|
Why don't we see more competitive 2v2 tournaments?
In all my time playing SC2 I have only seen two of them.
I think there is a wealth of unexplored strategy here, 2v2 is, while not completely uncharted territory, much less defined than 1v1. This is for a simple reason, no one has created a competitive tournament scene for it.
2v2 Has to be more complex and skill intensive then 1v1 simply by the numbers. (Please don't extrapolate this too far, 3v3 and 4v4 become ridiculous simply because the early game pressure can take out one of the opponents so easily it almost precludes macro play.)
Me and my friend are (if it existed) High GM 2v2 NA, so don't think I'm just talking out my ass here. More and more I've been thinking about how cool it would be to see real 2v2 tournaments. We see a 2v2 element in things like CSL, but even then it's one game out of 5 or 7.
I think this is unexplored territory because it adds a million new and interesting build orders, as well as the aspect of learning to work with your partner.
So I'm kind of just throwing this question out to the world and seeing what happens. What Build orders do you have for 2v2? What co-ordination do you do? Would you like to see 2v2 tournaments? Do you think they would be as well watched as the high profile 1v1 tournaments?
|
The game is balanced for 1v1, not for 2v2.
|
there are already too many things going on in a 1v1 sometimes, in a 2v2 it would be too much.
this has been asked before many times, just use the search function
|
On July 16 2013 00:28 nateomfg wrote:
The game is balanced for 1v1, not for 2v2.
I hear this thing said so often yet it has no point. This game is not balanced for 1v1. This game is balanced for 1v1, using maps of the current format. If 2v2 were to be so imbalanced (personally I doubt it, there are some hard matchups but it's not worst than, say, end of WoL ZvT if you have a decent team composition) perhaps maps could fix it? I mean, it is possible that it's beyond fixable, but 2v2 maps are rarely made and even then they get no exposure because of the lack of viewers, so if you could stop talking out of your ass it would be great.
The real reason we don't see 2v2 tournaments is because playing 2v2 is less popular than playing 1v1 so less people are interested in watching 2v2 so less people watch 2v2, therefore it's not profitable to hold a decently funded 2v2 tourney. Lasck of tourneys also kinda means lack of interest in 2v2, creating a vicious cycle.
|
Unlike in other team games, playing team SC2 doesn't get people defined into roles.
Also, the maps are terrible.
Maps are either of the form:
Each player has their own ramp -> 2 people can rush one player out of the game, usually a zerg
Team has a shared, wide ramp -> if it's XZ vs then again a rush can just get right in.
With this it means that certain races are just underpowered/there are strategies that can only be countered by themselves.
A greater part of the problem is that people that want to go pro play 1v1, and so the 2v2 scene has no tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2, which means there are no 2v2 tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2.
|
On July 16 2013 00:51 Gowerly wrote:
Unlike in other team games, playing team SC2 doesn't get people defined into roles.
Also, the maps are terrible.
Maps are either of the form:
Each player has their own ramp -> 2 people can rush one player out of the game, usually a zerg
Team has a shared, wide ramp -> if it's XZ vs then again a rush can just get right in.
With this it means that certain races are just underpowered/there are strategies that can only be countered by themselves.
A greater part of the problem is that people that want to go pro play 1v1, and so the 2v2 scene has no tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2, which means there are no 2v2 tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2.
this is kinda why bases need to be made for 1 person to fully wall of, instead blizzard gives maps where 2players get a 3player ramp, 3players a 4player ramp etc, other than that there's still a few issues in certain matchups.
|
On July 16 2013 00:21 whatami wrote:
2v2 Has to be more complex and skill intensive then 1v1 simply by the numbers.
Absolutely not. Just because there's more possible stuff doesn't mean the game is more complex or more skill-intensive.
|
I like teamgames more. 1v1 are mostly figured out. Even though it changes slowly anyone is better off just copying what progamers do and let them experiment and come up with new builds. So 1v1ing for casual gamer is just watching progamers play, copying builds and ideas and then perfecting the BO on ladder and in training till it's automatic. I just don't like this approach. 2v2 is less skill intensive but IT IS more complex. There are no safe macro builds and there are no "safe" rushes.
|
On July 16 2013 01:55 Cheerio wrote:
I like teamgames more. 1v1 are mostly figured out. Even though it changes slowly anyone is better off just copying what progamers do and let them experiment and come up with new builds. So 1v1ing for casual gamer is just watching progamers play, copying builds and ideas and then perfecting the BO on ladder and in training till it's automatic. I just don't like this approach. 2v2 is less skill intensive but IT IS more complex. There are no safe macro builds and there are no "safe" rushes.
You don't HAVE TO use pro builds in 1v1. I personally come up with all of my builds on my own and it's really fun 
Also, in certain matchups you will find out that with enough studying you will find some safe builds, whether they are rushes or macro builds.
However, I agree that 2v2 is much less explored and due to that, with good execution most decent builds can work, assuming they don't face hard counters.
|
I am all for this. I think team games have been overlooked for potential.
|
I really only play 2v2s or team games anymore. My friend and I are constantly in Masters, and have been since the beginning of WoL.
The problem is, most people just rush in team games. Once we reach top masters, it's all reapers + lings, or hellions + roaches, or oracles + DTs. It's rare to see a macro game at the highest levels (at least in NA).
At that point the game just starts to annoy us because every game is "If you hold the rush, you win," and it's no longer fun. There's a small sense of accomplishment, but we love macro games, and rarely get them anymore. People just seem to want to win as quickly as possible. A greedy build in a team game is pretty much suicide. 15cc, 14hatch.. all bad ideas, which is pretty unfortunate.
Last night we played a 3v3 game where the opposing team went mass reaper, DTs and banshees w/cloak. We lost, which is usually okay, I don't mind losing. But we lost in the most infuriating way possible. I understand there are gonna be games like that, but man, that was annoying... of course, our 3rd man is pretty terrible 
|
On July 16 2013 00:56 19Meavis93 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:51 Gowerly wrote:
Unlike in other team games, playing team SC2 doesn't get people defined into roles.
Also, the maps are terrible.
Maps are either of the form:
Each player has their own ramp -> 2 people can rush one player out of the game, usually a zerg
Team has a shared, wide ramp -> if it's XZ vs then again a rush can just get right in.
With this it means that certain races are just underpowered/there are strategies that can only be countered by themselves.
A greater part of the problem is that people that want to go pro play 1v1, and so the 2v2 scene has no tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2, which means there are no 2v2 tournaments, which means people don't want to play 2v2.
this is kinda why bases need to be made for 1 person to fully wall of, instead blizzard gives maps where 2players get a 3player ramp, 3players a 4player ramp etc, other than that there's still a few issues in certain matchups.
So you are saying that 2 player shared base maps should always have one single, single-wide ramp leading into the main? This will give TT and TP teams the ability to deny all scouting. No matter how its done, there are issues when making 2v2 maps. IMO the best format for standard competitve 2v2 maps it a shared based with a double-wide ramp at the main and one choke per natural expo.
|
Having played 2v2 for a while, there are just so many incredibly broken strategies that I find it unlikely to ever be very popular in tourney. Easy example: You're terran and playing on that map with two separate bases. While terran is designed to require wall offs in order to prevent cheesy rushes, that doesn't help when 2 players rush the other guy.
Then there's stuff like force field protected siege tanks, double reaper on one guy in a separate bases map. And the shared base maps are even worse because they share the same BS feature: Only one of you has access to a natural. The other has to take an awkward third that is vulnerable to attack, which again, encourages early game aggression. All stuff that is no problem in 1v1 but huge issue in 2v2.
And second the thing about there being no safe macro builds. Cheesy rushes are so massively prevalent in 2v2 (because of how incredibly effective they are) that you are either doing a cheesy rush or you are playing extremely defensively.
|
On July 16 2013 00:43 priestnoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:28 nateomfg wrote:
The game is balanced for 1v1, not for 2v2. I hear this thing said so often yet it has no point. This game is not balanced for 1v1. This game is balanced for 1v1, using maps of the current format. If 2v2 were to be so imbalanced (personally I doubt it, there are some hard matchups but it's not worst than, say, end of WoL ZvT if you have a decent team composition) perhaps maps could fix it? I mean, it is possible that it's beyond fixable, but 2v2 maps are rarely made and even then they get no exposure because of the lack of viewers, so if you could stop talking out of your ass it would be great. The real reason we don't see 2v2 tournaments is because playing 2v2 is less popular than playing 1v1 so less people are interested in watching 2v2 so less people watch 2v2, therefore it's not profitable to hold a decently funded 2v2 tourney. Lasck of tourneys also kinda means lack of interest in 2v2, creating a vicious cycle.
The guy with 2 posts is completely right. So no need to type out 2 paragraphs saying nothing.
Easy example for demonstration: P Deathball vs Bio --> even Code S pros struggle with the right engagement when they have enough space even, therefore try to trade with P to keep him from maxed.
2v2: No way to win this. Maybe on an empty map giving you the space to engage 360 degree style.
+ Show Spoiler +stop talking out of your ass it would be great. You may look clever in front of your friends using memes, but i would use the wasted space for actual "flesh".
Edit: ↓ Please read this post. ↓
|
The game isn't balanced in 2v2. Regardless of ramps or not, double hellbat drops/banshee opens/7rr/10pBaneling/ anything that hits before 8-10mins, as longas your above diamond then you are going to be able to just walkover 1 opponent, when playing versus 2, BAR in very specific and minute situations.
Which then essentially means the game is going to turn into 1base 10minute plays(extreme example) becuase if you try and be greedy, then whereas in 1v1, only 1 person can punish this and so therefore you might be able to hold. In 2's, 2 people would be able to, and that is exponentially worse, because, your opponent even he goes ultra safe, is not going to be able to hold off 2 people.
All the arguements in here are speculation as to why it would be good.
All the arguements against it are because they have tried 2's and realised that if you were to play competitively, and you saw your opponent doing a 1v1 build, then they would just all in you. they wouldn't need to macro to try and win, its too easy to do this and it be alot more of a sure thing if microed well.
Whereas in 1v1 this isnt the case.
It seems like alot of people who are for this idea, are coming into it with a mindset of, its similar to 1v1 with just a few changes needed.
Thats completely wrong, You would have to have a whole new balance setup, with all the units having new build times, being different.
|
On July 16 2013 00:28 nateomfg wrote:
The game is balanced for 1v1, not for 2v2.
That's not entirely true. The reaper nerf in WoL was this hard because double proxy reaper in 2v2 was to strong (especially vs zerg).
Edit: Sorry was mostly because t/z teams were to strong.
|
On July 16 2013 02:46 gingerfluffmuff wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:43 priestnoob wrote:On July 16 2013 00:28 nateomfg wrote:
The game is balanced for 1v1, not for 2v2. I hear this thing said so often yet it has no point. This game is not balanced for 1v1. This game is balanced for 1v1, using maps of the current format. If 2v2 were to be so imbalanced (personally I doubt it, there are some hard matchups but it's not worst than, say, end of WoL ZvT if you have a decent team composition) perhaps maps could fix it? I mean, it is possible that it's beyond fixable, but 2v2 maps are rarely made and even then they get no exposure because of the lack of viewers, so if you could stop talking out of your ass it would be great. The real reason we don't see 2v2 tournaments is because playing 2v2 is less popular than playing 1v1 so less people are interested in watching 2v2 so less people watch 2v2, therefore it's not profitable to hold a decently funded 2v2 tourney. Lasck of tourneys also kinda means lack of interest in 2v2, creating a vicious cycle. The guy with 2 posts is completely right. So no need to type out 2 paragraphs saying nothing. Easy example for demonstration: P Deathball vs Bio --> even Code S pros struggle with the right engagement when they have enough space even, therefore try to trade with P to keep him from maxed. 2v2: No way to win this. Maybe on an empty map giving you the space to engage 360 degree style. + Show Spoiler +stop talking out of your ass it would be great. You may look clever in front of your friends using memes, but i would use the wasted space for actual "flesh".
Yay for ad hominem and bad examples from people who have no knowledge on 2v2!
That example is so bad I don't even know what to say first.
1. I said 2v2 can be helped by better maps. You argue I am wrong because 2v2 maps are too small. Bravo!
2. The chances of Bio vs P deathball ever happening in a 2v2 are extremely small. Not only the chances of having PP vs TT 2.46% given randomly made teams, but those are also probably the worst 2 team combinations there are, diminishing the odds even more.
3. If you want to talk about current maps, the high agression metagame prevents getting to the ultra late game you are talking about in those 3% matches of PP vs TT as if a team ever gets to 6-7 bases they are usually already winning by a big
margin.
Now, my 2nd, and especially 3rd, points are slightly arguable and more or less irrelevant given that you didn't even respond to my actual post, but I like educating people when I can. You're welcome
On July 16 2013 02:52 Emporium wrote:
The game isn't balanced in 2v2. Regardless of ramps or not, double hellbat drops/banshee opens/7rr/10pBaneling/ anything that hits before 8-10mins, as longas your above diamond then you are going to be able to just walkover 1 opponent, when playing versus 2, BAR in very specific and minute situations.
Which then essentially means the game is going to turn into 1base 10minute plays(extreme example) becuase if you try and be greedy, then whereas in 1v1, only 1 person can punish this and so therefore you might be able to hold. In 2's, 2 people would be able to, and that is exponentially worse, because, your opponent even he goes ultra safe, is not going to be able to hold off 2 people.
All the arguements in here are speculation as to why it would be good.
All the arguements against it are because they have tried 2's and realised that if you were to play competitively, and you saw your opponent doing a 1v1 build, then they would just all in you. they wouldn't need to macro to try and win, its too easy to do this and it be alot more of a sure thing if microed well.
Whereas in 1v1 this isnt the case.
It seems like alot of people who are for this idea, are coming into it with a mindset of, its similar to 1v1 with just a few changes needed.
Thats completely wrong, You would have to have a whole new balance setup, with all the units having new build times, being different.
And now, yay for a decent person bringing decent arguments!
You are completely right that you can not do 1v1 builds in 2v2, but that's part of the charm, no? I have played 2v2's a lot and gotten into top 100 world with my teammate at the end of WoL and while we used our fair share of timings and lost to some as well I can assure you that the situation is not as bleak as you think. Even if you don't get 4gates on 1base and tech (as P) before expanding you can still hold on if attacked as you WILL have units and so will your partner, no 1v2 situation created. No, 1gate FE is not viable, but 3gate or 2gate/robo expo can and do work in in proper conditions with proper play.
|
On July 16 2013 02:52 Emporium wrote:
The game isn't balanced in 2v2. Regardless of ramps or not, double hellbat drops/banshee opens/7rr/10pBaneling/ anything that hits before 8-10mins, as longas your above diamond then you are going to be able to just walkover 1 opponent, when playing versus 2, BAR in very specific and minute situations.
Which then essentially means the game is going to turn into 1base 10minute plays(extreme example) becuase if you try and be greedy, then whereas in 1v1, only 1 person can punish this and so therefore you might be able to hold. In 2's, 2 people would be able to, and that is exponentially worse, because, your opponent even he goes ultra safe, is not going to be able to hold off 2 people.
All the arguements in here are speculation as to why it would be good.
All the arguements against it are because they have tried 2's and realised that if you were to play competitively, and you saw your opponent doing a 1v1 build, then they would just all in you. they wouldn't need to macro to try and win, its too easy to do this and it be alot more of a sure thing if microed well.
Whereas in 1v1 this isnt the case.
It seems like alot of people who are for this idea, are coming into it with a mindset of, its similar to 1v1 with just a few changes needed.
Thats completely wrong, You would have to have a whole new balance setup, with all the units having new build times, being different.
This doesn't make sense. Even if everything you say is correct(I don't believe it is) and rushes are really that impossible to hold because of 2 people rushing one, there are still available fixes. Lots of destructable rocks blocking paths/making rushes less effective, making gigantic maps so that short of proxying your rush won't reach in time, using small choke paths for Forcefields, bunkers and spines to be more effective, etc. Everything your saying explains why 2v2 is more than just "a little different" than 1v1s, but it certainly doesn't mean 2v2 can never be competitive or balanced no matter what maps are used.
|
As someone who loves 2v2 yet hates how completely broken it is, I'd have to say that it probably *could* be fixed by maps. I'll agree with venomsflame on that one. I don't think anyone can deny that maps are the biggest problem in 2v2 right now.
|
Also, a lot of team maps are god awful which is a huge complaint. If there are bad maps, there will be bad games.
Say you're against a TZ team... T goes Mech, Z goes Muta, T does a slow mech push across the map and Z controls the air space around the rest of the map.
As a PZ (which we are) team, that's pretty hard to deal with. Not impossible, but on narrow maps (a lot of them are), that just makes it even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
