|
I do love 3v3 and it can be great at the very top level, but it is fairly repetitive. We have it worked out, maybe a tournament scene would help develop a metagame, though i'm not sure it would.
My favourite thing about teamgames is all the possible race combinations, forcing PZT seems strange if the tournament is supposed to be entertaining. Team game balance seems pretty good for most race combos as it is.
I think the only real variation in PZT would be what the protoss does. I think it would usually be 10 pool from Z reactor hellions from T. Now I base this off ladder experiance which is bo1 (apart from when you keep getting the same opponants or people that know you) where it is mostly blind counters.
So much of the game depends on the openers. Like if Zerg wants to 10p he commits to that before a scout really sees anything. If a terran wants reactor hellions he has to go 11 gas first and toss has to pick gate or forge before scouting too. These decide the shape of the game and this leads to less reactionary play than 1v1. Im not saying it is entirely BO wins but there certainly are more of them.
I don't like how whenever they try to do team game tournaments they (usually) get 1v1 players to play and they don't take it seriously while the casters don't really know what is going on.
And don't say the winner in 3v3 is random, I have seen/been in multiple teams with 50 wins before losing a game.
In fact generally the more players there are the higher the win % can get. Like in 4v4 there are still teams that have achieved 95 wins before a loss, you don't see that in 1v1.
|
I don't see the problem that most people are knee-jerking to. The balance in these types of games would come from maps, anyway, not anything else.
I'd watch a tournament if it had big(ish) name players, definitely. And, you know they'd try - bragging rights and all.
|
I agree that at least for now and the foreseeable future, team games are too hard to balance and forcing tpz vs tpz doesn't really solve the issue. It's not so much about the unit compositions and things of that nature as it is about pure mechanics. An analogy would be that in the WoL tvp 1/1/1 time period. It wasn't that P couldn't stop the composition, it was that P had a hard time stopping every variation of it at the same time, and it was hard to know which variation was coming. Team games suffer a similar scenario in which the potential early game strategies are so diverse and played on maps that are so big that it's hard to scout properly and develop a stable mid game.
|
Fools hope. At least I hope it is lol
|
Anything beyond 2v2 degenerates to an absolute cheese fest. Have fun vs 10p double hellion. Even in AR (all race) one of the hellion players will be replaced with a 4 gating of or DT rushing protoss.
|
On April 17 2013 09:26 ProteiNSheikH wrote:
Anything beyond 2v2 degenerates to an absolute cheese fest. Have fun vs 10p double hellion. Even in AR (all race) one of the hellion players will be replaced with a 4 gating of or DT rushing protoss.
Would depend on the map.
|
This is a good idea.... Maybe if it was 4v4. . . You know, League of Legends is popular because of the team interface. If Starcraft had team leagues, true team leagues, it may boost the popularity of starcraft.
|
2v2 is hard enough to balance and adding 2 more players to the mix is even worse. The problem with the team match metagame is that SC2 currently relies too heavily on unit positioning to determine winners of battles and games. I'd say about 95% of the team games I play just end up with one or both teams rushing with, as some posters have already mentioned, 10p x2 and hellions, reaper msc, etc.
SC2 is currently only balanced for 1v1 play, and even then we're still working out the kinks. A dramatic change would have to happen to the maps of team games to even start considering 2v2/3v3 as viable esports.
|
On April 17 2013 09:26 ProteiNSheikH wrote:
Anything beyond 2v2 degenerates to an absolute cheese fest. Have fun vs 10p double hellion. Even in AR (all race) one of the hellion players will be replaced with a 4 gating of or DT rushing protoss.
This has been my general experience in team games as well. Although I do like the idea of balance for forced teams (unlike most people here it seems), I think there are certain synergies between units of different races that are impossible to balance even when the opponent has the opportunity to do the same thing. If they do do the same thing, then 3v3 pro games wouldn't be very fun to watch.
|
I have watched casts of pro-players play FFA and team-games for shits and giggles in some tourneys - casting it properly was impossible. I mean, even the best casters miss things in 1v1 from time to time. 3v3 would be impossible.
In Dota/LoL, you can fit almost all the action in team fights on the screen. In SC2, even some epic 1v1 engagements span more than 1 screen. Imagine 3v3 engagements.
|
Leave the team games to the actual team games, imo. Starcraft 2 is a hell of a lot of fun to play with friends, but the elements that are impressive / entertaining about competitive 1v1 play aren't amplified in 2v2 / 3v3. While it would be neat at first to watch the metagame evolve, it would eventually settle into something comfortable and quite probably boring.
Plogamer brings up a damn fine point as well. It'd be hard to watch 6 people playing up to 200 pieces each on the same board... and the few situations where you'd actually be able to see most of the pieces in play would be the ever-so-thrilling deathball v deathball fights.
|
If someone offers some big money for a 3v3 tournament... at least equivalent to an MLG or Dreamhack, we would see the pros play it seriously for sure.
And once the pros start playing it seriously, fans will follow. It could work that way.
|
3:3 in SC2 will never even come close to tosswars in BW in terms of entertainment. That stuff had such an incredible depth that you just have to experience yourself to understand. Since tosswars didnt become big I doubt that 3:3 in sc2 can unless something revolutionary happends with the maps.
As a sidenote 3:3 is the only thing I like playing in sc2, 1:1 has to little action and 2:2/4:4 has extremely shitty maps.
|
Team games were already in BW Proleague and they got rid of them, and that was when BW was much more popular than SC2 today.
|
Teamgame maps need to be made just like 1vs1 maps:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZY9ZmdZ.png)
incomplete, some flaws, but an idea of what it could look like.
Current team game maps either have players in split-up bases across the map (which forces everyone to play super aggressively to keep mapcontrol and prevent gangbangs) or in a shared main with (usually) completely exposed naturals and potential thirds in crazy places. There are some good looking 2vs2 maps on teamliquid, but they suffer from lack of public exposure, no real thirds, or insanely long rush distances.
|
"AR" normally means "All Random", that is why "all races" should get another acronym.
I am afraid that even 2v2 games are hard to cast because there are so many units. 3v3 should be even more confusing. For esports, I need to see exactly what happens.
I do like to play team matches, but I don't know if they can develop into esports.
|
I remember 2v2 being somewhat common in WC3 (in clanwars if I recall correctly), but nothing with more people was used. Therefore I also doubt that 3v3 will ever become a reality in "serious" tournaments. Personally I quite enjoy watching 2v2 tournaments from time to time, but as has been stated quite often here already, I too believe that anything with more than 4 people would be viable for esports.
On a side note, I really love the FFAs casted in non-serious context (like AHGL), as they are very fun to watch.
|
It's possible but Starcraft itself as a game is better as 1v1 than 3v3. I say 'better' mainly because of the abuse of tier 1 units in team games. Trying to expand or tech up is basically useless as a strategy and can be 'exploited' simply by mass tier 1. Intelligent plays will never come about. It would basically be mainly about brute force and micro, which to be honest Starcraft 2 has too much of as it is! I hope that was as clear an argument against it as can possibly be put forth
|
There was a time when 2v2 was a game mode used in BW earlier on IIRC. So it wasn't a fool's hope before, but more recently I'd say it is.
|
The maps ware way too small and generally unsuited for 2v2, and also 3v3, making it all cheese.
If that was fixed I think 2v2 and 3v3 could be more fun to play and watch. I think some strategies would be pretty imbalanced though, even if it's the same races, but who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
