|
Introduction
I've been playing team games since the beta, and I believe all this hate on cheese is because people haven't played enough 2v2s to understand the mechanics. For people who play both 1v1 and 2v2 recognize that 2v2 is just another build order. I'm going to explain why 95% of 2v2s are not cheese.
(Images in this thread are linked if they do not completely show up just click on the image)
Exactly what is cheese?
I've heard numerous definitions of cheese. People consider cheese something that is easy to beat when scouted and difficult to beat when not scouted. I'll go through some examples about what is cheese/all-in and what isn't.
- Any pool between 6-8 is cheese. You are skipping gas and you need to damage or you will be far behind.
- Any Proxy that involves you moving your worker outside your base before you have 12 supply with the intention of doing damage.
![[image loading]](http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9972/55039482.png)
Hurr!
- Any attack that involves bringing over 95% (some exaggeration) of your workers into battle outside of your base. (not applicable if you somehow chased and army outside of your base after pulling workers)
Believe it or not, those are the only three conditions that apply to cheese. Here are some examples that people think are cheese:
- 10pool, which most lower level players recognize as a 6 pool even though the lings have speed and continual waves are coming.
- Hellion Ling, This strategy is now actually pretty old. People are learning how to defend against it. Zergs know that they can hold off a 10pool with a spine crawler then teching straight to roaches (and getting them before the hellions show up)
- 4 gate, the most common build protoss uses in 2v2s. It helps them stay alive, and gives them the ability to generate aggression.
None of these builds are designed to kill. 10pool gives map control, allowing the terran to get hellions out or a protoss to 4gate without building any units, which is essentially sacrificing economy in order to buy time. This brings me to the teamwork factor.
The Teamwork Factor
Teamwork and communication is huge at upper levels of AT and even RT. The first part is knowing what your ally is doing and being able to assist in helping him or her do it. For example, Hellion Ling required the zerg to build lings early so the terran can build a barracks, reactor, and factory without building a single marine first.
Helping your ally wall off, sharing resources, sharing control are all part of teamwork. When your ally is dead that doesn't mean he can't control your units. This is a big thing. You can macro while a single banshee, dark templars, drops, zerglings are being perfectly micro'd around the map, doing guaranteed damage.
When someone thinks they have been cheesed, a lot of the time it is because they are getting 2v1'd. This is usually when someone suffers from an early push involving marines, zealots, or zerglings. As a player begins to play more 2v2s, the player learns that they can defend against these rushes 1v2. Photon cannons, bunkers, cutting probes to chrono out a zealot or stalker, early spine crawler always assist in holding for a little while. (Eventually if the opponents mass up and then you get 2v1'd, you can blame your ally for not helping.)
Spells/Combos
Everyone knows what happens when you combine two races together or even the same race. You can get to one point faster. Terran can get both stim and medivacs at the same time if both players choose to tech a different direction, Protoss can get both voids and colossus, zerg can get hydralisks and roaches.
![[image loading]](http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7995/69893872.png)
Those marines would've never been able to hit those speedy mutas without that fungal.
Macro Games
Believe it or not, macro games are a huge factor in 2v2s. You see those people on the top 100 of 2v2 with high win rates? (keke) That's macro talking. Without macro, you cannot deal with people who can defend against your so called "all-ins" or "cheeses". About 80% of my games move into macro games. Either the opponents defend our early rush or we defend theirs, both teams are forced into a macro scenario. Mass is a huge part of starcraft 2. Having a bigger army is a good thing.
![[image loading]](http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3010/94700366.png)
Would you believe this game started with 6 pools?
I guarantee you that people who are doing the exact same thing every game (Examples include double 6 pools, korean 5 gate speedling, double zealot proxy, etc.) are not winning 85% of their games. This is because the strategy they are doing is not stable. That is because you find stability when you can have a safe opening and still be able to transition into a macro game without dying.
Being able to keep yourself from being supply blocked, everything that you see in those long 1v1 games all apply to 2v2. If you want to stay ahead and win most of your games, you need to learn how to macro and not just how to execute early aggression.
Micro and unit control
Micro is huge in team games. Keeping your units alive and getting the most value out of them is crucial. Believe it or not, a 2 rax opener can hold a 2 gate proxy easily. Some marine kiting and maybe a few SCVs pulled will be enough to keep you alive. Micro keeps you alive against unscouted early aggression and helps you get the most out of your units.
Micro in larger battles is crucial too. Fungal growths, forcefields, EMPs all apply. Focus firing down a baneling could save all your partner's lings.
![[image loading]](http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3226/12745767.png) Trapped!
The only way to practice micro is to micro. You have to make the most out of your units. This isn't cheese acting against you, it's just in-game mechanics.
Conclusion
The only way to get past all the cheese is to experience it firsthand. Then you start to realize you can actually defend against it even if two players are at your door trying to baneling bust it down. You should realize this isn't solo, you can cut workers in order to stay alive. (I am 100% certain it is beneficial to stay alive) You have to play in order to get good. That is just what practice is. Complaining isn't going to get you anywhere, and you know it.
Resources
http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/all/master/2
Sc2ranks has a great replay system, go click on anyone in the top 100 of 2v2 and I guarantee you they have games posted with openings that you can experiment with.
http://justin.tv/hackprotech
#1 RT and AT. You know you can learn from someone when they play against Arranged Teams while playing RT and still manage to win some games without a coordinated plan with ally.
http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/deltamal
Player that picks protoss in team games. (which is kind of a big deal, I would consider protoss "underpowered" because you pretty much can't reinforce forces quickly until warpgates are done. (unless you proxied)).
http://www.youtube.com/iriestarcraft
The only commentator on youtube that does competitive team games. Its actually harder to cast team games, especially when the game stretches out and multiple attacks are happening at once.
Not many people stream 2v2 -_-;;
|
it's still cheese bro
User was warned for this post
|
On May 05 2011 12:54 Argolis wrote:
it's still cheese bro
Did you even read what he said.
It's obviously a different game, he's just telling people to prepare to early aggression and to stop complaining, which they should do.
|
So if i bring 94% of my probes it's not cheese right?
Good to know, thanks, I'll use this in EG's league with 2v2s and make sure to tell my opponents it's not cheese cause I didn't bring over 95% of my probes
|
I have to agree with all these points. Occasionally you get cheesed in 2v2 but most of the time it is more of an "early aggression" which feels like cheese because you simply are not prepared
|
Well said,
Conclusion The only way to get past all the cheese is to experience it firsthand. Then you start to realize you can actually defend against it even if two players are at your door trying to baneling bust it down. You should realize this isn't solo, you can cut workers in order to stay alive. (I am 100% certain it is beneficial to stay alive) You have to play in order to get good. That is just what practice is. Complaining isn't going to get you anywhere, and you know it.
This is particular is very true and IMO by far the most important part of the article
|
too many people have no idea how different 2v2 from 1v1 is and therefor they dont know what the difference of 1v1 / 2v2 cheese is. what people consider cheese in 1v1 might be cheese in 1v1 but not in 2v2 -
|
Very good writeup. Im no too sure why it matters if something is considered cheese or not, but you did a great job of summing it up.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Well, it's not a "cheese" in the 1v1 sense
Like 6 pooling is still a cheese-like play, but in team games, it's considered "standard"
(I hope that made sense, I'm not trying to troll)
|
These are all very interesting points, esp. after 2v2 week. Although I must say I still feel double six pool is not ok in any regards.
My favorite aspect of 2v2 is one of the points you mentioned above, which is the teamwork factor. It becomes really easy to tech to ultras when my protoss buddy is defensive 6 gating because I am dumping to him until we acquire the greatest deathball of all time: Stalker ultra collossus void brood and some chargelots for good measure.
IMO 2v2 can have the most entertaining games to say the least
|
|
|
Thanks for the arbitrary definition of cheese, fatty.
|
People pretty much don't understand the difference between 2v2 and 1v1 and claim 2v2 is inferior because it's "just cheese".
2v2 is much more aggressively focused than 1v1, and it should be obvious when you realize 12-pool is a "relatively economic" build rather than an aggressive build >.<
|
As me and my brother figured out after playing like 10 team games, you can't do eco oriented play in 2s. You will most likely always lose if the other team went for an aggressive style build and has a double digit iq. 2s can be epic long games (30-40 minute 4-5 base twilight fortress games anyone?) but they almost always start out as 1 base aggression vs other 1 base aggression. Once you learn that, 2s are actually really fun.
|
Good thread
Recently I've been playing a bit of 2v2 and having a blast. 2v2 in SC2 is more fun as a zerg than it was in BW since you have a lot more early options than just mass speedling into muta; being able to share resources and control is also a huge plus. Figuring out the best openers with your partner in the 6 or 7 different match-ups is great fun. I recommend everyone to give it a serious chance, just don't get mad when you lose, it's easy to lose if you and your partner don't have a solid game-plan yet.
|
This thread seems a little ridiculous. OP seems to be arguing semantics... Cheese to most players is any "all-in" build. At least that's what it is to me. Again semantics so arguing against MY definition of cheese makes no sense... If you all-in i.e. 4gate with mass ling pressure (No drones and no tech path for toss), to me that's cheese.
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.
|
Absolutely perfect analysis of the team play.
|
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.
|
I agree with the OP, 2v2 and 1v1 need to be considered as separate games. I've just started to get into team games recently, and although the first few games were a bit rocky, I'm starting to get the hang of them and I'm really enjoying myself - you just gotta allow some time to transition from the 1v1 mindset.
|
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.
|
I love when I proxy gate some guy in 2v2 or 3v3 and I get rage messages from him after the game saying "NICE CHEESE FAGGOT" when in reality it's just a better opening than his greedy hatch first/1-1-1/2 gate robo build. Honestly if I played zerg I would open 10 pool every game and if I was terran I'd go 2 rax marines every game.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
didn't day9 do a whole daily on this very topic?
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.
|
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.
|
I know what you mean, but really cheese is rampant. Today it was a ZZvZZ and i told my partner we weren't cheesing, so we both 7 pooled (because I disagree with you--any build where you make a drone means you're investing in economy and therefore not cheesing), and the other ZZ team rushed us with all their drones but 1 and as many lings as they could make.
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.
|
Very interesting. I've never really gotten into 2v2, but this summer I may start at it with my brother, and this advice sounds excellent!
|
SC2's 2v2 is just as "bad" competitively as BW and WC3 2v2s, honestly. Those were played for years in the most competitive leagues, though, so maybe there's some merit I'm not seeing.
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.
|
There is alot of macro in top level 2on2s but i feel some things are quite strong against certain match ups.. speedlings + marauders dominates double pp for example because the marauders snipe the zealots and the speedlings snipe the stalkers.. it's not unbeatable of course with good force fields but what i always thought it would be better is a 2on2 race war ladder, so double pp vs tt vs zz so the 1on1 timings would be still relatively similar in 2's (Just twice as much)
|
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.
|
I miss Twilight Fortress 
Why would they remove the best map, but keep in maps like High Orbit and Discord IV?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On May 05 2011 13:27 Nicholai wrote:Show nested quote +
This thread seems a little ridiculous. OP seems to be arguing semantics... Cheese to most players is any "all-in" build. At least that's what it is to me. Again semantics so arguing against MY definition of cheese makes no sense... If you all-in i.e. 4gate with mass ling pressure (No drones and no tech path for toss), to me that's cheese.
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.
|
I like how you define cheese. "Believe it or not, those are the only things that are cheese!".
Why is that? It's because you think so, right?
|
Who the hell if it's cheese or not why bother trying to justify just WHAT it was, if it could even in somones mind come across as cheese just be like "yea, what of it". Cheese is NOT somthing to be ashamed of and is completly fine. Some people just suck and so cant stop cheese. Instead of beliveing that it was lack of scouting, lack of micro, or just there own fault they pretend that the people they faced was so scared of there name (even though there just a random) they decided to cheese cause that was the "only way they coulda won". No they saw your name relized your just a random, felt like cheesing and after anally raping you enjoyed the mis guided rage of yours.
|
On May 05 2011 22:59 zende wrote:
I like how you define cheese. "Believe it or not, those are the only things that are cheese!".
Why is that? It's because you think so, right?
getting pissed off when someone says a 10 pool is a completely legit build in 2v2?
your missing his point. 2v2 is just a whole new game to 1v1, dont get bogged down in another OMG YOU DONT DEFINE CHEESE LIKE ME argument ;/
2v2 is fine, the maps are horrible, but as a game type its a lot of fun
|
What about the one player leaving exactly when the game starts so the zerg can do a super fast pool and rush with zerglings? that is not a nice mechanic.
|
I'm top 1 in 2v2, and think it's retarded. Why do I play enough to be top 1 if its retarded? Well, you barely have to play, you just have to have to know the basics of 1v1 and there's no problem at all.
The fact that games never take very long helps. Literally 100% of games involve cheese from the opponents. As a 1v1 player, I find that a bit boring and play standard (12 gate, 14 gas-pool, 3 gate, 1 gate robo, whatever). It's not difficult to defend most cheeses by playing standard (and you can alter your build if you scout something extreme like double 6 pool). The fact that even at the top of the 2v2 ladder players hardly even try to micro makes it easier. However, here's the thing: if you defend the cheese, you win the game. There's no reasonable followup to these cheese openings, and I don't think I've ever come remotely close to losing after defending a cheese. Indeed, that's what makes it a cheese. "Hopefully, the opponent won't be prepared and we'll win right here right now!" says the opponent. That's cheese, or at the very least all-in.
The only reason your games are going to macro games is because you both cheese. But if 2 players 6pool each other in 1v1, it's still cheese, no?
|
On May 05 2011 23:20 Musketeer wrote:
I'm top 1 in 2v2, and think it's retarded. Why do I play enough to be top 1 if its retarded? Well, you barely have to play, you just have to have to know the basics of 1v1 and there's no problem at all.
The fact that games never take very long helps. Literally 100% of games involve cheese from the opponents.
after seeing the success of actionjesus you could argue that a lot of "pros" should take some lessons in 2v2 so they can learn to fail less 
|
Omg people on the first page. Please read between the lines! Yes he said cheese, Yes I thought that opener was a bit misplaced maybe but it fits with his general outline.
Hardcore all in risky cheese with a negative look on it, is more what he meant with the first ones.
But I think his point is not redefining the definition of cheese. It's about showing that you can accept a wider range of strong strategies to be valid and just embracing them.
Another way to look at it would be, 2v2 is not just short cheesy games, there is a lot more to it.
What I liked the most was the part with the fungal on muta and stim in. WTF!! lol that's so powerful. I love those things. I love it when people find strong tactics and try to abuse them mercilessly. It allows the gameplay to develop.
So with that I'll just finish and say you have definitely added more excitement for me to watch some 2v2's in the EG Masters Cup. Can't wait 
|
Good overview of 2v2 from the OP.
The transition from the early-game aggression to the mid-game is what seperates the men from the boys.
|
Figured I'd post since I'm 770 points 2v2 RT, which was top 25 in the world when I was playing last weekend. Some comments;
1. Cheese - Agreed with OP. I define it as pretty much any no gas build or a build where the moment your push fails it's all over because you're so far behind economically, production facility, or tech-wise. You see this a lot where a team goes early speedling, pulls gas, and their partner goes something like 3-4 rax no gas. Once you get stalkers or siege or anything to stop the push, its GG and the opposing team usually just leaves when their push fails.
2. Protoss - Couldn't agree more. I played about 1500 2v2 games in beta as Terran, switched to Protoss for Season 1, and by the end of season 1 had to switch back because Protoss is so incredibly UP in teams. 10 pools kill about (estimate) 50% of my toss teamates within 5 minutes. Either they are too greedy and 13-14 gate, or they don't know how to wall, or they don't know how to scout a rush, or they don't know how to defend lings with probes. Compared to how simple a 10p is for Zerg, Protoss is at an astronomical disadvantage in teams during the first 6-7 minutes on almost all maps. This is further evidenced by the fact that the highest ranked Protoss 2v2 RT player worldwide is ranked #25 with an abysmal win rate and the next protoss after him is #58.
3. Limited strategies - By biggest gripe about 2v2 is the limitation on strategies. OP mentions how ling/hellion is "old" and "counterable" but it's really not. I don't consider it a legit strategy to have to assume hellions and blindly go roaches. Even when people attempt this they still do not come out with a significant win rate vs hellion/ling and the reason is three fold. 1. Maps that separate teamates allow you to divide and conquer, forcing out an exposed player to help his teamate, and then surrounding/killing them. 2. The damage that hellions (esp blue flame) do to workers means you can suicide your hellions and almost always be on the positive side of cost effectiveness. 3. Mass lings can soft counter roaches, especially in the very early game.
4. Lastly, aggression is King in teams. The team that puts on pressure usually ends up winning. The stress reduces the opponent's macro, and there are many tech paths that will allow you to bypass static defense in tier 2. Personally, as a main Terran I always go for drops on any team that turtles up. Zergs expo/muta, and Protoss dominates if they can get to collosi.
I like 2v2 a lot, but unfortunately it's not "balanced" so it's hard to derive any conclusions of skill based on it.
|
On May 05 2011 23:09 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 22:59 zende wrote:
I like how you define cheese. "Believe it or not, those are the only things that are cheese!".
Why is that? It's because you think so, right?
getting pissed off when someone says a 10 pool is a completely legit build in 2v2? your missing his point. 2v2 is just a whole new game to 1v1, dont get bogged down in another OMG YOU DONT DEFINE CHEESE LIKE ME argument ;/ 2v2 is fine, the maps are horrible, but as a game type its a lot of fun
All I'm saying is the way he defines cheese is as if he's some kind of guru that decides what's cheese and what's not. Basically there is no definition of cheese, it's all personal. Also he talks about it like it really would matter if it'd be a 8 or 9 pool since, man, you don't want to cheese do you? That'd be so embarrassing.
|
Forget the "definitions of cheese" in the OP and read between the lines. Whatever you think is cheese in 1v1 is actually not cheese in 2v2 because the game plays out very differently.
|
Thank you very much for this clarification. There is nothing more annoying that having to beat sense into idiots on the forums who complain about everything is cheese.
|
The term "cheese" is a corruption of "cheaters". Started out from people calling cheesing players "cheaters" in the early days of SC in Korea, which slowly changed into cheese.
Thus, basically, any early allin play can be considered cheese.
|
I don't mind the 'cheese' in 2v2 but the 2v2 map pool is quite possibly the worst thing in the world.
|
On May 05 2011 12:57 -orb- wrote:
So if i bring 94% of my probes it's not cheese right?
Good to know, thanks, I'll use this in EG's league with 2v2s and make sure to tell my opponents it's not cheese cause I didn't bring over 95% of my probes
Way to be a fag about it without even realizing the tought process and effort he put into this post. Maybe now that you are so smart you can go find out why people don't respect you as a pro player or a player in general to be honest.
|
Yeah, forgot that though. Well written and well thought out, I guess I just got distracted by the whole cheese-defining thing. Creds to you man!
|
all i know about 2v2 is that it is one of the quickest way to get heart attack - just pick zerg and go try a 2v2 RT.
|
On May 05 2011 23:20 Musketeer wrote:
I'm top 1 in 2v2, and think it's retarded. Why do I play enough to be top 1 if its retarded? Well, you barely have to play, you just have to have to know the basics of 1v1 and there's no problem at all.
The fact that games never take very long helps. Literally 100% of games involve cheese from the opponents. As a 1v1 player, I find that a bit boring and play standard (12 gate, 14 gas-pool, 3 gate, 1 gate robo, whatever). It's not difficult to defend most cheeses by playing standard (and you can alter your build if you scout something extreme like double 6 pool). The fact that even at the top of the 2v2 ladder players hardly even try to micro makes it easier. However, here's the thing: if you defend the cheese, you win the game. There's no reasonable followup to these cheese openings, and I don't think I've ever come remotely close to losing after defending a cheese. Indeed, that's what makes it a cheese. "Hopefully, the opponent won't be prepared and we'll win right here right now!" says the opponent. That's cheese, or at the very least all-in.
The only reason your games are going to macro games is because you both cheese. But if 2 players 6pool each other in 1v1, it's still cheese, no?
I think this post is hilarious, "I am number 1 2v2 player because I play standard and defend cheeses"
|
Look regardless of your definition of cheese, which seems to be the whole point of this thread...
People are mad because 2v2 is basically 2 players with a risky/all-in one base build can often beat a team that has better mechanics, micro, macro, build orders, etc.
And the only reason it works is because it creates a 2v1 situation that is essentially unscoutable.
Take for example, 4gate zealot warp/zerglings with overlord scout in a PZ team vs PT. I scout this, and it looks like a 4gate. Zerg can even 15hatch or pool/gas expand, which looks like an eco build.
And then at 5:30 You have a pack of zerglings at your base and 4 zealots warping in to your home. Even if you can fend them off, all your probes are likely dead. Sure you could try to kill the pylon but zerg has map control so moving out will just result in your shit dying. Even if you wall off with a forge/cannon, they can just go after your teammate.
(Which is why most of the blizzard 2v2 map pool is terrible)
Okay so a decent counter to this is something like terran goes gas before barracks into hellions. But that is pretty much auto-lose to a 5rr / zealot push. Given that chrono'd zealots off of 2gate core are going to be scoutable.
There is a difference between doing a risky build hoping you can do damage and stay even, versus doing a standard build and going all-in after you've scouted a vulnerability.
Anyway the problem with 2v2's is shitty maps. A shared choke with the bases nearby eachother is pretty much mandatory. Basically players need to be able to get to their ally without passing through uncontrolled space, and they need to be able to do it in a reasonable amount of time. This only applies to one-base play.
|
On May 06 2011 01:25 DuneBug wrote:
Look regardless of your definition of cheese, which seems to be the whole point of this thread...
People are mad because 2v2 is basically 2 players with a risky/all-in one base build can often beat a team that has better mechanics, micro, macro, build orders, etc.
And the only reason it works is because it creates a 2v1 situation that is essentially unscoutable.
Take for example, 4gate zealot warp/zerglings with overlord scout in a PZ team vs PT. I scout this, and it looks like a 4gate. Zerg can even 15hatch or pool/gas expand, which looks like an eco build.
And then at 5:30 You have a pack of zerglings at your base and 4 zealots warping in to your home. Even if you can fend them off, all your probes are likely dead. Sure you could try to kill the pylon but zerg has map control so moving out will just result in your shit dying. Even if you wall off with a forge/cannon, they can just go after your teammate.
(Which is why most of the blizzard 2v2 map pool is terrible)
Okay so a decent counter to this is something like terran goes gas before barracks into hellions. But that is pretty much auto-lose to a 5rr / zealot push. GIven that chrono'd zealots off of 2gate core are going to be scoutable.
You realize you can spot an upper warp in by looking for if a Protoss is stacking energy on his nexus right? Also, if they don't 10p in that situation, your T partner should send his first marine out on the obvious overlord path to kill it before it gets in position.
Even if you don't do any of that, a bunker near the outter pylon or half your troops near it and a couple at the wall to kill lings also counters it.
|
Hey, good effort put into your post. However, keep in mind that no matter what, this game is balanced around 1v1. Sure, they've made some changes to accomodate 2v2 games, but they've only done that to make sure its not unplayable. Therefore, your probably right, there are certain playstyles that better suit team games, but 1v1 skills do not transfer over (see SOTG). It's hard for people to take 2v2 seriously when in the back of your mind (after you die to helion-speedling as toss for example) you know that 2v2 isn't the balance panel's main priority at all.
|
It's not ALL cheese of course (although mostly it is because there's no follow up)... but what it is, is totally tier 1 play and basically just a micro battle. What level are you even at that games move into macro games? Cause at the highest level of 2v2, they don't move into a macro game, unless 1 team is already way ahead. There's no reason to ever risk teching or expanding unless you're ahead and going to win anyway.
|
There are still lots of powerful all-in builds even if they aren't cheese. Fending off these all-ins is a huge part of getting good at 2v2s. 10pool usually is an all-in speedling build. For instance, the speedling/warp-in all-in is not really cheese, because you often can't stop the pylon even if you know about it.
Fending off the cheesier strategies like double 6pool is sometimes actually easier in 2v2 because it becomes a 1v2 where the 1 has a massive massive advantage. You just need to know how to play it out.
|
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).
|
why do people care so much about whether or not something is fundamentally cheese and whether or not cheese is fundamentally wrong
|
On May 06 2011 01:37 JustTray wrote:
You realize you can spot an upper warp in by looking for if a Protoss is stacking energy on his nexus right? Also, if they don't 10p in that situation, your T partner should send his first marine out on the obvious overlord path to kill it before it gets in position.
Even if you don't do any of that, a bunker near the outter pylon or half your troops near it and a couple at the wall to kill lings also counters it.
I don't think sending out a marine is a reliable counter. It's very map dependant, that certainly won't work on gutterhulk/tempest/several others. And it relies on you actually finding the overlord. You also risk losing your first marine to zerglings. Making two zerglings to deny scouting is fairly standard for any zerg build. Getting them to the marine before he kills the overlord shouldn't be hard unless the zerg FE'd.
As for stacking energy on his nexus that's an indicator of a 4gate, but not necessarily a 4gate zealot warp in. If you prepare for the 4gate zealot warp in, you'll be behind when a normal 4gate actually hits. And vice versa.
Bunkering in front of protoss's base I wouldn't anticipate solving the problem. They just focus all their zealots / lings on the bunker. The bunker is going to go down pretty quick without any scv's to repair it. Then the next set of 4 warps into their base. By then protoss opponent will be able to warp in stalkers but after the blocking zealot gets killed it's pretty much gg, zerglings run in and kill all the probes.
|
On May 06 2011 01:57 DuneBug wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 01:37 JustTray wrote:
You realize you can spot an upper warp in by looking for if a Protoss is stacking energy on his nexus right? Also, if they don't 10p in that situation, your T partner should send his first marine out on the obvious overlord path to kill it before it gets in position.
Even if you don't do any of that, a bunker near the outter pylon or half your troops near it and a couple at the wall to kill lings also counters it. I don't think sending out a marine is a reliable counter. It's very map dependant, that certainly won't work on gutterhulk. And it relies on you actually finding the overlord. You also risk losing your first marine to zerglings. Making two zerglings to deny scouting is fairly standard for any zerg build. Getting them to the marine before he kills the overlord shouldn't be hard unless the zerg FE'd. As for stacking energy on his nexus that's an indicator of a 4gate, but not necessarily a 4gate zealot warp in. If you prepare for the 4gate zealot warp in, you'll be behind when a normal 4gate actually hits. And vice versa. Bunkering in front of protoss's base I wouldn't anticipate solving the problem. They just focus all their zealots / lings on the bunker. The bunker is going to go down pretty quick without any scv's to repair it. Then the next set of 4 warps into their base. By then protoss opponent will be able to warp in stalkers but after the blocking zealot gets killed it's pretty much gg, zerglings run in and kill all the probes.
1. You said Zerg goes 15p, in that case your first marine can easily kill the overlord before lings show up. Finding the overlord is very simple. Every zerg doing warp in sends it on a direct path from their base to the nearest opponent base because it's so slow it wouldn't make it in position on most maps in time for the warp in otherwise.
Edit - losing 1 marine trying to kill the overlord is actualy cheaper than losing your scouting scv because you also lose potential mining with the scv. Losing 1 marine trying to get the key overlord is always worth it.
2. Stacking energy is ONLY an indicator of a warp in. All 4 gate builds that are non-warp in will use their first 3-4 chronoboosts, always. It is better than a 95% indicator that they're going to try to proxy warp in by using 4 chronos on warpgate. If you disagree, then I agree to disagree.
3. I was referring to bunkering on the high ground in your own base where the pylon is being used to warp in. Also a bunker at the front of your own base where the lings will try to break in is also successful because you can put more forces in the spot where they will try to warp in. For protoss this is much harder and you need to block your front with a sentry and zealot, use all your chronos on getting units out as fast as possible so that you can have stalkers before they start warping in on your high ground. A two pronged warp-in/speedling attack can be countered, albeit not easily, with this method. Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, Protoss starts at a significant disadvantage in 2s.
|
I think the simple way to explain cheese is when, you sacrifice (making/fighting) before being saturated to try and gain a superb army advantage to inflict as much damage as possible to win straight out with the cheese or bring them to the same economical disadvantage as themselves.
|
Great thread man Thanks!
BTW, the replay section on sc2ranks seems to not work for me.
|
stacking energy is a great indicator that you are in gold league, also.
|
On May 05 2011 22:59 zende wrote:
I like how you define cheese. "Believe it or not, those are the only things that are cheese!".
Why is that? It's because you think so, right?
Yeah, what about curdled and cured dairy products?
I agree with the OP though. Too many RT allies try to fast expo or straight tech or cannon their own ramp and leave allies to die. This is especially frustrating because 70% of diamond RT players do this. I can't make Masters without some sort of arranged team because RT is so full of idiots. I wish more people would "understand" team games.
|
I read through the entire OP and ultimately it is just arguging semantics based on some arbitrary standard. Just because it isn't called cheese doesn't make it any less sad to watch 90% of games end in 10min or less.
The fact is pretty much ALL competitive 2v2s that the community has seen involve "early game" play which almost always decides the game right there. Having said that, I must admit that when these games get past the midgame, they are really exciting.
Worth pointing out that the OP clearly plays 2v2 seriously and practices it. The people who will be doing it in these big money tournaments do not (if they are smart).
|
Yeah 2v2 takes a bit skill, theres so many crazy strats for all different match ups, its rediculous and its fun i was at a really competitive 2v2er a while back
|
On May 06 2011 02:54 never_toss wrote:Great thread man Thanks! BTW, the replay section on sc2ranks seems to not work for me.
Just look at the top 2v2 players and click on the + Last 10 replays.
Also a really great writeup.
|
it's not cheese because you have to do it, but I don't think that it is very much fun to play 6 minute games, some of the strats are like stupidly strong and impossible to scout and really hard to stop if you don't scout it
|
I think that already a build like 7/8-pool is a lot less cheesy in 2v2 than it is in 1on1.
It forces two players to react to it instead of only one. This means even when not followed up by many lings, it will cause a certain amount of damage by potentially forcing worker cuts and spendings like that into a forge.
When one enemy is missing those preperation but plays rather greedy, it can still be used aggressively, but it doesn't have to.
This is how different the same build can be just because there are two opponents suffering for the price of only one ally on your own side sacrifices something.
|
THERE IS NO EFFING CHEESE PEOPLE. Play more 2v2 and learn to fricking defend it instead of coming in here and whining about it!!! You DON'T have to do some kind of rush build to stay alive if you know what you are doing. Almost all my games go into long macro games because if you know what you are doing those early rushes don't cripple you at all.
|
On May 06 2011 03:47 drewbie.root wrote:
it's not cheese because you have to do it, but I don't think that it is very much fun to play 6 minute games, some of the strats are like stupidly strong and impossible to scout and really hard to stop if you don't scout it
I completely disagree. You don't have to do cheese in 2v2. Wait, drewbie?! Is that how you got to the top of the 2v2 ladder? By cheesing your way up there?
I have yet to find a strat that is incredibly powerful, hard to scout, and doesn't lead to an easily won 1v2. Personally, I think the scary strats are the ones that incredibly powerful regardless of scouting (which I guess means they aren't cheese). They are easy to scout, but the information doesn't grant you that much.
|
On May 06 2011 01:15 stink123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 23:20 Musketeer wrote:
I'm top 1 in 2v2, and think it's retarded. Why do I play enough to be top 1 if its retarded? Well, you barely have to play, you just have to have to know the basics of 1v1 and there's no problem at all.
The fact that games never take very long helps. Literally 100% of games involve cheese from the opponents. As a 1v1 player, I find that a bit boring and play standard (12 gate, 14 gas-pool, 3 gate, 1 gate robo, whatever). It's not difficult to defend most cheeses by playing standard (and you can alter your build if you scout something extreme like double 6 pool). The fact that even at the top of the 2v2 ladder players hardly even try to micro makes it easier. However, here's the thing: if you defend the cheese, you win the game. There's no reasonable followup to these cheese openings, and I don't think I've ever come remotely close to losing after defending a cheese. Indeed, that's what makes it a cheese. "Hopefully, the opponent won't be prepared and we'll win right here right now!" says the opponent. That's cheese, or at the very least all-in.
The only reason your games are going to macro games is because you both cheese. But if 2 players 6pool each other in 1v1, it's still cheese, no? I think this post is hilarious, "I am number 1 2v2 player because I play standard and defend cheeses"
Yes, it is indeed truly unfortunate that 2v2 is currently in a state where just by being somewhat competent in 1v1, 2v2 is a joke. The idea of 2v2 is really fun, but unfortunately the game isn't balanced for it, and it doesn't quite work out so well.
|
i think its simple not everyone has wat it takes and cry chease lol cmon... as long as u dont have to admit you're opponent is better then you .. with love
.-=[*420*]=-.JuaNaLd*.*.*
|
The maps in the pool are a different debate. Some people argue that there needs to be share based maps to promote macro games and others argue that some of the maps that are shared base promote hour long games that are boring. The only thing blizzard can do is put some of each in the pool, they can't appease everyone at once.
|
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.
|
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.
|
One significant issue that makes rushes more powerful is that the defending army will usually have their army split up at each base (more so in non-shared base maps). This in effect acts as a de facto forcefield in that you only have to engage one army at a time with your 2-army force. The team that doesn't rush will simply get run over by a force twice the size of their own.
You don't need to aim for a transition, you just have to kill 1 base. Rushing makes it a lot easier to accomplish this task.
|
2v2 will never be taken seriously, regardless of technicalities
|
On May 07 2011 08:58 Ledcaveman wrote:
2v2 will never be taken seriously, regardless of technicalities
If you think 2v2 is a joke, try getting into masters 4v4
|
On May 07 2011 09:04 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 08:58 Ledcaveman wrote:
2v2 will never be taken seriously, regardless of technicalities If you think 2v2 is a joke, try getting into masters 4v4
what does that have to do with anything? all team games wont be taken seriously, especially going up from 2v2
|
On May 06 2011 07:43 PowerDes wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They do have "high level" 2v2s.
No one watches them.
|
On May 07 2011 08:58 Ledcaveman wrote:
2v2 will never be taken seriously, regardless of technicalities
...never be taken seriously, again?
there used to be 2v2 proleagues.
|
After reading this thread, I decided to give 2v2 a go. Been doing hellion/ling opening a lot and while it's really strong, you have to transition out against good players.
I could see it becoming viable in tournaments in the future.
|
If you lose to it, it wasn't cheese or you suck... Also remember that you thinking it's cheese just reinforces the behaviour of the cheeser and makes him warm and fuzzy inside ;-)
Ps. Battles are just more epic 4v4!
|
3v3/4v4 are different. You NEED zergs on your team those matchups to maintain map control.
|
Anyone who thinks 2v2 is a cheese fest and zerg rule it, you need to watch SeleCT stream 2v2, he does TP and WRECKS people in macro games. They just beat the top 2 2v2 teams in the world like 10 times in a row.
|
On May 11 2011 16:21 dmillz wrote:
Anyone who thinks 2v2 is a cheese fest and zerg rule it, you need to watch SeleCT stream 2v2, he does TP and WRECKS people in macro games. They just beat the top 2 2v2 teams in the world like 10 times in a row.
Actually it was 13 times in a row. Though they played a favorable MU and favorable maps. There isn't much a ZZ team can do in these situations
|
On May 11 2011 16:21 dmillz wrote:
Anyone who thinks 2v2 is a cheese fest and zerg rule it, you need to watch SeleCT stream 2v2, he does TP and WRECKS people in macro games. They just beat the top 2 2v2 teams in the world like 10 times in a row.
Did you not see the zergling/marauder combination that served as an all-in practically?
Did you not see the later games with the ZZ combination where one zerg went Hydralisks (not even trying to win fully?).
I'm not entirely sure if Select was even playing entirely serious for the most part.
|
Those aren't the cheeses that ppl hate.
Its the dt + overlord or photon cannon + overlord strategies that make me want to give up on 2v2s etc.
|
On May 12 2011 00:08 Mr_Kyo wrote:
Those aren't the cheeses that ppl hate.
Its the dt + overlord or photon cannon + overlord strategies that make me want to give up on 2v2s etc.
That is why you always scout after pylon/depot.
|
I hate cheese-haters.
It's about win or lose, not about cheese or no-cheese.
If you keep losing to cheese, you will fall to a lower league/rank where cheese is the most common strategy and much easier for you to defense.
If you keep winning by defending cheese successfully you will learn how to defend cheese and most importantly, how to cheese. and you'll get yourself to a higher league/rank which is always what you want on ladder.
If you keep cheesing afterward, you'll find it's much harder to win by cheese at the higher level. Most importantly, winning by a cheese is not fun and lost for that is extremely frustrating.
Then finally you'll learn the truth of cheese: CHEESE IS BORING.
|
Yet they still beat one of the top 2v2 teams 13 times in a row, barely seeming to try. And they played defensive and macro'd basically every game. 2v2 is only a cheese fest if you don't know how to play it properly.
|
I really like this Des. I play 2v2 a lot, but i have to say some maps are just horrible to play in.
Thank you for writing this.
|
Select has simply demonstrated after losing a few games to certain pushes, he has become a pro at stopping pressure
|
It is hard to say macro plays a big factor in 2v2 due to the fact its hard to take multiple bases on many maps leading more to timing pushes and all-ins.
This doesn't mean 2v2 is bad but it is hard to be taken as serious as 1v1 (if at all).
The solution would most likely be bigger maps with more expansions as to allow more macro games, the way 2v2 is now it is very dull to alot of people who play 1v1 seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
