|
Normally when i'm playing 2v2 i do this and that, then a-move my whole army as toss and attack with my ally or kind of rely on him for dealing with other threats around the base (mutas, DT's, drops) vice versa. I do play some 1v1's yet i'm not always favoring that. My friends say that " to be better in 1v1 is to only play 1v1!". I just think thats a bit stupid IMO. Can't a 2v2 player be also good in 1v1? I mean in 2v2 for example, there are a lot of aggressive builds and pushes around 12 min. or earlier (depending on your league).
And in the late game of a 2v2 match, it kinda does the same thing as 1v1 late game. Everyone is maxing out and waiting for that move that can win the game but in a sorta bigger scale. Nevertheless, i am doing good at 1v1's yet i mainly play 2v2.
2v2's early game mainly goes on very aggressive builds, yet if the other team defends it good, then it's probably bye bye to the aggressive team.
1v1's early game is different: expand once (or twice if zerg) and tech to mid.
then comes the mid game:
2v2: mainly focused on expaning and taking the map, and some drops here and there.
1v1: kinda like the same ting i must say.
late game:
2v2: maxing out, vortex, broodlords, thors and laggy battles due to the masses of armies
1v1: Sorting out the move that can finish the game and sort of transitioning from your early build into a better one.
Well at least this is my opinion. What do you thing about it?
PS: I don't know how to categorinze this post as a General post or a Sc2 strategy post.. ;_;
 
|
Sure you can learn how to play SC2 by playing 2v2's and translating some mechanics into 1v1, but why would you practice 2v2 to get better at 1v1? That is like practicing baseball to get better at basketball. Besides, the strategies are way different (sharing resources, creating timing attacks together) as well as the maps.
|
I don´t agree. I play 2v2 at master and are good and all. BUT MY 1v1 got alot wors from that. In 1v1 there is a metagame you have to know, in 2v2 the metagame is not super developed jet. ofc you mekanisk from 2v2 help your 1v1, but not the metagame.
also the 2v2 mekanisk are more easy.
But then agine micro is harder in 2v2, so yes playing 2v2 can help your 1v1 micro!!!! but there is still big diffrenc between 2v2 and 1v1.
|
2v2 is where true skill in sc2 is. 1v1 is just boring ping pong like... Aright, who can fit in a better economy without dying to tug of war pressure!????????????? so id say 2v2. Plus teamwork is awesome. NO! 2v2 is just allins!... ok try the new maps buds.
|
You can probably get yourself to plat-diamond on 2v2s, simply because in general, you can win games in the high plat/low diamond range simply by having better macro than your opponent and using the word "micro" in a sentence. When you get higher than that, you need specific knowledge of each matchup, and specific build orders which (trust me) don't lend themselves well to 2s, where you need to play either stupid-aggressive or blindly safe.
|
2v2 is where true skill in sc2 is. 1v1 is just boring ping pong like... Aright, who can fit in a better economy without dying to tug of war pressure!????????????? so id say 2v2. Plus teamwork is awesome. NO! 2v2 is just allins!... ok try the new maps buds.
YES! +1
|
1v1s have transferable skills into 2v2s.
You'll learn how to hold super aggressive all ins on your own in 1v1s (whereas in 2s you can rely on your opponents and thus misjudge your own requirements)
In 1s you'll learn how to expand properly and manage your economy (not so often in 2s, especially with most maps not offering a decent 3rd base)
You'll learn to scout effectively in 1s
These skills are all helpful in 2v2s as well, but are much harder to learn (nay I'd say you don't learn them at all) in the team game environment. (as you can rely on your allies for map awareness, flanks, unit compositions, etc).
tl;dr Team games don't teach you the skills needed to play in other (read: 1v1) game modes, but 1v1s teach you skills that apply to every mode. So learn playing 1s.
|
United States10231 Posts
1v1 takes more skill because you don't have an ally to fall back on. 2v2 seems more dynamic and all, but it erally won't improve your overall skill level.
you can be silver 1v1, but 2v2 diamond because you can get carried a lot by players or just have better macro than the opponent.
|
On September 02 2012 22:39 WniO wrote:
2v2 is where true skill in sc2 is. 1v1 is just boring ping pong like... Aright, who can fit in a better economy without dying to tug of war pressure!????????????? so id say 2v2. Plus teamwork is awesome. NO! 2v2 is just allins!... ok try the new maps buds.
On September 02 2012 23:36 MicroMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +2v2 is where true skill in sc2 is. 1v1 is just boring ping pong like... Aright, who can fit in a better economy without dying to tug of war pressure!????????????? so id say 2v2. Plus teamwork is awesome. NO! 2v2 is just allins!... ok try the new maps buds. YES! +1
On September 02 2012 17:45 TC_Beynbio wrote:
Normally when i'm playing 2v2 i do this and that, then a-move my whole army as toss and attack with my ally or kind of rely on him for dealing with other threats around the base (mutas, DT's, drops) vice versa. I do play some 1v1's yet i'm not always favoring that. My friends say that " to be better in 1v1 is to only play 1v1!". I just think thats a bit stupid IMO. Can't a 2v2 player be also good in 1v1? I mean in 2v2 for example, there are a lot of aggressive builds and pushes around 12 min. or earlier (depending on your league).
And in the late game of a 2v2 match, it kinda does the same thing as 1v1 late game. Everyone is maxing out and waiting for that move that can win the game but in a sorta bigger scale. Nevertheless, i am doing good at 1v1's yet i mainly play 2v2.
2v2's early game mainly goes on very aggressive builds, yet if the other team defends it good, then it's probably bye bye to the aggressive team.
1v1's early game is different: expand once (or twice if zerg) and tech to mid.
then comes the mid game:
2v2: mainly focused on expaning and taking the map, and some drops here and there.
1v1: kinda like the same ting i must say.
late game:
2v2: maxing out, vortex, broodlords, thors and laggy battles due to the masses of armies
1v1: Sorting out the move that can finish the game and sort of transitioning from your early build into a better one.
Well at least this is my opinion. What do you thing about it?
PS: I don't know how to categorinze this post as a General post or a Sc2 strategy post.. ;_;
Lol.
1s and 2s don't compare. I will tell you this right now, and any player masters or above must agree:
if you're good at 2s, it can mean you're BRONZE at 1s. But if you're good at 1s, 99% of the time, you'll be just as good or better at 2s.
2s, for the most part, doesn't require much skill. Until you get up to the top master, (like #1, playing #1s) it really is just a fun, gay ol' time.
1s takes skill, and understanding, even at top diamond, to top master.
tl;dr you can be complete shit and be masters team, but you can't be complete shit for masters 1.
|
But if you're good at 1s, 99% of the time, you'll be just as good or better at 2s.
I have seen 1v1 GM players not be soo good at 2v2 on live stream tournaments. And played vs really good 1v1 master that is bad at 2v2. they are good players they don´t know how 2v2 works that is all. Its diffrent.
1s takes skill, and understanding, even at top diamond, to top master.
So dose 2v2 it really is complex becous alot of stuff can happend.
2s, for the most part, doesn't require much skill. it really is just a fun, gay ol' time.
If Neste and MVP sat down played 2v2 like pro style, it would requier much skill do play vs them. the general players playing 2v2 are not supper good players. but what if all GM 1v1 playes did. than it would be harder and skill cap would increas.
then agine I only play vs 1v1 master players when I play 2v2 whit my partner.
|
Personally I improve my 1v1 a lot by playing in 2vs2, especially if i get a partner who wants to win and is helpful.
Basically there are a lot of transferable skills
-you learn to adapt your timings. A partner wants an attack so you have to figure out how to get out the right amount of a unit
-you have stuff to watch on the map but you don't have to be involved in.. you can use some of your partners attention and theerfore adapt to situations without attention divided, and therefore practicing adapting WITHOUT having to multi-task
-Learn to gather info from the map better because partner does things that you do not know he has... your brain kind of naturally "divides" more which is really good imo
-Lastly and most importantly, my emotions are more aware in a 2vs2. if i narrowly save an army that my partner was aggressively warning me to move, saying "your army! *ping* *ping* *ping* move it!" His inner starcraft instinct not only accounts for my carelessness in some areas it kind of transfers over and i actually become more emotional about being dangerous things... if this makes sense.
also i just remembered as well, good partners give you little tips that they would do.. like "k hold map now" basically... its like playing on a sports team with people who know how to play sometimes...soo you learn from the better.. and then you also teach those less skilled than you... which who knows.. could highlight some general weaknesses one can exploit?
In conclusion 1vs1 is still my favourite and its what i consider my main event but i think 2vs2 is underrated certainly for improving in 1v1 and perhaps underrated for its competitive potential.
I think the main reason 2v2 is considered generally bad for improving one's1vs1 is because it does not get "results" meaning more wins against "higher level" players in 1v1.you're not learning what build you own 1v1 with, i agree, but you are learning the small skills that add up and really makes you an enr1ched player
Anyone know any super high level 2v2s to watch?
|
On September 02 2012 22:39 WniO wrote:
2v2 is where true skill in sc2 is. 1v1 is just boring ping pong like... Aright, who can fit in a better economy without dying to tug of war pressure!????????????? so id say 2v2. Plus teamwork is awesome. NO! 2v2 is just allins!... ok try the new maps buds.
So according to your point of view, 4v4s require twice as much skill as 2v2s and 4 times as much skill as 1v1s. 2 > 1 right? Mathematically yes, but not mechanically. In 1v1s you can't rely on your ally to clean up the drops, DTs, Infestor/Muta Harass or Banshees. You have to do that on your own, while managing everything else (see: macro, army battles in the front, doing your own harassment...). Yes, you sometimes need to hold of double rushes and shit in 2v2s, but one of the allies dying to a double rush is 80% the other ally's fault imo.
Strategically though, you need to be sharper in 2v2s because there are not a whole lot of strategy guides for it unlike 1v1s that you can follow. There is this double rush that asks for this one specific response? Chances are you can't find a guide about it. You need to figure that out yourself.
On the very top tier though, 1v1 >>>> 2v2 in terms of skill requirement. Those guys have to do everything in terms of strategy and mechanics all by themselves and their teammates.
|
1v1 >>>> 2v2 in terms of skill requirement. Those guys have to do everything in terms of strategy and mechanics all by themselves and their teammates.
and that is hard. In 1v1 you need one frend. Hi can you rush me with 4 gate pls? I wanna se if my build can hold it.
Hi man we have lost alot from ling hellion. Yea you are righet. ok lets find 2 others that can rush us with ling hellion. You need 4 peopel to find stuff out insteed of 2. I have done this once and maby 20 times in 1v1.
Anyone know any super high level 2v2s to watch?
Yes but not super high, there is no think as super high or maby there is. you can watch ...
So there is alot of 2v2 stuff going on, if you know where to look. I recomend my own teamcup stream, MCs and 2v2AI
|
i agree that you see alot of aggressive attacks in 2v2 in the early game which makes you better in scouting in 1v1. =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
