Why...

It's an old question at this point that I've never been able to get a reasonable answer to. I don't really expect to get one I suppose. But my question is:

Why do people still insist on playing grouped mana?

It takes a large portion of what makes this game so special out of the equation.

Such a large part of this game is mana management. When you stick 6+ mana in your base that no one can really take off of you, it just seems stupid to me. Is it the need for the "large scale" battles? I honestly don't understand it. And since I havent for 11 years or whatever, I'm guessing that I never will.

because we are to much lazy to care about mana ^^

Myst wrote:

because we are to much lazy to care about mana ^^

So you mean you are too lazy to be a strategist... Mana = 1 resource. Most RTS have many.
I don't think asking to play spread mana is asking alot!

I just like grouped mana maps and it looks like most of us like play those maps. I never force anyone to play grouped ^^

If you can't beat them, join them.

Grouped mana and cd/dc map are both differents.

Grouped mana maps it's easier to use any strat of differets races, it's more on support team, more fight mon, well depends of gameplay too ^^

On cd/dc map it's not really strategic, get the most parts of maps and manas, there are less fight mon, we play more safe :

-cause the positions,

- the mana that is often rare in cd/dc maps (and not lose mon cause its worth is 5000, lose it can be fatal)


And some races are very hard to play on cd/dc maps, example creon asks alots of mana, that doesnt have on cd/dc map.

That's why we morel ike grouped mana, every strats and races can be mixed.


And last thing, pn cd/dc map, when we are about 6 or 8, there are always 2 palyers who are dead cause they were between 2 guys.

He makes some very good points.

But I disagree on one thing. I think cd/dc was always more strategic, but I don't know how you all play so I could be wrong.

Bl4ckR4v3N wrote:

He makes some very good points.

But I disagree on one thing. I think cd/dc was always more strategic, but I don't know how you all play so I could be wrong.

cd/dc is much more strategic. I don't even think thats argueable. You can argue preference and amount of fun you can have playing the different styles. And let me rephrase.. I don't care if it's cd/dc. I just like spread mana. CaptSavage has made a few spread mana maps which I really like alot.

The combination of macro/micro is what I've always really liked about this game. On spread mana maps, you can't just build for claves, set them to patrol to exactly where you know the enemy is, go build a gate at the only choke point with your monarch, put up a tower/bastion behind it, flood tier 1 while you're teching up. Then once you're teched up make zerks or dirigs and send them to exactly where ALL of your opponents buildings are etc.

It's just stupid and dumbed down.

And joker, how you can say the mon fighting is more important or more frequent on 3rd party mana maps is beyond me. On the vast majority of spread mana maps you have to mon pimp to stand a chance. And if you lose your mon, unless it's late in the game, you're more than likely going to lose.

I see your point about the "strats". But thats because it's a simplified version of the game. You can teach a complete noob how to play grouped mana fairly well in a few days. Cause once they figure out the units and basic unit controls you can just say hey: Build clave. pump out 4 builders, 2 builders make mana two more make claves.. patrol warriors. BOOM and you have an average player who can hold their own for at least 10-15 minutes on most grouped mana maps.

And certainly some cd/dc maps are geared more towards certain races... But there are maps you can play creon on successfully, and there are plenty of spread mana maps where a good zhon player can dominate and aramon or veruna.

Grouped mana is basically who can do more effective drops and who can get trebs up faster. I'd rather play a 5 minute game on Ground War and get crushed my someones mon/horse rush then play 20 minutes on a grouped mana map to only get trebbed to death and drag the game out til the 30 minute mark. I dont understand how that's fun.

I will agree with Sammael here. The spread mana maps are much more strategic than grouped mana ones. The reasons are simple:
1) You have to manage your mana much more wisely.
2) You have to explore, both for mana and for your opponent's location.
3) Most of grouped mana maps seem to be one dimensional. There are two sides, you know where your opponents are, you know from which side you are going to be attacked and from which side you are going to attack. On the other side, during a spread mana map game, you are probably going to be attacked from 4 different directions at once and, because of that, it needs much more sophisticated defense building.
4) You can hide in cd/dc maps. Most of these maps are huge, so there will be a "secret place", an area which is unseen by your opponent's Spyhawks, Gargoyles, Parrots, Bats and Barnstormers, where you can build a secret base or having your monarch to summon your respective deity.
5) You can have great naval battles in cd/dc maps.

However, grouped mana maps have their own advantages:
1) Grouped mana games are often really fast, mostly because of the small size of 3rd party maps. The largest grouped mana map is probably the smallest spread mana map, in terms of size. So, the faster a game, the more games you play.
2) Some units and strategies that aren't much of a use on cd/dc maps can become extremely useful in 3rd party ones. Roc and Ghost ship drops, for example, are much more vital during grouped mana games.
3) It is much easier to co-operate with your fellow players in a 3rd party map, since everyone starts building on the same place, area, side of the map.

Each kind of map has advantages and disadvantages. Spread mana offers more ways and strategies to win, grouped mana offers faster and more co-operation style games. Just choose what you prefer each time and there you go! Gl & Hf!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the reasons why I made the map 'Creon Streets' and other maps similar. Grouped mana with a cd/dc, scatter effect. I've always had great gameplay on that map.

Cd/dc maps and groupes mana maps are 2 differents things as i said.

But in grouped mana almost all units have their helpfulness that we don't see in cd/dc maps

About half of ta:k units never show in the most of cd/dc maps.


And for me cd/dc maps is not a strat, you have just to know to manage, when the maps is big only

Well maybe it's a bit strategic, from 3v3 or 4v4 or on certain map i can say it's strategic :d

I agree with NOOBHAWK

"strategy : Long-term action plan for achieving a goal"

Sure it's very strategic to send builder and list things to do, it's more instinctively than strategic, and this on all cd/dc maps and even in 3rd maps, but the difference is that you can use alot of differents strategy way on 3rd maps than cd/dc maps


So just show me where im missing what strategy means, if you talk about me, im lazy to read what i wrote, you used to quote \"****\" you ! lol

I agree with me

Idk nothing about strats...so dont ask me xD

But idk, i prefer 3rd. I guess is a question of taste, sometimes i do like to play spread cuz to see if a guy is really good. Anyone with training can beat other in 3rd, but i guess that in spread is where is the harder game. The only thing that i dont like in 3rd are those fooking treb games.
At least i never saw one in spread.
I like both but i prefer 3rd maps. I guess is just a question of taste, and most like 3rd.

Joker wrote:

"strategy : Long-term action plan for achieving a goal"

Sure it's very strategic to send builder and list things to do, it's more instinctively than strategic, and this on all cd/dc maps and even in 3rd maps, but the difference is that you can use alot of differents strategy way on 3rd maps than cd/dc maps


So just show me where im missing what strategy means, if you talk about me, im lazy to read what i wrote, you used to quote \"****\" you ! lol

I'm bored so I'm bumping this old thread because it seems like TAK never progressed beyond the grouped vs spread debate. You guys hardly ever have any new posts to discuss, so here ya go.

Few things in this thread that make no sense to me:

1) mon fighting being more frequent/severe/frantic on grouped...

this makes me think some of you have never played spread at a high level or that the level of people that play spread at a high level went way down. Spread MUST be more taxing on offensive mon play because the mana is often so scarce and is DEFINITELY so important to have that you must attack it. Because in group you know you will have the same mana as your opponent, your monarchs role is only to go to the choke point, make gates(mon fight to defend gates) and wave incoming units.

- In spread mana maps you have the option to go to a choke point and gate. Go to a likely enemy expansion point and kill the builders/mana, go to your likely expansion point to keep enemy from killing it with their mon etc, just go to high traffic areas to get an advantage, go straight to their start location and pimp like a nub and hope u dont die... so many more options on TOP of the options that are in grouped mana maps.

- good spread mana players never played safe with a monarch because they thought it would die and they'd lose 5k mana. If they did that, they lost already. You can't suicide your monarch, but if you keep it in base and not offensively doing something you suck at spread.

2). Grouped mana has more strategies/units/ all units being used.... what?

This also doesn't make any sense to me. Grouped mana maps have all of your mana in the back of your base, creating a buffer and a choke point that you can then build a gate and defense in front of. The enemy wont attack anywhere else because--- you will never be there. He has to come head on. This means that long range + gates + defense rule the day. Because of this many melee units are WRECKED before they can do anything.

Drops aren't even more strategic in grouped mana. Sure if I can get a witch drop on your grouped mana and take it out it looks super awesome--- but that is so easy to defend against in grouped compared to spread. With the need to spread your base out all across the map, good luck keeping up with simultaneous witch drops all around the map taking out structures. Did I catch your t3 building gg?

Making the choice to drop in spread mana is a risky maneuver. It is highly rewarding if successful, if you just die you basically lose because you wasted so much mana and time. On a 3rd party map--- it is not costly at all.

Ideas in the variety in strategies that do not exist on grouped mana because they lose their effectiveness from their being only 1 focal point:

-2 dirigible harass, take out non protected watch towers, non protected enclaves, wrecks mana
- quick couple of iron beaks to devastate expansion mana and non protected t1 buildings or non protected
- harpy rush to expansion locations to grab wandering builders--- shifts the mana balance, builder balance, unit production balance.
-Orc drops are DEVASTATING on spread mana because you cannot defend it easily. aco, mind mage, harpy in grouped mana and you're decently safe because you know where he has to go. In spread mana --- it is too expensive and impossible to get enough protection up around your spread out bases.
-Offensive towering. I can steal a section of the map with a well placed tower.... i dont mean tower crawling, and i dont mean mass flying builders.
-Real mon pimping
-Mon hunting (newb strategy, get out of jail strategy, risky strategy (on spread it requires that it be successful or you lose because of the investment in units that arent very good at anything else that early in the game). On grouped its SO easy to defend against and if you lose the monarch your mana isn't devastated).
-setting up satellite bases and hiding bases (not even possible on most grouped becaause there is nowhere to build)
-Theres many more that I can't think of right now

3). Grouped mana games are fast compared to spread... what?
- once against i think this comes from someone that hasn't played much spread mana or never against people that know how to play spread mana. Spread mana games are often over in 6 minutes. VERY frequently done in under 20. The thing that bothered me most about grouped mana was that I had to invest such a LONG time in a one dimensional battle.

- and the best part is that the length of the battle is sometimes determined by skill and sometimes not. Yes I could beat any average- above average player on ground wars in 10 minutes or less. However, If I was playing a great ground wars player, the game might last 5 minutes, it might last 2 hours. You couldn't predict it. And there is no pride saying ooo I lasted 30 minutes, or I lasted 5 minutes. The cards just fell that way for that game.

4) drops better on grouped--- I already went over this. They are not better. Much easier to defend drops in grouped because u know exactly where its coming--- not in spread. How often do you guys drop executioners?

5). Spread doesnt have strategy but instinct? What?
- once again I think people here are not very good at spread mana at all. Instinct got you by on on the obscure cd/dc maps. If you tried to use instinct to win on maps it was GG you lost. When I played I had every sub-average to popular cd/dc map memorized and a strategy for each one. The maps I didn't have set strategies for were stupid maps that no one played or so large and obscure you only played for shits and giggles.
- you can use the virtually the exact same strategy for every single grouped mana map. You don't even have to alter your build order because all of your mana is right there and its almost always the same amount of LARGE mana stones.
- I had the exact mana locations and sizes memorized for so many maps. Instinct says make mana radiating outward... strategy says skip those stones, they're small. I had the exact mana and timings worked out for so many maps, that allowed me to to build all of the appropriate structures and defense keeping my mana always in the red to grey but never empty. I also had quite a few fall-out plans worked out for when I lost a builder or something got destroyed out of timing. After that, then instinct and adaptability kicked in.
- instinct says I should build a tower where there is traffic coming, my strategy says I'm building a tower over here away from a contact point because im making a mini base over here when it gets found they will focus it...
-instinct says i'll attack him at his base and sort of randomly around where I think he will expand. Strategy says I'm attacking exactly this mana, then this mana then this one etc.

6) Easier communication or 2v2/3v3 etc just ends up with someone getting sandwiched and losing..
-- yes the communication is easier because there isnt much to communicate. you know where you have to attack and you know where you have to build.
- in spread communication is much more important. You have to choose who you will attack, will you focus down 1 guy? will you double mon pimp the same guy--- Will your opponents do that? Now you have to help defend your ally because he's being double mon pimped.
-I'm sandwiched, you have to help me asap or we lose. Response: Ok, i'm zhon i'll drop rush the guy on top of you etc etc.

7) Last, some of you like that base vs base choke point battle treb wars gate wars etc--- spread has that for you as well
there are quite a few maps that turn into gate wars and treb wars, just on a smaller scale and require much more precision and careful thought in where you plan to build.

yeah some races suck \"***\" on spread mana maps 1v1, but so do some race on grouped mana 1v1. Zhon will get wrecked on every single spread mana map vs two great spread mana players assuming you can survive the zhon mon hunt. Creon will get wrecked on a lot of 1v1 too, but you can pull it out on some. 2v2 or XvX, most races work just fine on spread

10) I skipped 9. The best reason why spread mana is amazing is base swaps. Base swaps are such an exciting and frequent occurrence between two skilled spread players. In grouped its nearly impossible to base swap.

This was an epic long post-- but like I said I'm bored. I believe the game was designed around and balanced around spread mana, grouped was brought in as a different flavor that I wasn't a huge fan of, it was a good break sort of like a scripted map in SC2. I believe spread is a much greater test of skill because of the amount of macro/micro/ multi tasking it takes. The amount of varied strategy, and the amount of risk involved in choosing a said strategy, and the amount of strategies that can be very effective for the same map.

Preference is completely up to the player. You may love the play style grouped gives you and you may love that you can tech up virtually risk free. But the points mentioned in this thread on why grouped is superior--- I just do not believe the evidence is there to back those points up. At the end of the day, play the game for the reason that makes it fun to you.

No one is going to rag on people that play WC3 for dota. I just wish people still played spread mana regularly so that the real way TAK was meant to be played was still alive.


Flame on landh-jerk.

Good post, very well detailed and backed up. You can't find spread games unless you are up against one of five people. The newer players don't even want to play with anyone if they are skilled, they lock the room and you aren't invited. So yeah, I've moved on yet again.

KingDouble-DB wrote:

Good post, very well detailed and backed up. You can't find spread games unless you are up against one of five people. The newer players don't even want to play with anyone if they are skilled, they lock the room and you aren't invited. So yeah, I've moved on yet again.

That's sad. I should have some free time from research coming up shortly, after reading a few posts I contemplated downloading this thing and playing a couple of games for fun,but no point if people dont play.


Also, in all of the time I played TAK, I never came across a single person that was genuinely skilled at spread mana but preferred grouped mana. Some people liked both, but spread was always the preference.

Hell, my top 5 favorite maps went like this..

1). Sewers
2). Mana Mana
3). Troubled Waters
4). !!1v1!!
5). Some form of hunters

6- 1000 are all cd/dc though. IMO No one came up with any sort of creative 3rd party map in the entire time I played besides what I listed . Every map either played/looked like the 3 in my top 5 or were garbage and or boring to play.

Hell, I started on mplayer with all of the other 3rd party noobs. I didn't touch spread mana until BY was closing and everyone moved to mplayer. Dark Sphere absolutely destroyed me on Two Castles. Then he quickly showed me what he did--- and I didn't look back, 3rd party was just way more exciting.

Clay actually came out with some spread third party maps I thought were amazing and fun to play (after your time). Spread mana, maps weren't symmetrical, highly detailed (with class), he put a lot of effort into them.

I started playing D3 again and am contemplating heart of the swarm but if you ever want to kill some time let me know. Also everyone in DB is CD/DC licensed and certified so they are excellent opponents as well

can't disagree spread>>>>group

group are something fun but skillless, usually 1 scheme/build for all maps (but ofc depends to enemy race, and ofc there are some really weird, unbalance maps which require really weird stupid strategy)
i just hated in group maps that they are so crowd