|
I thought I'd start a thread to discuss 2v2 strategies and tactics, not having found one recent enough to bump. Team games are often dismissed by many as being firmly in the realm of casual play, and this notion is not far from the truth. Be it the inconvenience of needing more players per game, or the chance of having bad allies, or having an old machine that's not good enough to handle more than 1v1, many don't bother with team games at all.
This is quite a shame since team games provide an entirely new experience for 1v1 aficionados. It is simultaneous more and less stressful than 1v1, as you might be paired up with bad allies or vice-versa, where your teammates carry you to victory. I am not advocating abandoning 1v1 altogether, but I find that playing team games every now and then keeps the game interesting.
As the thread title suggests, this thread will focus on 2v2 play, with a slant towards RT (random team) 2v2. Basically, 2v2 is the most balanced team format, and as of Season 3, the only team format that will be competitively balanced by Blizzard, who considers 3v3 and 4v4 as purely casual formats.
Here's an incomplete list of differences between 1v1 and 2v2.
1. Team games encourage aggressive openings, even on "fortress" maps (shared base maps). This is not to say that whoever attacks first wins, but going for a fast expansion or a fast tech will leave you or your partner vulnerable to a double rush.
2. Mobility is much more important than in 1v1. In 1v1, if your opponent goes for muta harass, you have to build missile turrets, cannons, or spore crawlers. In 2v2, if just one of your opponents goes for muta harass, both you and your partners must build AA defenses, because if only one base is defended, your opponent can move his mutas to attack the other one.
3. Teams are rewarded for specialization. You can get away with building only a small variety of units, letting your partner cover for your weaknesses. For example, a team with two Terrans can save money on research and upgrades by switching to Geico having one go MMM and the other go mech. This lets the team get 3-3 infantry and mech in half the time compared to when both build balanced armies.
4. For some arcane reason, quickmatch pairs up random teams with arranged teams. Blizzard has been very evasive about this issue, posting vague replies on the official forums whenever the RT vs. AT issue is brought up. However, RT players and AT players are ranked in separate ladders.
5. Terran goes well with everything. Think muta harass is annoying? Try muta harass backed up by medivacs (yes, medivacs can heal all Zerg units). Or perhaps you'd like cannon rushing with mass repair? >
Edit: Protoss buildings are NOT mechanical, which means they cannot be repaired by SCVs.
I have to cook dinner now, so I'll post more later. Maybe some replays of my noobish self pwning even bigger noobs than me? Or maybe we can get some Masters to post their replays?
Note to Self: Post pics of the map pool, including the new PTR maps later.
Alright, start discussing 2v2. Go!
|
I enjoy 2v2 every now and again You can just both 1 base all in to Masters though
Rushing with 2 probes and 2 SCVs or something similar is fun  Probes are mechanical, so OP!
Hellion zergling, hellion stalker, or hellion MM is probably strongest opening from my pov as Terran. Obviously would have to adjust a bit against banshee / stargate openings with hellion zergling ^^
|
And I'm back. Dinner was nice. Since nobody has posted any replays yet, I thought I'd post some of mine for critique. Please forgive my Platinum scrubbiness.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-221968.jpg)
In this game, the enemy Zerg player goes for a very greedy build, eschewing early game aggression for an economic payoff that never happens. As I mentioned in my OP, greedy openings are suicidal because they leave your partner in a 2v1 fight against the enemy team. Our opponents simply did not have enough units to repel our double rush.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-221969.jpg)
Another replay from this Platinum scrub. My ally tells me that he's going for MMM, and I play with the assumption that I'll have a decent bioball to protect my fragile colossi. However, my ally decides to get a little each of a large variety of units, greatly diluting his army's effectiveness. When you have a little bit of MMM, and a little bit of mech, you won't have enough for a critical mass against the enemy team. Had he stuck to MMM, abusing its mobility for drops while leaving the base-breaking to me, we might've had a chance.
Again, critique is welcome. I wish to improve.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-221970.jpg)
A rather one-sided game where my team double rushes the player who didn't bother to wall off. This game shows how much harder it is to defend than to attack in team games, because if your team is on defense, both players' bases must be defended, while if you're on the attack, you concentrate your firepower on one with weaker defenses.
Then again, Monlyth Ridge is a terrible, terrible map since the ramps point towards the enemy, making it that much harder to wall off your team's side of the map.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-221971.jpg)
This game shows the power of specialization. Marines have good dps but are extremely fragile, while zerglings have good dps and survivability for their price but have difficulty getting close to the enemy. Combine the two, and you have a powerful combination. The zerglings tank for the fragile marines, who can let loose their DPS to wtfpwn the enemy. Our team's highly mobile and specialized unit composition of zergling, marine, medivac, and mutalisk were quite effective against the enemy's nonspecialized army.
Thank you in advance for your critique. I'll be back tomorrow.
|
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone.
|
Hmm this could be an interesting thread as I play a fair bit of 2v2.
I'll provide some replays perhaps when I get home .
Nuking is fun in 2v2.
|
On July 19 2011 11:17 Fuzzwah wrote:
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone.
Thing is P has a tough time in the 2v2 early game and can't really afford to slow down his BO by spending the extra 75mins early. You also have to share control with your ally for this to work, and if you play random 2v2's this is usually unwise ><
|
One of my favorite things to do in 2v2 is coordinated army movements, flanking, pinchers, etc. Sometimes you're blessed with a good partner, who knows it's not just 1a-click.
I usually do PPvXX, I like doing gas light builds, imms + zealots and feeding gas to my buddy going for a DT rush or voids. One player doing a ridiculously strong ground force, while the other takes care of the air seems to do very well.
I love when my ally notices that I have just moved my army to a point behind their army and frantically 'b's me.
I would disagree that 2v2 encourages aggression any more then 1v1. In 2v2 one player can reasonably tech a bit while the other builds armies. By the time the opponent gets there, you have the advantage, either with some extra tech or because it takes an extra production cycle to move from base to base.
In 1v1 I'm maniacally more aggro, because it's a limited set of possibilities. As you add players, complexity rises exponentially, so the costs of taking risks, like attacking, have far greater consequences.
The single greatest rule for 2v2, keep your armies close to each other.
|
I don't think its possible to take random 2v2 seriously and not end up hating yourself, hating the game, hating all of humanity and hating life in general. The possibility for shitty teammates causing you to lose to even shittier opponents is too high.
When I play random 2v2 its just for warmup or when I want to practise a 1v1 build and don't want to do so in 1v1 or a build order tester.
However, it CAN be a fun way to play with an arranged teammate.
|
On July 19 2011 06:14 Eternal Dalek wrote:5. Terran goes well with everything. Think muta harass is annoying? Try muta harass backed up by medivacs (yes, medivacs can heal all Zerg units). Or perhaps you'd like cannon rushing with mass repair? >
I'm fairly certain Protoss buildings can't be repaired, only units
|
On July 19 2011 11:17 Fuzzwah wrote:
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone.
Can you mine from an allies geyser?
|
So I play terran for 2v2, and been doing a fast hellion build into blue flame. My partner usually does a 14/14 mass speedling. My build goes like this:
10 depot
12 refinery
13 barracks
16 factory (when barracks finishes)
16 marine
17 orbital command
17 depot
17 reactor (on barracks when marine finishes)
17 hellion
the hellion and reactor should finish close to the same time, after which you switch the factory and the barracks (the factory now has the reactor on it). From here, constantly make hellions.
At the next 100 gas you build another factory, and then a tech lab on your barracks, unless you scout something requiring a transition. Switch the factory on to the tech lab when both are finished, and get blue flame.
This build gives you map control for a while, and against protoss opponents, terran who move out of their base, or zerg who don't go roach from the beginning of the game, you often can simply kill an opponent. Protoss opponents are particularly vulnerable. This build does not work well against shared bases, or enemies who go for fast roaches or fast siege tanks or fast air (banshees / voidrays) so you will need to scout with initial lings, and then pressure with speedlings/hellions to scout. ZP teams where the zerg player goes for speedlings almost always lose to this, PP teams are also very vulnerable, though preparing to transition into marauders is advisable, as toss will often respond with mass blink stalkers.
|
I do really hate 2v2 and its strategies and style. I also think the overall level (besides a few teams) in 2v2 is insanely low.. I don't know why that is, but 2v2 games seem so messy. :S
|
On July 19 2011 11:55 Keilah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 11:17 Fuzzwah wrote:
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone. Thing is P has a tough time in the 2v2 early game and can't really afford to slow down his BO by spending the extra 75mins early. You also have to share control with your ally for this to work, and if you play random 2v2's this is usually unwise ><
Also it delays your scout or costs you more mining time to send a probe all the way to their base.
|
I like the concept of looking more in depth into a format of play that has been dismissed as casual but is now getting some recognition even among pro players. Just as a beginning, and I hope to keep an eye on this thread as 2v2 happens to be very enjoyable to me, I hope to lay out a few basic concepts much like Eternal Dalek, the OP.
The concept of early aggression is changed unless your base is VERY close to your partners seeing as most early attacks, even up through the 7:30 mark, present simply too many troops for one player to effectively repel unless they have made nothing but supreme and "excessive" defense. Not only is communication important, being able to meet each others weaknesses and compliment each others strengths matter not only in unit composition, but in the timings of the game. (Zerg have a very strong middle game after getting a second/third base running, but suffer in matched 200/200 battles for example) Mass Zerglings become infinitely better as throwaway units when Ghosts can EMP the shields off most Protoss units in a fight and fairly "free" units can mop up a seemingly difficult force as little cost to the Terran.
I and others could give more examples, but that was just the "team" sort of focus.
Moving on, it is a point of note that most maps to happen to have fairly easily taken second bases, but 3rd bases are usually in great danger or easily scouted unless the map is enormous. This means that races that work better off of two bases, such as Protoss, do have a bit of an advantage compared to Zerg players, who want at least one base more than their foes. This means riskier expanding, making your expansions a "hard point" with a great deal of defense there, such as a Terran third with a Planetary Fortress and Turrets, or learning to work off of less bases than you might in single player for timing attacks and even playing your race a little differently.
Map control is almost more important than it is in 1v1. Knowing when an enormous deathball is coming that you alone cannot defeat might be even more important than catching a push late and being able to fight it off with reinforcements. Speedlings, Phoenix, Mutas, Vikings, Scans, a great deal of Observers on attack paths, all of these are paramount to surviving. As an addendum, Xel'Naga towers, depending on the map, can be almost useless or the key to the game. Keep an eye on what they DON'T reveal, and make sure you cover for it as most 2v2 maps are significantly larger than 1v1.
Now, these might seem like redundant points, but they are very important in 2v2. I'm just saying. On top of that, I play from a Zerg perspective, so trying to base up while having a little harass is important, but rush distances tend to lead things into slightly longer games or heavy double attacks at 8 minutes or so. Actually extending the game is usually the best way to win. Fighting off that attack with your partner between 5 and 10 minutes means you stopped the thing the other players were trying to do. I know it's much the same as fighting off a rush in 1v1, but the 2nd death rattle push can still kill you in 2v2 if both players hit you. The point is to either kill them early, and if not, survive until they are not used to the concept of being harassed by a number of different things at the same time without map control on two bases right before facing a 300 or 400 unit deathball.
Finally (in this post as I hope to keep an eye out here) Cheese is wildly ineffective in 2v2. You can have one player grab a detector and make Banshees or DT's useless while the other player continues building. Perhaps a double cheese-rush might work against 1 player, but odds are they will see it and drop a bunker or a few spines or have their partner there to defend too.
Just some thoughts, I would love to see what comes up from this thread outside of "Oh, I do this with my buddy and we win tons when we attack at 7:00"
|
On July 19 2011 14:00 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 11:17 Fuzzwah wrote:
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone. Can you mine from an allies geyser?
Yes you can.
|
On July 19 16:43FreedonNadd wrote
On July 19 2011 14:00 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:
Hide nested quote -
On July 19 2011 11:17 Fuzzwah wrote:
Quick tip to any teams with a P player; have your scout probe warp in an assimilator for your team mate. For T, this saves them losing some mining time while their SVC builds and for Z it saves them a drone.
Can you mine from an allies geyser?
Yes you can.
Not if they already laid down an extractor/assimilator/refinery. But yeah, like any other open geyser you can claim it. In 2v2 you can also give each other resources after 4-5 minutes I believe, so if you need alot of gas for High Templar, or Cloaked Banshees, of Mutalisks, your partner can send you a bunch to help you pump out more units of a certain type than you might be able to otherwise. This is great for early Muta harass for example where they might be scared off early when they cannot fight a handful of Marines or a Cannon, but if you were gifted 500 gas I'm sure you can find 5 more Mutas very powerful at 8 minutes when it is common to only see 4-8. This means your partner might be able to focus very strongly on Marines or Zealots to defend on the ground when you have air-control and with minerals you might be able to donate to them.
In the beta phases of the game there was a Protoss and Terran 2v2 strategy started that involved letting the Terran grab all 3 bases (Their main and the two expansions) and ramp up their Mules with 6-gas and walling off until transferring everything over to a Protoss player who had made cannons and Stargates until they had a VERY fast 200/200 Void Ray/Carrier army which is usually deadly let alone around 15 Minutes.
|
I love 2v2. I find playing with friends is far more interesting than playing 1v1.
One of the things I've learned in 2v2 is that there is no such thing as overreacting. In 1v1, people are loathe to even put down one spine crawler or one cannon. In 2v2, put down 5 and it's still worth it. Most longer 2v2's are won on the 3rd base, since the 2nd base is usually quite easy to get. I would not mind putting 5-10 cannons at the 3rd, because that means they cannot kill it with a marauding force (like speedling or a drop), but need to move their main army to do so. This means that they may be out of position or engage in a poor spot. With so much AoE damage and DPS from 2 players, being slightly out of position means that you die very rapidly.
One thing I hate, as protoss, are the maps that you cannot wall with gate/core/zealot. This is just a complete crapshoot in that I'm trying my best to simcity my base and die as slowly as possible - and that is a skill in itself.
|
Coming from a team games background (TF2, WoW, GW etc) I really enjoy the 2v2 aspect of SC, but wish it was a greater part of the competitive scene, as coordination between players is something that adds a whole level of depth to any game.Having said that, what would be required for 2v2 to become a real competitive bracket?
Some ideas:
1. Maps: in order to shift the 2v2 game away from cheese, and games ending on 2 base, maps need to be larger, with more defensible early positions as well. Just as maps like Terminus have shifted the 1v1 scene away from the cheese of DQ, I feel that 2v2 can be made into a more macro oriented bracket by map selection for game balance. I'm currently considering making a massive 2v2 map with fortress design to the extreme, with one narrow ramp and in base seconds for each player to make cheese less common, and encourage long games.
2. Prizes: I only know of a handful of tournaments that have a real 2v2 prize, and nothing comes close to what 1v1 players can expect for their efforts. Money draws players more than anything else, so hopefully eventually money will start to encourage 2v2. It certainly does have the potential, as the tactics possible are much grander and the fights often much bigger than in 1v1.
|
Folks, less theorycrafting, more replay posting and watching. Anyone have comments on my uploaded games?
|
I agree 2v2 definitely has a lot of potential. There's a lot of strategy's that haven't even been explored to the fullest yet like feeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
