EPTlike i said, if you hit 70-80 workers you were either
a. way ridiculously ahead or
b. your opponents missed a huge timing they should have hit
[D] Competitive 2v2 maps. - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
like i said, if you hit 70-80 workers you were either a. way ridiculously ahead or b. your opponents missed a huge timing they should have hit | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 19 2012 23:54 saladToss wrote: I've been top 10 in the world at 2v2 since season 2 like i said, if you hit 70-80 workers you were either a. way ridiculously ahead or b. your opponents missed a huge timing they should have hit Dude, I don't care if you're fuckin' IdrA, that doesn't mean shit. This isn't a response. This is just repeating the same thing. And honestly people were probably saying the same thing about 1v1 ladder before we got decent maps. | ||
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 20 2012 06:19 saladToss wrote: We have had huge maps in 2v2, but it doesn't change the fact that team games are all about mass offensive units - sure there are different timings, but my point is that "macro" games don't exist in the way that they do in 1v1. Two players can unite and hit a critical mass exponentially faster than a single player can in a 1v1, so defending on a razor's edge just isn't as viable as being aggressive. There's no two ways around it. Sorry dude, and I'm sorry that my thousands of 2v2s at the top of the ladder (not to mention all the 2v2 I played in bw) don't mean shit to you. Uhh... we have had huge shitty maps with weird inbase naturals and still very hard-to-take thirds. Those don't really count. There has yet to be a 2v2 ladder map with a third that's reasonable to take by anything close to 1v1 standards. Again, these are the exact same arguments people used against SC2 when the metagame wasn't developed and we had bad maps. You can mass units too quickly, there's not enough defender's advantage blah blah blah. And the reason this doesn't mean shit to me, is that I'm not convinced that you've tried. I get the impression that you have decided after a couple (or even several) games that "you can't do this in 2v2" and stopped trying. And look! You're in master, you're staying in master, so it's working, right? Sounds like confirmation bias to me. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Comparing this to 1v1, imagine someone who rushes every game, doing something like 1-1-1, 4gate or baneling bust and is GM (the comparison of you in 2v2), would you say that person knows anything about the game? he could say that rush is the best way to go, since he wins alot with all ins, and if he tried macro he would lose horribly, since he doesn't know how. If you understood my analogy you would see why your opinion's value is not larger then my own, or anyone else to that matter, you simply haven't tried macro, since right now it is very hard to impossible. since the maps wont allow it. | ||
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
Why don't you guys make a 2v2 map, and we can 2v2 on it and I'll show you why you can't go nexus first and chrono out 40 probes on the back of 4 units. I'd be happy to. Also, my point was that the two camps of people want completely contradictory things out of 2v2 maps. That is, split bases, which highly discourage macro games, or "macro maps" which nobody has described what makes a 2v2 map a "macro map". I've assumed it to mean shared bases and a long rush distance. Someone said something about taking a third. You want to take a fast third in 2v2? Be my guest and lose. If you want to play 400 vs 400 deathballs go play desert strike. I like 2v2 as is - aggressive, fast-paced, and micro-oriented - and I guarantee you anyone who plays 2v2 at a high level agrees. I've backed up my points with solid arguments, but all you guys are doing is comparing 2v2 to 1v1. It's a completely different game, and changing the maps doesn't change that fact that at the core you still start with 2 town halls, 2 bases, and 12 workers. Also, there are good 2v2 maps. Scorched haven is a good 2v2 map. Period, everyone worth a damn in 2v2 agrees. Molten Crater is a good 2v2 map as well, but as it is new, there's no consensus yet. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
And no, I don't want to play like 1v1 where you take a 3rd as z in 4 min and go nexus 1st and as such, I want to be able to have a safe expand build. If there is 1 ramp leading to the nat, even if it is quite big, you could still FE, and defend using 1gate / 1rax expo and 14pool 16hatch, or something like that. Right now on most maps you can't really take a FE, and if you can, you can't play a macro game, since you can't possibly take a 3rd. Right now there are maps which allow for easy naturals, but taking a 3rd is near impossible. I want maps where while you can be aggressive and you can mass units, it is not the only option. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
I've backed up my points with solid arguments, but all you guys are doing is comparing 2v2 to 1v1. It's a completely different game, and changing the maps doesn't change that fact that at the core you still start with 2 town halls, 2 bases, and 12 workers. Also, there are good 2v2 maps. Scorched haven is a good 2v2 map. Period, everyone worth a damn in 2v2 agrees. Molten Crater is a good 2v2 map as well, but as it is new, there's no consensus yet. Solid arguments? Where? You've just repeated yourself over and over again. No replays or map analysis or anything. Just baseless assertions. Scorched Haven is not a good map for several reasons. I think it's fine for our current map pool though. Mostly it's because how absurdly difficult it is to take a third. It is almost exclusively 1base and 2base allins. There is not a single 1v1 map in the map pool that has such a terrible hard-to-take third. They are all incredibly far away. That's just a fact. Do you disagree with that? And you do know that macrogames does not imply 200/200 deathballs, right? It usually implies fun back and forth games with a lot more than one deciding battle which is dull. It just adds more variety to strategies. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On June 12 2012 20:24 TaShadan wrote: 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 Yeah I might have to take that back, atleast a bit. 2:2 on LT was very different from 2:2 on hunters and the difference was rapms and not startpositions. That said we could have rampless maps in SC2 and get rid of the cliffwalking units and highground warp (if you want to get rid of them) and other things that comes with that. Would be interesting to see some high level 2:2 on shattered temple and other (better) 1:1 maps to see how they play out. I doubt they'll be THAT bad really. Personally I've found that you can counter and nobody expects that since you cant do that on maps in the ladder pool. If only we'd have highground advantage back things would be perfect. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
On June 20 2012 23:25 Eatme wrote: Yeah I might have to take that back, atleast a bit. 2:2 on LT was very different from 2:2 on hunters and the difference was rapms and not startpositions. That said we could have rampless maps in SC2 and get rid of the cliffwalking units and highground warp (if you want to get rid of them) and other things that comes with that. Would be interesting to see some high level 2:2 on shattered temple and other (better) 1:1 maps to see how they play out. I doubt they'll be THAT bad really. Personally I've found that you can counter and nobody expects that since you cant do that on maps in the ladder pool. If only we'd have highground advantage back things would be perfect. well its useless to argue cause they will never change it | ||
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
On June 20 2012 22:52 DoubleReed wrote: Solid arguments? Where? You've just repeated yourself over and over again. No replays or map analysis or anything. Just baseless assertions. Scorched Haven is not a good map for several reasons. I think it's fine for our current map pool though. Mostly it's because how absurdly difficult it is to take a third. It is almost exclusively 1base and 2base allins. There is not a single 1v1 map in the map pool that has such a terrible hard-to-take third. They are all incredibly far away. That's just a fact. Do you disagree with that? And you do know that macrogames does not imply 200/200 deathballs, right? It usually implies fun back and forth games with a lot more than one deciding battle which is dull. It just adds more variety to strategies. Alright dude, you're kind of irrational, but I'll give you one last reply. Here's an example of a 2v2 macro game. Trust me, we all want these games. They are the most fun, but you should realize how much has to align for these games to happen. The reason scorched haven is the best is because these types of games most often happen on scorched. http://drop.sc/201017 Here is a macro game on a map everyone all ins on. http://drop.sc/201019 And here's an all in on a "macro map". http://drop.sc/128940 I have a ton of games, but I'm not going to post up 20 replays because nobody is going to watch them. These are just some gg's that illustrate the overarching trends that I've found in 2v2 in the last 2 years. My point? Maps aren't going to make the game more or less all in. The only thing changing the maps will do (either in favor of split bases or longer rush distances with easier to defend naturals) is make certain race compositions more or less viable, and in turn make 2v2 in general stale. Blizzard's maps keep a diverse amount of play viable in 2v2, and judging by the recent two maps they added, I can say with confidence they know what they are doing. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On June 21 2012 02:01 saladToss wrote: Here's an example of a 2v2 macro game. Trust me, we all want these games. They are the most fun, but you should realize how much has to align for these games to happen. The reason scorched haven is the best is because these types of games most often happen on scorched. http://drop.sc/201017 Here is a macro game on a map everyone all ins on. http://drop.sc/201019 And here's an all in on a "macro map". http://drop.sc/128940 How are either of these games macro games in any way? The first game is a macro game because it didn't end with the initial pushes? there was a lot of back and forth, but only one person ever got a 3rd base... 2 + 2 base vs 2 + 2 base the whole game, teal doesn't even mine from his 3rd until the game was all but won. Like I said back on page 1, Scorched Haven The weird part about this map is that its almost easier to defend 4 bases than your team's initial 2 bases. However, this map really lends itself to 2base (4base) all-ins. There are some pocket expos but again, they are only interesting if you are able to to hide them from your opponents. In the second game, (I'm guessing you are Levels) you had been way ahead when blue stupidly got all of his queens and banelings killed at 6:30. Then you were way ahead around 11 minutes when again, blue lost all his units to banelings. Furthermore, the entire game was fought with tier 1 / 1.5 units until the 20 minute mark when ghosts, dts, and medivacs started to come out and the game was basically over anyway. You finally won when they were unable to break your third, which is a whopping 2 screens away from their natural and were only able to secure because you planted your army in the middle of the map on the watchtower! Kudos to you for being able to hold a base 3 inches away from the enemy's mains, but in my mind this is actually a prime example of why 2v2 maps need to have possible 3rd bases. Because otherwise you are stuck fighting back and forth with low tier units on few bases hoping to gain enough of an army advantage to safely take a base that is either insanely close to your enemy or completely out of the way. So many possibilities are removed; you can't macro, can't tech, you are stuck fighting with low tech on few bases. So no, Blizzard's maps don't keep a diverse amount of playstyles viable in 2v2, and while Molten Crater is a step in the right direction, you mean to tell me that this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/b/bb/DesolateStronghold-950.jpg) is a good map? If that was posted on these forums it would get torn apart. | ||
|
saladToss
United States75 Posts
Yes I think it's a good map. I've already had a number of games go past the 15 minute mark on it. It strikes a nice balance in given ability to be effectively aggressive on 1 base but at the same time being hard to kill your opponent on 1 base, if that makes any sense. Hellion drops and blink stalkers are good on it, but you need followups to these 1 base plays, which on other maps (like high orbit which I think is the inspiration for this map) would just kill your opponents. The rush distance is surprisingly long, tower control is super important, and the 4 gold bases are a nice touch as well. And I don't understand your question about the replays. People are so hung up on taking a third, I guess because that's what qualifies a macro game in 1v1, but you should think of it like the first player to expand in a 2v2 is actually taking the third, because in the context of Starcraft 2, that is actually what is happening. If both players expand, that is 4 base play. So yes, those are both macro games. The tier level of units is irrelevant. (They removed tempest because it was too all-in / terran favored btw) People need to wrap their heads around the fact that 2v2 is a fundamentally different game than 1v1 in that you start with double the income spread out on 2 base, but everything else - unit cost, build time, movement speed - remains equal. It shouldn't take a genius to realize why early aggression is the result of this. I also love how everyone "knows" that the blizzard maps suck, but nobody has put forth a viable alternative, or even expressed what they think would make a better 2v2 map because they realize once they start thinking about it that there is a very thin line between too turtle-friendly and too all-in-friendly, and finding that balance is much harder than it is for a 1v1 map (as we know the game is balanced for 1v1), with much less pay off because nobody actually takes 2v2 seriously. tl;dr if you want to play 3 base macro style, 2v2 is not your game type and never will be, maps be damned. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
No, taking a natural 2v2 is not the same as taking a third in 1v1. This is ignoring the fundamental component of RTS which is time. A 1base all-in refers more to a timing and tech possibilities, because time is basically the most valuable resource in this game. And for the record (although arguments from authority are stupid), I'm also in master with 2k+ games under my belt. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Ruling out feeding strats, a 3rd base is worth getting hung up on because a 3rd is what allows you to max out in a reasonable time frame and have enough gas to tech up. You are absolutely right to say that there is a very fine balance between too turtle friendly and too rush friendly maps, and I'm not saying I have all the answers butI have been putting forth some alternatives. Anyway, here is another alternative, I don't have time to make a full thread atm plus i posted the layout before so I'll just post it here for now. Tantalus Published on NA 16 bases, 170X152 Main-main ~55 sec, Nat-nat ~26sec Wanted to try a layout with a pocket third that was open to flank attacks. It should be possible to double FFE on this map with some clever building placement. The nats are very close, the middle is boring and subject to change. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r5Psh.jpg) | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Basically, you can force macro games in 2v2 to some extend, or at least, force all ins, people often play 2v2 as if it's 1v1 and expand too quickly for it and the opponent then reacts with a way to punish that greed. If you expand gradually there's not a lot the opponents can do to stop it. Most of our 2v2 games are about 15-25 minutes long and see about 6-8 bases per team. As you take bases slower in 2v2 this does indeed lead to fairly long games. 2v2 in some way is to be approached as 1v1 where you start with an expansion already, not just double 1v1. You definitely except on some maps cannot 'both FE', one has to FE while the other has to stand guard and take a slower expansion. | ||
| ||
