|
Recently I've been watching the MLG 2v2 koth tourney and while strolling through some comments about balance in team games, it struck me that there is a remote chance for 3v3s to develop as a legit form of esport.
Maybe it's possible to have serious, professional 3v3 games, or even tournaments in which a team is forced to consist of one player from each race, so it's a PTZ vs PTZ(lets call it 3v3AR-All Races for now).
Think about it! The main reason why SC2 is mostly 1v1 is because in team games there are imba race combos(things like double/triple 6pools followed by DT rushes, or a double protoss team, one going ground and one going air thus creating a basically unkillable death ball). 3v3ARs have none of this, in fact they are even more balanced than your standard non-mirror 1v1 match ups!(let's not start a balance discussion here, just know that there are problems)
And we all know how team games can be really exciting to watch. Things normally impossible in 1v1s can be executed nicely by pros. We can see new timings and strategies, as well as unit synergies that we've never considered, the possibilities are endless! Not to mention the endless action and engagements that will surely result from all the variables in a 3v3AR.
Also, it helps the scene grow. League of legends players often say that SC players have no social skills and are poor when it comes to dealing with people. Guess what? 3v3ARs provide more chances of teamwork and coordination between team members than the current team league format. This will shut those LoL players up and give a whole new meaning to a 'team' in starcraft.
Of course there are potential challenges. Adequate game observing could be a problem for both casters and observers but this may somehow be solved through the new observer UIs. If blizzard is right then we've only seen a fraction of what custom UIs are capable of. I believe they will greatly assist the spectators in understanding what's going on in potentially chaotic 3v3ARs
Then there's also the possible map problem. Currently we only have blizzard 3v3 maps which are arguably aren't that good(at least it looks that way I dont play a lot of team games myself), and the lack of 3v3AR metagame makes it a bit hard for mapmakers out there to create maps suitable for seriously professional, competitive team play. But then WoL 1v1 maps also went through quite an evolution haven't they?(steppes of war anyone?) I believe that given time and support the 3v3 map pool will improve dramatically.
So what do you think? Is this idea just a fool's dream, a feat that will cost way too much to organise properly? Or does 3v3ARs actually have a chance to be a legit form of esports that people will watch and enjoy?
|
Competitive sc2 is a 1v1 endeavor and I hope it stays that way. 3v3 won't be a viable competitive game without some major changes, and I don't like the idea of trying to force the game to be something it's not.
|
On April 17 2013 01:02 Fenneth wrote:
Competitive sc2 is a 1v1 endeavor and I hope it stays that way. 3v3 won't be a viable competitive game without some major changes, and I don't like the idea of trying to force the game to be something it's not.
It's not like I'm proposing that all 1v1 tourneys should be replaced by 3v3ARs, it's just a alternative way to play, adding the elements of teamwork and increasing the game variety while maintaining balance and competitiveness.
And why exactly is 3v3AR not viable?
|
On April 17 2013 01:06 uh-oh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 01:02 Fenneth wrote:
Competitive sc2 is a 1v1 endeavor and I hope it stays that way. 3v3 won't be a viable competitive game without some major changes, and I don't like the idea of trying to force the game to be something it's not. It's not like I'm proposing that all 1v1 tourneys should be replaced by 3v3ARs, it's just a alternative way to play, adding the elements of teamwork and increasing the game variety while maintaining balance and competitiveness. And why exactly is 3v3AR not viable?
Added complexity makes balancing an unviable prospect. Units and strategies from different races synergize in extremely powerful ways. Balancing 1v1 is hard enough as it is; even 2v2 is considered impossible to balance while maintaining 1v1 balance, so forget 3v3. It would be cool if it was possible though.
|
On April 17 2013 01:45 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 01:06 uh-oh wrote:On April 17 2013 01:02 Fenneth wrote:
Competitive sc2 is a 1v1 endeavor and I hope it stays that way. 3v3 won't be a viable competitive game without some major changes, and I don't like the idea of trying to force the game to be something it's not. It's not like I'm proposing that all 1v1 tourneys should be replaced by 3v3ARs, it's just a alternative way to play, adding the elements of teamwork and increasing the game variety while maintaining balance and competitiveness. And why exactly is 3v3AR not viable? Added complexity makes balancing an unviable prospect. Units and strategies from different races synergize in extremely powerful ways. Balancing 1v1 is hard enough as it is; even 2v2 is considered impossible to balance while maintaining 1v1 balance, so forget 3v3. It would be cool if it was possible though.
But what Im proposing is PTZ vs PTZ, it's the same races for both sides, why would there be any imbalances?
Sure there could be some synergies that seem really powerful at first but then there are so many variables in 3v3s that there should be a counter for everything. Also teamwork plays a big part in this too, making 'balance' a less significant factor in the outcome of a game when compared to 1v1.
|
On April 17 2013 01:49 uh-oh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 01:45 Demonhunter04 wrote:On April 17 2013 01:06 uh-oh wrote:On April 17 2013 01:02 Fenneth wrote:
Competitive sc2 is a 1v1 endeavor and I hope it stays that way. 3v3 won't be a viable competitive game without some major changes, and I don't like the idea of trying to force the game to be something it's not. It's not like I'm proposing that all 1v1 tourneys should be replaced by 3v3ARs, it's just a alternative way to play, adding the elements of teamwork and increasing the game variety while maintaining balance and competitiveness. And why exactly is 3v3AR not viable? Added complexity makes balancing an unviable prospect. Units and strategies from different races synergize in extremely powerful ways. Balancing 1v1 is hard enough as it is; even 2v2 is considered impossible to balance while maintaining 1v1 balance, so forget 3v3. It would be cool if it was possible though. But what Im proposing is PTZ vs PTZ, it's the same races for both sides, why would there be any imbalances? Sure there could be some synergies that seem really powerful at first but then there are so many variables in 3v3s that there should be a counter for everything. Also teamwork plays a big part in this too, making 'balance' a less significant factor in the outcome of a game when compared to 1v1.
I don't know if people would like seeing both sides do the same thing each game, which well might happen. Another thing about team games is that aggression is much more rewarding - quick attacks to cripple one or two players are pretty much standard. Then there are the all-ins. It'd take a while for players to get good enough at team games for the metagame to go beyond that point, and by doing that they're sacrificing 1v1 skill.
The thing completely preventing team games from being used in tournaments is the fact that you can't train for both without compromising.
edit: Even mirror matchups can suffer from imbalances.
|
I wish they had 4v4 tournaments. I love 4v4! Basically skip all the passive macroing up to 3 or 4 bases and just start right at 4 bases. Also 4 players on each team leads to more multitasking so there is more going on at any one time.
One advantage of Dota over Starcraft is that 10 players means more is going on than 2. Playing 4s in Starcraft basically solves that problem.
|
The main issue I see is the map. If you had one of each race on each team, relative positions of one race versus another on the map could potentially lead to the same issues that plagued tournaments before cross-positions became mandatory, for example.
|
The game isn't tweaked to support a tasteful 3v3, or any team games at all. Despite having units from multiple races, you actually have less strategies and less unit compositions to choose from due to the fact that there are no more timings, no clear early/mid/late game, and also that you are pigeon-holed into the most powerful unit composition.
If you need a good example of why team games shouldn't be played, try watching a lot more 2v2 tournaments. After a while they get so painful to watch.
|
3v3 is incredible boring on high level. double 10 pool + reactor hellions is all you see since everyone is playing it.
i don't really get the argument with social skills ... it just makes no sense.
|
|
|
To balance 3v3 maybe we could force each team to play all three races and therefore every MU would sort of be like a mirror so there will be no need to balance. Every MU would be a Terran, Zerg, Protoss vs another Terran, Zerg, and Protoss.
|
Fool's hope. Added complexity = borderline impossible to balance.
|
On April 17 2013 04:02 JamesSaunders wrote:
To balance 3v3 maybe we could force each team to play all three races and therefore every MU would sort of be like a mirror so there will be no need to balance. Every MU would be a Terran, Zerg, Protoss vs another Terran, Zerg, and Protoss.
than it will be 10 pool, reactor hellion/proxy marauder + dt everygame :D
teamgames will never be nearly balanced, because there is a lot more to abuse than in 1v1.
|
Well boring as it will be at least it will be balanced 
I agree with most people above, it will very difficult to make 3v3 interesting without ruining 1v1.
|
Currently from what Im experience I can say confidently that 2v2 is harder than 1v1, and 3v3 is easy mode.
(This is on KR where starting from 2v2 plat your opponents are mostly 1v1 kr dia +)
|
Well, of course any mirror will be balanced. But it may be boring. Possibly not in a single match, but imagine if Dota had only 5 heroes and every game would be ABCDE vs ABCDE. Boring.
What I could imagine though, is a mode, where the races are picked in a certain order in by the opponent. Say A, B and C (Team A) play against X Y and Z (Team X).
First, Team X picks player As race.
Second, Team A picks player Xs race.
Then, Team X picks player Bs race.
And so on.
This way it could be certain to eliminate certain imba strategies. It also would increment the skill cap for SC2, as each player would need to be able to play all three races. This would also make research benefit: A team that knows the other player can pick their respective worst races.
Alternative: To make it a little softer, you could say that races are not picked, bur rather vetoed, just like maps. So in step one, Team X does not pick player As race, but vetoes one. So player A must then pick one of the two races left, before step two begins.
I believe many good ideas started as a fools hope.
|
Eh, why not to throw in some variety, honestly?
|
For it to be popular, they'd have to be able to choose the three races. The only thing that might fly in a tournament setting is banning random to take out a variable that leads to chaos. Constraining races beyond that would only delegitimize the competition there with stale early game and predictable avenues of play.
Since 2v2 exists, there's an outside chance that a few smaller tournaments will premier a 3v3 round in amongst 1v1 rounds that involve skilled players. Making it always PZT vs. PZT is a very bad idea to try to adjust the format.
|
On April 17 2013 03:23 ChapOne wrote:
3v3 is incredible boring on high level. double 10 pool + reactor hellions is all you see since everyone is playing it.
i don't really get the argument with social skills ... it just makes no sense.
It really is boring.
People barely watch 2v2 tourneys as it is. I don't really think 3v3 would be any different. I think the problem is that there needs to be an established tournament with a big prize pool to get pros to actually care about any team games. Remember how bad the 2v2 games were in the EG tournament (for some reason I cannot think of the name)? It's kind of a catch 22 really. The best players won't care until there is enough money, and it's very hard to get enough money unless you consistently have pros playing in your tourney. I think 2v2 has a way better chance than 3v3 to get really popular, but you would have definitely have to ban certain races combinations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
