EPTWhy the 2v2 map pool is stunting the matchup. - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GoodNewsJim
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
the thing though is does blizzard think 2v2 warrants high-level maps? or are they content with 2v2,3v3,4v4 as being less serious? | ||
|
Battousai13
United States638 Posts
From a Diamond/Masters perspective, shared choke is the sole design that's holding together team play. Most of the maps that I play on have this. I think the maps that don't lead to boring turtle games have destructible rocks at a second entrance into the base. This seems like a very balanced approach to discourage hard turtling. The aggressors are able to push the issue. I do agree that one unsavory point in 2's is the extreme difficulty in being able to secure the natural. There were plenty of times I wished a Forge FE would be remotely viable. As Zerg, I think this is even more of an issue because it limits the amount of openings available to Zerg. Most of the time when I spawn as Zerg, I've forced into some sort of 10/11 Pool aggression to secure my natural expansion. Something definitely needs to be done with the map pool, on Blizzard's side. To their credit though, balancing 2's is much harder than 1's. Small changes have much greater effect due to the still volatile aspect of the game. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:05 CycoDude wrote: i could care less about tournament level maps in the 2v2 map pool; i like small rush maps. the bigger the map gets, the worse i play! that said, new maps to replace the old (discord, tarsonis) every season or two would be nice. if they happen to be of tournament quality it's at least better than what they removed. seems in-line with blizzard's thinking; some high-level maps, some smaller, newb-friendly maps. the thing though is does blizzard think 2v2 warrants high-level maps? or are they content with 2v2,3v3,4v4 as being less serious? well they nerfed the reaper even more because of 2v2, taking abit of survivability in 1v1. But that might have been Blizzard thinking tournaments would use 2v2, sadly the korean system was picked up with only 1v1s and bo1s. So they might have just stopped caring for 2v2. Seeing them taking custom maps for ladder could also mean that their map makers are busy with HotS maps or that they work on new 2v2 etc maps, but i guess its more of the first one. | ||
|
PowerDes
United States520 Posts
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/f/f6/War_Zone.jpg/483px-War_Zone.jpg) back into the map pool. When this map goes late game, stuff gets epic. | ||
|
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On February 07 2012 17:50 Shockk wrote: The map pool issue - which you've described perfectly - is just one of the many symptoms. Team games are being treated with utter neglect. Blizzard has repeatedly shown what they think of the team games when they refused to approach the AT vs RT issue in any manner. To this day, they stand by their point that the implemented matchmaking fixes any problems while all team game formats suffer from various forms of abuse or plain lameness. The community often doesn't help much, either. Though team games were very popular both in SC/BW and in WC3, there seems to be this common attitude of "who cares about 2vs2/3vs3/4vs4, 1vs1 is where all the fun is". While many, MANY players, especially in the lower leagues, will have hundreds of team games played yet barely ever touch the 1vs1 ladder (I'm one of those). There's a huge demographic enjoying them, but they get little to no support. yah this frustrates me hugely. There are some HORRIBLE maps in 2,3,4's and we have barely seen any new maps overall. 1's gets new maps all the time. At least some new maps for each set each ladder season should be expected. There are outside mapmakers doing it. And @op... I really hope you dont mean boneyard is good at all. I block it due to the ridiculously short rush distance. I never lost a proxy 2 gate on it even once. Maps cant be that close :/ | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
I agree that 2v2 desperately needs macro maps. Maybe once 2v2 catches on in leagues, and leagues make good 2v2 macro maps, Blizzard can be convinced to put them in the ladder. | ||
|
tauon
Australia1278 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:22 PowerDes wrote: They should bring back into the map pool. When this map goes late game, stuff gets epic. Agreed. Also would like more 2v2 map makers so eventually Blizzard can start incorporating them into the map pool. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
1) Defender's advantage is negligible in most cases. This means that, if you are playing any team game where teammates are separated, if one person gets rushed, they will not survive. Also, if you're playing 3's/4's and one of the defenders teched/FE'd, their team simply can't hold against an army with superior numbers, no matter the defensive genius of the players. This means that there is really never a situation where it is advantageous to do an FE or other tech/greed build - in team games, it's always to your advantage to have everyone (2's, 3's, or 4's) do some kind of aggression build (but not all-in super-cheese like a 6 pool) and attack. The only time this fails is when the aggressing team royally screws up in unit composition or actual execution. 2) Like you mentioned, the map pool is absolutely horrific. A good half of the maps in the team map pool don't even have enough bases overall for everyone to get a third. Not only that, like you mentioned, it's incredibly hard just to get a third, for anyone. You have to control at least 50% of the map (if not more) on just about any given team map. This further promotes aggressive play because there aren't many options once you get past the early midgame due to the lack of resources on the map. Are aggressive maps fun? They can be, if well designed. Some maps just aren't good at all though, namely those that make it incredibly difficult to even obtain a first expansion. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Discord_IV http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/High_Orbit http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Lunar_Colony_V http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Cinder_Fortress http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Colony_426 http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Dig_Site http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Green_Acres http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Quicksand http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Ulaan_Deeps http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Khaydarin_Depths http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Deadlock_Ridge http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/District_10 http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Fossil_Quarry http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/High_Ground http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Megaton http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Outpost Going through Liquipedia and taking a quick look at all of the team maps that have ever been in the ladder pool, these are the maps that make it extremely difficult for one teammate/all teammates to secure a natural, by being either far away from the main, incredibly wide open, or both. As you might guess, this is the vast, vast, vast majority of the map pool. Just like in 1v1, team map pools need a balance of well-designed aggression maps and large macro maps to make the gameplay varied and enjoyable. | ||
|
PizzaSHARK!
United States2 Posts
2v2, when played "seriously", is really just a series of all-ins that aren't all-ins due to the fact that you have a teammate. I play Random, my buddy played Zerg, and every single game we would 1base all-in, expand behind it, and then finish them off with a follow-up 2base all-in. The only way they could stop this is if they were doing the same thing. Cheese would fail because we were planning on having units quickly anyway (even if we missed the first pylon, we'd have lings out in time to kill the probe before it could cause real problems, etc) and they wouldn't have enough units to stop the push if they'd tried an early expand. If they tried walling in, we just busted it down with banelings. If they didn't wall, they'd usually die to 7RR+marines or a similar build. In those rare games where we didn't 1base them, and the game went long, it honestly seemed like whoever spammed more AOE units would win. Didn't really matter which kind - infestors, colossi, tanks, whatever - just as long as you had a bunch and had enough units to protect them (if I was making colossi, he'd probably have gone muta/corruptor and maintained air control and sent lings for use as speedbumps.) Partly because there are simply more units running around in 2v2 than in 1v1, but also because the 2v2 maps are TINY compared to 1v1 map sizes. As the OP already mentioned, if the battle happens in the middle of the map and you don't absolutely trash them, they're knocking on your door before your first batch of roaches even finishes hatching and good luck stopping 10 sieged tanks when you're losing half your roaches as they try to rally in in the first place. No, 10 tanks is not an exaggeration. I've had 20 tanks in some of my games and still had enough food left over for a small contingent of marines and maybe some vikings or a couple thors. Because taking a 3rd just isn't practical on any of the ladder maps, you usually won't have more than 40-50 workers total; by time you can safely take your natural (assuming your opponents are actually scouting and being aggressive and aren't hiding in their base), you've already munched a bunch of the minerals at your main... so there's no need for a full 28 workers at the natural. And as the OP mentioned, if you can safely secure a 3rd in the current ladder pool, you've already won because that means you control the map. Any and all problems in 2v2 really are related primarily to the size of the maps simply being too small. I mean, sure, it can be really hard to dislodge a well-played infestor/tank army (hurr hurr enjoy being stuck in place while 8 tanks gib everything in a 13 range area), but if that infestor/tank army takes 2 minutes to leapfrog across the map then you have ample time to figure something out or at least rebuild your army after making trades. But when it only takes 30 seconds from them to go from the middle point to your front door? Forget about it. Maps just need to be bigger. It'd make fast expand builds much more practical (longer rush distances means more time to react and have units/defenses prepared) and it'd also make it more possible to take and hold a 3rd, even if the 3rds aren't located in positions that are easy to defend, Tal'Darim Altar style. EDIT: It's also worth noting that working with a Zerg teammate as anything but Zerg is a complete pain in the ass because of creep. Especially on some maps (like Magma Core), the Zerg MUST push creep out to his expansions so he can defend them adequately, but that means pushing creep right down the ramp - potentially screwing up a Terran teammate that wants to put addons down - or off to the side, which could cover an expansion location in creep, preventing your teammate from expanding there. It'd be awfully nice to allow teammates to build on top of friendly creep, regardless of race, if we're gonna have maps like these in the ladder. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:22 PowerDes wrote: They should bring + Show Spoiler + back into the map pool. When this map goes late game, stuff gets epic. I believe Blizzard didn't like how non-zerg teams couldn't help each other that easily in the early game, making it rather zerg-favored. But that seems pretty fixable, honestly. I liked that map. Long rush distance, and pretty good rock placement. As a Zerg, you can usually hatch-first to the middle expansion and get good creep spread down the initial ramp. If you ever get an advantage, you can usually reinforce the advantage by taking down some of those defensive rocks. Open up runby paths etc. EDIT: It's also worth noting that working with a Zerg teammate as anything but Zerg is a complete pain in the ass because of creep. Especially on some maps (like Magma Core), the Zerg MUST push creep out to his expansions so he can defend them adequately, but that means pushing creep right down the ramp - potentially screwing up a Terran teammate that wants to put addons down - or off to the side, which could cover an expansion location in creep, preventing your teammate from expanding there. If you have a zerg ally then you don't necessarily want to wall off, as that blatantly screws up your ally. If buildings and crap are in the way, it makes zerg really awful. | ||
|
Skillver
Austria1309 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:22 PowerDes wrote: They should bring back into the map pool. When this map goes late game, stuff gets epic. Lol ur kidding me? That was the worst map ever in the mappool. You can add it if u remove the rocks. It was just impossible to hold some kind of aggressions on that map. | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
1. terrible 3rd base access in almost all team maps. 2. almost every 3v3 and 4v4 map has mutiple players at a single ramp or choke, so if the other team rushes or proxies they only have to break a single ramp to kill 2 of your allies instantly before you can do anything. if each player had their own base, you could more effectively allow them to kill off your ally and then macro up before winning with eco lead. some maps are even super retarded, there's a 4v4 map where you share bases but if you share with a zerg and he spawns near ramp - it doesn't even let you wall off because of hatch creep..... so basically you can't open any other way except spamming units and bunkers off 1 base. 3. feeding your teammates is absolutely rediculous and just should never be allowed to happen. it leads to stupid stuff like 3-4 minute DT rush, or any other rediculously fast tech. not only does this completely destroy the game dynamic, but it's also pretty much unstoppable for a non-organised team (ladder fail). team maps have the same problem that the 1v1 map pool had in season 1... too freakin small and 'chokey'. | ||
|
DexVitality
Hong Kong234 Posts
| ||
|
Nizzy
United States839 Posts
You can talk about 2v2 all you want but the ladder is totally screwed. I still can't believe you have ARRANGED TEAMS vs RANDOM TEAMS in the ladder. At diamond levels and below it doesn't matter. However at high masters versus the: protech/redbandit, check6 2v2 team, itsgosu 2v2 team, hacker sorcery/vitamin 2v2, etc it matters. They go into games with "set" strategies vs every races on every map on every spawn position. When I play RT this is stuff I have to type to my teammate at the start. Some games are already over before they start. I can't stand it. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:22 PowerDes wrote: They should bring back into the map pool. When this map goes late game, stuff gets epic. war zone is the worst map out there. there was a reason it was taken out.... | ||
|
Capiachi
78 Posts
I do have to say though that alot of the problem is that 2 players doing a 1 base all-in is so much more powerfull in teamgames then it is in 1v1 and alot of the losses against that has to do with the fact that 2v2 is not as "mapped out" as 1v1 is. I dont play any teamladder except for fun, but I dont like how you blame blizzard for not caring about teamladder with maps. Hey we get alot of shitmaps in 1v1 aswell, we do get a better response because were bigger as a community. And I can imagine their statistics for 2v2 is very unrealiable as there is alot of 1-2 base voidray only plays... Hell in about half of the teamgames i play there is always someone massing some unit, it either wins them the game or it loses instantly. Not that the maps dont need work, I do agree on those points, I just dont think thats the whole story of it. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
3. feeding your teammates is absolutely rediculous and just should never be allowed to happen. it leads to stupid stuff like 3-4 minute DT rush, or any other rediculously fast tech. not only does this completely destroy the game dynamic, but it's also pretty much unstoppable for a non-organised team (ladder fail). You can't do a 3-4 minute dt rush obviously. The shrine itself takes two minutes. Money feeding allows teammates to help each other if one loses workers or is maxed. Money feeding is fine. Honestly money feeding strategies seem pretty gimmicky. They seem extremely difficult to transition out of. Even the micro/macro strategies, because you're limited by supply later in the game. | ||
|
2v2ApexKillaR
Germany91 Posts
| ||
|
Calvin[Deck]
Denmark88 Posts
But if you defend properly you can have a fun game with 2-3 bases for each player after this. I don't like the fact that there is not so many really big maps though, it is rare that you can have more than 3 bases for each player in 2v2. And bigger maps would also help so that not so many rushes are coming all the time. | ||
| ||
