|
On July 16 2013 03:05 Venomsflame wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Your arguing against a point i haven't made.
'but it certainly doesn't mean 2v2 can never be competitive or balanced no matter what maps are used'
please explain where i have said this. i explain throughout the whole post that 2v2 isn't balanced currently, i never suggest it couldn't be balanced in the future, that would be plain retarded, for the above points you suggest and a whole host of other ones aswell, hell if they can make campaign units different to 1v1, they can just as easily do this for 2v2.
So just want to point out that i am in agreement with you really, but you seemed to want to argue with me, it would have been much easier to just say.
'your right, there are differences from 1v1 to 2v2, you have pointed out a few, here is how i would suggest improving and making some of the points you have made less relevant.(insert end of your paragraph here).'
As to the part about improving maps and getting destructible rocks, its just too short-termistic/plasters over old scars thought process.
IF you want 2v2 to become a mode of actual online competitive gameplay, then it needs its own team(as 1v1) does to make it fair and competitive, and most importantly balanced, or as balanced as it could be.
With the demand of the community currently in every online game(bar LOL, too many hereos too balance fully) there is a huge presence of the community demanding, sorry thats wrong, not accepting anything less that balance being the forethought of the game.
TL;DR
Dont put plasters(bandaids if your american) over it, overhaul and actually try and make it competitive, with the units actually being balanced/designed for 2v2.
|
So many people make a flawed point that 2v2s can't exist because it can't be played with the 1v1 mindset ie macrostyle. I'm actually not against 10 minutes 1 basing as long as the game is not reduced to just a few combinations of rushes with little variation behind them. Another flawed point is reasoning that 2v2 can only be rush vs rush bacause that is what it is now. Well given some current 2v2 maps are smaller than some 1v1 maps, it's not really surpring to me.
|
|
|
my team mate and i play as double protoss, usually the easiest to rush and all-in race, and we have found ways to hold pretty much everything provided we scout it early/well enough. The general sense of 2v2 is that it's all rushes, but if we could get a scene going people would realize that, just like anything else, there are answers to these all ins, it just takes more exploring. The reason the 2v2 metagame is so all in based is because people don't really know how to answer them that well yet.
|
Loving the created maps :D
|
The other day my teammate and I (PZ) got double six pooled. We held wonderfully, and then just countered and won. There was no satisfaction or anything though... it was just a lame game. That's what a lot of team games are though. We try to macro, but most people just don't like to macro in team games for whatever reason...
|
On July 16 2013 02:58 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Um... what? Reaper was nerfed (in terms of its build time) in WoL because of 5 rax reaper, not because of 2v2.
|
|
|
On July 16 2013 03:35 Cheerio wrote:
So many people make a flawed point that 2v2s can't exist because it can't be played with the 1v1 mindset ie macrostyle. I'm actually not against 10 minutes 1 basing as long as the game is not reduced to just a few combinations of rushes with little variation behind them. Another flawed point is reasoning that 2v2 can only be rush vs rush bacause that is what it is now. Well given some current 2v2 maps are smaller than some 1v1 maps, it's not really surpring to me.
Yes, people really need to start understanding the team game meta rather than forcing the 1v1 meta upon 2v2, this is a big issue and these threads continue to walk into that wall.
On July 16 2013 03:46 TheFish7 wrote:For a full discussion on 2v2 maps and how to make them competitive, see this thread: Competitive 2v2 mapsSome good (imo) Community made 2v2 maps for competition: + Show Spoiler +DF Crystal Valley and DF Corrosion![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D5i42r6.png) TPW Stormborn![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DqjnVl.jpg) (Shameless self-promotion) Bel'Shir Marquee![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J0ZAQ.jpg) Kuihtuneet![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/02jQOl.jpg) In addition, there were a couple more 2v2 maps to check out from the TLMC #2
I don't think any of those maps are all that great for 2v2, it looks like someone tried to make a 1v1 map with double bases for the additional player, another example of the other post above.
On July 16 2013 03:47 whatami wrote:
my team mate and i play as double protoss, usually the easiest to rush and all-in race, and we have found ways to hold pretty much everything provided we scout it early/well enough. The general sense of 2v2 is that it's all rushes, but if we could get a scene going people would realize that, just like anything else, there are answers to these all ins, it just takes more exploring. The reason the 2v2 metagame is so all in based is because people don't really know how to answer them that well yet.
Maybe, but the rushes aren't because it isn't figured how to hold, it's because depending on the race combination, there are so many counters and certain units being phased out by others that you don't normaly see in 1v1, that can lead to devastating all-ins.
|
I think, 2v2 could be fun. While esport-viable balance could be difficult to achieve, and 1v1 should always have priority, there also could be a new world out there, world of 2v2 competition.
I watched a lot of 2v2 games in WC3. Many games were fun. I also played a lot of 2v2 in WC3. It was fun, too.
|
I don't understand why there's a debate going on right now. There is absolutely no reason why 2v2 can't be played competitively with some slight balance changes( ie. Balanced maps). And IMHO units shouldn't be nerfed at all for 2v2. Rushes shouldn't really be a problem because even though you have twice the power of the rush from the second person you also have twice the defence for it from your second person. You also get twice the scout from the second person so scouting the rush shouldn't be a problem right now either. Idk maybe I'm thinking about this way too logically and/or mathmatically, but if you multiply each side by two then each side is still equal...so what's the problem?
|
On July 16 2013 04:31 19Meavis93 wrote:
Maybe, but the rushes aren't because it isn't figured how to hold, it's because depending on the race combination, there are so many counters and certain units being phased out by others that you don't normaly see in 1v1, that can lead to devastating all-ins.
Exactly that. Remember the first days of WoL?
All games were simple bad rushes. Part of it was due to balance (warp gate research too fast), part of it was due to maps (steppes of war and the likes) and part of it was due to the game not being developed at all (let me stim up the ramp and hope he doesnt force field). And at thos days, everbody believed it would be impossible to forge fast expand in PvZ. The game was not developed and so were the maps.
I believe 2on2 is in the same state at the moment. And without serious concideration by the right people, it will never leave this state. Im also sure it can become better and get to a point where you can play it competitively. We are surely not at this point and probably never will be. But if the right people take the right amount of time to think about and come to promote professional 2on2, then we would be rewarded with an even more beautiful game than we have right now.*
* This would be a game with the mechanical and tactical requirements of 1on1, but with the added aspect of team play - amazing! 
|
On July 16 2013 04:31 19Meavis93 wrote:I don't think any of those maps are all that great for 2v2, it looks like someone tried to make a 1v1 map with double bases for the additional player, another example of the other post above.
I can assure you that these maps were all made and planned out beforehand as 2v2 maps, not 1v1 maps. In addition I know the people who made the maps are skilled 2v2 players in addition to being map makers and understand that 2v2 is a very different animal from 1v1. You can't just throw the map making rule book out the window when you are designing for team maps. For example, the above post you reference cites map size being too small and too rush-friendly. A lot of that stems from Blizzard creating 2v2 maps with rush distances even shorter than the standard for 1v1 maps today, in some cases maps with only 3 or 4 bases per player. While this is wrong, the answer is not simply to make bigger, more macro-friendly maps, because you will find that the opposite thing happens, where it only makes sense to ever macro. I see new map makers come to these forums all the time and post maps that are 256X256 and have 17 bases per player. If you are going to map for team games you need to understand that the map size needs to stay more or less the same as in 1v1, simply because of how the game is designed, meta game has nothing to do with it. This means that mapping for team games is actually harder than mapping for 1v1, because you have to include more bases, paths, and features, for more players, in a size that cannot be much larger than the 1v1 standard. It took me many months making maps and I had to have my 2v2 maps actually played in a tournament before I realized this fact.
|
2v2 is only rushes? Seriously, does nobody remember Twilight Fortress from back in the WoL beta?
|
For better 2v2 maps you should check out the ones used for the CSL 2v2 match. They only used two ICCUP maps. I think one was Citadel of Gia, or something like that. Back in Wings the maps were actually quite good, allowing for at least solid 2 base play, and usually you could go full on macro mode on 3 base plus assuming you didn't die to an early cheese or a mineral dump timing.
|
2v2 may be cool, but the few tournaments I have seen (in WOL) were usually quite boring and repetitive. These were usually rush tactics and games tended to be over quite fast. There is nothing wrong with fast games, but too much of the same sameness tends to boredom. I really don't know how to make 2v2 viable in the same way that 1v1 is. As others have suggested, it may lie in the maps and base set-up, but I really don't know enough to offer real solutions.
I tend to play a fair bit of 2v2 with a good mate (we were PZ in WOL but are now PT - we may yet return to PZ). Both of us tend to like standard macro games but most people we play against just rush. It can all get rather irritating at times.
|
On July 16 2013 05:22 MstrJinbo wrote:
2v2 is only rushes? Seriously, does nobody remember Twilight Fortress from back in the WoL beta?
There really hasn't been a map like that again.
|
On July 16 2013 06:04 DinosaurJones wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 05:22 MstrJinbo wrote:
2v2 is only rushes? Seriously, does nobody remember Twilight Fortress from back in the WoL beta? There really hasn't been a map like that again.
Just saying that its possible to have macro friendly maps for 2v2. Whether people want to play said maps is a different question though. Although twighlight fortress was removed during the dark ages of sc2 map design so it's hard to tell how it would fare nowadays.
|
I personally loved that map, haha.
|
2v2s are based on entirely different skill sets than 1v1. team coordination is actually more difficult and a team can use a races strenght to compensate for the other races weakness. Lillekanin (dunno if u spell it like this) is one of the worlds best 2v2 players if you want some reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
