EPTI don't think that maps need to be bigger to allow for defence of early timings, but rather they need to be bigger so that you have a choice to make other than which 1base/2base all-in you are going to do because you can only take additional bases when you've already won. If 1v1 has moved on to the point where we are able to choose when/how many times to expand then I would like 2v2 in particular, but also 3v3/4v4, to move with the times and allow that too.
Why the 2v2 map pool is stunting the matchup. - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RudePlague
Great Britain113 Posts
I don't think that maps need to be bigger to allow for defence of early timings, but rather they need to be bigger so that you have a choice to make other than which 1base/2base all-in you are going to do because you can only take additional bases when you've already won. If 1v1 has moved on to the point where we are able to choose when/how many times to expand then I would like 2v2 in particular, but also 3v3/4v4, to move with the times and allow that too. | ||
|
joyeaux
United States169 Posts
On February 14 2012 02:49 StarscreamG1 wrote: Never understood why they removed Twilight Fortress. By far the best games I've played with my teammate. Reminds me a 2vs2 Cloud Kingdom. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/2/27/TwilightFortress_SC2_Map1.jpg) What if we just took cloud kingdom and adjusted the mains so that two people spawned in each main with mining bases that can't be sieged from the low ground? We could make similar adjustments to convert other proven 1v1 maps like taldarim into 2v2 maps. This approach would let 2v2 maps piggy-back on the advancements that the 1v1 metagame has lent to map design, it would be simple to implement, and it could work. | ||
|
joyeaux
United States169 Posts
On March 04 2012 22:32 zaikantos wrote: TT is also borderline in several matchups. Phoenix are also so broken right now with resource sharing. I wasn't complaining about ZZ or challenging JakeBurton, I wanted to know what ZZ strategy he saw was killing Ps and Zs on the ladder, so that I could go exploit it and see for myself. | ||
|
Uninstall
Canada79 Posts
On March 04 2012 22:48 joyeaux wrote: I wasn't complaining about ZZ or challenging JakeBurton, I wanted to know what ZZ strategy he saw was killing Ps and Zs on the ladder, so that I could go exploit it and see for myself. double 10 pool | ||
|
stormssc
Poland125 Posts
Also, bring back The Hunters ! | ||
|
Qgelfich
Germany90 Posts
We actually started joking when we saw some people take a natural on eg. Lunar Colony, since we knew our onebase allin would win us the game for sure if they expanded. On the other hand, strategies that exel at super defensive costeffective play are really hard to counter too. For example take the TP Tank-Phoenix(later voidray or anything else costeffective) strat which basicly maxes out on 2 bases while harrazing you with air and then stomps you with a doomball. In a 1on1 this would be counteracted by taking mass expansions, but on some maps there just arent enough viable expansions to do this. Also some maps are extremely one dimensional, which forces you to engage a slowpushing tankline with air support head on. Some other strats are clearly retarded due to ramp size or splitbases. ZZ vs [PP or ZP] can get super random, since the protoss players have to gamble whether they get double 7pooled or not. If they do get 7 pooled, the game can still go on, because holding 12 fast zerglings on big ramps or 2 ramps forces a huge overreaction. If it is double protoss they can hold by forge first and blocking with canons, which restricts them to 1 base no tech. If its protoss+zerg the game is close to autoloss. If no 7 pool happens but they prepared for it, 2 zerg players can easily outmacro their opponents, since they got a huge lead, just becaus of allin preparations. These are only some of the issues i see, and they all could be fixed if dedicated 2on2 mapmakers would take their time, look at common strategies and allins, and then design a map with defendable naturals and accessable thirds. In addition, remove all gold bases. I would gladly play even more 2on2 if they had viable maps. | ||
|
joyeaux
United States169 Posts
does this really kill a Z? in 2v2 most will drone scout, and no zerg pool comes later than 14 against ZZ. What if the zerg just throws down 2 spines once the 14 pool is done? he'll have 2 spines up, a queen, and some lings by the time the 10 poolers get lings to his base, and probably still have a worker advantage if he goes right back into making drones. I also don't see how this kills a P? the wall in will be up before a 10 pool and zealot+sentry+wall-in can fight off zerglings forever. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
On March 04 2012 23:11 joyeaux wrote: does this really kill a Z? in 2v2 most will drone scout, and no zerg pool comes later than 14 against ZZ. What if the zerg just throws down 2 spines once the 14 pool is done? he'll have 2 spines up, a queen, and some lings by the time the 10 poolers get lings to his base, and probably still have a worker advantage if he goes right back into making drones. I also don't see how this kills a P? the wall in will be up before a 10 pool and zealot+sentry+wall-in can fight off zerglings forever. i have been part of highest ranked zz few season. i can tell you that 2v2 doesn't kill the z. i play zp zt but i like playing zz best. i can tell you on maps like magma core, boneyard...you are pretty much screwed. i find zz the hardest to coordinate with a teammate. if its a random...its over. unless he's smart its gg. | ||
|
siist3m
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
Dear Gods of TL, Please hold a 2v2 map making contest and tourney, then contact Blizzard and beg them to put them in the ladder ;P | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
teamgame maps in sc2 are just terrible and unimaginative. you guys know that 4v4 map district 10? now that could be an interesting 2v2 map! | ||
|
LavaLava
United States235 Posts
We could have real fun with it and explore actual team play, which SC2 is sorely lacking , if Blizzard just put some damn time into applying modern map principles to the 2v2 maps instead of producing such insane rush maps. I think 2v2 maps should basically just be overbuilt 1v1 maps with 2 mineral lines per position, and from there just mimic all the great features of normal maps. | ||
|
Blindo
United States102 Posts
On March 12 2012 13:52 siist3m wrote: Hey you're Blindo from the SoCal CSL LAN! :D HI Haha that is indeed me. That lan was so epic, I had such a blast even though I only won one game! On March 12 2012 14:36 intrigue wrote: i made a thread about this about this same time a year ago =P teamgame maps in sc2 are just terrible and unimaginative. you guys know that 4v4 map district 10? now that could be an interesting 2v2 map! I went ahead and linked this thread in my main post. I'd just like to rebump this thread and comment a bit more on team games. I tried to focus this thread on 2v2s, but I really feel like 3v3s and 4v4s need to be fixed as well(baby steps). I would personally like to see us focus our efforts on 2v2s, because 3v3s and 4v4s tend to be more social oriented. I see 4v4 as a chatroom with friends more than a serious competition. Team games are a large part of what brings casuals to this game. I love playing 1v1 obs with friends, but when skill levels are uneven this can become boring for the weaker players. Team games however let players with uneven skill play together, with no down time waiting for other players to play. Even with only four people, it isn't rare to have to wait an hour for another turn at 1v1 obs. I have a large number of friends who bought the game for team games, and only play team games. I feel as if expanding and fixing the 2v2 map pool will eventually lead to improved 3v3 and 4v4 maps. I'm sure I'm not alone in knowing many players that avidly watch MLG, but only play 4v4s. It disappoints me how many people dismiss 2v2s as a cheese/all in fest. I think people forget how cheesey/all in some of the original ladder maps where. I'm dissapointed to say that there are certain maps like boneyard where me and my partner regularly all in. Especially on close positions, it seems hard to justify any sort of macro play beyond zerg grabbing the free natural for production. My zerg teammate has compared this to when he felt forced to all in every game on Kulas/Steppes. There are too many 2v2 maps where you cannot take a third without already having won the game. There where many maps like blistering sands that had this same problem. I feel like enlarging the maps and moving thirds closer to the naturals to the point where both you and your partner can take a defensive third would greatly alleviate most of these problems. As it is now, there are just too many maps that require players to all in. There are so many maps I've decided to always all in on that I feel secure in an easy victory any time I see an expansion. If Blizzard would just begin with larger 2v2 maps, we can then begin to work towards more natural base layouts. I'd like to conclude this post with a few of the excelent custom 2v2 maps that have been created by this community. I would love to see blizzard start phasing in community 2v2 maps like they've started to phase in community 1v1 maps. A lack of public outcry is the only reason Blizzard has neglected to start doing this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=276803 (2v2) Fields of Strife ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tUKxr.jpg) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/ICCup_Citadel_of_Gaia ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/5/51/Citadel_of_Gaia.jpg/400px-Citadel_of_Gaia.jpg) Notice how there are many legitimate expansions and alternate attack paths. This is what the 2v2 map pool needs. | ||
|
NerfrA
Thailand46 Posts
| ||
|
Blindo
United States102 Posts
While we did not feel that the feel that the existing 2v2 map pool suffered from any significant issues, we wanted to breathe some new life into the ladder pool. If there's one thing that has been consistently addressed in this thread, it's that players are unhappy with the 2v2 map pool. Combined with the fact that 2v2s are being seen in more and more tournaments, it is time for the community to work to promote the use of community maps in tournaments. In particular, I would like to see the CSL try to implement some of the following maps.  ICCup Citadel of GaiaTwilight FortressFields of Strife The 2v2 map pool will continue to feature maps with close spawn positions. Main difference in this format is we’re not aiming for a 100% fortress style maps only, and including a semi fortress map also. In team games, we try to make the gameplay and layout of maps relatively simple to ease coordination between teammates. The maps should mostly be self-explanatory using the screenshots. Like Condemned Ridge these maps aren’t final, and we welcome your feedback. Personally, I prefer the semifortress style because it promotes team coordination. I am still worried about the inability for four players to have 3 bases on these maps. As the map pool stands now, most 2v2 games that aren't ended by 1 base all ins, end when one base is able to secure their thirds. While this sounds like a good map mechanic, it isn't because one team securing their thirds denys the other team from securing theirs. A big part of this is the size of the maps, there is not enough room between thirds to allow for players to be able to take them safely, such is possible on most 1v1 maps. Maps like Twilight Fortress show that it's possible to have maps where all players can safely take thirds. I would like to hear what everyone has to say about the new maps. I'm reluctant to give my full opinion before playing them, but I would have to say that they appear to be more of the same. The good news is that they are replacing high orbit and Discord VI, some of the worser maps in the pool. | ||
|
zmansman17
United States2567 Posts
| ||
|
jeb3
United States27 Posts
| ||
|
Delta-V
New Zealand43 Posts
On June 09 2012 04:36 Blindo wrote: In particular, I would like to see the CSL try to implement some of the following maps. ICCup Citadel of GaiaTwilight FortressFields of Strife I agree with your OP, but why do you like Fields of Strife so much? As far as I can tell, it looks just as hard for both players on one team to get a third as on any ladder map. The close 3rd is ok, but where does the other player go? To the middle gold? That would require securing the middle permanently, because of the high ground above the minerals, not to mention there are multiple other attack paths to it. To the side gold? That is right beside the opponent's first third, and closer to their natural than your main is, as soon as those rocks are broken. | ||
|
lessQQmorePEWPEW
Jamaica921 Posts
| ||
| ||
