Coffee nut wrote:
I understand what you were saying originally, but I don't really see this point. It seems less to do with the map in question (assuming we are not talking about maps like paradise or four corners) but more to do with knowing which faction your opponent chooses?
Also, in terms of strategy, I'm not sure faction choice after map selection is going to definitively increase the number of strategies. Sure, different factions might permit different gameplans, but in-depth knowledge about specific factions can equally promote different - and perhaps even more innovative - tactics. Take your example, in spam heavy maps perhaps an obvious strategy is to pick aeon, but that is, after all, tried and tested, and perhaps expected. If you're stuck with uef, then perhaps you'd be forced to come up with more unconventional strategies in order to gain the upper hand.
So many maps won't have a "right" faction though, and the factions strengths and weaknesses are vis-a-vis each other. Consider team games and custom 1v1s (including in tournaments) right now. On the majority of custom maps you see people choosing all sorts of different factions in different spots. Even in tourney 1v1s people will choose different factions depending on the person they are against. Personally, if the map seems like a heavy t1-land spam situation to me I'll pick aeon if I anticipate my opponent going UEF or sera, but not if I anticipate them going cybran. If people think the "right" faction is to pursue a certain strategy, etc., I can pick a faction that I feel can have a specific game plan to counter that strategy. This game is generally a bit too dynamic for one faction to totally straight up dominate on a map, except for the maps that we've already discussed being crappy. If anything, there could be some maps that would be less suited to one faction than the other 3, but even that I think wouldn't be the case.
I understand what you were saying originally, but I don't really see this point. It seems less to do with the map in question (assuming we are not talking about maps like paradise or four corners) but more to do with knowing which faction your opponent chooses?
Also, in terms of strategy, I'm not sure faction choice after map selection is going to definitively increase the number of strategies. Sure, different factions might permit different gameplans, but in-depth knowledge about specific factions can equally promote different - and perhaps even more innovative - tactics. Take your example, in spam heavy maps perhaps an obvious strategy is to pick aeon, but that is, after all, tried and tested, and perhaps expected. If you're stuck with uef, then perhaps you'd be forced to come up with more unconventional strategies in order to gain the upper hand.
I appreciate you thinking about what I said and making a reasoned response
. I do agree that there is some strategy to having your faction picked first, and then being forced to try to improvise and figure out what to do on a map where you feel uncomfortable with your faction/you would have picked another one. However, I personally think that the strategic thinking involved in the other scenario is more satisfying, fair and deep. Taking for granted this example of t1 land spam, and assuming that aeon is considered very good at the t1.Scenario 1: You are stuck with UEF, your opponent is stuck with who they took but they took aeon.
If aeon is really better than uef on the map, this is an unfair situation for the UEF player. There is some strategy though because of course the UEF player, if he's a great sup com player or whatnot, can try to come up with an interesting strategy or whatever else to overcome his disadvantage and take the win. I do kind of think that more often than not, though, both players follow similar paths and just count on superior eco, unit management, micro etc.
Scenario 2: You see its a land spam map and get to choose.
Since aeon is "good" on the map, you could just pick aeon. But, like you said, it's tried, tested, and expected. You can anticipate that you're opponent will pick aeon and pick a faction that you specifically think can be very powerful against what you expect him to do as aeon. Maybe sera t2 bots can counter auroras really well and you expect him to spam auroras, so you think you can fast tech t2 land with sera and spam chickens, or whatever. Then, like in scenario 1, your abilities to improvise etc. will help you modify your strategies over the course of the game etc. Maybe over time more and more people are picking sera and following that strategy, so a clever player can try to come up with a gameplan for aeon that will be more effective in this scenario, or maybe pick a third faction that they feel can match up well against the sera and aeon strategy. It might even be UEF. And, if faction diversity is enhanced, there is more potential for unique strategies with the different factions and more ways to get creative. The meta game evolves over time.
Certainly, good players can improvise and come up with interesting strategies when forced to play a faction on a specific map. However, with more unique options at their disposal and the opportunity to pick the faction after seeing the map and at least have 30 seconds worth of time to think, I think there would be more interesting strategies in general, and that would obviously still around a lot of room for improvisation based on the opponent's race and strategies etc.
Statistics: Posted by sasin — 18 Sep 2014, 17:14
]]>