|
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:
Introduction
The first phase of the StarCraft II Beta has come and gone. Many lucky members of the online gaming community, including myself, have had the opportunity to play “the most anticipated game of all time”, as many gamers throughout the world believe. From day one up until the final hours of the beta, Blizzard kept us on our toes with numerous patches and balance updates that continuously changed the way StarCraft II was to be played. This game rightfully has set out to take its own unique place in the gaming community as a highly competitive e-sport, and most of us wouldn’t expect less from the successor of one of the most famous computer games of all time, StarCraft: Brood War.
Now is a good time to take a break and look back at what we have experienced during the few months of the beta stage. There are many articles, threads and discussions that cover the 1v1 section of StarCraft II, where players analyze strategies and debate on possible changes that may benefit the game. I believe that, due to the amount of these discussions, an article focused yet again on 1v1 would just recycle what has already been said numerous times by other members of the community, and make little to no impact on the current state of the game. Instead, I will attempt to cover and provide some “food for thought” on an equally important game type that most people may not consider as competitive.
Team Games
The 2v2 games have had their fair share of attention within the competitive StarCraft scene for many years now. Ladders, clan leagues and even the Korean Pro League have supported this type of team game, and in return we have viewed some very interesting matches and unique strategies that simply cannot be seen in solo games (Nada/Rock vs Boxer/GoRush anyone?). It is often considered as a stepping stone for beginners that enjoy playing StarCraft without having that much pressure compared to a 1v1 game. At the same time, the great depth of 2v2 and the numerous scenarios that may arise during a match makes this game type truly unique and equally as hard to learn and master as 1v1.
During the era of StarCraft: Brood War I considered myself as a 2v2 player. Competing on the most famous ladders such as ICCup, PGTour and WGTour was extremely fun, as it allowed me to learn a lot about the game while playing with and against the top players at the time. Once the beta came out, my natural instinct was to find out as much as possible about 2v2 in StarCraft II and the changes that came along with the new release. Quickly though I was disappointed, as I found out that the new features in team games had greatly destroyed some of the most important characteristics that describe team play. Communication, co-operation and individual player skill, are all core elements of not only 2v2 but team games in general, whether it be soccer, ice hockey or Counter-Strike. These elements have become less significant or even non-existent in StarCraft II, and I believe there is one key word that is responsible for this…
Sharing
In StarCraft II team games, you can share everything. Units, buildings, resources, bases, whatever a player requires from his/her team-mate can be easily passed over. This isn’t limited to the game’s elements that appear on the screen; you can also “share” your skills and mechanics in a not-so-apparent way. Although these features might allow players to develop new strategies and tactics, at the same time they remove some of the most essential elements of team games. Let’s look at the new features that have been implemented in StarCraft II and focus on how they affect the quality of 2v2.
a) Shared Control
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. Players are no longer required to perform actions upon request from their ally. It has simply become an “I will do it myself” environment, which is clearly a characteristic of solo play. It doesn’t mean much if there are two or more players in the team. The fact that you can control the units of other players as if they were your own does not promote or encourage teams to develop good teamwork.
In order to become a top 2v2 team in SC:BW, players must not only know strategies, build orders and responses to possible outcomes, but they must also develop their collaboration skills so that they can synchronize their attacks perfectly, avoid flanks from the opposing team and provide help to their ally when needed. These things, amongst others, are what set apart the good teams from the bad ones. They are all traits that are necessary when playing with an ally. Since SC2 is a competitive game, 2v2 should be about two players responsible of their respective races, performing their own specific tasks while at the same time acting in unison towards a common goal; to defeat the opposing team. When a player can be in charge of both armies, the element of co-operation is negated and any notion of team work is simply bypassed, just so that no mistakes are made during the heat of battle due to miscommunication. If we also take into consideration that players can select hundreds of units within one control group, and that both players in a team always spawn at the closest spots (something that will be discussed later on), then it’s almost certain that one player will take full control of both armies once the troops of both team members meet up, which is extremely easy to do. For me, this does not display teamwork at all.
Another use of this feature that I believe steers the game in the wrong direction is when players “share their skills” with their allies. This can easily be understood with an example:
A 2v2 team consists of a Zerg player named “Zee” and a Terran player named “Tee”. Zee is an experienced veteran with decent mechanics, whereas Tee is new to the game and has very limited knowledge. Once their match begins, they plan to quickly attack their opponents. Tee rushes to Reapers while Zee opts for Zerglings and Banelings. Tee has produced units sooner than Zee and attacks first, but due to the fact that he is a beginner, his control is very sloppy and his harass isn’t very effective. This is where Zee decides to “share his skill”. Both players enable shared control and now the Terran’s Reapers can be controlled by Zee, who successfully harasses the opposing team’s mineral lines. At the same time, Zee is also producing a Zergling army which is quickly followed up by Banelings. Meanwhile, Tee isn’t participating in the battles at all. He is limited to keeping up the Reaper production so that Zee can continue pressuring their opponents. After a few minutes, the game ends with our hero team claiming victory thanks to the efforts of only one player. In a similar way to the example above, players can share their skills for numerous tasks, such as taking control of your ally’s scouting worker or repositioning your team-mate’s troops while they’re under attack.
The problem with the given example is that both players no longer have distinct roles that they are solely in charge of, nor are they equally contributing to their team. One player has intentionally taken over and executed tasks that should normally be carried out by his/her ally. If you think about other competitive team sports, such as a doubles match in tennis, a game of basketball or even Counter-Strike, this type of scenario never occurs. All players within the team have their own set of “tools” (tennis rackets, hands, etc) and they have their own unique skills (excellent backhand, good jump-shot, etc). When a tennis or basketball player possesses the ball, it is up to them to execute their role perfectly (return the ball to the opposite court, score a 3-pointer, etc) and their team-mates depend on them to do their part. Players are only capable of executing their role based on what they know. There is no such thing as “lending my serve skills” or “let me borrow your hands so I can score 3-pointers easier”. In team games, all players depend on each other and each player is a necessary figure within the team. If a player fails, then the team suffers. That is what team games are about. In StarCraft II, there is no such dependency. A bad player doesn’t weaken the team as it should. An army controlled by a beginner can easily be operated by an expert team-mate on a level much higher than the player’s capability. Why let your ally struggle with a task, such as microing a group of Mutalisks, when you can do it better yourself? They say “a team is only as good as its weakest member”. That is clearly not the case when playing 2v2 in StarCraft II.
b) Shared Resources
The next feature on our list of things to examine is shared resources. After the 5-minute mark, players are allowed to exchange any amount of minerals or gas with their allies without any additional cost. This feature greatly encourages teams to abuse the element of “feeding” which, in a similar way to shared control, could turn all team games, including 2v2, into a one-man show. Feeding occurs when one player of the team continuously sends resources to the other player that has been assigned the role of actually playing the game. So instead of 2v2, the game evolves into a 1v1 match where the designated “players” create enormous armies much faster than usual. They aren’t required to expand since they have their allies to do that for them. Timing is gone out the window, as players can no longer know what units are being massed or when to expect a sudden attack. This style of play could possibly become the only option available for 2v2 teams, and that clearly isn’t good news for a competitive game.
Not long ago, a member of the Team Liquid forum named “Vexx” created a topic about this subject that highlights the problems that occur due to this feature and the reasons why it destroys team games in StarCraft II. I couldn’t agree more with this post, so instead of rewriting things in my own words, I believe it would be best to read the full article here.
Another creative aspect of 2v2 games that has become extinct in SC2 because of shared resources is the tactic I like to call “translating”. This term describes the actions carried out by one player of a team (usually a player that has some sort of advantage) in order to balance the game or generate an advantage for their ally. Here are a few examples that demonstrate creative “translating” play by two teams in SC:BW (team 1 is ZT and team 2 is ZP):
• If the ZT team rushes and greatly damages the opponent Zerg player, a portion of the Protoss army can be sent to the Zerg ally for protection, which will allow the Zerg to recover. The Protoss player can also choose to counter-attack and damage an opponent, since they will have a much smaller army than Protoss.
• If Z1 has 10 Mutalisks and Z2 has only 5, the Zerg player of team 1 can use his/her Mutalisks to harass the Protoss mineral line and production facilities, so that the Terran player can slowly gain an economic and army advantage over the Protoss player.
Example 2 is one of the most standard “translations” that occur during a 2v2 game. The Z1 player may lose some Mutalisks and be on par with the Zerg opponent (both of which are on 1 base), but that previous Mutalisk advantage has now been “translated” into a Terran advantage over the Protoss, which greatly tilts the game into the ZT team’s favor.
Sharing resources is an uncreative and easy solution that can be carried out by basically anyone (beginners and experts) that wants to balance the game or gain an edge, and which in return makes team games extremely dull and boring to play. In SC:BW, teams went from attacking to defending and then back again, just so that they can get that much needed advantage in 2v2. The top teams could estimate the situation in any given circumstance and know exactly when they should attack or defend. This constant back and forth is what made 2v2 such a competitive game and also interesting to play, as there was so much action going on during the match, probably more than in 1v1 games. In SC2, there is no need for players to find unique tactics or special ways to utilize their army in order to create or nullify an advantage. With the shared resources feature, a couple of clicks generates the same result. Just send X amount of minerals or gas to your ally and you have successfully balanced the game, without having to think much about it. Even 1v2 scenarios can be avoided by sending out a few minerals to allies that have no main structure left. This no longer gives teams a good enough reason to quickly eliminate an opponent.
c) Spawning Positions
Some of you may have noticed that in 2v2 players no longer spawn at random locations. Obviously, on a shared bases map, players are meant to spawn right next to their ally, which is perfectly fine. But on all other 2v2 maps, such as Lost Temple or Metalopolis, players are always close to their allies and far away from their opponents (for example on Lost Temple, one team always spawns at the north and west bases, whereas the other team spawns at the east and south bases). This new pattern occurs on all maps, and it limits the possible strategies that can be used in 2v2. When playing 1v1 on a map with 4 starting locations, players respond differently and use specific strategies when their opponent is located at the X, Y or Z base. This results in a different style of gameplay every time. Shouldn’t 2v2 also feature this? Why were random positions removed from 2v2 in SC2?
In SC:BW players would spawn at random starting locations. If your base was close to your ally’s base, you could use strategy A or B. If you and your ally were at cross-positions (for example, one player at north and other at south on LT), strategy C or D would be a better option. This made 2v2 more interesting to play as there were numerous strategies that could be applied for any number of circumstances. An excellent example of a 2v2 map fully utilizing this pattern is “Iron Curtain”, which was used in the Korean Pro League a few years ago. This map is split by walls and minerals into two sections, left and right, and players were either on the same side of the map with their ally, or on opposite sides with an opponent. Teams had to take into consideration many variables when playing on this map (where is my ally, what races are my opponents, what to do if the opponent on my side is race X?) and this resulted in some very interesting matches and unique strategies.
Conclusion
Honestly, I am greatly disappointed in the way that 2v2, and all other team games, have turned out to be in SC2. A game of endless creativity, where players would often think outside the box and develop excellent teamwork to compete on a higher level, has now become an uninteresting game that is hardly a challenge to play. The basic elements that made 2v2 such a competitive game and entirely different than 1v1 no longer exist in StarCraft II. Teams are no longer required to find their own way of communicating, co-operating and planning ahead so that their strategies will shine through. By sharing your skills with allies, there are no longer any weaknesses that can be utilized by the opposing team to their benefit. The newly implemented functions are what steer the game into a direction where eventually there will be only one way to play team games. “Sharing” is what has truly hurt the competitive 2v2 scene.
With all these new added features, I’m left wondering what was so wrong with team games in SC:BW that required them to be altered so much. Changes shouldn’t be made just for the sake of it, especially when in SC:BW, 2v2 has been proven countless times to be an extremely competitive game type, probably on the same level as 1v1 matches.
For me, there is only one solution; remove shared control along with shared resources, and also make players spawn at completely random starting locations.
Now is the time for Blizzard to listen up and hear for once what the top 2v2 players have to say about the development of what could be the most competitive computer game of all time, StarCraft II.
*Special thanks to Tenryu, my main SC:BW ally and good friend, for helping me complete this article 
|
On June 28 2010 06:03 Xeris wrote:
c) Spawning Positions
Some of you may have noticed that in 2v2 players no longer spawn at random locations. Obviously, on a shared bases map, players are meant to spawn right next to their ally, which is perfectly fine. But on all other 2v2 maps, such as Lost Temple or Metalopolis, players are always close to their allies and far away from their opponents (for example on Lost Temple, one team always spawns at the north and west bases, whereas the other team spawns at the east and south bases). This new pattern occurs on all maps, and it limits the possible strategies that can be used in 2v2. When playing 1v1 on a map with 4 starting locations, players respond differently and use specific strategies when their opponent is located at the X, Y or Z base. This results in a different style of gameplay every time. Shouldn’t 2v2 also feature this? Why were random positions removed from 2v2 in SC2?
In SC:BW players would spawn at random starting locations. If your base was close to your ally’s base, you could use strategy A or B. If you and your ally were at cross-positions (for example, one player at north and other at south on LT), strategy C or D would be a better option. This made 2v2 more interesting to play as there were numerous strategies that could be applied for any number of circumstances. An excellent example of a 2v2 map fully utilizing this pattern is “Iron Curtain”, which was used in the Korean Pro League a few years ago. This map is split by walls and minerals into two sections, left and right, and players were either on the same side of the map with their ally, or on opposite sides with an opponent. Teams had to take into consideration many variables when playing on this map (where is my ally, what races are my opponents, what to do if the opponent on my side is race X?) and this resulted in some very interesting matches and unique strategies.
This, imo, is everything that was wrong with BW 2v2 and why they removed it. If you start too far away from your ally, the game comes down to massing low-tech units. Watch the 2v2 EU vs US game going on right now. A BW 2v2 would never reach this tech level.
Also, SC2 improves the balance since ZZ no longer beats everything and you no longer even need a zerg.
|
I was really hoping this article would contain some unique insight into SC2 2v2 instead of being just another rambling complaint. disappointed
|
Seems like DeA is just looking at the situation negatively. Yes, things have changed and certain things are no longer possible, but new things are also possible. 2v2 is still fun and competitive as the current 2v2 show match demonstrates. I disagree with this article.
|
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.
|
progamer lvl zz is unbeatable
and i also think shared ressources + unit control should be removed, their just silly commands that blizz added to the game in order to show that they actually did something
|
On June 28 2010 06:41 Tenryu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 28 2010 06:22 Chronocide wrote:
I was really hoping this article would contain some unique insight into SC2 2v2 instead of being just another rambling complaint. disappointed
Yes i feel the same, also like the Jalstar says you no longer need a zerg in the team to be "competitive", or the godly ZZ this is a really good feature IMO, now you can team with any race and be a very good combo.
|
Ok, if u guys say ZZ was imba in SC1 then so be it. But that has nothing to do with this article. This article speaks about the new features that are implemented into teamplay for SC2, Shared Resources, Shared Control and the spawning locations on the maps. Neither of these new features have anything to do with the balancing of the team matchups. The balancing of the team matchups are within the new units implemented in the SC2 itself.
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
Strange to hear from top-level player example from "a". I don't think that shared control is bad, when players has the same level.
I absolutely agree with "b" and "c". It's not wc3, where players shared around 100 gold or gas, because sharing all resourses isn't good deal.
I don't like also this turtling maps (twilight, scorched, coalition), which kills 2x2 action. Most of games ends on one battle in the center.
But 2x2 in sc2 is still funny, here is more strategies and usable units than in bw.
no longer need a zerg
Without zerg you will get much troubles, when your opponents kill one of you with proxy reapers and fast lings. 50%+ TZ make this in the ladder.
|
I think the resource sharing would be fine if they implemented a sort of "tax" like how Age of Empires II did it. In that game, for example, if you wanted if you sent 100 wood to your ally, he'd only get ~60 wood.
In that game you'd also need a marketplace to do it (which prevented resource trading at the beginning of the game because you needed the feudal era I believe to build it), and you could also research ways to lower the tax tariffs, (aka after first research, tax would be lowered from 40% to 20%, then again from 20% to 10%, and finally no tariff at all like in SC2).
I realize it'd be a little too complex for SC2 and thus a flat rate that doesn't change throughout the game and can be used whenever (well after the first 5 minutes) would be ideal. I think if you transfer 100 minerals, the ally should get around 75. 25% lost is equal to the 25% lost from constructing buildings and cancelling, seems like a good number. That way it'd only be used in desperation or to develop timing attacks, rather than one player go pure econ and another go pure army.
|
I think feeding ruins 2v2 or any team matches, feeding was what made team games boring in WC3, at 3v3 or higher it gets even more ridiculous. It's one thing to give someone extra resources to build extra mutas or to rebuild their destroyed Nexus but it completely ruins it if one player mainly gathers resources to feed the other player who is mainly massing units.
|
On June 28 2010 06:44 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Appreciate the thoughts but disagree with the analysis.
Your first point (a) is a non issue at higher levels. It will always advantageous to split up focus as much as possible in order to get as much APM as possible between the two players. On the ladder, where this may be an issue, I highly doubt that players will give over control of their units for the most part, since it wouldn't be any fun for them. Besides, the player who is good would have to be way way better than both his opponents, since he is responsible for so many more tasks.
I can see (b) being an issue, but it will at least create some interesting strategies, which you didn't acknowledge at all.
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.
|
Dea, heh, more like DegAy.
Yeah this is sort of a hatefest, but i agree with some parts. I don't like the sharing of minerals or the unit control. It's easy to stop this is tournaments though, as long as blizzard imposes something where u can see if they turn it on.
|
shared control is imo not much of an issue as the way it is implemented is pretty bad and leads to more confusion than it helps in most situations.
Shared Resources is definitely something they should consider removing though or at least impose a tax on it or something. I mean right now this 5 Minute countdown is already completely arbitrary and inconsequential, showing they know that there is some problem in the early game - and if there is a problem in the early game with it, it isn't just vanishing after 5 minutes.
|
agreed on everything, 2x2 just got soooooo much easier lets hope they wont keep it that easy
|
impose a tax..? this is sc not sim city
|
well the 5 minute thing is as arbitrary as a tax.
|
Close spawn positions for allies is an improvement. As for the other points, I don't really have an opinion.
|
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.
|
I was in a 2v2 game about to push and my teammate was like "i gave you control of my units so we can go in at the same time".. I was like uhhh i dont think thats possible dude.. lol .. It was weird hitting someone with 2 different races.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 28 2010 10:02 Zanez.smarty wrote:Show nested quote +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... 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. 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. 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.
THIS. It's a whole new game if he don't like it, fine, stick with bw and everyone is happy
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
Strategies with sharing all resourses (except for workers and cc) were made from the start of beta, especially on twilight fortress. And it's not allin strategies, it's even more safe than standart. I agree that money for tech or rebuild isn't bad idea, but giving all resourses kills teamplay in some games. I say it not because have a problem with balance or losing to such strategies, we use it too. But the game going boring, when all we do is mass probes + mass drones + mass mass mutas and lings on free minerals, the game of one player.
|
this topic turned into something sad ; (
if u all think close starting positions are a good thing go play play some north vs south, so boring
its just like cubert said, the current maps and the current options with sharing/close pos start makes 2x2 alot worse than it should be, newbs will understand this in some months also
and i really love it like some guys pop up in this thread i never saw before and talk so much bullshit
/hi smarty, i doubt u know anything about 2x2 at all : )
|
It's really exhausting to browse these forums and see endless topics and articles complaining and whining.
All I read was the conclusion. All it really says is "2v2 in sc2 sucks because of shared control, because there is more ways to communicate, and because there is no longer random spawn positions".
Now I'm not a 2v2 pro or anything, but jesus christ those arguments are fucking pathetic, and you dont really have to be a pro to realize that.
|
On June 28 2010 18:16 FortuneSyn wrote:
It's really exhausting to browse these forums and see endless topics and articles complaining and whining.
All I read was the conclusion. All it really says is "2v2 in sc2 sucks because of shared control, because there is more ways to communicate, and because there is no longer random spawn positions".
Now I'm not a 2v2 pro or anything, but jesus christ those arguments are fucking pathetic, and you dont really have to be a pro to realize that.
i think u didnt understand, this topic is not for casual gamers like you, which just cant understand where to such balance changes lead : (
|
On June 28 2010 18:19 kAra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 18:16 FortuneSyn wrote:
It's really exhausting to browse these forums and see endless topics and articles complaining and whining.
All I read was the conclusion. All it really says is "2v2 in sc2 sucks because of shared control, because there is more ways to communicate, and because there is no longer random spawn positions".
Now I'm not a 2v2 pro or anything, but jesus christ those arguments are fucking pathetic, and you dont really have to be a pro to realize that. i think u didnt understand, this topic is not for casual gamers like you, which just cant understand where to such balance changes lead : (
Nah man it doesn't take a boss to realize his points are pretty weak.
Removing random spawn positions makes it much easier for blizzard to balance 2v2.
a lot of creativity and coordination is needed to master the advantages of having shared control and shared resources. That's enough for me to suspect that he is just like those that were crying MBS sucks for nothing.
|
i see no problem with shared resources or control, they even dont let u share resources for 5 minutes to avoid abusing.
its great to me
|
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
|
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.
|
i was waiting for that question : ) im one of the few (i doubt there were more than 10 players in sc1) who got payed for playing 2x2 for over 2years, so if u dont know who i am, im really curious what ur doing in this topic with all your uber knowledge
|
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.
Hate to break it to you, but your 'theory' has been reality since... well pretty much since bw launched. 2s has always been played differently and 2 strict 1v1 players could never compete with a proper team.
What you say about shared control is very true tho - 1 player who has to play for his tp doesnt stand a chance against a skilled team, this is just simple logic.
As for spawn positions - what allowed for cross spawn positions to work in sc1 was high ground advantage. We don't have it in sc2 thus there's no real way for a zerg to solo defend against 2 toss or any other combination of races, hell with cross spawns a zerg in sc2 would have problems with defending even against 1 toss, since he wouldnt be able to expo or hold a ramp, what would be left for him is to spam roaches to no end, which basically puts him out of the game in later stages.
Without close spawns 2s wouldnt work _at all_ in SC2.
|
Hate to break it to you, but your 'theory' has been reality since... well pretty much since bw launched. 2s has always been played differently and 2 strict 1v1 players could never compete with a proper team.
What you say about shared control is very true tho - 1 player who has to play for his tp doesnt stand a chance against a skilled team, this is just simple logic.
As for spawn positions - what allowed for cross spawn positions to work in sc1 was high ground advantage. We don't have it in sc2 thus there's no real way for a zerg to solo defend against 2 toss or any other combination of races, hell with cross spawns a zerg in sc2 would have problems with defending even against 1 toss, since he wouldnt be able to expo or hold a ramp, what would be left for him is to spam roaches to no end, which basically puts him out of the game in later stages.
Without close spawns 2s wouldnt work _at all_ in SC2.
hm i dont remember ppl only defending in sc1 as zerg only because of high ground advantage... oh wait zerg just had zerglings in early/mid game so wtf ur talking about ?
|
On June 28 2010 19:05 kAra wrote:
i was waiting for that question : ) im one of the few (i doubt there were more than 10 players in sc1) who got payed for playing 2x2 for over 2years, so if u dont know who i am, im really curious what ur doing in this topic with all your uber knowledge
As I stated before, you are a nobody. I don't give much credit to a kid that spits "uber" and "noob" around in this thread to make his point. Go ahead and tell me why my arguments are invalid, or stop posting.
|
so since u agreed u know nothing about 2x2 and nothing about 2x2 in sc1 in particular, ill stop arguing with you uber n00b, dont wanna see this get closed because of kids like you when dea spent some time to point on the things which are wrong in 2x2, and u really think i would go on an argument with you when ur point of view is 00,00% value to anybody who understands 2x2 ?
|
On June 28 2010 19:13 kAra wrote:Show nested quote +
Hate to break it to you, but your 'theory' has been reality since... well pretty much since bw launched. 2s has always been played differently and 2 strict 1v1 players could never compete with a proper team.
What you say about shared control is very true tho - 1 player who has to play for his tp doesnt stand a chance against a skilled team, this is just simple logic.
As for spawn positions - what allowed for cross spawn positions to work in sc1 was high ground advantage. We don't have it in sc2 thus there's no real way for a zerg to solo defend against 2 toss or any other combination of races, hell with cross spawns a zerg in sc2 would have problems with defending even against 1 toss, since he wouldnt be able to expo or hold a ramp, what would be left for him is to spam roaches to no end, which basically puts him out of the game in later stages.
Without close spawns 2s wouldnt work _at all_ in SC2.
hm i dont remember ppl only defending in sc1 as zerg only because of high ground advantage... oh wait zerg just had zerglings in early/mid game so wtf ur talking about ?
you just answered your own question, play pure ling on a map w/o a ramp in sc2 and see how far it gets you.
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
Removing random spawn positions makes it much easier for blizzard to balance 2v2.
Are you kidding? Also much easier for balance to remove t2-t3 units.
a lot of creativity and coordination is needed to master the advantages of having shared control and shared resources.
Sharing the whole resources doesn't need any creativity and coordination.
All it really says is "2v2 in sc2 sucks because of shared control, because there is more ways to communicate, and because there is no longer random spawn positions".
2v2 in sc2 is good, but it can be much better than now.
|
mentos, "We don't have it in sc2 thus there's no real way for a zerg to solo defend against 2 toss or any other combination"
i was just saying that zerg was never in need of a choke early or midgame in sc1, because he just had lings where u had to look for a flank and not fight at a narrow point
in sc2 zerg even has roaches so he can make use of a choke and have it alot easier to defend
conclusion -> zerg has it alot easier to defend in sc2 than in sc1 thats why i dont agree at all with your "zerg cant defend early vs anything"
|
Yes man but the big difference is that lings were useful all the way through mid game even to late game. They were also useful due to their mobility and proper surround as counters. Now you have shitty surround and FF which renders lings useless.
roaches you cant spam and are countered by mara/immo/colo/tank take your pick.
Once t2 units step into play and you are cross spawned you wouldnt be able to defend against ONE toss or ONE terran. So your opponents tp contains your tp and the other one steamrolls you due to the nature of your race, which needs economy to stand a chance vs t2/t3 units.
|
im not talking about the mid game here, i was just wondering how u explained the need of close ally position because _you_ dont seem to know a good way of playing the mid game when u werent able to mass eco ( i assume u play zerg), this is also a big problem for the starters in sc1 2x2 and they found a way around it (sc2 has queen to defend 1v2, speed bonus on creep, roaches who tank all shit early game - i just cant agree that u cant defend 1v2 early as a zerg without autolosing the game, my opinion)
|
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.C9933 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)
|
France1919 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.
|
On June 29 2010 03:01 kAra wrote:
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
I think from my points, many people would know that I have a very good idea about what I am saying. You only think I don't because you are on the other end of my argument.
|
I think resource trading is fine.
I think shared control at all levels is nearly fine.
I think that shared base maps should disappear. Going back to the 2v2 Europe vs US showmatch, look what the Liquid team was able to do. TLO effectively shielded Jinro from all attacks, using the minerals from mules to just shove massive amounts of cash into a vastly superior and larger army than the US team could muster.
Why? The army never left home. Warpgate production outpaced both opponents.
On a more traditional (random spawn, no shared base) 2v2 map, that couldn't be the case. TLO would not be fed because Jinro would have had to defend his own base. Not to say that he couldn't kick a few minerals to TLO here and there, but there'd be no way that that strategy would be nearly as effective.
Great points by DeA, and wonderful contributions and insight from some SC:BW veterans like kAra.
|
On June 29 2010 02:47 cubert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Thanks for responding but you didn't show how mass muta is more effective than, say, muta/phenoix. The only cost difference is the teching that has to happen from both players, but the benefit of teching once the game progresses could easily outweigh the cost.
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
Believe me that fenix/muta can do nothing against that strategy. Fenix are good when there is 5-10 mutals, but 30+ mutas will just rape everything, you can't micro them with fenix. The big problem for 2x tech is a timing. When they reach army to leave there base it will be already gg by macro.
|
I'm pretty sure blizzard wants 2v2 to be a much more "casual" -.-' bracket. The problems with free resource trading are obvious but only matter if there is realy competitive play. If you want to play a competitive 2v2 match, do it off ladder and agree to no resource trading.
|
Do it off ladder? Pretty much ruins the whole point of ladder if its intended for more "casual" play which it seems it is  . Anyways, good to see some real 2x2 players replying a bit more.
|
On June 29 2010 04:27 cubert wrote:
Believe me that fenix/muta can do nothing against that strategy. Fenix are good when there is 5-10 mutals, but 30+ mutas will just rape everything, you can't micro them with fenix. The big problem for 2x tech is a timing. When they reach army to leave there base it will be already gg by macro.
This still doesn't make sense.
First of all, I'm not talking about phoenix/muta as a counter, I'm asking you why having mass muta is better than having phenoix and muta, the only additional cost is the 300 min for two starports.
Secondly, all it takes is someone to not be an idiot, scout you and see a spire morphing, a billion larvae, and no tech or army from the toss, and they make thors or sentry/archon or more queens and hydra and spores etc etc etc. I understand that there is a timing, but it goes both ways as far as feeding goes, and so I don't see how this is a problem unless it goes unscouted.
|
After reading this this stuff it's really hard for me to pick a side.
SC:BW has its disadvantages in 2v2 and so does SC2.
I like the idea of having shared bases so that you can defend your ally early on if hey are in trouble. I don't like how one player can tech and the other defend him. In BW if you get attacked your ally will most of the time laugh in your face or something. They usually counter-attack instead of defending you (not sure which is a better idea).
I think feeding is a really cheesy way of playing SC2.
That I am sure of.
|
Russian Federation94 Posts
It's not only 300 minerals for starport. Gas is most important here. You can count how much gas you spend for tech and upgrades. And you are as protoss can't make good counter units to muta on this gas.
We use it only for PZ vs PZ, so no thors. Phoenix/muta or archons just doesn't counter mass muta from 8 gases. Phoenixes can counter muta in 1x1 because of micro, mutas don't attack them. You won't be able to micro against mutas from 8+ gases and don't have a chance to win the battle. With archons, hydras and etc you will sit on your base too. Photons and spores are nothing against mass mutas. You will just lose your main and natural and won't kill your opponents. We have played much games with this bo on the top euro 2x2 ladder and nobody were even close to win with another strategy. We have some ideas how to counter that, but not sure it will work. For now this strategy is almost unbeatable.
|
On June 29 2010 07:30 DanielD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 04:27 cubert wrote:
Believe me that fenix/muta can do nothing against that strategy. Fenix are good when there is 5-10 mutals, but 30+ mutas will just rape everything, you can't micro them with fenix. The big problem for 2x tech is a timing. When they reach army to leave there base it will be already gg by macro. This still doesn't make sense. First of all, I'm not talking about phoenix/muta as a counter, I'm asking you why having mass muta is better than having phenoix and muta, the only additional cost is the 300 min for two starports. Secondly, all it takes is someone to not be an idiot, scout you and see a spire morphing, a billion larvae, and no tech or army from the toss, and they make thors or sentry/archon or more queens and hydra and spores etc etc etc. I understand that there is a timing, but it goes both ways as far as feeding goes, and so I don't see how this is a problem unless it goes unscouted.
As cubert said, Phoenix's are only really viable as a counter in small numbers where you can utilize the move-fire micro mechanic , if you have 30 phoenix vs 30 muta, try microing all of those units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
