|
On February 07 2012 23:21 l_Kyo_l wrote:
I think regardless of maps people will still do some "strong" push timings because they're quite a bit harder to hold in 2v2 than 1v1 since unit comps can compliment one another so much. So unless you have like a hugeeeeeeee map, which is kinda >.>... Don't think too much will change. I think just higher level players need to get more into it ^_^
Well we don't know if HUGE 2v2 maps would be bad. I mean it's only logical that 2v2 maps should be considerably larger than 1v1 maps. The question is how much.
|
On February 08 2012 01:22 Ragoo wrote:
Well I think I can speak for all the other mapmakers as well:
If we get a good reason to make 2v2 maps (big tournaments that need them) and if we get feedback from people who know high level 2v2 well (cos we mostly have no idea) then there's no problem for us making some.
At the moment I don't see how those two requirements can be achieved tho.
I'm not a high level player, but I give my word to all mapmakers if they make a 2v2 map I will play the map with my friends and try my best to give worthy responses
|
Blindo can you maybe post this on the blizzard forums so blizzard can take notice.
|
I know you do, and it's appreciated and used a lot (by me anyway) but one man isn't enough - especially in such an unexplored/unknown by mapmakers as 2v2. Anyway, in the end, tournament feedback and observation is the only way to know what's right and what isn't at pro level.
|
Every time I look at the 2vs2 map-pool, I feel like crying. I want bigger maps...
|
Its so hilarious how many people are saying scorched haven is one of the best 2v2 maps, not because I don't agree with them. But rather it just proves that the entire 2v2 map pool was constructed by Satan to punish the eternally damned, and somehow blizzard decided to use them for their 2v2 map pool as well.
Scorched haven has 1 good point, and this 1 good point probably makes it the best map in the 2v2 pool. It has a defend able nat similar to what you see in 99+% non blizzard made BW maps. Thats its only good feature basically everything else about it is complete garbage but that 1 little feature is enough to make it the best map in the pool. How sad is that.
I used to argue for completely split bases BW style. But I'm over that fight, now Ill settle for some maps with a fucking natural that isnt in the middle of no where and cant be attacked form 270deg. Is that really too much to fucking ask for. How did blizzard fuck this shit up so bad?
|
On February 11 2012 13:33 MonkSEA wrote:
Uhh.. The reason there is more attack paths into a natural in 2v2 is.. because the maps have to facilitate an eventual 800 supply limit, and there is more then 1 person defending. If there were less attack paths in 2v2, it'll just turn into a massive "You can't attack me.. because I've got 4 siege tanks at each choke"
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.
Why not turn 2v2 into something serious?
Second the answer isn't removing different attack paths, but making the rush differences a lot bigger so defenders advantage is big enough to allow macro games. I'm certain that there is a gold point where the rush distance is just right, but at the moment they are way to short.
|
Has anyone even mentioned that you can wall off the top left main of scorched haven with only 2 buildings? Rax depot or gateway/forge pylon blocks it off. Makes some cheeses really strong and blizzard hasn't fixed it yet even though the map has been in the pool forever.
|
On February 07 2012 18:06 VoirDire wrote:
Steppes of War was bad because it was imbalanced in favor of terran, not because it was a rush map. I would love to have some balanced rush friendly 1on1 maps if it were possible.
Just because a map promotes aggression and map control instead of no rush 20 min games doesn't make it bad.
I wish this were true. Unfortunately the various races do not benefit evenly from rush-friendly maps. If it has a wide open and difficult to defend natural it will heavily favor zerg over protoss. If it has short rush distances it will heavily favor Terran over zerg.
The way the game is designed at this point, I don't think we can have rush friendly maps that are balanced in every matchup. without making extensive balance changes.
|
omg 2v2 would be SOOOOO fun if they were HUUUUUUUUUUGE. 2v2 maps need to be 4 times larger then tal darim to do well imo
|
Most Blizzard maps suck. 2v2 isn't an exception.
As noted, almost all team maps suffer from a serious lack of bases to take.
Then again, there aren't a lot of good 2v2 maps being made, so I'm not sure Blizzard will be inclined to do anything about it.
|
It took 1.5 yrs for blizzard to finally make a good ladder mappool for 1v1 and 1v1 was always the focus of sc2. So I guess we'll have to wait some time before blizzard changes the 2v2 mappool..
|
On March 04 2012 20:54 Tofugrinder wrote:
It took 1.5 yrs for blizzard to finally make a good ladder mappool for 1v1 and 1v1 was always the focus of sc2. So I guess we'll have to wait some time before blizzard changes the 2v2 mappool..
So very true and so very sad
|
unless 2v2 map makers attempt it
|
On March 04 2012 21:16 orangesunglasses wrote:
unless 2v2 map makers attempt it
Some mapmakers have tried to, they entered the Team Liquid map contest that Blizzard said would consider for potential teamplay maps, and in the end everybody got shunned while three 1v1 maps made it to the ladder. Of course it's great that community-made 1v1 maps were picked, but apparently Blizzard isn't willing to take that step with team maps yet.
Besides, it's not like they didn't have the choice, because the three 2v2 maps nominated at the end of the contest were of three very different styles (one huge macro map with lots of expansions, one very current-ladder-style, and one with separate bases).
|
Well, I don't think they need to be '4-times-Tal Darim'-huge, but 2v2 maps should be bigger than 1v1 - just look at tennis: if you have two players, the court needs to be bigger and that should be a given. Check out the map-sizes of 1v1s and 2v2s and compare them. Most 2v2 maps are the same size as 1v1-maps or smaller (/facepalm)!
Aside from Scorched Haven, Tyrador Keep and The Bonyeard, there are no maps in the map-pool that allow you to expand (at all) and the latter two will only allow one player to expand safely. And that is a cool choice to have to make. Which brings me to the most important part of playing 2s: "Making joint decisions". 2v2-maps should force players to make choices like: "Which one of us should expand early?", "Do we expand together in one direction (more risky expand but we can defend it together) or do we expand in seperate directions (safer individually, but more difficult to defend since you're on your own)" "Based on our race-strengths/weaknesses, who should do what?"
I want to see maps where a Terran team-mate can occupy the center of the map and the Zerg team-mate has to fly and sprint around to make sure that there are no drops coming from the side. I want to see maps where expanding to one side will be advantageous for certain race-combinations and expanding to the other side offers benefits for other combinations. I want maps where my teammate and I have to think "We're ZP and they're PT - what would be their best strategy on this map and what would be ours?"
2v2 is about making joint decisions and the map-pool right now offers only one: "Which rush do we do?"
|
Do you know, now that you mention this, gotta say I COMPLETELY agree. Especially that the maps are awFUL and that that could very well be what is holding back 2v2. Shame but I don't think you will change this easily or for a long while.
|
Make a map with a NR20 rule then, because that's the only thing that's going to get around the fact that 2 people rushing at the same time is far, far more dangerous than just 1 person rushing. Personally I think people have the wrong view of small maps. Yes small maps mean the rush distance is shorter, but a rush doesn't begin when the Zerglings pop out from their eggs, it begins 2 minutes earlier when he throws down a Pool at 6 supply. Small maps mean faster scouting so faster rush prevention.
Or maybe the game is just inherently broken and no amount of mapmaking can compensate for it.
|
On February 14 2012 08:03 JakeBurton wrote:
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.
What ZZ strategy definitely kills a toss or zerg?
|
On March 04 2012 22:27 joyeaux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 08:03 JakeBurton wrote:
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. What ZZ strategy definitely kills a toss or zerg?
TT is also borderline in several matchups.
Phoenix are also so broken right now with resource sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
