| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Grubbegrabbn
Sweden174 Posts
Remember that from the very start the game is 2 base vs 2 base. Having only one easily defended expo means that it goes up to 3 vs 3 base relatively quickly. If there was two easily defended expos the transition from 2 vs 2 base play straight up to 4 vs 4 base would make it incredibly hard to scout and react to what the other team is doing. This would definitiely make 2v2 play even more volatile and I think its a terribad idea. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
You see where I am going with this? even if you can get 2 early expansions in a 2v2, it is still early to mid game, and you wont have high tech or big army, so scouting is still possible, in face think of a 1v1 with 2base vs 2base, that is how hard scouting is, like a 2base 1v1. Having easily taken bases will only help the 2v2 metagame to grow and become better. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
On May 15 2012 00:58 Endrjuu wrote: 2v2 was really good and a lot of good players from sc/bw were playing it, but that was before the shared main thing. When Lost temple and metalopolis were available for 2v2 (early beta). I used to love playing 2v2 back then, now it's more like a fun meh Umsy kind of game 100% casual. People maybe dont realise but 2v2 was really competitive @sc/bw pretty much all leagues had 1x or 2x 2v2 and a lot of ex korean progamers played it (iccup) etc and enjoyed it, in sc2 blizzard took it away ;/ Btw maps like fighting spirit and python were the most popular@ sc/bw so random starting positions sometimes cross sometimes one side, and simetrical would be the best (lots of different openings/tactics) i played alot of 2on2 in sc/bw but sc2 2on2 is just completly different to it the problem with sc2 2on2 is that cause of the mechanics and spells (like ff) matches on maps like lost temple and metapolis are often rushes and cheeses | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful. As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote: From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games. If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful. As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same. i doubt you ever played sc:bw 2on2 on medium or high level the problem with 2on2 sc2 on non shared bases or atleast near bases is that its very hard to hold an 2on1 attack in sc:bw it was much easier to hold an attack of 2 opponents, mostly cause of defensive buildings were better and the high ground bonus (some ranged attacks miss) and the dps of most units is lower than in sc2 so you can hold a choke for a longer time and get help from your ally | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 11 2012 04:22 TaShadan wrote: i doubt you ever played sc:bw 2on2 on medium or high level the problem with 2on2 sc2 on non shared bases or atleast near bases is that its very hard to hold an 2on1 attack in sc:bw it was much easier to hold an attack of 2 opponents, mostly cause of defensive buildings were better and the high ground bonus (some ranged attacks miss) and the dps of most units is lower than in sc2 so you can hold a choke for a longer time and get help from your ally No I never played 2v2 in bw I've just watched a bit. I'm not pretending to be that knowledgable, feel free to correct me. However, is what I said about race combinations accurate? | ||
|
Battousai13
United States638 Posts
On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote: From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games. If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful. As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same. In official league play for BW, every team had a Zerg player. You're almost throwing the game by not having a Zerg in the composition. At least in 2v2 for SC2, not having a Zerg is not a near auto-loss. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
it was also map dependend but on the most common maps tz zz and zp were the best race combinations | ||
|
madestro
Costa Rica108 Posts
Maps that do allow relatively early expansions like Lunar Colony, well they have the other problem which is short rush distance and when a zerg tries to hold the front expansion of Magma Core against 2 4gates then troubles are just beginning. I love 2v2 but the amount of cheese and allins that it has kind of makes me not play as much and sometimes I do the 4v4 thing but that still rarely if ever get to a late macro game because there are not enough expansions on any map for 8 players so it is usually mass muta for me. I feel the pros view team games as just fun and a place to goof around, a lot of players off race or play random just to play cheese or try out weird stuff without taking it as serious as 1v1 and therefore map makers don't care about the competitive aspect or balance aspect of their maps. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
This mentality that 2v2 is just cheese and allins is self perpetuating as people continue to decry that things are "impossible" without ever really trying. How dull. | ||
|
Xkfyu
United States165 Posts
| ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
 | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
I do agree that highground advantage counts for less in team games since the utility of scans, overlord spotting, etc. is increased. There are plenty of strats involving early overlord spotting and warp ins or blink ins. This is another reason separate bases is complicated - a ZP team can use overlords pylons and speedlings to force an engagement wherever they want. At least with a shared base the defenders can be guaranteed to combine their forces. The meta game in 2v2 games is also much more vastly more complex than in a 1v1 since there is an exponentially greater number of openings to face off against when you are facing 2 opponents, sometimes 2 races. There aren't just 3 matchups to learn in 2v2. this alone regardless of map causes more games to end prematurely. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
On June 12 2012 06:29 Eatme wrote: One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases. I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped. highground was a big thing cause on hunters the most games were mass tier 1 units or rushes in 2on2 with cliffs/choke you were able to tech in certain matchups on flat maps its often only 3 hatch lings and 3/4 gate goons | ||
|
locopuyo
United States143 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). The 6m1rg expansions also hope to aide in this, at least, that is the philosophy behind it, there's a thread about that some-where, it explains the motivation behind that. A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't. I have not tested it in any form yet, bugs are there as is. It's published on friend's accounts and not my own so don't try to message them with any questions. I really like this map but layout and would like to play this more but it has serious lighting issues if you play with higher settings. The lighting is way too bright, so much so that it is unplayable. Here is a screenshot of the map played on high settings. ![[image loading]](http://eliteownage.com/Kuihtuneet.jpg) Can you please adjust the brightness to normal levels? | ||
|
blabber
United States4448 Posts
| ||
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
The first complains that shared bases make zerg weak and 1 base timings too strong for non-zergs. Their solution? Split bases where you can't even share a wall. The second complain that you can't play "macro" 2v2s. I'll address the second camp first. 2v2 is not a "macro" game type. Games only go to "macro" games when an early exchange comes out evenly enough so that nobody leaves. Macro in 2v2 is not macro in the sense that it is in 1v1. Rarely should you go over 50 miners or mine off of more than two bases at a time, unless your opponent seriously misses a timing or you are waaay ahead. That's the way 2v2 is. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want NR15, go play some crappy custom game. And to address the other group of whiners, split bases are impossible because it eliminates the possibility for more team compositions than it makes viable. Split base maps will heavily favor ZZ teams for this reason. TT / TP / PP compositions would auto lose vs PZ TZ or ZZ, because the amount of defense you have to make to hold a 1v2 (which you can't scout for because zerg takes early map control so you have to blindly prepare) is so much that the other team just macros out of a feigned aggression and you can never unite your armies. But any TZ / PZ team is hard countered by ZZ. Double zerg well executed can and will kill the single isolated zerg player (you think you can march a zealot a stalker and a sentry or 7 marines to help your ally vs 30 zerglings/banelings?). So ZZ would be the heavily favored combo on split base maps. What blizzard has done is tried to make 2v2 as dynamic as possible with their maps. ZZ is still viable on shared choke maps, where as TP is not viable at all on split base maps. The best 2v2 map of all time, scorched haven, has the perfect idea which blizzard has copied and even improved with its new map molten crater, where the bases are split, but there is a shared low ground choke behind which you can hold expansions. Molten improves on scorched because there are more auxiliary expansions, so the map is more zerg friendly. Blizzard knows what they are doing. More people play 2v2 random than 2v2 arranged, and it would ruin the 2v2 random experience to put split maps in the pool, as well as ruin the 2v2 experience all together with everyone picking zerg (remember season 1 and 2 with monlyth ridge, tarsonis assault?). End of story. Stop crying and play 1v1 if you want to FE and make 60 workers. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 19 2012 15:11 saladToss wrote: It seems people are generally in two camps; none being content with blizzard's maps. The first complains that shared bases make zerg weak and 1 base timings too strong for non-zergs. Their solution? Split bases where you can't even share a wall. The second complain that you can't play "macro" 2v2s. I'll address the second camp first. 2v2 is not a "macro" game type. Games only go to "macro" games when an early exchange comes out evenly enough so that nobody leaves. Macro in 2v2 is not macro in the sense that it is in 1v1. Rarely should you go over 50 miners or mine off of more than two bases at a time, unless your opponent seriously misses a timing or you are waaay ahead. That's the way 2v2 is. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want NR15, go play some crappy custom game. And to address the other group of whiners, split bases are impossible because it eliminates the possibility for more team compositions than it makes viable. Split base maps will heavily favor ZZ teams for this reason. TT / TP / PP compositions would auto lose vs PZ TZ or ZZ, because the amount of defense you have to make to hold a 1v2 (which you can't scout for because zerg takes early map control so you have to blindly prepare) is so much that the other team just macros out of a feigned aggression and you can never unite your armies. But any TZ / PZ team is hard countered by ZZ. Double zerg well executed can and will kill the single isolated zerg player (you think you can march a zealot a stalker and a sentry or 7 marines to help your ally vs 30 zerglings/banelings?). So ZZ would be the heavily favored combo on split base maps. What blizzard has done is tried to make 2v2 as dynamic as possible with their maps. ZZ is still viable on shared choke maps, where as TP is not viable at all on split base maps. The best 2v2 map of all time, scorched haven, has the perfect idea which blizzard has copied and even improved with its new map molten crater, where the bases are split, but there is a shared low ground choke behind which you can hold expansions. Molten improves on scorched because there are more auxiliary expansions, so the map is more zerg friendly. Blizzard knows what they are doing. More people play 2v2 random than 2v2 arranged, and it would ruin the 2v2 random experience to put split maps in the pool, as well as ruin the 2v2 experience all together with everyone picking zerg (remember season 1 and 2 with monlyth ridge, tarsonis assault?). End of story. Stop crying and play 1v1 if you want to FE and make 60 workers. Eh, I've gotten up to 70/80 workers plenty of times in 2v2. You can do it, you just need to be smart about it. Most of the maps don't have a very easily taken third so it's stupid to try. 2v2 is perfectly fine macro-wise. It's simply an issue of the maps that make it very difficult to hold any kind of third base, and a metagame rife with 1base all-ins. Saying 'that's just the way 2v2 is' is exactly the kind of idiotic mentality that I don't really care for. Figure things out and solve problems. Don't just be content with how terrible you are at the game. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Road to EWC
Online Event
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
