|
On June 28 2010 07:46 petered wrote:
For the most part I think (c) is a good thing, actually. Close positions are really pretty boring since the game is all about attacking and counterattacking with tier one units. The set position thing really opens up a whole new aspect of macro in 2v2s.
Yo.. this makes no sense. Noone, especially the top 2x2ers out there, wants to play long and macro based games ALL the time. I havent even played SC2 but i can already tell that the close spawning positions will get boring fairly quick. Specially if your both passive players. You can basically use the same game plan for any map cause u will always know ur ally is close and ur enemies are far. By the time the game starts your already planning for late game. But im not going to comment too much on this becuase ive never played the game, im just looking at this from my experience as a top 2x2 player.
In SC:BW, what drew me away from 1x1 was playing 2x2 competively. All of the micro and multi-tasking that took place within the first 5-8 minutes was fun and intense. You people think that because cross-positions with ur ally will only result in tier 1 units? Are u serious? If both teams are on equal skill, the game will definetly move onwards to late tech.
It seems most people dont realize the wide variety of strategies and builds that can be used by just depending on the positions of ur opponent/ally.
|
honestly, while these complaints are a little true, none of them have anything to do with why 2v2 sucks now. The spawn positions are the only one I'd say is really major. 2v2 sucking now can be attributed to one thing, and one thing only: reapers.
Reapers break 2v2 in such ridiculous ways, a terran is practically mandatory on your team (not that thats much different from having a z in brood war...) and its really hard for any team without a t on it to get off the ground versus a T team. They're simply far, far too efficient not only against tier 1 units but the fact that they can hop around and split up a team in such stupid ways. Zerg at least has queens, but they are a complete nightmare for protoss to deal with even if you have really tight anti-reaper base layout. If you're a terran and dont reaper yourself you're very limited also because you're going to have to bunker up hardcore and ok, that doesn't put you that far behind because of salvage but your unit count and tech does get limited early on, and leaving the defense of that stuff to go help your ally can be easily met because reapers know what you're doing at all times too.
My friend and I went something silly like 36-1 on ladder doing nothing but proxy 2 gate and proxy 8 rax every single game. Ok, so that statistic might not mean much, we could just be far better than our competition but it's still cheese - surely we'd run into someone who knows how to defend it eventually, right? No. The game we lost? Someone went reapers back at us and backstabbed us both and died while his ally turtled up.
|
Toggle shared control and resources off. Toggle random start location on.
Fixed.
For customs maps at least. Or they can also have different kind of team ladders.
|
Meh I too hoped this would have something to do with 2v2 strategy. Instead it's a lame whiny ramble.
I think 2v2 in SC2 has far more potential than BW. The main thing I love is that there are more possible matchups that are viable and appear balanced. In BW, any team that was not ZX had was at a huge disadvantage to the point of being not viable. Whoever the writer or this post is seems fixated on one issue, about which I think he is wrong, and completely ignores every single other aspect of the game.
Pretty disappointing post. I was hoping for something worthwhile.
|
Make it so only minerals can be shared and not gas since the gas is refined differently depending on who extracts it from the geyser^^.
|
Great post! I agree completely about the "shared control" and "shared resource" issues. Have you posted this on the blizzard SC2 forum yet? You should.
One suggestion: perhaps they Blizz should remove shared control and resources from ladder games, but keep shared control and resources available in custom games (in which players should be able to do whatever they want).
|
On June 28 2010 08:10 Tenryu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 07:46 petered wrote:
For the most part I think (c) is a good thing, actually. Close positions are really pretty boring since the game is all about attacking and counterattacking with tier one units. The set position thing really opens up a whole new aspect of macro in 2v2s.
Yo.. this makes no sense. Noone, especially the top 2x2ers out there, wants to play long and macro based games ALL the time. I havent even played SC2 but i can already tell that the close spawning positions will get boring fairly quick. Specially if your both passive players. You can basically use the same game plan for any map cause u will always know ur ally is close and ur enemies are far. By the time the game starts your already planning for late game. But im not going to comment too much on this becuase ive never played the game, im just looking at this from my experience as a top 2x2 player. In SC:BW, what drew me away from 1x1 was playing 2x2 competively. All of the micro and multi-tasking that took place within the first 5-8 minutes was fun and intense. You people think that because cross-positions with ur ally will only result in tier 1 units? Are u serious? If both teams are on equal skill, the game will definetly move onwards to late tech. It seems most people dont realize the wide variety of strategies and builds that can be used by just depending on the positions of ur opponent/ally.
Play the game before you criticize it then?
|
I don't think sharing control is a big deal, as a single player controlling both players obviously requires quite a bit of skill and mental awareness. If one player is capable of beating two players by doing that, that player and his teammate deserve the win. However, in most cases, you rarely see that kind of behavior as players tend to team up with others that are close to their own skill level. There's no real reason to have your ally doing all your work for you unless you aren't very good.
I do think that sharing resources is bad. We see the kind of problems it created in Warcraft 3. However, I do not think that spawning team mates close to another is bad. In fact, in the beginning of the beta nearly every 2v2 game came down to massing tier 1 units and attacking one player. The fact that the majority of bases were far away from each other made it increasingly difficult to help defend your ally (especially if you were terran). So I think what they've done with spawn positions is a good thing, as it encourages games that last beyond the initial attack.
|
First come after 5 years and tell me how the game will evolve since its beta yet.
Second its Starcraft 2 , not 1 , adapt and evolve else just stick with the 1 , having the very same ol game with just another graphics isnt fun either , fyi is almost way too much alike already .
Fron the premature "analysis " of any short atm , i can only see after the first 2 lines , usually , that some want the old game without suggesting any serious improvements.
[Quote] By enabling shared control, players on the same team are allowed to command not only their own units and structures, but also those of their allies. At first this may seem like a good thing, but the fact is that the importance of co-ordination and communication has been severely degraded because of this feature [Quote]
If this isnt a contradiction , or the epitome of team play , i dunno what it is , again adapt and evolve
|
I wouldn't say that giving your ally minerals "balances" the game after he takes economic damage. You are now behind in minerals compared to the other team and your ally still needs time to rebuild his economy before he can do much. If you give him all your money you are woefully unprepared for the next attack. Sharing resources creates some new strategies that may end up imbalanced but it doesn't nullify economic harrassment at all. In an average game if I macro half decently I don't have more than a few hundred minerals and gas to spare at any given moment anyway.
The first two points seem to be based in a hypothetical in which one player is awful while the other has enough apm to micro two armies and still outmacro the other team on his own. If he is that good he probably deserves that W. Not to disrespect your skill or credibility or anything, I just don't see this situation taking place outside of bronze and silver leagues.
|
Its the same thing that happens with warcraft 3 and should have implemented into sc1 years ago .
|
I think i disagree with most of whats posted in this article, i think alot of what he's describing is a good thing. sure its different, but I dont think that shared resources or control is a bad thing. I'd be willing to say that at progamer level 2 people microing effectively together their huge army would be better than one person microing one big army.
I think resource sharing only opens up more windows for strategy than less. For example, i'm sure that i'd rather have a mixed army of roaches zerglings and...marauders against say a protoss ball thats being spoon fed resources.
EDIT: Another point...I only care about differences and balance at the pro gamer level. Who gives a rats ass if someone good helps someone bad? If anything its going to help the bad player learn.
|
On June 28 2010 06:03 Xeris wrote:This article was written by Fnatic.Moutas, better known as DeA, one of the top 2v2 players in the BW scene. He compares 2v2 in SC2 and SC!
The article can be found here:
Brood war player complaining about all the changes in SC2? Shocker...
a) Shared Control
Your argument on sharing unit control makes me doubt that you have even played high level SC2 2v2... If you are playing at a level where both players don't need to pull their weight, then you are not playing at the high level. Sorry, but in order to be a high level team, both players NEED to be able to handle themselves. You can hold your partners hand way up into Diamond, but once you begin to play the advanced teams, your partner needs to take his own steps, or you will both fall flat on your face.
Your entire argument revolves around a team that has one good player and one bad player. But sorry, that team will never make the competitive 2v2 team, so it is irrelevant to the argument. I can assure you that a team with 2 good players will DESTROY a team with 1 great player and 1 bad player.
b) Shared Resources
Sharing resources opens up worlds of options that should ALL be available. The most MAJOR resource sharing strategies tend to be all-in strategies that can fall apart if performed poorly, and once scouted can be demolished easily. There are trickier ones, but they are all handled with proper play.
Resource sharing allows for tactics like quick feed techs, defense/offense plays, but also it allows a team to not be destroyed by a stupid lucky play that are HUGELY common in 2v2 (for example: 2 Dropships drop Marauders, stim and blow up the main Nexus at 385 minerals. That person is now effectively dead for the rest of the game, and punished for keeping his minerals low).
Resource sharing is a wonderful addition, opening up worlds of options for the play. You complain about how there was more variety in SC:BW 2v2 play, then complain about a function that opens up literally hundreds of options for a team.
c) Spawning Positions
Uh... are you serious? You don't like how you spawn together with your teammate? Now, I don't know how the SC:BW scene was played, but in all honesty, this is a pretty damn essential part of 2v2 now. Cross positional spawning would be an absolute disaster and on a map like Lost Temple would devolve into 2 1v1s played on the same map (since your enemy is closer to you than your ally). It would be so easy to set up a simple contain between one player and cut off the other. This was why Kulas Ravine was quickly removed from the 2v2 Ladder... because it was far too easy to abuse the distances between players. If you start with a teammate, the game should be about your team.
I am sorry, sir, but I disagree with most of your article. It seems to me that you are very attached to the BW scene and are simply resistant to any change. SC2 seems to be attempting to make 2v2 an actual game mode... rather than just throwing 4 players on a map and to see what happens. Blizzard understands that 2v2 plays differently than 1v1, and so they make maps that are designed to showcase and emphasize the different styles. I very much enjoy the SC2 2v2 scene as it has evolved. It is the future.
The US vs EU showmatch today helped prove a theory of mine. 1v1 players do not play 2v2 like 2v2 players play 2v2. I would like to see these 1v1 pros fight against a pro 2v2 team. I have a feeling they would get destroyed. I was able to point out many many flaws in their builds that a solid high level 2v2 team would not have made or would have exploited. The games (1v1 and 2v2) play so differently that they do not translate towards each other very well. Exclusive High Level 1v1 players will not do very well in the High Level 2v2 scene, and vice versa, and this is how it should stay.
|
On June 28 2010 07:39 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 06:44 jalstar wrote:On June 28 2010 06:41 Tenryu wrote:On June 28 2010 06:14 jalstar wrote:
Also, SC2 improves the balance since ZZ no longer beats everything and you no longer even need a zerg. Umm.. i havent played SC2 yet but i can tell you that in SC1 ZZ isnt unbeatable. Actually infact, me and my allies best matchup is vs ZZ, not to mention ive won alot 1v2's vs ZZ. I enjoy playing vs ZZ more then any other matchup because i know im going to win. So try to comment on things you know first. Proleague banned ZZ, it was not balanced at a high level so I don't care if you beat 2 newb zergs by yourself. Considering you can count on your hands the number of non-Koreans that played professionally in Korea, so basically you're just saying that you have no idea of the skill of the players or of the community that this entire article is geared towards. None of us are ever going to match Koreans pros, but we can match with non Korean pros, and this article is aimed at that segment of the population.
So who then is the article geared towards?
Starcraft 2 Team Games are going to thrive on competitive AND casual play to the point where the two overlap. If he not actually at the "top level" of BW 2v2 because he's not at Korean level, then why would his opinion and BW experience be relevant because it will be likely when the BW pros transfer over he will still be below the "top level" and his opinion will be more relevant to casual or low competitive play where the huge disparity in skillsets will make SHARING much more helpful and fun to all players. Since he cannot properly analyze "high level play" and his opinion is relevant the small segment in the middle, with the overwhelming skill level of the majority falling below, It makes his entire analysis moot and far too subjective and niche too have any merit or relevance on competitive SC2 overall. In my opinion.
|
I'd also like to point out sharing only goes so far, as the match making system puts an end to that.
The bad player good player team, will win games strait up until the good player can no longer carry the team forward by himself, and the bad player will have to catch up and start carrying his own weight, or the team will lose. I dont see how this will make 2v2 unfun for either party.
|
I am tempted to write an article of my own about 2v2. There are so many misconceptions and assumptions about the 2v2 game type. After watching the EU vs US showmatch, I worry that people will have even more of a negative outlook on it. 2v2 takes practice and mastery, just like 1v1.
You cannot have your hand held by your ally in any decent level play. It just doesn't happen.
You need to know the timings, what scouting information reveals, how to take advantage of holes in a build, how to stop the major rushes and counter peoples' unit compositions.
These are all essential in 1v1 of course, but remember that the answers to these questions are ALL different for 2v2 than they are for 1v1.
There are so many things you need to deal with in 2v2 that would leave 1v1 players scratching their head. It bugs me when people claim that 1v1 players are superior to 2v2 players, because it is obvious to me that a team of two 1v1 players would get destroyed by a team of two 2v2 players. They are different games.
|
On June 28 2010 10:02 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 07:39 Xeris wrote:On June 28 2010 06:44 jalstar wrote:On June 28 2010 06:41 Tenryu wrote:On June 28 2010 06:14 jalstar wrote:
Also, SC2 improves the balance since ZZ no longer beats everything and you no longer even need a zerg. Umm.. i havent played SC2 yet but i can tell you that in SC1 ZZ isnt unbeatable. Actually infact, me and my allies best matchup is vs ZZ, not to mention ive won alot 1v2's vs ZZ. I enjoy playing vs ZZ more then any other matchup because i know im going to win. So try to comment on things you know first. Proleague banned ZZ, it was not balanced at a high level so I don't care if you beat 2 newb zergs by yourself. Considering you can count on your hands the number of non-Koreans that played professionally in Korea, so basically you're just saying that you have no idea of the skill of the players or of the community that this entire article is geared towards. None of us are ever going to match Koreans pros, but we can match with non Korean pros, and this article is aimed at that segment of the population. So who then is the article geared towards? Starcraft 2 Team Games are going to thrive on competitive AND casual play to the point where the two overlap. If he not actually at the "top level" of BW 2v2 because he's not at Korean level, then why would his opinion and BW experience be relevant because it will be likely when the BW pros transfer over he will still be below the "top level" and his opinion will be more relevant to casual or low competitive play where the huge disparity in skillsets will make SHARING much more helpful and fun to all players. Since he cannot properly analyze "high level play" and his opinion is relevant the small segment in the middle, with the overwhelming skill level of the majority falling below, It makes his entire analysis moot and far too subjective and niche too have any merit or relevance on competitive SC2 overall. In my opinion.
What are you talking about? He's a top 5 non Korean 2v2 player in BW. His opinion on 2v2 (as other top BW 2v2 players like Kara have confirmed) is more relevant than almost any other post in this thread, because he's played 2v2 at a high level in BW, and in SC2. The problem that I was pointing out is that his analysis is geared towards the foreigners. Obviously what is true of pro-gaming in Korea is NOT true of the foreign scene, because the Koreans are on such a different level that saying something like "ZZ is imba because in proleague it was banned because of how imba it was" doesn't mean it is really imbalanced; for example in non Korean 2v2s (as people have stated), ZZ is NOT imbalanced.
|
ZZ is/was imba on some maps, not all.
|
Competitive 2v2 is far more suitable for SC2 than it ever was for SC:BW, If you can't see this you're naive to borderline ignorant. I much agree with what Zanes had to say.
I also disagree almost completely with the article as it seems extremely SC:BW biased and keeps using the "dumbed-down" approach to back up his arguments when in reality, he's just presenting extremes and worst case scenarios like its a given without looking at it realisticly and what actually happens in practice.
|
guy who wrote the article is an idiot. 2v2 is fine i have yet to see feeding in 2v2 be a problem. shared resources we only used if i didnt have enough money to rebuild a nexus or something along those lines. furthemore combining tech is better anyways. ex: we four-gate factory rush and usually win doing that.
besides there is no glory in 2v2's its like how nobody cares about doubles in tennis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
