Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:11:47 |
professor dead piggy
Level 59
Report
|
I'm not joking.
I'm assuming you wouldnt play a 7v7 on the same size map as a 3v3. So no, there wouldnt be less spots for each player.
3v3 euro is a lottery. In a 1v1 you can plan a strategy for each combination of your picks. In 3v3 euro you cannot, because the number of combinations is too high. With 9or12 picks per team across the same 24 territories, you can ensure that your team gets a few combos/key territories, but the majority of the picks will be totally unpredictably allocated.
3v3 games lack the subtlety of needing a picking strategy (beyond contesting easy to complete bonuses) and it doesnt require attention to detail in make a plan from turn 0 that you spend the next 20 turns playing out.
I would like to see a game that proves me wrong.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:16:12 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
i agree with x . that is why 3v3 europe cities is a more reliable game. the picking options aren't so limited and it is easier to ensure you get something you actually want. too bad there isn't an option that has 2 warlords for every bonus instead of 1 to get the best attributes of both warlords and cities.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:18:41 |
professor dead piggy
Level 59
Report
|
Oh, there were 4 replies while I was typing, and x said it better than me anyway. My last post was for gnuffone.
"how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere?" Your plan is try to stall and harass them for as long as possible, and if the bonus values are small your base income is important to the team, so stay alive.
"rarely I get a pick over 18" anyone on your team getting a pick above 10 makes planning quite irrelevant.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:22:03 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
dead, euro 3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords. warlords is a crap shoot. why should i be satisfied with regularly getting my 12th to 20th pick? this is the same problem the 2v2 ladder has. too many games are decided by superior positioning determined by pick lottery and the lack of options (more picks, more warlords to pick from) to counterbalance this.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:24:28 |
Ironheart
Level 54
Report
|
Some people do play warlight for fun guys not just to find their skill that's why i feel so offended when GUI says people who play on large maps are fools since i play on them for fun.(I can play on anymap however large maps need less skill but bigger teams don't necessarily mean less skill).
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:25:04 |
Ironheart
Level 54
Report
|
Gui said idiots not fools.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:30:30 |
professor dead piggy
Level 59
Report
|
"euro 3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords." Yeah, my favourite is a first turn poland. I dont think it is sophisticated, and is based on guessing and countering your opponent/picking something cheesy.
I dont see players getting good from all the team games they play, I certainly didnt. Its not coincidence that the best 3v3 players all played 1v1 me at a high level first. 1v1 pushes and teaches better than anything else because it requires more from a player than anything else.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:36:52 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
myhand and I played over 1000 team games before we tried learning 1v1 me. sze mastered team games before 1v1 me.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 13:45:03 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
regularly playing maps that you could easily make 20+ orders per turn and real-time games usually last 2 to 4 hours = idiot.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 14:02:47 |
Addy the Dog
Level 62
Report
|
X, i don't agree. rarely i get a pick over 18
Um, no.
There are about 30 bonuses on the Europe map. 24 are chosen at the start of the game. In my opinion, the best 24 starts are usually pretty obvious. Depending on the random warlord, you can usually rule out the Ukraine, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Romania.
So if each player is playing as well as possible, they should each choose the same 24 starts, meaning every single one of them should get a bonus over 18th.
If there are any variations, I would really expect them to be above 18th place. If there are significant variations between players in the order of the top 24, what that suggests is that the order you pick them in is pretty much arbitrary.
We all know the feeling on 3v3 Euro where you get 1+ useless counter(s) to a bonus that your teammate ended up getting. Probably, each of the 6 players picked those 2+ spots somewhere in the order. It's effectively random.
I agree with Gui's post 45 minutes ago (man this thread is moving fast), I prefer the Classic 3v3 with cities distribution, and am sad it has fallen out of fashion so dramatically. Frankly, automatic distribution with 5 territories each would be preferable to what there is now.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 17:05:32 |
DagenDaDragon
Level 55
Report
|
You are 100% correct Sze I don't know what I'm talking about, thank for that graph, it was good laugh. A tad rude, but I can live with that.
Saying the more players required the more skill required was wrong. However I don't think you can dismiss 7V7 or whatever as a skilless, or lesser form of playing.
I forget that this isn't an RTS or a FPS, that the most skilled or dominant player on a team can basically play for the entire team rather then just giving general game plans and orders, but the players having to have the knowledge, or reflexs, or skill to carry out those orders.
Which I guess is the problem that got brought up in the thread about an special rule tourney where no team or private chat was allowed.
I think with the right settings though, a 6v6 or 7v7 would work and still be a very strategic game, however I'll save that for another thread so hopefully this thread can go back to it original purpose.
Good luck with the games [WM] and ReLite, I'm very interested to see how it turns out.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 18:03:29 |
ps
Level 61
Report
|
I forget that this isn't an RTS or a FPS, that the most skilled or dominant player on a team can basically play for the entire team rather then just giving general game plans and orders, but the players having to have the knowledge, or reflexs, or skill to carry out those orders.
although thats true, there is still a time constraint on warlight (boot time), and players sometimes dont return to read the chat after they submit their order until the next turn, which is a pretty big disruption vector that promotes "independent thinking".
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/28/2013 23:51:55 |
Rabbit
Level 54
Report
|
The games which require highest skill level to play effectively are those with ~2.7 players per team? Why 1.5vs1.5 require more skill than 4.2vs4.2?
This graph is really interesting :P
But jokes aside, I disagree with that graph, it make little sense to me. It depends on the template, not on the size of the team.
I will assign some points:
{rp} DagenDaDragon, Nosy kitty-cat • apex and ps +1 (all for both posts);
[WM] dead piggy +1 for everything except:
1v1 specialists are the masterrace of WL. Team games have some aspects not present in 1vs1. Team of 1vs1 specialists won't dominate in 3vs3. 3vs3 specialists are very good in 1vs1.
Qi there is no such thing as "team coordination". I think you put 'team' in apostrophes because even you dont believe it. I had many games, where me with my teammate(s) together come up with better ideas, corrected each others moves, suggested something, etc.
I have pity for you if you never played real Team-game.
Qi
more armies (income) pumped into a map = less subtlety needed to play efficiently/smoothly and with good tactics and strategies
give an idiot a big income and he'll do some things right. give an idiot a low income and he'll make more mistakes because every army lost or gained matters. Agree, but to some extent. With low initial income, being lucky at the start of the game is really important. Unless, like you said, bonuses values are small enough to counter it.
3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords.
The picking options aren't so limited and it is easier to ensure you get something you actually want.
Too many games are decided by superior positioning determined by pick lottery and the lack of options (more picks, more warlords to pick from) to counterbalance this. Again, I agree in 75%. Too many viable picking options (or too big maps) make the game also a bit too random.
how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere? with 3v3s this element is limited and is a stabler variable in long-term planning. It's still important and quite common situation in 3vs3, which highly influence outcome of the game.
Whether you think it's a part of strategy or not, is another thing. For me it isn't.
I believe 4+vs4+ games are played less frequently than 3vs3 or 2vs2, and are worse skill-indicators also because:
- Team games with more players per team require more time, more cooperation, more people which care.
- The games are generally also more complex and it's harder to design proper templates and/or maps for them, where luck factor is small enough.
- It takes longer to master that template, you have more options to try, etc.
- The larger the team, the less depends on single player performance, so they care less about it, and therefore don't like it, agree with what [WM]Red said here.
PS: Why Off-topics are always more interesting than the topic itself?
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/29/2013 01:47:18 |
professor dead piggy
Level 59
Report
|
What? 1v1 ME is where the strongest players play the most competitive games. That is where you need to be if you want to learn or be on the cutting edge of theory.
"3vs3 specialists are very good in 1vs1." 3v3 specialists absolutely suck balls in 1v1. They miss so much of the metagame in picking, and arent used to a sparsely covered map. Who do you consider a 3v3 specialist? Gnuffone and trollussa are the only 2 people Ive seen make the transition and when they started play 1v1 they truly blew. Psy is predominantly a 3v3 euro player, ive seen a few 1v1 games with him and he has no idea what hes doing (love you psy).
"Team of 1vs1 specialists won't dominate in 3vs3" Yes they will. Find me a 3v3 specialist who is as bad at 1v1 as I am at 3v3 and I will show you. Problem is that anyone who is a 3v3 specialist will end up getting bored because of the lack of skill required and competition and learn 1v1, thereby improving their 3v3 skills. Sze, Gui, Gnuffone, Trollussa, HHH(?) all did this I think.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/29/2013 03:00:58 |
SMD4FREE
Level 3
Report
|
wow you people actually study a game into such detail. I'm deeply impressed. :/
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/29/2013 05:18:04 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
myhand, sze, gnuff, troll, me: we wanted to be better at 1v1 due to our pride. we didn't actually enjoy 1v1s more.
if wl's homepage had a 3v3 europe ladder and no medium earth ladders, i doubt any of us would have ever made the transition from 3v3 europe to 1v1 me. we did for selfish reasons/recognition.
and others play 1v1 me instead of 3v3 eu for the opposite reasons. there is a 1v1 me autogame ready to play at any moment. and if you want to compete in a public competition, you can only play medium earth. tournaments aren't as public as the ladders.
mainstream wl = medium earth
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/29/2013 05:29:57 |
professor dead piggy
Level 59
Report
|
I didn't say you enjoyed 1v1 I said it made you a better player, better than all the 3v3 games youve played have made you.
|
Challenge. ReLite vs WM: 3/29/2013 05:38:16 |
Guiguzi
Level 58
Report
|
a better player at what? 1v1s? yes. playing more 1v1 me games has made me better at 1v1 me games. better at team games? 3v3s? ffas? no. i got to #1 on the 2v2 ladder without knowing how to play 1v1 me very well. it was a natural transition from 3v3 games and the 2000 risk ffas i played on another site.
1v1 me games can actually make a player worse at team games and ffas. the strategies are different. use a 1v1 me way of thinking and you play worse in team games and ffas.
|
Post a reply to this thread
Before posting, please proofread to ensure your post uses proper grammar and is free of spelling mistakes or typos.
|
|