|
I feel that the unit sharing isn't that much of a problem, and that random start position was indeed good but it's probably caused by the map pool in SC2. What I really think is a problem is the ressource sharing/"feeding".
I've started playing SC:BW competitively with 2v2, while nowhere near the OP writer's level, I was decent and played a good amount of decent level team games. People that are saying that ressource sharing is good for team games and will improve the creativity, allow different strategies and stuff, seems to not really understand the inherent problem behind allowing total ressource sharing without any tax/penalty. Make sure to read this article that was linked into the OP. It really address the issue in a way that explains it better than in the OP.
Myself I don't think ressource trading should totally be removed, but the 5 minute limit isn't really a limit at all, there really should be a trade tax or a limit dependant on game duration like suggested in the article.
|
Sharing resources and feeding your ally ruins team play. Managing your resources should be a single persons responsibility. There should be no leeway for players who cannot manage their resources, whether through fault of their own, or through direct consequences brought by the opposing team. If you have too much or too little resources, then it's because you did something wrong. Can't spend your money because you became supply blocked when I killed your pylons? Tough shit. Feeding completely undermines this concept.
Now, I'm not saying there should be no feeding at all whatsoever in SC2. Giving your ally a little extra money to rebuild his nexus is a good thing. That's why I support putting a 15% flat tax on all resource trading transactions. To me, this should be a no-brainer. There are times in starcraft where you cannot spend all your resources due to constant and persistent pressure. You want to spend them, you want to plant down an extra gateway or two, but you can't because the enemy is in your base killing your shit. So your minerals start to pile up. You think to yourself "God I wish I could just build a supply depot and a factory, but these zealots keep stopping me". Giving those extra resources to your ally is a straight cop out. It's a cushion to players with a disadvantage in a game where if you lose, you have no one to blame but yourself or your ally.
Starcraft should not cater to the weak. It's a game of dog eat dog, and if you can't spend your resources then they deserve to sit there in limbo and rot.
|
how could I not know how to play low eco as a zerg in 2s, when vast majority of high level 2s as zerg were always on low eco.
the big difference is that in sc2 a low eco zerg cannot solo defend shit past early mid game, cause for one your lings/roaches are hard countered, for two you have no ramp with real high ground advantage to lean on if you are forced to. Cause if you at least had that you'd have _some_ chances, now you have _none_, thus cross spawns wouldnt really work.
|
I agree with a lot that has been said in the OP, including all three of your main points: shared control, shared resources, and close starting positions. And Iron Curtain was an awesome 2v2 map.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
the shared control argument is dead at any competent level of play. strongly agree with the need for random spawns to be brought back though!
the feeding issue is a bit more complex. i get pretty annoyed at the free transactions, but i also haven't seen enough discussion on the topic to understand what a reasonable limitation system (timers, % tax?) would be.
|
^ agreed, i think there should be some kind of % tax to share, obviously not a ton; but it shouldn't just be terran macroing hard with mules and feeding their partner (as seen in 2v2 showmatch yesterday)
|
France1920 Posts
Thanks for taking the time to make a good writing about 2v2 in SC2, i 100% agree with the OP.
I'm not worried, it makes no doubt to me that these new features (shared control / ressources & team spawning locations) will get removed soon or later at least among the competitive 2v2 scene.
Just a matter of time.
|
Shared control should remain in RT games but be removed from AT.
If you take 4 players, with A > B > C > D (> = better than), A and D will be matched against B and C, which means A will probably lose due to the complete "noobness" of his partner. Which means that the system punishes you for being good.
You need shared control to make up for that.
|
On June 28 2010 19:00 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 18:43 kAra wrote:
removing random spawn positons is one of the more annoying things , and how u think u can judge if his points are weak or not ? u played 2x2 on high lvl ? stop seeking attention in this topic when u have no business here Lol who the fuck are you man? You are a nobody, so don't tell me where I should seek my business. If you think my arguments are invalid, then go ahead and argue why.
Kara is one of the top 2v2 players in BW and has been forever, he's also probably one of the best German SC2 players, who are YOU O_o
|
Yay some people that have actually played 2v2s finally found this thread on page 4.
Shared control and Resources trading I dont really feel that strongly about ATM. But I suspect resources trading will break the game at some point. Shared bases/Close bases/Specific starting locations really kill a lot of the team work.
Lets say were playing a 2v2 on twilight fortress. Team A has a really aggressive strategy that gives them map control and allows them to expand or pressure team B. So they decide to go put some pressure on team B. Team B had no build they just sat in there shared base and build an army they have no map control, no scouting and don't see team A's army moving out.
In this situation which team should be rewarded? IMO team A, but team B will be. There army (teamB) is in the perfect position by default. In other words your armies are together automatically, so map control is irrelevant.
I can see how the current maps look like they encourage team play more that random start location maps. But they actually don't, they just make it easier for people that dont scout.
Oh and to people saying Kara opinions are irrelevant that would be like telling Flash or Jaedong that there opinions are irrelevant on 1v1s (in an alternate reality where they'd been playing in the beta) because "Sc2 isnt BW".
|
Something I don't understand is how 1race army comp could possibly be as cost-effective than 2race army comp, and this is why I don't see the problem with feeding (with the exception of timings, which can be negated by proper scouting).
Let's take a popular feeder unit to spam -- mutalisks. If I'm on a TP team, and the team feeding spams muta, I could have my P ally send me rec and I could make Thor to counter the muta. OR, I could make thor and my ally could make sentries, and then when we've cleaned up the muta instead of having spammed a unit with a specific role that is fairly counterable, I now have 2 units with very different roles that will continue to be useful. Isn't that preferable?
|
Instantly denying the skill and the validity of every person who disagrees with you is a great tactic for your arguments. Throughout beta I have been at or near the top of my AT2v2 divisions. So yes, I do know what I am talking about. Am I famous? Probably not. Have I won a giant tournament? No. Does that mean that you know more about what you are talking about than I do? No.
The basic idea of 2v2 is to have two players acting as a single entity in order to defeat their opponent. With this comes things such as the shared base maps, shared unit control, shared resources. If you don't like this, then go back to BW and stop complaining. Here is why they have chosen this philosophy: Because it can be balanced without destroying the balance of the 1v1 game mode.
Now, I feel that maybe shared resources should have a tax of some sort put on it, to prevent some of the more ridiculous strategies from being all-together too common, but it should never be removed entirely. It simply adds way too many options and potential for creative play. It allows one player to give another a boost at a cost to themselves. It does not spontaneously generate resources out of nowhere.
Shared control is just a way of helping new players learn the game and to make up for their weaknesses. A player relying on his teammate to manage his control is a player that will never make it to high level play. You must learn to crawl before you learn to run. If you lose to a team controlled by a single player, then you have some problems and holes in your play. His APM was obviously more than double yours to control double the bases and armies.
Spawning together allows the two players to act as a single entity. It creates a large obstacle on the other end of the map to overcome. I think that in the map pool currently there are too many "shared base" maps, and while I love shared base maps (they encourage team play even more, I like to mix it up every now and then. I feel the best way to mix up the plays of 2v2 is not to allow for randomly terrible start locations, but by changing around the entire maps. Just like 1v1.
Arid Wastes is by far my favorite map, because it mixes things up a bit, and makes it so you don't share a base. But the map is still balanced around the teams starting in the locations they start (north and south have rocks into their mains, and east and west have rocks to their naturals). You start closer to your ally than to your opponents, with a simple wall that can by bypassed by pylon power, blink or an elevator drop. This helps the teams work together.
TLDR: It seems you don't like the new Philosophy of 2v2. The two teams are supposed to work together in order to defeat their opponents. This is encouraged with all the systems that you are complaining about. Individual skill is important, but team play is what is emphasized and showcased.
|
I'm surprised you dwelled on game options but didn't get into the mechanics of the actual gameplay as they effect 2v2.
I enjoy playing random 2v2 and there is seldom sharing of resources or control in that setting.
|
On June 29 2010 01:01 IBashar wrote:
Shared control should remain in RT games but be removed from AT.
If you take 4 players, with A > B > C > D (> = better than), A and D will be matched against B and C, which means A will probably lose due to the complete "noobness" of his partner. Which means that the system punishes you for being good.
You need shared control to make up for that.
Why not suggest just removing share control altogether. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't share control with some random person on the ladder. I know I wouldn't... There's no communication on whos going to control the units in the heat of battle and there's no guarantee that the person is even good.
Having random spawns would just kill off the 2v2 in the lower leagues. Protoss would be unplayable since everyone would just be doing reaper/ling rushes.
|
Great article, great insight, from a great player. Coming from someone who almost exclusively played 1v1- this article was really informative at how 2v2 is played, and what 2v2 players are looking for. I really enjoyed the read- but i doubt blizz will do anything to change 2v2, sadly they don't really change anything of significance anymore lol.
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
On June 29 2010 02:29 DanielD wrote:
Something I don't understand is how 1race army comp could possibly be as cost-effective than 2race army comp, and this is why I don't see the problem with feeding
For example, we have never lost PZvsPZ on twilight when we used fotons on ramp and zerg have got +2 expos. All i do as protoss is mass probes and fotons. When mutas ready we have unbeatable air army, have map control and I get yellow exp and zerg +2 exps near our choke and don't let opponents leave their base. Later I can make colosses when zerg reached maximum limit, but the game is over before that. It's too boring strategy, but for the win we must use it. Does it need fantasy or teamplay? Of course not.
|
i would like to have a 2x2 match against you smarty, you interested?
|
On June 29 2010 02:51 kAra wrote:
i would like to have a 2x2 match against you smarty, you interested?
No, not particularly. But I will, if your require beating me in a game in order to invalidate my points.
|
where did u got the idea from that i care for your points, i told you already i suspect you of having no idea what your talking about at all
i just give you a chance to prove me wrong
|
Everything new in 2v2 is basicly improvements brought on by the knowledge gained from wc3.
Only real problem with it atm is the rushy trend in gameplay but that will change soon with players learning how it goes and maybe some balance changes. But the extra features brought in sc2 make the trivial brainless things easier while adding depth to the game.
2v2 will be much more competitive and most importantly fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
