EPTI agree with most of your other points though about FFA strategy and its good insight because 99% of people here probably dont play it regularly.
10 thoughts before my 700th FFA - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
petzergling
538 Posts
I agree with most of your other points though about FFA strategy and its good insight because 99% of people here probably dont play it regularly. | ||
|
mufin
United States616 Posts
On March 16 2011 03:08 bqzg wrote: my only problem with ffa is that hordes of low-leaguers play them and not many good players. On March 16 2011 04:10 oOOoOphidian wrote: I definitely agree. Most FFA players are terrible (bronze/silver) so it's not that hard to beat them due to the huge skill difference. If FFAs become ranked, which is what the OP is ultimately asking for, then you won't be matched against lower skilled players. | ||
|
Jsanko
Slovakia120 Posts
 | ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
On March 16 2011 03:44 Chill wrote: Really interesting. Thank you for writing this up. I'm always interested in hearing about different aspects of the game that I don't myself experience. I agree that FFA should be ranked. There's no reason (except maybe not being able to get a consistent algorithm?) for it not to be ranked. How many people actually play FFA? I Imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to play at some off-hour with some friends queuing at the same time, and basically turning it into a 3v1 or something. I would assume its not ranked due to being easily abused. | ||
|
vdale
Germany1173 Posts
I agree that Zerg sucks in FFA, you have to scout and take out the best opponent with 2-3 base and then expand at his side of the map. I have like 6-0 with protoss, because you can play pretty safe against everything and when you reach lategame you are unbeatable. The most important rule in FFA: Don't attack anyone if you aren't sure if you can take him out -> Don't drop and harass. Try to scout the greediest or the best player and attack at a good timing. | ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
terran are best at ffa because they have the best static d. tanks, bunkers, turrets, planetary fortresses, pdd's. all designed as great defensive tools. when you have 4 people battling it out do you attack the 15 siege tanks behind bunkers? hellllllll no protoss have very versatile units. colossus cover ground quickly. stalkers with blink can be anywhere on the map in seconds. voids do tons of damage. dts wreak havoc to players who refuse to make observers. duh they are good in meta game. ravens are good because they are flying energy based units. pdd's allow for nice retreats. imagine if high templar could fly, do damage to structures, and retreat at well. thats a raven for you  rushes work well because most players tend to be greedy. best strat as a zerg is actually to 6/8 pool your opponent, hopefully kill him off, and then take as many expos as you can get while the other two hopefully duel. i could go on and on, but basically you just make common sense arguments so i thought i'd analyze your points | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
| ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
frozt_
United States234 Posts
| ||
|
Ncinerate
172 Posts
On March 16 2011 04:58 KillerPlague wrote: rushes work well because most players tend to be greedy. best strat as a zerg is actually to 6/8 pool your opponent, hopefully kill him off, and then take as many expos as you can get while the other two hopefully duel. No no no no no. Well, to a 6 pool at least. A 6 pool puts you massively behind on economy and will get you killed almost every time (even if it does kill your close-opponent). It's nowhere near the ideal strategy for FFA. If you're dead-bent on killing someone super early you'd be better off with a strong early roach rush that leads into a quick expand or two. 6 pool wont give you the cash to expo. An 8 pool would be a bit better, but I'd still say you're better off with a slightly later attack and stronger economy. Even then though, zerg is awful in FFA. The problem isn't their expansions or early strength, it's the fact that when money is no object (late in an FFA with 200/200 armies), zerg can't really compete. As I said, 1.3 might fix this with better fungal growth, hard to say. | ||
|
Ncinerate
172 Posts
On March 16 2011 05:00 frozt_ wrote: You really can't complain about FFA balance, I mean it favors turtling more than anything else 100% of the time. Why not sit back for a bit, build a "death army" while your opponents kill each other and then move out and win. FFA isn't ranked for a reason, because it's terrible and a waste of time. Actually, hard turtling is almost as bad as 6 pooling  . It is a terrible way to win. You need to be aggressive to an extent or you will find yourself facing down a 20,000-50,000 resource disadvantage and be absolutely obliterated. | ||
|
woowoo
France164 Posts
I starved my ennemies and it worked. | ||
|
CidO
United States695 Posts
On March 16 2011 05:00 neobowman wrote: Race doesn't matter in FFA. It's all about diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't matter in FFA. It's all about manipulation. | ||
|
Skyze
Canada2324 Posts
Ive even matched against top 200 solo players in FFA more than a handful of times. (I check the stats of at least 1 or 2 players from every FFA I play, rarely do I ever see below diamond) so I dunno how you guys all get matched vs bronze/silver players.. That'd make it so easy lol | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
| ||
|
Tschis
Brazil1511 Posts
//tx | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
On March 16 2011 03:44 Chill wrote: Really interesting. Thank you for writing this up. I'm always interested in hearing about different aspects of the game that I don't myself experience. I agree that FFA should be ranked. There's no reason (except maybe not being able to get a consistent algorithm?) for it not to be ranked. Well there are reasons why it's not ranked. The main one would be that it would be very easy to abuse in various ways, for example making agreements ingame with opponents, synchronizing with mates/clanmates, not competitive enough, huge balance issues etc etc. On the other hand, if 4v4 is ranked - so could FFA. | ||
|
Ncinerate
172 Posts
.Picking T or P will raise your winning percentages significantly, simple as that. Being good at diplomacy and manipulation will do the same. Any other problems FFA faces are mostly due to it's unranked status. Even if rankings could be abused, the ranking process would ensure games are played against similarly skilled players more often, and would drive more players to play FFA (many people don't bother because "it's unranked"). As it sits, most FFA are like 1v1's with "complications". You almost always have ONE other player who is skilled, it's a matter of identifying that player and figuring out the best way to counter him while surviving the other less skilled. The nice thing is, FFA played -well- can also be a great equalizer. A lower skill player (mechanically) can win an FFA if he's creative and good at the FFA metagame (mind). In any event, the lack of any sort of rankings is just a slap in the face to anyone like myself who enjoys FFA and -loved- FFA in warcraft 3. | ||
|
Ncinerate
172 Posts
On March 16 2011 05:14 NotSupporting wrote: Well there are reasons why it's not ranked. The main one would be that it would be very easy to abuse in various ways, for example making agreements ingame with opponents, synchronizing with mates/clanmates, not competitive enough etc etc. Why does this matter? There's no money in having your name on top of a list. Who -cares- if it's ranked. It randomly picks from the player pool. Rankings would give you a larger player pool and make it unlikely to get multiple players who know each other/preset alliances. In the end, the player pool that DOES exist would be ranked according to skill and you'd be more likely to get a game with more generally skilled players around your level of ability. Warcraft 3 also utilized a system where players got PLAYER 1-PLAYER 4 names in-game to discourage gamers ganging up on someone due to their known ability due to their name. And the idea that FFA isn't competitive enough? You're playing against 3 other people competing for the win. How is that not competitive? Skill is involved, and luck is a far smaller part of any FFA than it is for something like a random 4v4 which can -also- be abused. What's the point in holding back rankings? | ||
| ||
