Will SC2 be a viable 3v3 or 4v4 game?

I want to ask experienced beta testers here if they think 3v3 or 4v4 would be successful considering the game in its current state?

Will it be interesting? Will it be balanced? Will anybody take those types of leagues seriously? Will it come down to whether or not the map designers have what it takes to specifically build exceptional 3v3 or 4v4 maps?

Personally I think 2v2 Twilight looks like it will be a successful team-based map, because I think the shared base thing is interesting considering different match-ups. Do you guys think 3v3 and 4v4 maps might feature shared bases like that, or at least allow allied players the ease of defending their buddies?

It will probably be very fun, not too greatly balanced and maps should be made specifically for such play, to keep the balance pretty tight.

Sure hope so. I'm looking forward to these types of games the most. Can't wait for the major content patch which adds support for them!

lol i wonder what the Frame rate is going to be in a 4v4 match....

Well It would depend on the map. In WC3 the Town Portal made it possible to protect the target of the mass rush.

In SC2 the map would have to be designed for it. (have the paths designed so that you can reach your allies base before the enemy can, have watch towers so you can see a rush in enough time to respond)

They could also do something similar to town portal with 'Xel'Naga teleport buildings' on some maps (which could be restricted a vast number of ways... coodown, limited uses, energy, destroyable, etc.)

I didn't think they worked that well in WC3 but hopefully they'll have more experience here.

I imagine they'd feature more of those 'common area' expansion sites that appear in the 2v2 maps.

all we need is epic massive maps =3

With 3v3 and so on it will depend on the map. Clutter type bases will feature unit specialization by each player like in WAR3. Someone went melee, someone went ranged and someone went casters or something else.

I don't even want to think about how my computer would handle 4v4 battles >_o

I hope they find a quality way to include 3v3 and 4v4 into the maps. A couple shared bases maps couldn't hurt, just would be more variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dynamiK-

I hope they find a quality way to include 3v3 and 4v4 into the maps. A couple shared bases maps couldn't hurt, just would be more variety.

---

Well is it just me or do some of these maps like Lost Temple position allies far away from each other? I remember watching some of Crotas games and they usually end up being micro-oriented 2v1's.

It would be cool if players specialized in the units they built as Woland suggested, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been in dozens of 3v3s and 4v4s which lasted only the initial rush in which one or two players are destroyed and then is just mass units against the remaining ones. OR if that fails to happen then is just one or two players turtling and teching straight to carriers or battlecruisers. (Talking about SC and SC:BW) But I think we will see that again in SC2.
IMHO the team play games need to be more well... team played oriented, right now they're just some players vs another some players but there's not a lot of teamwork, sure it shows up from time to time but it should be implemented in some other ways... sadly ain't got the faintest idea as to how make that :( any more ideas?

Well as long as the map is designed so players can reasonably defend their allies (Twilight fortress is an extreme version of this, but something like Lost temple begins to veer too far the other direction)

Then the unit specialization will begin to take over (each player focusing on a few dominant units, so they can save money on upgrades)
If the maps are arranged so 2 players are "Frontline" you could see people making their Mains into Planetary Fortresses (Engineering Bay befor Barracks)

There is also the Synergy...
Medivacs with zerg units...
I've heard rumors SCVs can repair protoss units?

Vikings with Colossi

Long Ranged units with Fungal Growth.

Observers/Changelings/Scan with Blink/Nydus

Siege Tanks with Forcefields

The map structure can lend itself to that as well... players in 'the back' can afford to tech a bit more.

So if the map structure allows it players will sort out... who has the Detectors, who's getting Sentry, who's getting Medivac, who's going Mass/Lings/lots/ who's getting AntiAir, who's getting AntiArmored, who will be going Harrass, etc.

Then you will get Harrasers moving around and coordinating their Harrass with attacks. You could have players specializing as Anti Harrassers.... the sensor Towers would become really useful.

The problem is obviously how to deal with rush tactics. The whole team can just rush one person, and by the time their ally comes to help the damage has been done.

I believe that Dawn of War II was effective at solving this issue. In their multiplayer mode you have to take over and hold various points within the map. Some give you victory points that help you win the game, and some points give you resources to build units with. The key point is that this forces teams to focus their efforts on more than one thing at a time. The whole team can't just rush one location because then the other team will take everything else. Now there are actual decisions to make. Do I hold this position or do I risk losing it to momentarily switch over and help my ally double team this other objective?

In early game StarCraft there simply aren't any such decisions. There is simply no downside to just rushing one player. There has to be productive things to do early game besides just rush or not rush.
________
Best Vaporizors

If they do maps like twilight fortress (aka everyone start in the same spot) it should be fine for rushes. You can all just team up to block the entrance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krikkitone

I've heard rumors SCVs can repair protoss units?

---

That would be news to me!