Finishing off an opposing team

[Evan_]

So I play a lot of 6v6 maps like The pass and Duel Gap (and other maps like them) with a lot of mass extractors or reclaim. In these games, it's common to have one side pushed out (often with a commander death) and the expected result being that the other team occupies all of the mid and can out eco/apm the other team.

But often it's not the case, as the other team winds up huddling together in a corner of the map under heavy shields, and spam nukes and artillery. And somehow they wind up winning more often than not.

Can anyone explain how this happens? Is it because holding mid is so resource intensive that they out eco us? Or does the danger of losing make their teamwork 1000% better?

[angus000]

Depends entirely on each game. Front players tends to drag behind in eco at the beginning, but once they secure the mid resources, they have an advantage in late game. The problem is that if your team uses more players or resources than the other team to gain the middle, then they may lose if the other team's "back" players are ahead. In other words, you were inefficent, you gained less strategy value than you spent gaining middle.

These are generally noob games, and in my experience, victory is always up to the best players, doesn't really matter what the others do.

Also in those maps every player already has a lot of resources in his starting location, so you don't really need to expand.

Noobs tend to be better at ecoing up to do late game stuff than actually fighting efficently in the front, so that's why front doesn't really make a difference.

Taking mid resources should indeed give you and advantage over your opponent, but only if you do it fast enough, because the more time you spend trying to win it, the more behind you get, so you need a lot more time to make it pay off, and you are probably going to die before that happens.
This is not that big of a problem as long as the same number of players fight for the middle and waste about the same amount of resources, but if you are doing less with more, then you will get behind and your enemy will have a window of opportunity before you make those resources pay off.

Of course this only apply to noob games, because good players don't play this kind of choke point maps.

Edit.:

Is it because holding mid is so resource intensive that they out eco us?

Well you said it yourself

[Hawkei]

It is a symptom of the map type itself. I agree with all of the points in the previous post. I would also add that killing an ACU, and maybe winning a battle is of no real strategic consequence. Because, those maps are designed as highly defensible choke point maps. Which can be successfully defended with a minimum of effort... As such, you have done no actual economic damage, and achieved no increase in map control.

Even if the other team is down 1 or 2 ACU's, it doesn't make any difference. I just means that those remaining players will secure the economies of their dead team mates. They are fighting with equal resources backing them up. Which often tends to be more effective for the following reasons:
1. The surviving players are usually the better players in the team, and increasing the resources under their control means that those resources will be put to better use.
2. In situations where the "share until death" condition holds. The destructed base becomes a huge reclaim field, which can be sunk very quickly into massive building projects. Such as T4, Paragon, or T3 Arty, etc.
3. Having more resources under the control of fewer players means that those resources tend to be focused into single projects. So rather than 4 players working on their own separate projects. You will have one or two players focusing that same economic power into one really big project. This makes it possible to get access to higher tech units, incredibly early.

The main reason why sniping ACU's and wining those early battles is a loosing strategy is because the map design itself nullifies the primary advantage in doing so. Killing ACU's and putting players out of the game depletes the enemies ability APM and attention. Which can be exploited by multiple simultaneous attacks from a variety of threat types. Single choke point maps force the battle to take place in a narrow corridor and nullify this capability.

[speed2]

If you have more mexes and you get out ecoed then you're doing it wrong. But it's not so unusal in games with lower rated players. Since the more stuff they have the harder it is for them to handle that. So thing that happen quite of then is that some extra mexes are not really helping them since they dont have time to upgrade them and use them for any kind of advantage.
So the players with less mexes can eco as fast as them cause it's less things to manage. And in the end these things can happen that players with less mexes are doing actually better.

[lextoc]

The winning side takes more risks, the losing side doesn't. Simple as that.

If you're winning, don't get too confident. Instead, act like you're losing to keep yourself on top of your game.

[Lieutenant Lich]

The main reason why sniping ACU's and wining those early battles is a loosing strategy is because the map design itself nullifies the primary advantage in doing so. Killing ACU's and putting players out of the game depletes the enemies ability APM and attention. Which can be exploited by multiple simultaneous attacks from a variety of threat types. Single choke point maps force the battle to take place in a narrow corridor and nullify this capability.

This is exactly why I don't play choke point maps - they are not creative. There is a set order of doing things to win. On open maps, different order brings confusion and the mindplay is possible. Choke point maps... well, the only way to come and do extensive damage is through that one point. How to do it? Amass more forces, more artillery fire, eco better, devote more to the units building. etc. This lost WW I for the Central Powers. Screw it.

The primary target in such games should be the guys for who the middlemen buy time - the air, navy and eco guys. It should be relatively easy to slow down middlemen of equal strength as yours so target the air-, navy- and ecomen to collapse the allied economy. No resources = no new armies = no offensives = victory.

[keyser]

The winning side takes more risks, the losing side doesn't. Simple as that.

If you're winning, don't get too confident. Instead, act like you're losing to keep yourself on top of your game.

not always true, especially in 1v1. When you see that you are winning, you will often think about safety of your com.

Sometime even if i'm way behind in eco and in army; i will still fake push, and play aggresive only that my opponent keep focusing on army micro, and don't feel safe. Then i will be able to snipe him (like with corsair) because he forgot to go T2 or to build many shield or even scout......

[biass]

in dual gap ep, first person to 10 arty pieces wins

if you throw too much mass into trying to hold mid, you will probably lose

make t3 mex

[lextoc]

The winning side takes more risks, the losing side doesn't. Simple as that.

If you're winning, don't get too confident. Instead, act like you're losing to keep yourself on top of your game.

not always true, especially in 1v1. When you see that you are winning, you will often think about safety of your com.

Sometime even if i'm way behind in eco and in army; i will still fake push, and play aggresive only that my opponent keep focusing on army micro, and don't feel safe. Then i will be able to snipe him (like with corsair) because he forgot to go T2 or to build many shield or even scout......

Yes, but last time I checked, you don't really pass as a noob, do you? (That's a compliment, thank me)

[Lieutenant Lich]

Sometime even if i'm way behind in eco and in army; i will still fake push, and play aggresive only that my opponent keep focusing on army micro, and don't feel safe. Then i will be able to snipe him (like with corsair) because he forgot to go T2 or to build many shield or even scout......

Called mind play. All decent commanders do that to deceive the enemy. War itself is based on deception.