StarCraft® II

Team games logical flaw - Please reply

Posts: 492
Dear Starcraft 2 developers,

To begin, I love the game and all its variety and modes of play.
However, I am writing to inform you of a severe logical flaw (NOT a racial balance problem), and unfair game mechanics in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 team play. Other people have pointed this out as well, but it has been largely ignored for 3 years of SC2 history, because it doesn’t occur very frequently, and none of the notable SC2 figures have commented about this (because they probably never experienced it).

The current rules for resource sharing are as follows: at the 5:00 mark, you can give your ally resources, but you have to click buttons to do that. However, the severe logical flaw is that, when your ally leaves about 2 seconds after the game starts, you get to use your ally’s resources immediately. (Do you not see the logical flaw in your team play rules??????) Furthermore, there is no possible way to see your ally’s supply count! When you have 12 mining workers to begin the game, you immediately have an enormous economic advantage in the early-mid game, because only one set of upgrades and production facilities are needed – the money saved from producing extra production facilities is put towards extra units, so generally 1 person will easily out-produce the 2 people on the opposing team. Furthermore, the economically advantageous player can do whatever he wants – hold off early rushes while teching up fast – or do an overly powerful push/cheese in the very early game that hits at a faster timing than possible with 2 players.

The logical conundrum here is not really that the team with 2 players is actually at a disadvantage against the 1 player, but that logically, the team with 2 players should have the advantage over a team with only 1 player. Do you really think the game should reward the less committed team (i.e. the team with a dropped teammate) rather than the fully committed team with all its players?

Finally, having established (what I believe to be) an irrefutable argument, I have reason to believe that it is quite simple to change the resource allocation of the game after an ally drops out. How hard can it possibly be to insert a second row of resources/supply below the original one? The variables are already present, and I’m sure a well-designed game will have a flexible interface, so this fix should take no more than a few hours at most. I am a computer science major, so I would know.

If you can find anyone who disagrees with my assessment, I will be glad to hear the arguments, and if reasonable, concede that I was wrong.

Thank you for your time!

A Starcraft 2 player.
Edited by riceant on 2/16/2013 11:55 AM PST
Reply Quote
MVP - StarCraft
Posts: 2,175
The success of this tactic really depends on the map and your allies' abilities to come to your defense. The most effective version is the early 6pool, but you can protect yourself with a standard wall-in or the joint efforts of your and your allies' workers. Anytime you see that someone on the enemy team disconnects, you should always prepare for this kind of rush. These all-ins are even more all-in than normal because the remaining enemy player is only working with his workers plus the 6 or so workers that his partner has. All your team has to do is fend off the early rush and establish a respectable economy, then you'll have the advantage. The longer you can draw out the game, the more evident your 2v1 advantage.

I will say that you have to lean on your ally a lot more as a Zerg player than Protoss or especially Terran, though.
Reply Quote
Posts: 492
Still, this unintended mechanic kind of ruins the makes things not fun anymore when the game "encourages" an ally to drop.
Reply Quote
Posts: 75
Well, you are right and you are wrong, the advantage of a player dropping starting the game is big, just in the first minutes of the game, as you said you can

1.- Tech up.
2.- Make a big push.

1.-The tech up technique is not a very good option since is a long term strategy, it may help you to cheese with tech faster, like DTS but only for 30 seconds i think, you still need wait for buildings to finish to have the tech.

2.-For a big push you also need a good timing, and usually if the other players are good/know what they are doing will turtle because they know about your early economic boost.

3.-the rush is the best option (IMO) you can have units sooner, and more than 1 of the other guys, here a difference of 5 seconds is important, im talking about time under >6 mins.

Its not a perfect system the one we have, but what other options do we have? when a player drops the game ends? no ranking for anyone? no minerals until min 5? i can see that is not perfect, but i wouldnt say flawed, people is not supposed to leave at the beggining of the game.

02/16/2013 11:49 AMPosted by riceant
I have reason to believe that it is quite simple to change the resource allocation of the game after an ally drops out. How hard can it possibly be to insert a second row of resources/supply below the original one?

Maybe in 2v2 that would be not bad, or it may be even better, only 1 way to know, but still gives a huge disadvantage for the lonely player, now he have to macro and micro twices as hard, with no benefit. And what about in 4v4? who have control? they will be wasting minerals while 1 guy tries to make thors the other one cancels because he wants to have gas for battlecruisers.

IMO and in conclussion.

When a player leaves at the beggining it gives a small advantage to the other player, in the late game will be a disadvantage.
Reply Quote
Posts: 24
What OP is trying to say here goes much deeper. The issue is not only of a player leaving in the beginning of the game but also the supply being shared. I played warcraft 3 for many years and then brood war before that. I really think the wc3 system was much better in teams. When an ally left, that ally's supply and resources were kept separate and only usable by his/her production facilities. That system was a bit flawed because your ally could lose the base after disconnecting and those unspent resources were wasted.

Proposed system: Ally leaves the game. All future flows of income are split among the remaining players in the game. Furthermore, the supply of leaver should remain separate and should appear as a secondary tab under your own supply. This way the income can be shared by all allies still in game but the supply maximum is not diminished. ie. in a 4v4, if one person on one team leaves, the 3 people could help macro that base and still potentially reach the maximum supply of 800.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,990
I like the system as it is. I should be entitled to my allies money as soon as he leaves. I didnt plan on him leaving.. why should I be punished?

If an enemy player disconnects or leaves... you need to scout and defend against what you see building. Any adcantage gained in the first 5 mins is outweighed by the fact that you have to play two players... the base of the guy who left within the fist 5 mins is usually unprotected from reapers or air... send 3 reapers early and you wipe out the workers.

All that stuff about 'commitment level' is silly... If I search 3v3 random team and one of my allies disconnects at 1:20 it has nothing to do with how commited I am to the game... or he was... sometimes the connection times out and its beyond your control and not due to commitment level.
Reply Quote
Posts: 75
@Davok He is saying that the actual system encourages you to drop a game so your partner will have some advantage, that is easier to win the game this way, im saying that is not. That is easy to counter this strategy.

If you can find anyone who disagrees with my assessment, I will be glad to hear the arguments, and if reasonable, concede that I was wrong

What i dont really like is when someone asks this nicely for replies and give nothing. Not mad, just sad.
Reply Quote
Posts: 79
As far as I know, supply is not shared. For as long as I've played SC2, on every team game, each member has their own supply, even if it doesn't show up. The resources are shared, but supply is not.

I've tried to take over many an abandoned ally's base and see just how well I can do. And I always run into "We require more overlords", etc, when my own supply should allow for it. Their supply is simply invisible and if you're taking over a gone teammate, you have to guesstimate their supply to try not to supply block.
Reply Quote
Posts: 52
if this happens you just need to constantly attack them and keep their apm overstretched. banshees, dts, oracles, reapers, mscore, drops, etc etc. team with less players is definately disadvantaged. but it's team games and it doesn't even matter. just leave the game and start again, don't take teams seriously.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,717
I don't really think this is a major problem or one that Blizzard can properly address. Maybe unlock resource sharing the moment any player from any team disconnects. That way both sides can do it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 57
Its just negative gameplay to go "**** someone left," and have the whole match arguably much harder to win than if a full team was on the other side.

There should be room for when a teammate drops, you shouldn't' be completely screwed. However I think the simple suggestion of separated resource pools for each dropped player is perfectly reasonable and would effectively reduce the ability to exploit this mechanic.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel