| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 11 2012 00:14 Twistacles wrote: I agree with this point. The maps are still playable, but Lunar Orbit is HORRID. Have to onebase allin cause that natural is ridiculous ??? What issues are you having with lunar? | ||
|
BossaKungen
Sweden43 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaFiE
United States333 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I also want to see an Iron Curtain remake. | ||
|
NoobStyles
Australia257 Posts
I'm shamelessly stealing the the video idea from 413X excellent post, and uploading my own little whats wrong with 2v2 maps vid. As I said in the vid i cant guarantee that split base, random spawn maps will work in SC2, but I'd love to find out! | ||
|
Alacast
United States205 Posts
| ||
|
DarKcS
Australia1237 Posts
Step 2) Profit | ||
|
Frenzy175
Australia42 Posts
On February 11 2012 01:43 NoobStyles wrote: Its good to see a 2v2/team game thread thats actually having some positive input from people! I'm shamelessly stealing the the video idea from 413X excellent post, and uploading my own little whats wrong with 2v2 maps vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asBVAMv4qZ0&feature=youtu.be As I said in the vid i cant guarantee that split base, random spawn maps will work in SC2, but I'd love to find out! Fantastic video, really shows how in the current map pool there is zero risk, time & sapce, counter attacking in 2v2 and I think it would be amazing to see some new maps. I would love to see team games where the fighting happens in the middle of the map not right in both the enemy mains | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 11 2012 01:43 NoobStyles wrote: Its good to see a 2v2/team game thread thats actually having some positive input from people! I'm shamelessly stealing the the video idea from 413X excellent post, and uploading my own little whats wrong with 2v2 maps vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asBVAMv4qZ0&feature=youtu.be As I said in the vid i cant guarantee that split base, random spawn maps will work in SC2, but I'd love to find out! Comparing to BW is pretty bad idea. In BW 2v2s almost always degenerated into 1v1 situations and it was accepted by everyone that you needed a zerg on your team. It was highly degenerate. In the example you gave, the aggressor has a huge advantage. The top left would be guaranteed to die, and the bottom right would not necessarily die (not to mention the whole issue with warp-in). This eliminates the defenders advantage, and makes the early game terribly volatile. People already think that 2v2s are 1base allins and cheesefests. We don't want this at all. Close bases (doesn't necessarily have to be shared bases) allows you to coordinate with your ally to defend a lot of different cheeses. The idea that you can actually save your ally on scorched haven (while in BW this concept would be blatantly impossible), is what makes 2v2s not constantly degenerate into 1v1s. Edit: And can I please request that if people want to do these movies that they actually talk faster? The concept you're talking about isn't that complicated or anything. It doesn't warrant a ten minute video. | ||
|
Pocky52
United States463 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
zuperketla
Norway212 Posts
 its awesome | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10325 Posts
 pretty sure noobs/casual players would prefer at least some macro maps though where you can sit back and turtle and then attack... the really casual players aren't gonna be rushing after all, right? | ||
|
Frenzy175
Australia42 Posts
On February 11 2012 12:24 DoubleReed wrote: Comparing to BW is pretty bad idea. In BW 2v2s almost always degenerated into 1v1 situations and it was accepted by everyone that you needed a zerg on your team. It was highly degenerate. In the example you gave, the aggressor has a huge advantage. The top left would be guaranteed to die, and the bottom right would not necessarily die (not to mention the whole issue with warp-in). This eliminates the defenders advantage, and makes the early game terribly volatile. People already think that 2v2s are 1base allins and cheesefests. We don't want this at all. Close bases (doesn't necessarily have to be shared bases) allows you to coordinate with your ally to defend a lot of different cheeses. The idea that you can actually save your ally on scorched haven (while in BW this concept would be blatantly impossible), is what makes 2v2s not constantly degenerate into 1v1s. Edit: And can I please request that if people want to do these movies that they actually talk faster? The concept you're talking about isn't that complicated or anything. It doesn't warrant a ten minute video. He's not saying it will be perfect and your right warp would probably break it but it would be interesting too see. In the example I don't really think top left is guaranteed to die at all, the maps are soooo big that you can scout the attack coming and drop 3 spines/cannons/bunker and just turtle away and you still have a better economy than the other 2. On Scorched Haven the only way you can "save" you ally is to defend with him. On Fighting spirit you can counter attack or you can just expand yourself and then just win in 4-6 mins when your on 2base with a great economy and they are 1 base and had to cut workers to rush your ally. | ||
|
Mario1209
United States1077 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
Right now, 2v2 is fine where it is, I think all team-games in RTS' are just there for "stress relief and fun". It's not an appealing to sponsors and most tournaments because the game isn't balanced around it, so it's silly to put a constant stream of cash on the line over the game-mode. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be 2v2 tournaments, but sponsors and tournaments shouldn't use 2v2 for anything that matters too heavily. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 11 2012 13:27 Frenzy175 wrote: He's not saying it will be perfect and your right warp would probably break it but it would be interesting too see. In the example I don't really think top left is guaranteed to die at all, the maps are soooo big that you can scout the attack coming and drop 3 spines/cannons/bunker and just turtle away and you still have a better economy than the other 2. On Scorched Haven the only way you can "save" you ally is to defend with him. On Fighting spirit you can counter attack or you can just expand yourself and then just win in 4-6 mins when your on 2base with a great economy and they are 1 base and had to cut workers to rush your ally. A protoss player cannot win against the Mass Zergling + Warping in Zealots into the main without getting help from his ally. The ONLY choice is to counterattack and expand behind it. You're acting as if this gives you more choices. No, what this does is force you into the only solution being a 2v1 and counterattacks. Counterattacking is perfectly viable on Scorched Haven (not so much on Boneyard though). I don't really know why you think otherwise. Turtling for your ally requires him to cut a lot of economy in order to fend off 2 players at once. This means your ally is low on economy and can't help you (because his money is in static defense), if the enemy decides to just attack YOU instead. What realistically happens is that you just totally guess who they are going to attack (as by the time they decide is too late to put up static defense), and if you're wrong then you lose (the player who planned on counterattacking can't fend off two players and the defending player is stuck on one base with useless static defense). If you're right then hopefully you can kill a player and turn this into a shitty 1v1 game. They did try using Lost Temple and Metalopolis as 2v2 maps in beta. Also Gutterhulk and Arid Wastes had these situations (tbf they had terrible backdoor rocks into the mains, if they didn't have that it would have made this much better). We've tried this plenty of times. It didn't work. Nobody enjoyed it and it all became 1v2 situations. It also makes "slow powerful armies" completely nonviable. It hurts variety. I'm sorry, but the whole point of 2v2 imo is that you have an ally and you can coordinate with him. I want to be able to try out strategies that are in tandem with him. Not just have my ally play 50% of the games and myself try to play 50% of the games. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
its always been that way since beginning. the maps are too small. they didn't want antyhing beyond 2-3 base battles because of dustin browder. he believes that u have to do that to bring in the newbs. he just doesn't know what he's doing. its pretty much up the community to make maps cause blizzard's track record is theya re pretty incompetent when it comes to maps. | ||
|
DoomsVille
Canada4885 Posts
Just wanted to pop in and say I am keeping a close eye on this thread. As the organizer for the 2v2 Masters, I try to keep a map pool as close to tournament ready as possible. Too bad it's impossible to have a pool of more than 5 or 6 tournament ready maps (which means I'm forced to include some questionable ones). Anyways, loving the feedback. Might have to adjust some starting maps based on this. | ||
|
braebot
Canada64 Posts
I feel like the 2v2 map pool needs new maps. The maps in the blizzard pool make games play out in almost unpredictable ways and makes people play a less macro oriented game which we are seeing in the 1v1 map pool. I feel like the 1v1 map pool has larger maps because more balanced gameplay develops when people play macro games. Comparing to 2v2, the maps are not large enough to hold 4 players and have too few bases, forcing strategies to be played. | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
