently in the ladder map pool has is 5, on Slag Pits. Outpost doesn't even have 4 per player. A good number of the problems with 4v4 maps would probably be alleviated if they had similar complexity to maps like Xel'Naga Caverns or Typhon Peaks. Yes, Warshop, those images were drawn in a few minutes total, but I did assign races, builds, and strategies to each of the players in both fictitious games. While it is true that Output does not have an easy natural expansion, I do not think this is the problem (as opposed to shared-base vs randomize spawn locations). I think the biggest difference between these maps and BGH, is the fact that positions have a lesser impact on strategies. In BGH, if you were bottom right and your allies were top left, you knew you had to survive. On the contrary, the one that was top left, knew he could probably tech up and do some damage to the one that was right under him. Randomized positions actually brought forward some interesting strategies and had a bigger impact on your playstyle, which shared-base seem to always end up the same way. While it is true that late game is probably similar on both ends, it feels the early game in BGH was a lot more interesting. The only problem is that the aggressor seems to have the edge in SC2. Warp-ins/Queen Larva/Reactors seems to make (as Idra pointed out) the aggression come too fast. Oh, and I was referring to Intrigue's images, not yours. But I guess it goes for both. The images are not the important point here. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On March 02 2011 11:09 intrigue wrote: This is how games felt then: This is what it feels like to play on this map: implying subjective depiction. i did not say that this is how every single game in the entire history of these maps has been played out, and that every outpost game has exactly one drop occurring along the top left position. i did not say that 11 o'clock on bgh always spawns as teal and first takes his natural and then cliffs 9 o'clock (his own ally) inexplicably and then takes 12 and then moves around outside top mid and then drops around right right side to 6 o'clock to defend his teammate who always spawns as blue against the attacks of the players at 7 and 3 and 1, while everyone on sc2 maps spawn as white. at worst this is "artistic" hyperbole, to create emphasis. you guys really stress me out. and of course i'm biased, you're saying that like it's taboo. that is why people talk, because everyone is biased and we work it out. we do not just tell each other we think they are biased. i had a lot of fun on these maps and i think other people should get the chance, too. do they teach you in school to be completely objective and passionless in everything you write these days? do you want me to say "while bgh is fucking fun, outpost may possibly also be fucking fun, and in conclusion we maybe may not need any new maps at all?" do you think i am unfairly representing outpost? i considered that i might have been, so i posted the originals first. are the paint scribbles really that offensive? is this the only thing you can see when you read my post? are you going to answer every single one of these questions? | ||
|
lofung
Hong Kong298 Posts
| ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
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. Yes, PZ was considered to be the best race combination in the Proleague, but look at the 2v2 maps they were using. Hunters had spawning position imbalances (the map had 8 starting positions and wasn’t symmetrical at all) along with 10 mineral fields in each main base (which favors Protoss over Terran and Zerg), Seongangil and Vampire had 2 vespene geysers in the mains (which again favors Protoss), Hannibal not only had 2 vespene geysers but a record 14 mineral patches in each main (LOL), Chariots of Fire was a semi-island map, Iron Curtain was also a semi-island map which was split in half by walls and minerals (you either had your ally on the same side, or on the opposite side), and good ol’ Usan Nation had two entrances to your base with no apparent natural expo. The fact that one team or another was declared imbalanced is because all of these maps were rubbish to begin with; they weren’t even consistent in design so that the map makers could learn from their mistakes and create new and improved maps based on previous ones. The Korean map makers know a ton about balancing 1v1 maps, but hardly have any clue about 2v2. They were oh so happy when they added DMZ into the 2v2 map pool (which had permanent Disruption Webs, two entrances to each main and ridiculously short rush distances), but when they were forced to remove it mid-season because every single match turned into 6pool & SCV rush, they looked like complete idiots. You can’t use the results of Proleague 2v2 matches to claim that “PZ is imba”, because clearly the maps are to blame in this case. However, on the iCCup server, there was a better balance between teams and races, simply because of the difference in maps. Their principal was to use maps with a consistent design for their 2v2 ladder (9 minerals and 1 gas per main, one ramp or narrow entrance point, long distances between mains, etc). Python, Luna, Othello, Colosseum, and many other standard 4-player 1v1 maps were used for 2v2 as well, and at the highest levels, most race combinations were considered to be balanced between them (ZZ, ZT and ZP, followed by PT, PP and finally TT). The fact that top teams, such as Yan and Capigui, could use any race combination and demolish any team they faced on numerous maps with consistent design patterns, is an indicator that maps play a major role in 2v2 balance. I can recall many 2v2 teams that either played ZZ, ZT, ZP or even PT at the highest ranks. Based on my experience playing on the iCCup 2v2 ladder, I would say that things are quite balanced when it comes to various race combinations. Non-shared bases maps work in SC:BW and they have for a long time, I don’t know why you are claiming that they don’t. And I also don’t see why they wouldn’t work in SC2. I’ve been playing a lot of 3v3 lately, and with the current map pool that has shared-bases, close mains, and one attack route stuff, it gets really boring and monotonous after a while. I remember 3v3 games on imba Hunters way more exciting and intense than SC2 3v3, with multiple battles going on, counter-attacks, not knowing where to expo and all kinds of stuff. I agree with intrigue, team games in SC2 feel like snooze-fests. With a decent amount of testing, maps with non-shared bases are possible. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44101 Posts
2v2. No set starting locations. Let the fun begin. | ||
|
Genesis Brood
United States193 Posts
The problem that I see with BGH on SC2 is with protoss being able to place a pylon at the edges of their own base or the base surrounding that of their enemy and warping units in directly into the opponent base. However, I haven't played enough BGH games on SC2 to see if that's imbalanced or not. To all those who are afraid of being 2v1'd early in the game, there is one thing for which you need to account: In SC:BW, once you died to a 2v1 early push, it was very hard although not impossible for the remaining ally in the game to make a comeback. The difference in SC2 is that you can share money and control. In SC2, there have been several games where my partner or myself would get gangbanged and we would sit there and take it while collecting as much money as possible and then feed it to the living ally once our base was decimated. There is a brief window period where this money advantage can win you the game and we've done it several times. Team play has indeed gotten stale. I miss the good old days of 3v3 or 2v2v2v2 BGH | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I think all the 2v2+ maps in SC2 are a joke, but I also dont know how you would ever survive being 2on1ed in SC2 with things like warpgates or baneling busts coming so low tech. The person saying WC3 had better team games, I agree completely. Him bringing up town portals tho, made me think that maybe neutral "warp gates" would solve this (like on that one WC3 map, that had two portals at 12 and 6 you could jump between) a little... There could be lots of variations on this. Would require some pretty fancy maps but that would be one way of making it a bit more fair while still not having it be shared bases camping. | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
I disagree. I don't think that having maps that result in "crazy" scenarios for the purpose of fun are a reasonable thing to implement into a competitive ladder system. Ideas like that should be reserved for playing custom games with your friends where you're fooling around. I imagine in 1v1 we could make maps with large amounts of randomness and positional imbalances that could result in games where players would have to think on the fly and be creative, but such a map isn't fair and it certainly would never be implemented in the 1v1 map pool. Perhaps you find team games to be on a less serious level and therefore have less serious standards for fairness, but I believe Blizzard as well as many players will continue to view team games as still being competitive rather than on the level of custom games. And as long Blizzard and a portion of the community continue to believe in some level of normalcy and fairness in their team games, I don't think it is okay to implement maps that would heavily take away from that. I understand the nostalgic roots of your suggestion, craziness certainly did ensue in many BGH's. I can see how this would cause you to believe you'd rather have new maps in the league like this for more fun. But you have to appreciate the need for competitiveness and fairness in a ladder system. BW has many fun maps like BGH, but these maps just cannot be taken seriously in a competitive environment. When you really look back on many of the maps from BW, it is almost silly how imbalanced and poorly made so many of them were. Fun then? Ya. Fun now? Maybe in the custom games section. | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
As for myself, I prefer non-shared maps, anyone who played on Twilight Fortress knows just how shit that gets, I think players should be close, but not sharing a base. Or alternatively if they are far away, you can't have a map like Arid Wastes where the bases are too far to reinforce your ally, and you're so far away from your enemies that you can't counter attack. That's what made BGH so awesome, if someone was attacking somewhere, you could hit them right away assuming they were ur neighbour. That new 4v4 map is a step in the right direction, it's a lot larger and you can actually expo more than once, unfortunately it is still shared base. I think a lot of the problems in team games could be solved by simply increasing the map size. It's incredibly risky to cheese on massive maps, a combined rush from 4 players can be fended off by 2-3 players since reinforcement is so slow, and by the time you run across the map with your initial rush, a minute later, its not nearly as menacing. Right now the maps are so small its possible to sustain a rush with reinforcements running acorss the map, larger map = bigger defender's advantage, as it should be. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
Every single 2v2 map (I haven't tried the new ones tbf) is terrible and 2v2 is pretty messed up anyway. There's only one good 3v3 map (uulan deeps) but at least that map is fantastic and fairly common on ladder. Most of the team maps that are tolerable are 4v4 maps and mostly the shared base ones. For reasons that have already been stated multiple times, the only way to get a team game to go into the late-game is by having shared bases. And team games that get to that stage are usually quite epic. | ||
2Pacalypse-
Croatia9491 Posts
Oh well, at least the solution is obvious -.- | ||
| ||
