|
On May 06 2011 05:49 Neo.NEt wrote:
It's funny how toss is "underpowered" in 2v2 because they can't reinforce quickly until warpgate is done....which is before the 6 minute mark when you chronoboost it as crazily as a 2v2 player would. A race that can warp units anywhere on the map has trouble reinforcing... 2v2 must be pretty crazy.
Yet I'm in masters in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and I've never made a pool before 14 so unless you are actually in the top 100 you really have no reason to cry that it's all cheese anyway.
replays?
I find this hard to believe unless of course you don't play Zerg.
how can you hold off a hellion ling rush with a build that slow?
|
On May 05 2011 20:32 ProTech wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Please tell me some build orders that negate any possible cheese that 2 players can do together. I don't see how it is even remotely possible.
|
On May 06 2011 06:03 Gudeldar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 20:32 ProTech wrote: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. Please tell me some build orders that negate any possible cheese that 2 players can do together. I don't see how it is even remotely possible.
if both of you get an extra couple of workers than the enemies, and defend the aggression, you'll come out ahead
the line of whats cheesing and whats required to defend a standard push, and the definition of said standard push differs from 1v1 such that either persons strategy in 1v1 would be cheesy more likely than not
|
Perhaps 2v2s just operate on a "lower economy" and therefore it isn't "cheese". Seeing as you can redefine terms however you want, nothing is cheese.
2v2 is a shitty game from a spectator prospective. Maybe that's a better way to approach this as opposed to redefining cheese.
|
In team games, there are 2 kinds of stages early and late game! no mid-game and we all hate early games and when one team gets rape by one big engagement
|
On May 06 2011 05:57 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 05:49 Neo.NEt wrote:
It's funny how toss is "underpowered" in 2v2 because they can't reinforce quickly until warpgate is done....which is before the 6 minute mark when you chronoboost it as crazily as a 2v2 player would. A race that can warp units anywhere on the map has trouble reinforcing... 2v2 must be pretty crazy.
Yet I'm in masters in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and I've never made a pool before 14 so unless you are actually in the top 100 you really have no reason to cry that it's all cheese anyway. replays? I find this hard to believe unless of course you don't play Zerg. how can you hold off a hellion ling rush with a build that slow?
I'm at work so I don't have any replays at the tips of my fingers but it shouldn't be very hard to believe. From what I've seen whatever league you are in for a team game, go down one league, and that is your 1v1 skill level (obviously doesn't count for people in masters 1v1). That being said, most of the people I play in masters 2v2 are not masters 1v1 players (which I am, but not by much) so I can usually just beat them once the game goes past the cheesy part. Once you get to 4v4... some of those guys would be lucky to hit plat in 1v1.
I thumbs down the maps where I'm far from my teammate and hope they don't cheese. If they don't cheese, I usually win. If they do, I don't ALWAYS die but more often than not they don't cheese.
|
On May 06 2011 06:16 Offhand wrote:
Perhaps 2v2s just operate on a "lower economy" and therefore it isn't "cheese". Seeing as you can redefine terms however you want, nothing is cheese.
2v2 is a shitty game from a spectator prospective. Maybe that's a better way to approach this as opposed to redefining cheese.
If you put the high level players in 2v2 against each other, I guarantee people will enjoy watching it. It won't be a 6 minute game because everybody knows how to defend against the early aggression and transition into a macro game.
|
cheese is just a word, and if we were to just call it standard 2v2 strategy to pull off very fast, very effective rushes in the majority of games, then the weaknesses of the gametype would still stand out.
|
On May 06 2011 07:56 taintmachine wrote:
cheese is just a word, and if we were to just call it standard 2v2 strategy to pull off very fast, very effective rushes in the majority of games, then the weaknesses of the gametype would still stand out.
I would disagree. I'd love to see a 2v2 league. I think the biggest problem with everyone crying cheeze is because there's no good 2v2 discussion areas, like to discuss strategies to try etc.. I've only been playing seriously for the past few weeks, but I haven't stumbled across any good threads (other than this one) or sites that promote 2v2.
If you haven't watch the day9 week of 2v2's, i'd suggest everyone that cries cheese, to watch them, very enlightning.
|
On May 06 2011 06:03 Gudeldar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 20:32 ProTech wrote: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. Please tell me some build orders that negate any possible cheese that 2 players can do together. I don't see how it is even remotely possible.
Apparently it is if Protech says so.
My preferred safe build (i'm not that good in 2s) is getting a quick 2nd gate after zealot and before core finishes. Then chrono'ing a lot of stalkers. Then either go for 2 more gates if they're pressuring or go straight for blink if not.
|
if there were a build order that negated any possible cheese some part of that build over would be completely overpowered.
the only reason anybody hates cheese is the same reason idra hates everything.
because if it's not what i am used to, expect, or define as "standard" i am somehow offended by it.
Reference day9 daily 233.
|
On May 06 2011 01:50 infinity2k9 wrote:
I just read some more of the posts and i'm surprised about people even talking about macro and every player taking expansions. If this happens it's not an optimal game. How can you have any breathing room to take an expansion if your ally can just be 2v1'd and die? It's always optimal to build attacking units. If they expand, then just kill one of them. There's not enough defenders advantage to ever safely expand unless you're way ahead already, it's just the same as BW in this regard (if not worse because of things like no uphill advantage).
Uhm, I don't know where to start. Maybe by saying, no? 2v2 is really complex, more so than most people actually give it credit for. It's kind of sad, it happens all the time, and people continuously whine about cheese and all this shit. Yes, like many before have pointed out, 2v2 is centered around a lot of early aggression. However, a lot of mediocre or less skilled players tend to push these early aggressions into all-in scenarios, that is, builds/strategies with no mid-game plan in mind, with the hope to kill or be killed in one big early push. Standard 1v1 builds or even synergies of 1v1 builds are not necessarily what you are looking for to come out on top against such builds.
Back to your post, you'r saying that you never have the room to expand, because your ally will be killed 1v2. Well, on some maps, and against some builds, this can be a fair assumption, but 2v2 is a bit more complex than to assume that every build, every race combo and such is equal on all maps against every kind of build you'r facing. No!
First of all, not all maps separate you like gutterhulk (T_T), so expanding and defending aggression is definately possible. You can't just build units and hope for the best, but if you scout properly and make good assumptions with a lot of practice (!), have a solid build/plan in mind, maybe even cut some workers, then you could put down that expansion and stay alive. In some cases, you defend, and congrats you'r ahead, every now and then you lose your army in addition to some workers, so you might end up being about equal, and in some cases you might lose. It depends on a lot of factors.
As for my own team, we almost always do hatch before pool (PZ) if we scout our opponents doing a zerg opening with a late gas/pool (anything later than overpool/gas after pool later than 10). We have adjusted our scouting patterns, gateway and chrono timings and other neat details to allow for this to be a safe way for us to pressure the game into macro-mode. Our opponents may then choose to take an aggressive stance, but if they overcommit, they will most likely lose. If they pressure-expand, well, then we've succeeded in bringing the game past the "cheese-fest" everyone is crying about. Using a lot of time on thinking, testing and playing out your strategies is actually required in becoming a solid 2v2 team, just like in 1v1. Things are different, but a lot of the same skill sets still apply, especially when you get to 4-base-play and above.
On May 06 2011 05:49 Neo.NEt wrote:
It's funny how toss is "underpowered" in 2v2 because they can't reinforce quickly until warpgate is done....which is before the 6 minute mark when you chronoboost it as crazily as a 2v2 player would. A race that can warp units anywhere on the map has trouble reinforcing... 2v2 must be pretty crazy.
Yet I'm in masters in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and I've never made a pool before 14 so unless you are actually in the top 100 you really have no reason to cry that it's all cheese anyway.
It's not that simple to be honest. Even though protoss has the option of warping in units wherever you may find Pylo the pylon, this doesn't mean that the army is mobile or that you will ever be allowed to put down pylons out on the map, due to your opponents' investment in more map control than you. Having 4 gate ready at the 6 minute mark, when you are completely rofl-stomped by a 10 pool, gas-before-rax reactor-hellion (varying somewhat, but general timing about 4:50 if I recall correctly) isn't going to benefit your overall winning chances too much.
I have to agree that the protoss early game is really difficult in 2v2 and as someone pointed out, this can clearly be shown in both RT and AT at high level 2v2s. First of all, the problem is that you have to build your structures correctly, or you might get forced to pull probes to defend, which in turn forces you into an disadvantageous eco/tech-position for a possible mid game. Secondly, you need to respond correctly to what you scout. Many tosses just do somewhat blind strategies, and are happy if they win and confused and angry if they lose. But the fact is that some opponent builds allow you to go for a safe 4 gate-build, and some kind of forces you to get units faster (A viable PZ response to hellion-ling would be to chrono stalkers beyond the second chrono/third chrono, get warpgate slowly, but focus on getting 2 gate stalkers, adding third and potentially fourth if you scout a very commiting ling/hellion build). Third, it's really hard to meet up with your ally on some maps, like gutterhulk, again, wtf map makers. Seriously! Enormous back door rocks and a crazy distance between the bases. I am going to admit that I actually dedcided to veto that map today. Generally, I want to practice all maps so I can be prepared against anything in tourneys, but as it isn't used in any 2v2 tourneys (as far as I know), I see no point in practicing this ridiculous map any more. Fourth, micro as a protoss is REALLY intensive when games go into either all-in defense or early aggression vs early aggresion mode. This is of course a cool aspect which I enjoy a lot, but I don't know if there's as much pressure on microing for zerg or terran armies (might be wrong here as I have little first hand experience with the other two races, but just analyzing it a bit, it feels a lot harder). Stalkers are usually the key unit for protoss players (talking generally about the PZ team here, but I guess it applies a lot to other combos) and the stalker AI isn't that great. If you have 10 stalkers in your control group and you a-move or snipe one unit, yes, they all fire at that same target, even if it requires 5 shots to kill it. If you are up against ling/bling/rauders, well, huzzah for the new aim practice maps, for you are up for some baneling sniping my friend. If you snipe them and get too static in your movements, some will quickly remove your shields, leaving you really vulnerable to other units like marauders or other stalkers, or if you are unable (!) to snipe them, your ally might lose his entire ling army before he's able to shout popsicle. With stalkers you have to run around in weird circles to snipe opponent stalkers, avoiding lings, letting your ally try to move-command banes into the opponent, and so on. It's really demanding. And at the same time, you have propably put yourself into the "hardest way to macro mode" as well, that is, warpgates demand at least 3-4 seconds of your attention every 20-30 game sec so you can maintain a steady unit production. If you mismicro, you may lose. If you slip your macro, you may lose. It's hard and I guess this might be why some consider protoss to be underpowered.
Played correctly: pretty strong
Played incorrectly: weak
|
On May 06 2011 06:03 Gudeldar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 20:32 ProTech wrote: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. Please tell me some build orders that negate any possible cheese that 2 players can do together. I don't see how it is even remotely possible.
Anything that involves cannons/bunkers/spine crawlers can hold off 2 people for a while.
|
very nice read, thanks for this.
for the macro games, how often are you seeing yourself on 3 or more bases? and how far up in tech do you go? (i.e. get BCs vs. mass MM with ups)
|
On May 06 2011 05:49 Neo.NEt wrote:
It's funny how toss is "underpowered" in 2v2 because they can't reinforce quickly until warpgate is done....which is before the 6 minute mark when you chronoboost it as crazily as a 2v2 player would. A race that can warp units anywhere on the map has trouble reinforcing... 2v2 must be pretty crazy.
Yet I'm in masters in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 and I've never made a pool before 14 so unless you are actually in the top 100 you really have no reason to cry that it's all cheese anyway.
It's because toss can't get away with making ONE ZEALOT ONE STALKER and be all peachy staying alive until his warpgate finishes. 2 person aggression of basically ANY combination of units will crush that, and its generally hard for the toss to leave his base to join his tiny army with his ally, because zealots suck on open ground against lings or marines or hellions or whatever until they have stalkers backing them up, and they need their one zealot to wall off.
|
On May 05 2011 13:05 GlocKomA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 12:54 Argolis wrote:
it's still cheese bro
User was warned for this post Real constructive. Ontop: OP is right, 2v2 game is completely different from 1v1. You need to open with a early pressure/"Cheese" build to stay alive and transition.
What if both teams don't go for cheese and just open up like a normal macro game to begin with? Why is it that cheese has to happen? Because you die if you don't. Yes, I know, that is the answer. It's unfortunate though and that is why team games are sort of ridiculous. Cheesing is necessary, yet cheesing sucks, straight up.
|
I wish everyone that played 2's was sat down and force fed this  I'm tired of playing and having building floaters saying I'm playing cheesy (10 pool for map control!).
Very good read, many thanks ^_^
|
its hard for me to read these type of threads, specifically where "cheese" and "all-in" are misused so much.
as OP pointed out, 4gate, 10pool, 3rax and whatnot are not cheese/all-in in 2v2 or 1v1 or 3v3 or 4v4.
yet comments left behind doesn't seem to understand that .
all-in is all-in, where there is no way out after its executed, usually by bringing all your workers, spending every last mineral on army instead of CC/Nexus/Hatch, and predetermined strategy (if this doesn't work, its gg)
i blame tastosis on this, they call anything suspicious cheese or all in. /facepalm
as for op, standard 1v1 strategies will not work in 2v2. its just a different game and i think OP put that into perspective very well. however macro is very important. if somehow game lasts long enough to mine out the main and expo, the players with better macro will win.
|
On May 07 2011 04:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
What if both teams don't go for cheese and just open up like a normal macro game to begin with? Why is it that cheese has to happen? Because you die if you don't. Yes, I know, that is the answer. It's unfortunate though and that is why team games are sort of ridiculous. Cheesing is necessary, yet cheesing sucks, straight up.
Early aggression and establishing map control =/= cheese. Just like in 1v1 you put on early pressure for a number of reasons. It's about feeling out your opponents, scouting their builds, forcing them to react to you and dictating the pace of the game. If it actually wins you the game, it's because your opponent did not properly react to it. They do have defender's advantage, afterall.
I'm not particularly high in masters myself but I watch ProTech's stream a lot. In the lower leagues, most teams have neither a followup to their early game "cheese" as you would put it--it's practically an all-in for them because they lose when it fails--nor do they have an understanding of how to stop every instance of it. There is a very steep learning curve but at the highest tiers, your opponents know how to both deal with and execute early aggression so you need a solid macro game to transition into. Key word is transition. The afforementioned importance of early aggression stands.
|
On May 07 2011 04:25 CheezDip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 04:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
What if both teams don't go for cheese and just open up like a normal macro game to begin with? Why is it that cheese has to happen? Because you die if you don't. Yes, I know, that is the answer. It's unfortunate though and that is why team games are sort of ridiculous. Cheesing is necessary, yet cheesing sucks, straight up. Early aggression and establishing map control =/= cheese. Just like in 1v1 you put on early pressure for a number of reasons. It's about feeling out your opponents, scouting their builds, forcing them to react to you and dictating the pace of the game. If it actually wins you the game, it's because your opponent did not properly react to it. They do have defender's advantage, afterall. I'm not particularly high in masters myself but I watch ProTech's stream a lot. In the lower leagues, most teams have neither a followup to their early game "cheese" as you would put it--it's practically an all-in for them because they lose when it fails--nor do they have an understanding of how to stop every instance of it. There is a very steep learning curve but at the highest tiers, your opponents know how to both deal with and execute early aggression so you need a solid macro game to transition into. Key word is transition. The afforementioned importance of early aggression stands.
Yep, transition is huge. This is where solo players should be strong at. Once they figure out how to survive the early game and transition into late game, that same solo mentality with macro and late game decision making can kick into effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
