EPT2v2 and why it isn't Cheese - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kyrao
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
laLAlA[uC]
Canada963 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:05 T0fuuu wrote: I love 2v2 but i hate playing teams that pool resources. IMO it borderline breaks the game because scouting is already difficult enough in the matchup. has anyone figured out what a are good tells that someone is feeding and how are you supposed to prepare for things like mass mutalisk with gas pooled on the player even if it does get scouted? That build easier to counter than you think. It'll be obvious since the (assuming its TZ vs TZ, the most common match up I see) Terran on the opposing side will be very marine heavy while still having both his gas. He'll make mass bunkers and marines and both will be 1 base. Pretty obvious. To counter it, just get units that hard counter mutas. Just tech something like Fungal + MM or Thor. And bam. You fungal all 30 of his mutas and rape them in the 4 seconds that fungal lasts. Congrats. You won the game. Thank you for this write up by the way. I play mostly 2v2's and I'm disgusted by the amount of mis-conception about 2v2 there is. Another thing is that people say 2v2 takes no skill and that people play it because they suck at 1v1. Not true. Many 2v2 players are mid/high masters players 1v1. On May 05 2011 13:49 L3gendary wrote: Fact is 2v2's encourage aggression rather than defensive play, and mostly end at the early stages of the game that is the least predictable and gives the least opportunity for scouting. The simple reason for this is because 2 attackers can attack 1 defender. This makes static defense half as good. This encourages building (attacking) units instead of static defense. So there's no real reason not to attack. Also, preparing defenses for 2 races or 2 different unit compositions (and the different timing attacks that they have) is impossible for 1 player. It's not impossible. Plus you're talking like it'll be a 2v1 the whole game. Why doesn't your ally just come over and help? Static defence is much more cost efficient. So yes, while you do get 2v1'd, for a bit, your static defence helps you thin their numbers and stay alive while your ally comes over. | ||
|
Jacuzzi
United States528 Posts
Team games really should be treated like a whole different game than SC2 1v1, and if more people realize this then we'll see less QQing on ladder and more good games. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
lol Micro and Unit control is one of your key points...dude no shit. im sorry but micro and unit control is important in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, ffa, 4v4, bgh, aiur chef, etc. Common sense sir. | ||
|
SlimeBagly
356 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:49 L3gendary wrote: And macro is practically non-existent when the maps don't let you take more than 2 expansions. This is the key- surviving the early "cheese" or "kind of cheese" or "would be cheese if it were 1v1" is something that takes a while to learn but is doable. But so few maps have defendable 3rds, which really cripples the strategic options. The most boring games are the 4 base vs 4 base games that just end up as 30 minute faceoffs. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
he spent liek the entire time saying it wasn't cheese. well duh. 2v2 is completely different from 1v1.....the complementary untis and the differen timings.... truth is 2v2 hasn't realy evolved. there's no money/impetus to do it. | ||
|
laLAlA[uC]
Canada963 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:12 Golgotha wrote: okay i play 2v2 a lot (in masters <-doesnt mean shit but shows that i play) and your stats are dubious and just plain wrong. where you getting 95 percent? where you getting 85 percent? dont just throw around numbers, back them up. in most of my 2v2s the games are based around 1 base all ins with the incorporation of allies. my partner and i won 30 games straight by doing all in builds (6 pool, DT rush, 4 gate, all types of proxies), so i don't understand how you are saying that cheese fails 85 percent of the time. lol Micro and Unit control is one of your key points...dude no shit. im sorry but micro and unit control is important in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, ffa, 4v4, bgh, aiur chef, etc. Common sense sir. He's referring to high levels of play. Do that to anyone in the top 100 and you'll lose guaranteed. Remember when cloaked banshee would be an auto win no matter what league you are? Then it started getting easier to defend at high levels, and then lower levels started learning to defend it? Same shit man. Once people play against it enough and figure out a counter, it becomes easy to stop. | ||
|
Andtwo
United States126 Posts
Those teams make me sick, but we won because of our macro econ advantage. And because we micro'd. All principles I can finally see coming to TL in great posts like the OP here. And really following these principles got us into masters league in 2v2, which means a lot. Really. | ||
|
Apokilipse
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
I mean, pro level 2s in SC2 might actually be pretty fun to watch (like BW and WC3 ones were, at first). It's just that they would probably be a really bad judge of actual player skill, and that's why people are prone to saying it's all just 'cheese'. Some of your points are valid (not the static defense ones though...), but really I don't think most of the griping over 2v2 is as simple as you paint it. | ||
|
Luoson
New Zealand153 Posts
| ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
This is how I see 2v2. Usually the game ends in like 7 minutes, eihther by one side compleatly killing other, or by one side getting HUGE economic lead. This is because early game scouting is equally as hard as in 1v1 in early game, but five times as important. Reasoning being that in 1v1 you can go upramp and easily defend the chocke with less units, which is much harder in 2v2 since if you go upramp the enemies just can choose to attack the other player and helping him is very hard since then you need to go down ramp giving the enemies the chocke point advantage. My point is 2v2 is like a coinflip, if you guess at which army comp and which size and at which time enemy is coming, you win, if you guess incorecltly you loose, by dying or by being hard contained. Ofcourse none of my points apply to shared base maps, but I still find them equally as rediculous since on those maps its usually almost impossible to get a 4th base to your team. | ||
|
Xolo
Canada107 Posts
 Why would they remove the best map, but keep in maps like High Orbit and Discord IV? | ||
|
ProTech
United States439 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:58 Sea_Food wrote: Hi 600 master in random 2v2 here. I compleatly disagree with the OP. This is how I see 2v2. Usually the game ends in like 7 minutes, eihther by one side compleatly killing other, or by one side getting HUGE economic lead. This is because early game scouting is equally as hard as in 1v1 in early game, but five times as important. Reasoning being that in 1v1 you can go upramp and easily defend the chocke with less units, which is much harder in 2v2 since if you go upramp the enemies just can choose to attack the other player and helping him is very hard since then you need to go down ramp giving the enemies the chocke point advantage. My point is 2v2 is like a coinflip, if you guess at which army comp and which size and at which time enemy is coming, you win, if you guess incorecltly you loose, by dying or by being hard contained. Ofcourse none of my points apply to shared base maps, but I still find them equally as rediculous since on those maps its usually almost impossible to get a 4th base to your team. there are solid build orders to negate what you are saying. | ||
|
BigJoe
United States210 Posts
| ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On May 05 2011 20:38 BigJoe wrote: Nice post, if you watch Day[9]'s 2v2 week he explains it really nicely as well. 2v2 is a whole different ball game than 1v1. I stopped playing it though because of the amount of peopling QQing about cheese when it was just 4rax play. I agree. Personally I don't think cheese can be *explained to everyone (that is - most people will call anything cheese regardless if there are BOs or anything in general to prevent the so called "cheese" without scouting.) but just the negative connotation be lessened. Things like cheese or all ins are part of the game and it's up to Blizzard to fix those things (or not depending if it's actually somewhat balanced). *Well I guess cheese can be explained to a decent amount of people if David Kim made an front page post on battle.net defining it and provided videos of cheesing and not cheesing... with David Kim! Regardless though I don't think cheese should get all this negativity since it is a part of the game and it adds variety to the game. Speaking of your experience - I think their should be an option for players to play anonymously (their name won't be revealed and in the score screen you can't go into the account to check who they are) + have chat disabled (the anon player will not hear any messages from the opposing player + they won't be able to type or chat anything either.). Of course the whole chat message not revealing thing should only apply to messages between you and your opponent (allies will still see your chat) in case it's not 1v1. That'd make playing with other people more tolerable. I know a lot of people can ignore it or are fine with whatever the other player is saying but I'm not a fan. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:49 L3gendary wrote: It still doesn't take any more skill than executing the same builds in 1v1. 10 pool, 4 gate etc are just as easy to do regardless of if you call it cheese or standard play. The argument of what is cheese and what isn't is irrelevant. And macro is practically non-existent when the maps don't let you take more than 2 expansions. The only thing I agree with is the teamwork, which is important. Fact is 2v2's encourage aggression rather than defensive play, and mostly end at the early stages of the game that is the least predictable and gives the least opportunity for scouting. The simple reason for this is because 2 attackers can attack 1 defender. This makes static defense half as good. This encourages building (attacking) units instead of static defense. So there's no real reason not to attack. Also, preparing defenses for 2 races or 2 different unit compositions (and the different timing attacks that they have) is impossible for 1 player. But macro play ISN'T non-existent (as mentioned in the OP) Remember for one, each player taking only ONE expansion basically allows ultra-high-econ 4-base plays. Thing is, you need some kind of "aggressive" opening (even if you're just opening units to defend) in order to NOT DIE (/not let your teammate die) which is entirely different from the kinds of openings you get away with in a 1v1. It's fine that you never get to nexus first in 2v2, that's just not how the game / timings work. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:27 Nicholai wrote: The OP's point is that 4gate with mass ling pressure isn't all-in for 2v2. This is because unless the opponents have to cut their own economy to hold it off. It can't be held off with "standard" 1v1 style play. The reason "standard" 1v1 play is so much more macro heavy is that at the start of a game all your eggs are in one basket; in 2v2 you have 2 baskets, so splitting the enemy's forces through early pressure is very potent. So if you 4gate with mass ling and they are going for any kind of tech play, you've just won. If they don't, and the early pressure builds come out as a draw (assuming good execution from both teams) you get a macro game. At the higher levels of play this happens fairly often - which is the OP's main point. edit: I see that you redacted your post. Good move lol. There's still cheese in 2v2. The thing is the OP takes the 1v1 standards of cheese, says they don't apply to 2v2, and then concludes there is no cheese in 2v2. Everything is right except for the last part. Yes, regular 1v1 all ins like 4 gate, 3 rax stim rush, 2 rax marines, mass speedling off ~20 drones, 3 rax hellion / zergling, etc are not all-in in a 2v2 game like they are in a 1v1. That parts obvious because the dynamics are a little different. However, there's still 2v2 builds that are all ins and have no viable transition points. Dual proxy 2 gating, double 6 rax, 6 pool / 10 pool, etc will leave you significantly behind with no "next step" where you can remain even if they don't do a lot of damage or outright kill your opponent. The standards are different and a majority of the all-in stuff we see in 1v1 is quite standard in 2v2, but that's not say there aren't all in builds in 2v2. | ||
|
zende
Sweden234 Posts
Why is that? It's because you think so, right? | ||
|
Mwentworth56
146 Posts
| ||
| ||
