EPTWhy the 2v2 map pool is stunting the matchup. - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
| ||
|
Pyre
United States1940 Posts
I remember starcraft 1 had some giant maps for release. Now i don't want maps that encourage 200/200 carrier armies but stepps of war esc maps in team games. is not fun. It becomes battle of who has the best all-in or cheese tatic. I had to veto colony V. It just has to many issues, the multiple attack paths. The mineral line being right by a cliff that can be sieged or cannoned is just silly. The natural on low ground that is super hard to hold promotes 1 base all-ins. The giant ramp to your main makes walls really difficult without 2 terrans. This map has a lot of issues as well as a few others. Nice read, I have to agree 100% PS. I have been complainging about the RT vs AT bull since beta Nice read, I have to agree 100% PS. I have been complainging about the RT vs AT bull since beta | ||
|
Toboe
United States276 Posts
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some. + Show Spoiler + From a master arranged team member that's played around 2k 2v2 games, 413X here is absolutely correct. Even if it takes him longer to explain it than it takes me to read this entire thread and write up this response to what he says in the video  :Lunar Colony: 413X is absolutely correct. The expansion path that the OP gives is foolish and after you try it once or twice it should be clear that taking that low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell "natural" is far worse than taking the side expansions behind the other natural. I would suggest, if getting that base at all, the player that gets their 3rd faster can take that low ground expansion but always be ready to let it die in favor of getting a better engagement between your main armies (either they sent a small contingency to take out that base in which case their main forces are smaller, or they send their entire army in which case you have the whole time that they're killing it to get a good concave and your splash units set up right). Scorched Haven: I agree with the expansion path given in the video completely. Taking golds is really either if you're already ahead and just want to safely end the game, or if you're so far behind you hope the other team makes the mistake of letting you mine enough from them to catch back up. If you can get spotting obs at the front of their naturals, it's often times better to take your second third on the outside opposite from your 1st third instead of what is suggested in the video. You can set up closer to that 2nd third because the third that's on the same side as your mains/naturals is just really far away from your enemy. With the spotters by their front and your army set up closer to that second 3rd, you can always meet them in time to get a good engagement. This is a great thread for 2v2 players to read so we can share good expansion paths, but I'm including these two comments to get more novice 2v2 teams thinking critically about larger concepts of the game and hopefully improving the 2v2 community: Watch out for odd ideas like "you must always expand away from your opponent". This isn't necessarily true. If you're turtling and doing large timing pushes you actually want to expand towards the other player if possible on the map. Since you're turtling you can defend easier, and removing the space between you and your enemies gives them less time to react to your big push. However, if you macro and play defensively/reactively then you should expand away. Similarly I don't believe "splitting the map evenly" is quite right. You want to split the map in a proportion that matches the cost effectiveness of your units compared to the enemy's. If you're using units that are cost inefficient against theirs (which by the game's design usually give you more map control to expand faster), then you need to have consumed more of the resources on the map. Then, by the time both of you get into your desired late game composition (where you're both using the most cost efficient units you have available), it ends up even or hopefully a little in your favor. Splitting the map this way can manifest in taking a base on their side or even just denying their expansions long enough that your late game kicks in to "catch back up" from using those cost inefficient units earlier. Tyrador Keep: I'd just like to add that, in general, zergs that favor fighting in open spaces will take the outside natural as the first expansion of the team because it spreads creep there defensively. The choke to the natural is a bit better than letting your enemy take over your ramp (and screwing over the player that spawns closer to it), and if they take the back door down then they have to get well into the main (a nice open space) before you have to engage and you have a flank opportunity through the open exit from your main. What's really bad about this map is the symmetrical imbalances. And I don't mean spawning counter-clockwise from your enemy where they can just siege your in base natural. I'm talking about if you spawn in top right and the spawn in bottom, the gold you can take (the one furthest from your enemy) is significantly farther away from you than in any other position. It's... just not good map execution on Blizzard's part. Tempest: This is a terrible map as 413X says. The middle is a single circle that fits within the radius of a single xel'naga watch tower. I've found the first team that rushes to siege the middle has full map control and forces the other team to either build up and break out or do some crazy drop/nydus antics. The point being that the map severely limits you in the ways you can effectively play it. Magma Core This is a pretty sweet map for expands as said in the video. I've got nothing to add. | ||
LAN-f34r
New Zealand2099 Posts
But yea, as a masters 2v2 player who's favorite format is 2v2, the map pool definitely needs a change. It might not cure rushes completely, but hopefully it will give a lot more chances to go into a long, drawn out macro games. also, its ruining E-sports D: | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I guess nothing stops you from commissioning a 2v2 map from a mapmaker to use it in one of the 2v2 tournaments. And maybe rant at blizzard that you want a macro map in 2v2 pool. My take on lunar colony would be, neat you can take 1 expansion for 3 base pressure and you can take 3 expansions + a gold for a macro game (only having to defend 2 positions that take longer for the opponent to reach, giving you enough scouting time, unless they take the way through the middle which is basically a deathtrap). So the map itself is quiet nice, like steps of wars was (nice layout on the bases, but short rushdistance to really use it), but i guess the problem is the short. But i doubt you have problems holding the north or south of this map if you want. Anyway i would say better then ranting randomly at blizzard maps without thinking about them (seen how the op wants to take expansions on lunar). Is if good 2v2ers would work together with a mapmaker to improve this, a good 2v2 map would promote the mapmaker also as he can expect to have the map used in every 2v2. Ranting and just playing ladder won't help 2v2 though at getting a place in teamleague tournaments. (i so hate this allkill fomat, want some funny 2v2, with stuff you never see in a 1v1, even if its just zzvzz all the time) Still good luck with your 2v2 thing and hopes Blizzard listens and releases a bigger macro map. With just one path like they did with shakuras and say here you go, you can expand without thinking if its good or bad. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
| ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
I've always liked, and played team league quite frequently, and I know exactly what you mean, most of the maps are just so hard to expand, and does nothing but favour boring one-base play, as if that wasn't strong enough as it is in team league. There are a few good maps, but they come in rarity in team games  Edit: 4v4 maps arent that much better, 3v3 is really the only good team league, it outclasses the others in comparison imo. | ||
|
-ForeverAlone-
274 Posts
| ||
|
BoilOlo
United States139 Posts
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some. great vid...thx for taking the time to post it. my friend and i play 2v2's while on skype and alot of how we play is " i don't like this map, i can't expand...let's rush". it got to a point where we were rushing on like 90% of our games doing all ins and i got sick of playing that way, so i enjoy 2v2's less now. here's hoping Blizz will be adding better 2v2 maps next season. | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8302 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
But the OP has some the best points I've seen in awhile, (other than the obviously bad expansion paths). Kudos for that. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
I think clever, tricky, timing builds are very cool in 2v2 and am fine with that being the meta game. Still some of the maps just suck majorly, not denying that. I just don't think a map has to give an "easy" third to all players to be good. 3v3 and 4v4 are going to be a shitfest no matter how the maps are, so yeah don't think they matter too much there. But there are a couple that I despise still. | ||
|
Silo Phylumists
Netherlands16 Posts
Because of this people lean towards 1 or 2 base plays and try to end the game there. Take a look at Ruins of Tarsonis, this map makes me cry a little inside ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/e/ed/The_Ruins_of_Tarsonis.jpg/400px-The_Ruins_of_Tarsonis.jpg) Nice job making this thread. | ||
|
th3rogue
Germany683 Posts
| ||
|
Apom
France655 Posts
As well as the other two honorable mentions of the Team Liquid map contest (Citadels of Gaia and Hipster Heaven, if memory serves). | ||
|
Mondieu
Romania803 Posts
| ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
|
413X
Sweden203 Posts
On February 08 2012 00:43 th3rogue wrote: As a tournament organizer, please tell me what 2v2 maps that we should use that are available right now? I would say; The entire map pool of 2v2 with the exception of high orbit and that means; lunar colony v The boneyard magma core ruins of tarsonis tyrador keep discord iv scorched haven Also having in the best map at the top and the least good map in the bottom. Depending on how you want the map pool. However, that said. If you really want to punish players who generally play 1vs1 and reward players who play 2vs2. I would suggest scorched haven. That map have some insanely powerful rush possibilities that 1vs1 players have no possibility in stopping with the exception of blind counter. But if your a 2vs2 player, you should be able to recognize the threat and deal with it correctly. The only reason for this is due to seperate bases. But you should concider this map for short games. | ||
|
Sylailene
91 Posts
| ||
| ||
