| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Depravity
67 Posts
The map i guess itself is kind of imbalanced when you're playing macro game However - However your situation is - It shouldn't tilt the battle THAT much in your favour The south position is a little Rigged against Top right - But it should be easier aginst top left Most ppl will try to Expand on this map - Due to the in base expansion -So what you do is usually Double ALL in What hold a all in ? Another All in of course . If he gets a seige tank out - it should only be about 1-2 . | ||
|
Magus.421
France159 Posts
You just can't take a third on most of the map. On others maps you can't hold your natural against an all-in ... 2,2v 3v3 and 4v4 is just a matter of "what all-in i'll do ?". I'm really waiting for chances in these modes. Btw, just veto this map if you are not TT, TP or PP (so if you have a zerg ^^). | ||
|
Wilsonator
46 Posts
On February 19 2012 08:10 zaradron wrote: Just veto it. Blizzard is primarily focussing on balancing 1v1 to its full potential, and in order to do that, 2s, 3s, and 4s suffer because it would be impossible to keep 1v1 balanced with all the random OP strats in team games that would be nerfed if they wanted to have team games competitively balanced. Image this was a 1v1 map. It doesn't take a random unit composition to cause imbalance, just a terran spawning on the 9oclock and a non-terran spawning at the 6oclock. Actually just image a zerg spawning at the 6oclock, and a P or T spawning at the 9oclock. They could never hold that expansion, its just poor map design it has nothing to do with 2v2 balance. Just because blizzard focuses on 1v1 balance doesn't mean they put no thought into 2v2 maps! Why does everyone seem to think this, I don't take that as a valid excuse from blizzard. They put 2v2 into the game, they should put some effort into the maps. If they have a reason why they put this map in and I don't understand it that is fine, if its an unbalanced map and they are too lazy to fix it is NOT a valid reason. | ||
|
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
| ||
|
Exempt.
United States470 Posts
tl;dr: there is no imbalance, game and map mechanics in 2v2 are so much more forgiving than 1v1. | ||
|
imRiChY
Norway31 Posts
There are tons of problems with this map. Let me just get it out there, it's broken as hell. It's imbalanced. Trust me, it's imbalanced and has some serious design flaws that gives, in my opinion, any terran team an insane advantage. Just to get it out there, I already think terran is imbalanced as a race in 2v2, but that's kind of a different story (unscoutable to some extent, vast amount of various "legit" openings, early splash with tanks/hellions, bunkers, MULEs and 1 base play being sick strong and the possibility to move main base if opponents are kept at 1 base until mined out, cloaked banshee, rax units STOMP gateway units, and stuff like that). We're having HUGE issues on this map, and it's mostly because of two factors: "Rotational symmetry" and "base design". Let's start with the rotational symmetry that some here have pointed out. Where you start will be a key factor in the game. It's not like it's "oh, we start here, and they start there, we have to adapt to this". It's more like, "oh we start here, and they have an insane positional advantage on us"... I play protoss in a PZ team and playing terrans on this map is a nightmare. First of all it's nearly impossible for us to get any information, as PT/TZ teams just tend to wall in, and that's that, we have to play blindly. At this point we can do mobile stuff like blink stalkers, we can do fast expo mass gate, we can do 3g robo, or even try on a ling/bling/stalker-allin. But let's not talk about allins like that, cause it wouldn't be fair if the only option we have on this map is going allin. So, we have to prepare against whatever comes. It could be 3rax 4gate? Maybe it's 1-1-1? Or maybe it's just that damn early tank with a small army that makes it impossible for us to react based on any scoutable information and get an army that is able to stop such a siege timing push. They can scout easier, because of their ability to use scan and/or lings (if TZ army), so they can actually decide to delay their push if they see that we've been "allining" on units. The longer they wait, the weaker our army gets against a 1-1-1'ing terran with the zerg maybe doing roaches, or the toss doing sentry/immortals. The point is, the push is kind of inevitable, and the rotational symmetry makes it REALLY unfair, because of the easy path such a tank-army has to walk. If we spawn at 6 and terran (I might just call it terran from here, cause that's really where the problem lies) spawns at 9, they can just herp derp down to our natural, and flat out kill it. Float a rax, put tanks in a safe spot so units can't snipe it from high ground, and that's that. Some good force fields or roaches, depending on ally will keep that army untouchable by any PZ early game unit composition. So maybe you shouldn't take that expo early? Sure, okay. So what's problem #2? Well, then they'll just siege YOUR FRIKN MAIN!!!! WHAT THE F##K? Seriously blizzard. They can just walk safely down to our (really unfair positioned gold-third) and siege MY MAIN! That's just lame. I mean, Magma Core has some weird stuff going on with siege tank positioning close to the mains, and I dont think they are fair, looking at the number of mineral patches these spots cover, but anyhows... So, let's assume we magically got some scout information and know that this is coming. What are our options? We can bust it, but again, roach makes this ball almost unpenetrable, force fields MAKES it unpenetrable (unless u get dts for archons, but this is probably going to be too expensive to rush for on 1 base, and since u cant hold 2 bases long enough for your eco to kick in, its not that viable). Remember, the earliest siege pushes comes somewhere between 6th and 7th min mark. We could try to intercept the entire army, but this requires us to have all the units made preemptively. What if they went muta feed? What if they went 2 port banshee? What if its some whacko 5 rax marine allin with hellions or what-not? Let's say we even made the "right" amount of units. It's still just gonna delay their push. It's not like you'r gonna afford to have all these units AND take that expand. Maybe if you had some kind of insanely fine tuned resource trading build. But that's only possible after the 5th minute, so it's kind of limited in terms of possilibities. We could try to take a ninja expand, but that's kind of gimmicky. You still have the problem with getting your main sieged. If you'r facing a zerg, straight runbys to your ninja is going to be hard to hold as well. What about a base race? Well, it's hard. The ramps are kind of big, but it doesn't make it a fair base trade situation. Remember, the terran team has tanks, they have actually sieged up your main. Consider this a lost case. So what you need to do, is secure an alternative expo so that when you lose main, you transfer your probes (or drones). Ok, could be done. Or you could put everything in the hands of zerg, maybe letting him feed the toss for a short while. But the point is. You need to be able to "kill" to not be killed yourself. Depending on your opening, busting up the front entrance is not gonna be an easy feat. Terran will most likely have at least one tank, repairing scvs, maybe even a bunker, and any reinforced roaches will be there to stop this desperate base race attempt. A good terran team would probably put up some annoying structures in front of the gigantic destructable rocks as well, so you can't just run up there either. All they need to do, is buy some time, and witter down your army. Toss staying on 1-base against a terran 1-base is generally a good thing (for terran). So, I'm kind of clueless at the moment. The rotational symmetry makes any counter-clockwise positions against terran unfair, the possibility to siege up the MAIN (I guess having a risky inbase natural is maybe an interesting feat. for a map, but the main is utterly ridiculous) and the vast amount of inbase space to build on, makes it super hard to play on. The problem here is that the map is used in tourneys, clanwars and even nationwars. This map should really be removed ASAP. Especially from all those who are trying to help the 2v2 scene grow. 2v2 maps need to be bigger, so allins and certain race combinations/unit compositions tend to be less blindly overpowered. You need to be able to scout and adapt or at the very least have "safe openers" that don't just flat out die to a certain unit being made. On February 19 2012 00:05 DaemonX wrote: 2) I LOVE when my opponents go tank-heavy on Tyrador. The vast openness and multiple base entrances make this an awful mech map. Tanks are far too slow to use effectively, and you can't even siege someone aggressively since they have two ramps. Sure if you play a standard comp, you will get crushed by tanks but this map gives you NO excuses for running standard compositions. Mobility rules here. Pure bio, MMM drop, blink stalker, warp prism, muta-ling, fast lair doom drops are all simply sick, sick on this map. Like, unstoppably good. This isn't an awful mech map? I'm not sure if I'd go pure mech, but tanks are key units on this map. I don't agree about it being open. There's a few paths here and there between the bases, but in general these passages are quite narrow, so any insane flanking is going to be really hard. Don't know why you are talking about "playing standard compositions" or what that is supposed to mean. Obviously you have to adapt to the long distances and/or knock down rocks, the risky base positions and stuff like that, but suggesting going something "unorthodox" doesn't really solve our problem. Be more specific please. On February 19 2012 00:05 DaemonX wrote: 4) The first 2 expos are really safe. The 5th is very challenging to take - that's good design for a mobility 2s map. If you're playing it properly with mobility the game should tilt and collapse when or before the 5ths come online, as it's impossible for both teams to play mobility with hard aggression on a map this spread out and have noone fuck up eventually. Just because you can't turtle 8-base doomball 'macro' doesn't make it a bad map - it makes it a bad map for certain styles. Nope, not at all. The inbase expo seems tempting to take, and it might seem safe, but all you need is a floating structure or an overlord and the workers are exposed to whatever ranged unit you place down there. I'd agree with the outside natural is fairly safe, cause you can defend with that semi-narrow choke. However, your opponents can just go through the enormous rocks, and you have to move here to defend. This is cool. I mean, this is a nice feature with the map I guess. Forcing you to be able to cover quite a large area if you'r going for an economical opener. However, defending your inbase natural, against this vast amount of terran openers, mostly including tanks is near impossible, if executed correctly. On February 19 2012 00:05 DaemonX wrote: Tyrador Keep is to my mind the highest skill requiring 2v2 map in the rotation, or actually ever since the release of SC2. You need to control so much space, and actually THINK about positioning. It's really Brood War-y. I strongly disagree. I'm going to be honest/state the obvious and say that we haven't tried all there is to try yet, and there's much to be explored. However, on this map, we lose to loads of TZ-team with a wide range of builds, that we normally wouldn't lose to. It's just a lot easier for them because they have de facto advantages. The metagaming options are vast as well, and as a PZ team, we don't have this range. On February 19 2012 11:00 Exempt. wrote: i absolutely love this maop tbh. there really isnt any imbalanced because you have two races...not one... play with your strengths and weaknesses, if youre two protoss on this map then do some sick 1 base builds. Ive seen high templar rushs with this shit in 2v2 and its amazing tl;dr: there is no imbalance, game and map mechanics in 2v2 are so much more forgiving than 1v1. There IS imbalance. There's always been some imbalances in 2v2 and there's probably no way around it. But usually there's always something you can do to tip it into your favour. Back in the beta, 7 pool-7 rax reaper was near impossible to stop. It had an insane win ratio and almost every team on the ladder did some kind of variation of that. Blizzard fixed this with the "depot before rax"-fix, as well as factory needed to get reaper speed. Great! Now, about a year ago, most PZ teams flat out died to the hellion-opener every TZ team adopted. Either you died to the hellions killing your workers, or you died to one of the many followups they could do: cloaked banshee (maybe even proxy), marauder or marauder feed allin, tank or just regular macro game where you had to do some qualified guessing when you spotted 1-2 bunkers at their front. Sometimes it was an expo, and you could even be behind even though you blindly put down an expo before you saw this (hint: MULEs), and sometimes they salvaged and roflstomped you. We figured out a way to stop this, but still to this day that "counter build" is still based on a lot of assumptions and weak scouting information, so again, the possibilities of faking and metagaming a PZ team is enormous. Having two races and playing with your strengths and weaknesses is true, but it doesn't really help the case, stating this. Yes, we know which units we have at our disposal, but we also know that most of these cannot be used in mose situations. The units you make are highly situational and as a PZ team, controlling the unit composition-"flow" of the game is kind of hard. Obviously TZ will respond to collosus with vikings or broodlords, and stuff like that, but saying that if you'r protoss, do some "sick 1 base builds" is kind of a counter-productive tip. Essentially what you'r saying is, spawn protoss, go allin. Or am I wrong? Protoss is an expensive race. Protoss gateway units have their shining moments in a game, but remember how 1v1 works. You rely upon position and units that grants you positional advantages, like force fields and blink. But in 2v2, the sheer number of units makes this factor less important. Sure you can delay some pushes with some clever force fields on your ramp and sure blink can be used both offensively and defensively in some cases (and yes, blink is important), but staying on 1 base for a toss, because the map is bad isn't gonna help us win games. Okay, maybe it actually turns out 1basing wins us a few more games, but even though we lose less, doesn't mean that we're playing a fair game on equal terms. I would like to win a game because we either had a better build, we had better macro, we outsmarted our opponents, we had better positioning and teamplay or something like that. I don't want to lose a game because I didn't allin fast enough blindly, or because I was somehow magically supposed to go 1 gate sentry-sentry collosus, or something imaginary crazy build. Yes, and to address that last thing you mention. Sick builds, like templar rushes. Nah dude. Templars? Do you mean high templars? Dts is maybe viable as you could use them both for harass and for archons as meatgrinders when you engage, but remember that dt tech on 1 base is really gimmicky. You can't afford much else and if terran is already doing some kind of 1-1-1, or they do a typical roach/tank timing push, they will either have lair or the possibility to make a raven quite easily, so it's usually not gonna give you any huge advantages. It's most likely gonna be a win if they are totally unprepared, or you ending up in a really bad spot if they are doing one of the more standard TZ builds. High templars, I don't know how much time I'm gonna allow myself to waste by talking about 1 base high templars. Let's ignore the fact that you wouldn't be able to afford any other units just to get to high templars on one base, so ANY type of push is gonna be ridiculous to stop. You'r basically saying, my ally is going allin on defence as I tech to templars. Now, again, if you manage to get templar archives, you need to spend 150 gas on each templar. You want storm? 200/200 extra. It takes some good time, and ok, you can't expect your opponents to not scout you AND not attack you when they see your tiny army with archives coming up on 1 base. So, maybe you managed to get storm tech, maybe you even have 1-2 storms. Then what? You'r gonna storm the 20 speedroaches and the 3 tanks that's shooting your base from a location you cannot reach them? Hey dude, you'r losing your main, storm them fast! No! So storm isn't good, not at this time in the game. You need a backbone army with your templars. Templars are great lategame 2v2. Maybe some funky 2 base (4-base total) timings exists as well, like fungle-storm with immortals/sentries and roach, but generally, you need high dps units and lots of HP in your army. Then you add on storm later. Anyways. You could use archons from the templars, but you'r kind of dry on gas, so why make archons from hts and not dts? The dts can even be used to delay pushes and/or be used to harass with pylon/overlord-warpins. Don't go 1 base high templars guys  So, okay, this was more than I planned to write. Sorry about that ^_^ But I'm kind of annoyed at this, and I'd like to hear what others have to say about this. I'd love feedback on PZ vs TZ/TP-both on this map and in general. I also hope that people start downvoting this map/remove it from tours/cws and stuff, and somehow, someone in Blizzard hears about this, so it can be removed/reworked for next season. | ||
|
Dinsdale
Norway57 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
| ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
On February 18 2012 19:20 dogabutila wrote: My friend and I just abused that earlier today. He had a few collo and obs, they moved ranged to the cliff to snipe the collo and then I popped up and fungaled everything. I've seen this used in several 2v2 tournies, and it almost always plays out along those lines. Terrible design. | ||
|
Berailfor
441 Posts
| ||
|
Wilsonator
46 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:19 Berailfor wrote: I can see people's reasoning for it being imbalanced. But if I decide to play a couple 2v2's with my cousin this is one of the maps we enjoy playing. We normally aren't dealing with siege tanks anyway and like some people pointed out, if we are it's far enough into the game that we can make a stand doing something else. It's not like they can siege your nat from their base. Just be aggressive and take the other pod. Afterall that's what this maps all about, who can secure the third pod while being aggressive on the opponent. Then again every 2v2 I play either me or my cousin 15 nex/CC so we gain a significant enough advantage with that to roll through the midgame if they don't do a successful allin and end it right there. Then on that map specifically I love transitioning to blink stalker mothership. Get scanned in at the in-base nat. Snipe it, snipe the dudes main, mass recall out. BOOYA!! Wait till you play a terran who gets 1 banshee and 1 tank and then shuts down your 15 nex/CC 7 minutes into the game. Your econ advantage is done. Lets not even talk about a TZ team (tank/overlord combo at 6 minutes anyone?). Any time you spawn with their ramp close to your in base natural you will be losing all mining time to these builds. With these spawns they can use one tank to siege your in base natural, and have there army position beside it which blocks you from walking around the tank in into the front of their base. Your only option is to run the ENTIRE way around the inner circle and then take down the destructible rocks. If they control a single watch tower and know about your army motion they will be able to corner and kill it or just reposition defensively and your army will be so far out of position you have the option of leaving it there while they cut off reinforcements or doing a direct engagement. TDL: Map spawn locations should not cause HUGE shifts in playstyles depending on the dice. Terrible Map design. | ||
|
robm
United States56 Posts
I agree fully with what Wilsonator and Snute and imRiChY have said. This map is very tipsy because colossus and siege tanks and bad spawning positions can crush you. The rush distances are very short and the shelling of one player's natural/main, combined with the difficulty of holding the third pod when facing an opposing team who also has Zerg's mobility and easy overlord/speedling scouting makes it a very random sort of map. Somebody in the thread said this maps was great because it required a lot of skill, which is somewhat true, but in the past week we've had four games in which one person either went fast tanks or fast colossus and wrecked one of the other player's base(s). It makes for fast games but they're not very satisfying, kind of like a cannon rush game or 6 pool game. I haven't downvoted it yet but after we rolled a team today when my partner spawned T and went siege tanks and won it for us, I might go ahead. Just didn't feel fair. I hope they fix the map or replace it because I disagree with all the people who say 2v2 doesn't matter and Blizzard doesn't care. The facts show that they do care, it's 3v3 and 4v4 they don't care about. | ||
|
Demnogonis
Finland80 Posts
| ||
|
Tommylew
Wales2717 Posts
| ||
|
iiGreetings
Canada563 Posts
| ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Wilsonator
46 Posts
On March 17 2012 14:54 Demnogonis wrote: All 2v2 maps suck, but I suppose they are made that way to encourage short games, because Blizzard knew the massed late game colossus lag battles aren't going to be fun for anyone. I disagree. There are some GREAT maps in the pool that I love to play. Specifically High Orbit, The Boneyard and Magma Core. As for short games, I can tell you that we never play for short games. Any day now we will be bumped to Masters since we play more than half of our games against them, so that gives you an idea of our level. I have over 400 games with my arranged team TP partner since during the beta, and while we know we could probably cheese our way up we go macro style. Our game/time distrubution is: 0-5min 7% win 5-10min 26% win 10-15min 54% win 15-20min 70% win 20-25min 66% win 30-35min 64% win 35-40min 100% win It is definitely possible to play long games in 2v2s, and it is very enjoyable. However maps like Tyrador Keep do encourage short games and IMO should not exist in the map pool. | ||
|
Demnogonis
Finland80 Posts
On March 18 2012 04:35 Wilsonator wrote: I disagree. There are some GREAT maps in the pool that I love to play. Specifically High Orbit, The Boneyard and Magma Core. As for short games, I can tell you that we never play for short games. Any day now we will be bumped to Masters since we play more than half of our games against them, so that gives you an idea of our level. I have over 400 games with my arranged team TP partner since during the beta, and while we know we could probably cheese our way up we go macro style. Our game/time distrubution is: 0-5min 7% win 5-10min 26% win 10-15min 54% win 15-20min 70% win 20-25min 66% win 30-35min 64% win 35-40min 100% win It is definitely possible to play long games in 2v2s, and it is very enjoyable. However maps like Tyrador Keep do encourage short games and IMO should not exist in the map pool. That's fine. Well I don't like any of those, especially Boneyard what with it's short rush distances. I have been playing with my friend from since launch, can't say how many games really, maybe 700 or so, and our continuing beef has always been that while 2v2 is fun the maps suck. That you say you go macro style doesn't say anything to me, for example if one of you builds from one base and the other goes pool first, then hatch that would be pretty ordinary since the hatchery is also the Zerg Barracks. If one of you, or both FE? Looking at the maps, I'd say bad things should happen. Strong push, expand behind? Yeah, I like that. Is that macro style? Considering it's 2v2, yeah, maybe it is. Frankly I believe in 2v2 there is aggressive style, reactive style and not really anything I consider as a macro style, that in the very early game decides to go long-term. Can't do that. At least not with the kind of maps they have been pushing out. Remember that one where one of the players has backdoor rocks to his main? What the hell was up with that? I'd just want some maps that would favour early expanding, though I don't know if that's doable in any other way than to have the expansions behind your main and have a small shared ramp. Dunno. At least I can agree that Tyrador Keep is the worst of the bunch and should go. It really is baffling that High Orbit and Discord IV are still in and the new maps they make are like this. | ||
|
Zythius
Norway94 Posts
| ||
|
Wilsonator
46 Posts
On March 18 2012 15:46 Demnogonis wrote: That's fine. Well I don't like any of those, especially Boneyard what with it's short rush distances. I have been playing with my friend from since launch, can't say how many games really, maybe 700 or so, and our continuing beef has always been that while 2v2 is fun the maps suck. That you say you go macro style doesn't say anything to me, for example if one of you builds from one base and the other goes pool first, then hatch that would be pretty ordinary since the hatchery is also the Zerg Barracks. If one of you, or both FE? Looking at the maps, I'd say bad things should happen. Strong push, expand behind? Yeah, I like that. Is that macro style? Considering it's 2v2, yeah, maybe it is. Frankly I believe in 2v2 there is aggressive style, reactive style and not really anything I consider as a macro style, that in the very early game decides to go long-term. Can't do that. At least not with the kind of maps they have been pushing out. Remember that one where one of the players has backdoor rocks to his main? What the hell was up with that? I'd just want some maps that would favour early expanding, though I don't know if that's doable in any other way than to have the expansions behind your main and have a small shared ramp. Dunno. At least I can agree that Tyrador Keep is the worst of the bunch and should go. It really is baffling that High Orbit and Discord IV are still in and the new maps they make are like this. When I say macro style, it means one player stays on one base for slightly longer, and the other fast expands. Clearly we don't even try and push before at least the 10 minute mark, in fact most of our 10-15min wins are just us pushing back across the map when the other team fails their timing push. In general we just upgrade and do drop harass then push around max unless the other team makes a mistake. An interesting way to look at these maps is that on almost all the maps there is the ability got get a fast "third" base. Comparing this to 1v1 basically each teams get to be on 3 bases with relative ease. Most 1v1 maps make it reasonable to defend 3 bases, getting 4 takes control. I think 2v2 maps are designed like this as well. There are some maps in the pool that are designed for 4 easy to defend bases like scorched haven. I find that having 4 easy bases makes for less dynamic play. At lease they got rid of some of the Terrible Terrible maps such as Gutterhulk, Arid Wastes, Redstone Gulch. Boneyard is probably my favourite map. Easy 1gate/1rax expand and a ramp that can be defended. Any team that tried all in get severely behind when they fail at the ramp (as long as we don't screw up the defense). | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Mini Counter-Strike 310Soulkey  159BRAT_OK   78Mong 72zelot 69Bonyth 67sas.Sziky 42yabsab 29sSak 29Shine 13[ Show more ] Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby2004 FrodaN1306 ceh9725 mouzStarbuck336 Sick249 C9.Mang0142 IndyStarCraft  123Mew2King91 Trikslyr59 Chillindude27 MindelVK20 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Maru vs SHIN
MaNa vs MaxPax
Maestros of the Game
OSC
MaNa vs SHIN
SKillous vs ShoWTimE
Bunny vs TBD
Cham vs TBD
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Astrea
Classic vs sOs
Maestros of the Game
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
