EPTReminds me a 2vs2 Cloud Kingdom.
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/2/27/TwilightFortress_SC2_Map1.jpg)
Why the 2v2 map pool is stunting the matchup. - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
Reminds me a 2vs2 Cloud Kingdom. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
CSL, like you mentioned, has gone so far as to ban same-race teams (ZZ, TT, PP) because they're just overwhelmingly powerful. Also, in the CSL format teams are encouraged to put in their best players for the 1v1 matches which means they don't have those players for the 2v2, forcing them to put in less than optimal 2v2 teams whose only chance of winning is often a simple cheese or all-in. What I'm trying to say is, there's a LOT more than terrible maps that's keeping the 2v2 scene from evolving into something respectable. I personally hope to see 2v2 removed from CSL as soon as next season. | ||
|
GeezerGeek
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 14 2012 02:59 UmiNotsuki wrote: Well... 2v2 isn't balanced anyway. They (and we) can try to balance it as much as we want through maps but in the end there's just too many possibilities in a 2v2 match to ever get it to reasonable balance without fucking up 1v1 balance (which I think we all agree is far more important.) CSL, like you mentioned, has gone so far as to ban same-race teams (ZZ, TT, PP) because they're just overwhelmingly powerful. Also, in the CSL format teams are encouraged to put in their best players for the 1v1 matches which means they don't have those players for the 2v2, forcing them to put in less than optimal 2v2 teams whose only chance of winning is often a simple cheese or all-in. What I'm trying to say is, there's a LOT more than terrible maps that's keeping the 2v2 scene from evolving into something respectable. I personally hope to see 2v2 removed from CSL as soon as next season. Uhm, no. 2v2 is actually incredibly well balanced right now other than maps. All race combinations are very viable on several maps. Every single other source I have found shows that same-race teams are, if anything, much weaker. The CSL picked the maps Ruins of Tarsonis, Tempest, Scorched Haven, and Khaydarin Depths. Somehow, CSL managed to pick the worst possible maps from the map pool, so they clearly don't know what they're doing. Maybe on Tempest and Ruins of Tarsonis TT and PP are imba, but who the hell cares because they're terrible maps. | ||
|
JakeBurton
74 Posts
On February 14 2012 07:37 DoubleReed wrote: Uhm, no. 2v2 is actually incredibly well balanced right now other than maps. All race combinations are very viable on several maps. Every single other source I have found shows that same-race teams are, if anything, much weaker. The CSL picked the maps Ruins of Tarsonis, Tempest, Scorched Haven, and Khaydarin Depths. Somehow, CSL managed to pick the worst possible maps from the map pool, so they clearly don't know what they're doing. Maybe on Tempest and Ruins of Tarsonis TT and PP are imba, but who the hell cares because they're terrible maps. Just to jump on the bandwagon, I think the reason double racing is banned is that while TT is viable and PP is borderline, ZZ is just extremely unfun. It is possible for 2 zerg players to definitely kill an opposing zerg or protoss and then it turns into a weird 2v1. | ||
|
PizzaSHARK!
United States2 Posts
On February 14 2012 02:59 UmiNotsuki wrote: Well... 2v2 isn't balanced anyway. They (and we) can try to balance it as much as we want through maps but in the end there's just too many possibilities in a 2v2 match to ever get it to reasonable balance without fucking up 1v1 balance (which I think we all agree is far more important.) CSL, like you mentioned, has gone so far as to ban same-race teams (ZZ, TT, PP) because they're just overwhelmingly powerful. Also, in the CSL format teams are encouraged to put in their best players for the 1v1 matches which means they don't have those players for the 2v2, forcing them to put in less than optimal 2v2 teams whose only chance of winning is often a simple cheese or all-in. What I'm trying to say is, there's a LOT more than terrible maps that's keeping the 2v2 scene from evolving into something respectable. I personally hope to see 2v2 removed from CSL as soon as next season. I disagree. Virtually every single complaint about the format can be fixed by improving the map selection. I hate how much safer cheesy shit like DT rushing is in 2v2, but that's a player skill problem - if I'm ever in a game that loses to it, I can usually watch the replay and identify at least three or four things I did wrong on my own, not counting what we did wrong as a team (I never lose to that kind of crap as an arranged team, only with random partners.) The single biggest complaint I have is that maps are simply tiny. I think most maps have a rush distance (using a worker ofc, so speed of, what, like 2.84?) of under 30 seconds. I think some of them have rush distances as short as 23-24 seconds. Even for a 1v1 map, that's tiny - like, Steppes of War tiny. For a 2v2 map when you have potentially 800 food running around, it's even worse. | ||
|
KULA_u
Switzerland107 Posts
| ||
|
TheBorg
Netherlands56 Posts
We like Scorched Haven, because at least both us get to take our natural there but for all(!) the other maps we've agreed that I take the natural (cause I play Zerg) and he (Protoss) can take a base later, if we get that far into the game. And then we have to cross our fingers that I spawn closest to the natural (Discord, High Orbit, Tyrador, etc.) It's too bad 2v2 gets no love from Blizzard. | ||
|
diddLY
United States215 Posts
However they are showing promise of change to come by letting us vote for the 1v1 map pool. It's getting there! | ||
|
RiceAgainst
United States1849 Posts
I went 4-0 2v2 today because 4Gate + Roach Bust is just favored in all the maps. So please, better 2v2 maps! | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
Blizzard putting some towards improving the team experience could a long way to sustaining a large player population, and keeping Starcraft on the radar in general for more players. I wonder what the stats for the various formats are. My guess is that more 1v1 games are played than 2s because the people in the format are trying to grind or practice, but that more players actually play 2s and these people are not particulary concerned about ladder rank. (Also fixing the custom game lobbies with a waiting-for-players-list, but that's already been beat into the ground.) | ||
|
Oboeman
Canada3980 Posts
Because you have two players on a team, you need twice as many expansions (at least we feel that way, but maybe it's not really true). However, with the way the expansions are spaced and the maps are sized, trying to get an expansion for both players either spreads you out in two directions, or brings you very far away from your main. You get situations where the push distance from the enemy to your newest expansion is shorter than the distance between your own main base and your expansion.This is all made worse by the fact that you are generally fighting with combined two player armies, which kill things FAST. I get the most success by taking disposable ninja expansions, getting as much gas as you can, but not investing too many workers, to up your tech level for a stronger army (for me this is rushing to broodlords). Counterattack when they go kill your expansions, because you probably can't save it. It doesn't feel right. For example, on a map like The Boneyard, the only time it is safe to venture outside your base to get a 4th (2nd base for one of the players) is when you have such a strong army presence that you can pretty much keep your opponent hard contained, in which case you can probably take as many bases as you want. Boneyard is an extreme case, but I think a lot of the other maps share similar problems. Here's two example replays of what I mean on Boneyard. Don't expect perfect play - in one of those games we probably could have set up a contain instead of throwing a lot of units away going up their ramp. If we had played that correctly, the game would probably be a good demonstration of how hard it is for the OTHER guys to expand. http://drop.sc/124861 http://drop.sc/124115 | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
Meteora.GB
Canada2479 Posts
| ||
|
locopuyo
United States145 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:47 Polygamy wrote: No more shared bases period. The only fun map ever in the 2v2 map pool was the map from season one where you had separate bases. 2v2 was infinitely better in BW. Do you have anything to support your claim? Separate bases means that being extremely aggressive is favored because it is so hard to hold off 2 enemies by yourself. Which is why I think shared maps are generally much better. | ||
|
Frenzy175
Australia42 Posts
On March 04 2012 14:38 locopuyo wrote: Do you have anything to support your claim? Separate bases means that being extremely aggressive is favored because it is so hard to hold off 2 enemies by yourself. Which is why I think shared maps are generally much better. Yes, but you can only be extremely aggressive against 1 player at a time. Instead with the current map pool you do your all in cheese attack and get to hit both guys at once. In BW you 2v1 all-in player 3 and mean while player 4 is under zero pressure and can just build up for 1-2 mins and then got and counter attack and roll player 1's base cos there is no way he can defend it while attacking your team mate. | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
kAra
Germany1392 Posts
| ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
I think if they modified Boneyard so you couldn't spawn on bases sharing the same gold/xel'naga tower (Meaning forced top/bottom cross spawn), it would good. I find it's pretty easy to cover the two ramps when you're holding the gold/tower. Relative to other more standard 3rds in some 1v1 maps, it's hardly much different in terms of how hard it is to cover. I really hope they can completely revamp the map pool for 2v2 though, some are just pathetic to look at when I see the veto screen. We just really need some level of standardization. It's almost like the completely randomly different styled maps you'd find in the original sc1 map folder (one will have 4 entrances to a base, another will be an island, another will involve 2 gas on the entire map..) | ||
|
Blindo
United States102 Posts
No more shared bases period. The only fun map ever in the 2v2 map pool was the map from season one where you had separate bases. 2v2 was infinitely better in BW. I strongly disagree. Maps with separate bases greatly disfavor non terran races(especially zerg.) There are many fast all ins that can leave you separated that are virtually undefendable. Personally, I think the 3 shared base maps are the better of the 2v2 maps available. When you have 3 bases to split among 2 players, then one player can opt for a fast expansion, while the other takes a later expansion. This is why I really like Tyrador Keep. The rotational imbalance problems are annoying, but there's a somewhat acceptable expansion layout. | ||
| ||
