Implication that valid Strategies = Good Gameplay
While this is true, the issue is no one really cares about making 3v3 a good, proper game. A lot of things aren't "cheese" in 3v3 but that doesn't necessarily impy that they aren't bad or degenerate. If a strategy won 100% of the time, it wouldn't be cheese, but it would be horrible for the game. Obviously 3v3 isn't at this in that bad shape, but just because something is valid doesn't mean it isn't degenerate. No one really cares about fixing the more numerous versions of the game either. No ones trying to fix FFA either, where the best strategy is to never attack. These are options added to the game so people can have fun and mess around, but they cease being refined gameplay experiences.
Implication that more build order = More Balanced/Better
This is a bit silly. More isn't inherently better and also most of these builds are accomplishing the same thing. Are you rushing so you can do damage and join your armies up before your opponent? Are you doing some mass are or cloak? Are you doing a bunch of all-ins across all players? The compositions can be more complicated, but the actual decisions are pretty straight forward.
Implication that different means equal.
"The point is that large games play differently, and they require you to accept both imperfections in your teammates and imperfections in communication on both sides."
The problem with this is the game isn't designed for it unlike say DOTA/LOL/HON/Random MOBA. That is a fine thing to base a game around, but Starcraft was not designed to create interesting decisions and encourage team work in 3v3s. It barely can do it in 2v2.
You challenge my "ignorance" when it is simply true that 3v3 adds more potential complexity to a game than does a 1v1. Yes, you need a flexible build in 1v1, but it's the same give and take in every game. You lead, scout, counter, and continue to counter along the decision tree as information comes in. There's nothing wrong with that, but the decision tree is simply bushier when you have three armies a piece and the added chaos that comes along with it
I challenge your ignorance in saying 1v1 games are monolithic. Also while on paper, your right, the game is more complicated as I said. There are more possible game states. But that doesn't mean the game is ACTUALLY more complex. an FPS has near infinite game states, but they cannot all be considered. Conversely a game like chess has complexity that is close to the limit of human optimization (though still exceeds it). So are the practical decisions any more interesting? I'd argue no, as games tend to come down to more extreme strategies on average and the value of optimizing for various situations are reduced at the micro end of play (while being mostly the same in in the macro sense).
While most cheeses are not directly comparable to multiple instances of 1v1s, the 3 DT rush really is. Each player scouts one enemy. Each reports that their chosen enemy is fast-teching. Each player chooses their own opponent and punishes them individually, as would happen in a 1v1. Team offense simply isn't the way to deal with this cheese.
At this point, you could go "well, maybe one of them will survive long enough to get their DTs out", but at this point, you only need a single player with detection.
DT is more similar than most other builds for sure. My concern was more to the fact that most 3v3 build are "cheese" builds. 3x DT might actually be cheese, but still, it's not the same. First off, it's not so simple as saying "oh he's teching and I know he is so he loses". Any good tech build can hold off most aggression without dying, especially considering the dubious decision to attack each opponent at the same time, negating the advantage of your team taking the initiative (being able to consolidate forces). You could obtain 3 contains, but theres no way of to always be sure what tech they're doing. Anyways, 3 players worth of DT can, more so than a single player DT build, obtain a much larger amount of map control and, if not every player is prepared to get detection in time, spread it even thinner than a normal game. They can also do much more damage in their initial push than they could with a single DT build. If the DTs go undetected, a mass of DTs can kill off a player before they can respond with detection, leaving the other two players to fend them off. It is similar and it is not strictly the same. It does seem like a pretty silly all in though.
The main reason that I snipe at you so much even though we're both very friendly is that I get really tired of your competitive elitism. The "stupidest elements" of the game are fun for the people who choose to partake in it.
I might be sassy about this but I tend to avoid having outward contempt for the PEOPLE who play a game a certain why but I feel totally justified dissing on a game. Mario Party is a piece of shit, but people have fun playing that. I still feel totally fair in saying 3v3, design wise, is a shitty game type focusing more on shenanigans and extreme strategies. That doesn't mean it can't be fun for people. People find 2Fort fun in TF2. I have fun with stupid things too quite often! And hey, I was asking for replays to give advice and be helpful -- I just also took a pot shot at the legitimacy of the gametype. I don't think that is entirely unfair.
Anyways thank you for actually defending your self and not rolling over, I hate it when people do that. You have some good points, but I disagree with the implications. I understand why that would be fun, but in terms of a polished game experience and as a legitimate gametype, I would disagree, but whatever. I try not to criticize people for how they have fun (usually!), but I feel no remorse for hating on games and game types. Liking such things is in no way a negative statement on ones character.
Poll
8 (21.1%)
Author
Topic: Starcraft II: Brontos of Liberty - Friend Info and Gaming Night Poll (Read 9968 times)