|
How many bases should be on a 2v2 map? What kind of question is that?
Well, if you are Blizzard, it is a question with a short answer: 14. Out of the nine maps in the current pool, seven have exactly 14 bases, one has 12 and one 16 (our beloved Tempest, which happens to by my most favourite 2v2 map).
It may not be immediately clear what that means. 14 bases that is a lot, isn't it? No, it isn't - for four players. Consider for a moment the only two remaining 2player maps in the 1v1 pool (Scrap and XNC): both of them boast full 10 bases - that's 5 per player, in contrast with the 3.5 provided by the majority of 2v2 maps. The trend actually goes further (with the climax in the form of "Monsoon" with 14 bases for three players, but Blizzard has admitted not taking 3v3 and 4v4 seriously, so let's ignore them for the time being (however sad that is).
Many TLers say that 2v2 is a joke and should not be taken seriously, but I beg to differ. There is an amazing depth of possibilities in the number of matchups and unit combinations and the fact that you have two supply caps instead of one makes up for the lack of "epic armies" that many cite as a reason for SC2's superiority to BW. In my opinion, the perception that 2v2 is all cheese and rushes is perpertuated mainly due to the map pool.
It's not that the rush distances were too small - and with 3 vetoes you can't get rid of enough maps (Moonlyth, Red Stone and that abomination starting with G) so that you don't have to be too far from each other. The problerm I see is that on most maps, there are not enough expansion that could be reasonably secured. The whole idea, that there should be one natural for the whole team (which is obvious in some of the design) is just outrageous. Yes, the fifth on XNC is quite difficult to get and that's absolutely fine with me. But the "fifth" on a 2v2 map is actually my (or my ally's) third!
I actually did never count the bases on any map, until we (me and my wife) played several matches on Ruins of Tarsonis, where we mined out the entire map We play TvP and when the other team also has a Terran, it often comes to a stallmate in the middle, with two heavy siege lilnes on the immense cliffs below naturals and noone willing to attack. (Sadly, we lost all of these game, because we always mine out first and thus we just go, attack and eventually lose as we don't have income but they do.) Well, mining out is a plausible scenario, but doing so in 40 minutes feels, kinda, short. You get into a situation, when as soon as you hit the lategame, you have to actually start preparing for the fact that there soon won't be any resources on the map. It's not "something that happens sometimes", but a likely scenario.
Interestingly enough, as I started to write this blog, Blizzard unveiled two new 2v2 maps, with 15 and 16 bases. Could we see a trend here? Could we ever get a nice 20-base map?
  
|
2v2 maps mine out ridicilously fast. There should be 5 bases per player.
|
Try playing a 3v3 on Ulaan deeps. 14 bases total including starting positions. That means everyone gets a natural, and then there are only two other bases
|
Why would you attack if you're mined out? It just means you got your money first, it doesnts mean you have less money in the end, given that you split the map properly.
|
On June 21 2011 06:16 Navane wrote:
Why would you attack if you're mined out? It just means you got your money first, it doesnts mean you have less money in the end, given that you split the map properly.
Its mainly because I don't know what else to do. If I am not mining and they are (I usually run some DTs around their area just to scout and annoy, so I have good intel), I feel like I am loosing my advantage that I got from faster mining (which is usually thanks to my harrass killing their workers).. And honestly, I also tend to get bored - and as the mining comes to halt, there is not much to harass either.
I am not trying to hide the fact that I am a terrible player  and I am not trying to blame my losses on the map. But I feel it could have been more fun, if there were more bases.
|
On June 21 2011 06:12 awu25 wrote:
Try playing a 3v3 on Ulaan deeps. 14 bases total including starting positions. That means everyone gets a natural, and then there are only two other bases
I actually liked that map in my "team rushing" period of life (guess why I am 3v3 Diamond , but nowadays I play 3v3s only rarely - and Ulaan was the first map I vetoed when I started playting non-rush 3v3s. Actually, 14 bases is the same as Monsoon, but Monsoon has at least a single defendable choke (best with a PF, as we learned from TLO ).
|
I have to agree, we need more macro maps in the 2v2 pool. In the recent interviews around HotS that have tried to glean out information about multiplayer, blizzard has stated that they view the ladder as a ground for players of all levels, so they include rush maps, macro maps, and some in between. The complaints about how few macro maps are in the 1v1 pool are worse in for 2v2, but granted there are fewer macro players in the 2v2 ladder. While the two new maps for season 3 look hopeful, I wonder which maps they're replacing to fulfill their rush/macro quotas...
|
While SC2 doesn't mine the same rate as BW exactly, there's clearly enough carry-over that the comparison is worth it. Maps in play right now or recently:
(2) Alternative - 12
(4) Circuit Breaker - 16
(4) Icarus - 12
(4) La Mancha - 12
(3) Neo Aztec - 15
(4) Neo Beltway - 16
(2) New Bloody Ridge - 11
(4) New Empire of the Sun - 14
(2) Monte Cristo - 12
(4) Dante's Peak SE - 16
The average bases per map is 13.6, or (rounded) 14.
Now you may well point out, "But all of those are 1v1 maps." Problem is, I can't find the actual 2v2 maps in TLPD, except for Hunters which has 17 bases but is very weird. But it's my recollection that Proleague 2v2s tended to be very fast rush-based games so maybe it didn't come up?
It's definitely true though that 2v2 at the ESPORTS level doesn't really have an air of legitimacy about it, so I'd assume Blizzard is simply putting it at a lower priority.
|
your Country52798 Posts
Try making one and testing it.
|
If you think that's bad, you should see the 4v4 map pool. Everyone gets 1 expo + a few golds, but that's it. Of course, you don't expand in 4v4
|
Team games will forever be stupid because of mineral sharing, its not fun to play like that either
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
