2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
Without an extremely active 2v2 community maps like these have remained in the ladder. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any macro maps on the 2v2 ladder, most of them resemble Steppes of War more than they do Tal'Darim. The reason Steppes of War was so terrible, was that it had extremely close rush distances and very wide naturals. Most 2v2 maps have these features, or they have thirds which are located equidistance from both players bases.
Notice how both naturals have high ground within siege distance of them. I count five lanes of attack that you have to cover just to take your natural
Now, you can take a look at the rest of the 2v2 map pool and see that there are some bases with easy to take naturals, but almost none that offer 3rds that do not require map control. Look back at Tal'darim Altar, you can take a third without being able to control the Xel'Naga Towers.
I think it helps to take a more indepth look into each of these maps to better understand. So we must use our great powers of Microsoft paint. Let's start with wonderful Tal'Darim first: + Show Spoiler +
Notice how you can easily take the bases 1,2, and 3 with only having yourself open to 2 ramps of attack. The third and forth bases both add one additional avenue of attack to exploit. The expansions flow together and there is an obvious base progression. I can take four bases even if I don't have complete map control, or even any control of the center. As long as I control the highground
Now let's look back at Lunar Colony. For a zerg teammate to be able to take a natural, even if his protoss or zerg team mate can't, you have to open up 2 lanes of attack(or 3 depending on how you split it), one of which is a highground. + Show Spoiler +
Look at how wide that zerg natural is. Can you imagine if this map was split in half and called a 1v1 map on the ladder? It even gets worse when you try to take a second or a third..... + Show Spoiler +
You basically have to control half the map to take your naturals.
And you definately have to control all of the map to take these.
I've neglected the golds, because whoever controls their thirds is going to be able to easily deny the golds. They're potential 4ths I suppose, but at that point you've already won the game. Which highlights the final problem with these maps: The game ends when one player successfully secures their third, because there is almost no way for two teams to have thirds that aren't within siege tank fire of each other.
Even some of the better looking maps, such as the boneyard have this same problem.
This part looks great, it's easy for zerg to take a natural, so they aren't forced to 1base roaches to expand. Even your teammate is able to take a natural without too many extra lanes of attack, even if it is a low ground natural(seriously, we have to take what we can get at this point). + Show Spoiler +
Sadly, it becomes extremely difficult once you start adding the second and third bases. + Show Spoiler +
Anyone who is able to take and hold those thirds is going to be easily able to deny an enemy trying to take the mirroring thirds.
Because of these two factors, the inability to take safe thirds, and the closeness of bases, 2v2 devolves into the matchup we see today. 1 Base rushes are heavily focused upon, and most games end with a single engagement. Even macro games will end after the first clash, because there is no time to rebuild a defensive force before the enemy is in your base. Those games that do continue on are simply fights for who can hold the center of the map, and therefor take their third, which are usually gold bases to further exasperate this issue. How many players have had matches where they trade their army, but are still able to secure a third during the attack? In 2v2s this is impossible, because the team with the surviving army steamrolls into your third which is located in the middle of the map. Take a look back at that 2v2 Map pooland see how many 3rds are literally equidistant from both bases, and then look at the 1v1 map pool and tell me how many 3rds(or even 4ths) are that way?
I am appealing to you all. 2v2 may not be as serious as 1v1s, but it still deserves to have maps that allow it to prosper and grow. If we where still stuck with Steppes of War, I can confidently say we would not see the macro games we have been accustomed on it. The same is true for 2v2 games, which unfortunately have not had the opportunity for the community to make maps or at least pressured blizzard to try harder. The changes made to the 1v1 ladder over the last year have shown that we have the power to make maps change for the better. Don't just sweep 2v2s under the rug, what could happen with balanced maps will surprise you.
edits from the community:
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!
Thanks to Toboe for the poll!
On February 08 2012 00:43 th3rogue wrote: As a tournament organizer, please tell me what 2v2 maps that we should use that are available right now?
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (72)
81%
Tournament Ready (6)
7%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
7%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (5)
6%
89 total votes
Your vote: Discord IV
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (54)
69%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (6)
8%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (5)
6%
78 total votes
Your vote: High Orbit
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (62)
78%
Tournament Ready (10)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
5%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (3)
4%
79 total votes
Your vote: Lunar Colony V
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (43)
61%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (14)
20%
Tournament Ready (9)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
70 total votes
Your vote: Magma Core
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (41)
53%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (21)
27%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
3%
77 total votes
Your vote: Scorched Haven
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (48)
75%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (11)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
Tournament Ready (1)
2%
64 total votes
Your vote: The Boneyard
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (37)
57%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (19)
29%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
11%
Tournament Ready (2)
3%
65 total votes
Your vote: The Ruins of Tarsonis
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (31)
48%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (18)
28%
Tournament Ready (12)
18%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
65 total votes
Your vote: Tyrador Keep
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
8%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (3)
6%
51 total votes
Your vote: ICCup Citadel of Gaia
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (16)
27%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (1)
2%
60 total votes
Your vote: Twilight Fortress
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (17)
55%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (7)
23%
Tournament Ready (5)
16%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (2)
6%
31 total votes
Your vote: Fields of Strife
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (38)
73%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (9)
17%
Tournament Ready (3)
6%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
4%
52 total votes
Your vote: Tempest
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Yeah, the 2v2 (and team game in general) maps suck hard. That's really why I stopped playing them, because it didn't feel like Starcraft 2, it felt like a trial version of the game that wasn't allowed to advance past "8 minute roach/zealot/stalker push"
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.
I also forgot to mention that Lunar Colony V, the map in which I go into detail about, was added in season 4. So Blizzard is certainly not getting any better at releasing usable 2v2 maps. It really pains me when people dismiss 2v2 as a worthless matchup. The reason that 2v2 is a cheesefest isn't because of it's inherent unworthiness, but because of these poorly designed ladder maps. Especially with leagues such as CSL banning double racing(ie TZ, TP, and ZP are the only valid race choices) really opens the game up to some very unique plays and unit compositions. However, these unit compositions are often impossible to get if you can't secure your natural.
Great job posting this Yeah, i feel so too. I feel exactly the same when me and my brother or friend play 2v2's - we actually determine who will be 1 base aggressive and who will take the expansion before the game. This really narrows the strategic options in the game... If Blizzard doesn't care, I suggest that some good map builders start building maps for 2v2's and posting them, and letting people try 'em out. I feel like this can raise awareness and create more pressure on Blizzard.
good stuff, I don't team game any more but in part it's because they have terrible map design. nice analysis, perhaps one day blizzard will learn that "casuals" can enjoy maps balanced for pros just as much as they can enjoy casual maps.
On February 07 2012 17:45 Blindo wrote: 2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
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.
On February 07 2012 17:45 Blindo wrote: 2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
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.
But why was the map imbalanced for Terran players? For the same reason as close positions Metal and Shattered where. As a Terran player, I can say that any map where I have the ability to siege your natural with only a couple of leapfrogs is a map I feel like I have a solid advantage on. Look at games like MMA vs Sen at Blizzcon, those are the only kind of games we can have in 2v2s.
When people say that 2v2s are only for casuals, I would ask them to look at a 2v2 masters division. Most of the top players are masters, if not grandmasters, 1v1. There are several members of Gosu in my 2v2 masters division, such as PokeBuni. 2v2 is starting to be a part of major tournaments, such as the CSL, and certainly has the opportunity to become more than a casual diversion.
SC2 really needs some team maps more like python or fighting spirit. Where all the bases are totally separate but still give you a chance to take and defend 3rd and allows for some interesting attacking and counter attack early on.
They need to move away from the shared mains or never get past the 1 base push direct at each other and the match is over after 1 fight.
Wouldn't shared bases discourage 1 base rushes? If you are separated the rushing team can just kill one of you before the teammate can get over to help...
Completely agree about everything you wrote, been a constant frustration of mine when playing team games. Shared bases help, but most of the maps have few viable expansions anyway so its just a later rush.
My impression is that for regular players, 2v2 is the most popular format to play. It would be great if they rethought the maps.
I'd also like to see some tournaments incorporate 2s and if they did it might put some pressure on Blizzard to improve the team matchmaking and maps. I think 2s would work well in the the team leagues. The way it works in the CSL right now is the 3rd match is a 2v2 match and you can't reuse players in the 2s in any of the singles except the ace, like normal. What has been happening is lower skilled players that practice together as a team are defeating better skilled players who just joined up for that one game, which is interesting to see.
On February 07 2012 17:45 Blindo wrote: 2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
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.
But why was the map imbalanced for Terran players? For the same reason as close positions Metal and Shattered where. As a Terran player, I can say that any map where I have the ability to siege your natural with only a couple of leapfrogs is a map I feel like I have a solid advantage on. Look at games like MMA vs Sen at Blizzcon, those are the only kind of games we can have in 2v2s.
When people say that 2v2s are only for casuals, I would ask them to look at a 2v2 masters division. Most of the top players are masters, if not grandmasters, 1v1. There are several members of Gosu in my 2v2 masters division, such as PokeBuni. 2v2 is starting to be a part of major tournaments, such as the CSL, and certainly has the opportunity to become more than a casual diversion.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that terran tank pushes are imbalanced in 2v2? (They aren't)
On February 07 2012 17:45 Blindo wrote: 2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
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.
But why was the map imbalanced for Terran players? For the same reason as close positions Metal and Shattered where. As a Terran player, I can say that any map where I have the ability to siege your natural with only a couple of leapfrogs is a map I feel like I have a solid advantage on. Look at games like MMA vs Sen at Blizzcon, those are the only kind of games we can have in 2v2s.
When people say that 2v2s are only for casuals, I would ask them to look at a 2v2 masters division. Most of the top players are masters, if not grandmasters, 1v1. There are several members of Gosu in my 2v2 masters division, such as PokeBuni. 2v2 is starting to be a part of major tournaments, such as the CSL, and certainly has the opportunity to become more than a casual diversion.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that terran tank pushes are imbalanced in 2v2? (They aren't)
I was trying to say that maps in which you spawn close to your opponent will almost never yield long games. On large maps, it's possible to have more dynamic back and forth fighting for a couple of reasons.
First, there is the possibility to reinforce a retreating army, or muster new defenders after an engagement in the center of a large map. On most of the 2v2 maps, and maps like close spawns Shattered Temple or Steppes of War, once you have a large engagement, the game is over. This is because since your bases are so close, you'll be able to move from the battle field to someone's mineral line before they can pump out a wave of units.
Second, on maps where you spawn close to your opponent, there is rarely a reliable third to take. Let's look at close positions Metal for example. You can take your normal naturals, but not your normal thirds because not only are they equidistant between you, but they are also right beside your opponents base. This forces you to take the close air main as your third. Compare the additional space you have to control when you do this, to how much you would have to control to take your normal third in a cross positions match. Most of times this means in order to take a third, you need to already be far ahead, or have an opponent with deficient scouting.
I MSPainted this in case my descriptions suck. If you look you can see how much additional land you have to hold in order to secure a third. This is essentially the same problem with the 2s maps. You're required to hold at least half the map in order to take a third. + Show Spoiler +
Imagine if every time you played Metal or Temple that the only positions where close spawns. That's what playing 2v2s feels like.
It's kind of funny you are comparing Blizzard made 2v2 maps with a 1v1 map that isn't done by them But playing 2v2 with a friend I can relate to this post, most of the maps are simply terrible.
2v2 maps for me are solely a way to practice 1 base rushes and 2 base all-ins. They're just designed to prevent you from intuitively doing anything else without committing suicide to anyone with half a brain.
I love to play a macro oriented 2v2 but it is just not possible if the enemies execute their all-in strategies well. I'm very high master with a friend and we have 90% winrate if the opponents do not all-in rush and pretty much 50:50 if the opponents do so. I find team games more interesting than 1v1 these days, so if there would be a better map pool the games would be more legit.
Our solution against all-in play is playing early tanks + 3 gate robo with a lot of forcefields. That way we can defend against pretty much anything and it is on the opponents to execute well or to trick us.
Often the maps give you a small number of viable expansions (often a single natural, or sometimes a natural per player) but third bases that are very far away, and often as close to you as to your opponents. As zerg, I often end up in a situation where a TP team or something (TT or PP similar) take their easy expansions and bunker/tank up. I then want to take a third, but it is so easily denied. I feel like I have to either end the game before they get their natural up, or some BL rush from 2 bases or something... At least at my diamond 2on2 RT level, it feels very frustrating sometimes.
edit: haha Karl, funny how you describe the other side of my problem.
On February 07 2012 17:45 Blindo wrote: 2v2s are beginning to be added to many team leagues, most notably the Collegiate StarLeague, however they are still dealing with an extremely bad map pool. Because of the map pool, we have an extremely all-in based match up. As many of you will remember, the 1v1 ladder maps at release where quite terrible, many of which encouraged 1 or 2 base all ins. Can you imagine if we still had to play on Steppes of War? Well if your a 2v2 player, you don't have to.
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.
But why was the map imbalanced for Terran players? For the same reason as close positions Metal and Shattered where. As a Terran player, I can say that any map where I have the ability to siege your natural with only a couple of leapfrogs is a map I feel like I have a solid advantage on. Look at games like MMA vs Sen at Blizzcon, those are the only kind of games we can have in 2v2s.
When people say that 2v2s are only for casuals, I would ask them to look at a 2v2 masters division. Most of the top players are masters, if not grandmasters, 1v1. There are several members of Gosu in my 2v2 masters division, such as PokeBuni. 2v2 is starting to be a part of major tournaments, such as the CSL, and certainly has the opportunity to become more than a casual diversion.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that terran tank pushes are imbalanced in 2v2? (They aren't)
I was trying to say that maps in which you spawn close to your opponent will almost never yield long games. On large maps, it's possible to have more dynamic back and forth fighting for a couple of reasons.
First, there is the possibility to reinforce a retreating army, or muster new defenders after an engagement in the center of a large map. On most of the 2v2 maps, and maps like close spawns Shattered Temple or Steppes of War, once you have a large engagement, the game is over. This is because since your bases are so close, you'll be able to move from the battle field to someone's mineral line before they can pump out a wave of units.
Second, on maps where you spawn close to your opponent, there is rarely a reliable third to take. Let's look at close positions Metal for example. You can take your normal naturals, but not your normal thirds because not only are they equidistant between you, but they are also right beside your opponents base. This forces you to take the close air main as your third. Compare the additional space you have to control when you do this, to how much you would have to control to take your normal third in a cross positions match. Most of times this means in order to take a third, you need to already be far ahead, or have an opponent with deficient scouting.
I MSPainted this in case my descriptions suck. If you look you can see how much additional land you have to hold in order to secure a third. This is essentially the same problem with the 2s maps. You're required to hold at least half the map in order to take a third. + Show Spoiler +
Imagine if every time you played Metal or Temple that the only positions where close spawns. That's what playing 2v2s feels like.
I would love to play metal or temple close position if it was balanced (which it isn't).
In 1on1, as a zerg I build 4 lings, drones and infrastructure in the exact same BO in 80% of all my zvp games. I mean exactly the same down to every individual drone I make. I can't break a forge FE and P can't deny my 3rd, so the first 8-9 minutes of virtually every zvp game I play there is no variety at all. I wish I could just skip it and go straight for the mid-game. It's like playing chess where it takes 8 minutes just to set up the pieces before playing.
I rather play a 10 minute 2on2 game where I can open 10pool speedlings and use my units within 3 minutes than a 15 minute 1on1 game where I just play sim city the first 8 minutes.
I agree with this sentiment. My 2v2 partner and I have played over 200 games this season, and we've tried all kinds of different things, but the conclusion I've almost always come to on maps is "they're just too small and/or it's way too difficult to hold an expo, so we have to just attack."
The only map I think is okay in the pool is Tyrador Keep:
It feels like the biggest map by far, and it has the most defendable natural layouts.
The map pool really needs an overhaul IMO. For both 1v1 and 2v2.
On February 07 2012 21:14 Dromar wrote: I agree with this sentiment. My 2v2 partner and I have played over 200 games this season, and we've tried all kinds of different things, but the conclusion I've almost always come to on maps is "they're just too small and/or it's way too difficult to hold an expo, so we have to just attack."
The only map I think is okay in the pool is Tyrador Keep:
It feels like the biggest map by far, and it has the most defendable natural layouts.
The map pool really needs an overhaul IMO. For both 1v1 and 2v2.
Although this one has a somewhat defendable natural, the fact that is has backdoor rocks means it is one of the three 2v2 maps that I downvote, the other two being the other maps with backdoor rocks...
And there are almost no maps on which you can even take a natural...
Nice thread I couldn't agree more. 2v2 is what I put the most into along with a friend, but the maps make it really hard to move beyond 10min 1basing, at least now that we've hit masters it has become very difiicult to play a macro game.
On February 07 2012 18:14 Frenzy175 wrote: SC2 really needs some team maps more like python or fighting spirit. Where all the bases are totally separate but still give you a chance to take and defend 3rd and allows for some interesting attacking and counter attack early on.
They need to move away from the shared mains or never get past the 1 base push direct at each other and the match is over after 1 fight.
So extremely much this. I really hate that you cant counter in 2:2. If the opponents manage to get in to your allys base they are in your base too and you only have one option while on 2:2 in bw you could counter while your ally died slowly. In some of the 3:3 maps you can still counter and thats why I mostly play 3:3. But you should try 2:2 on shattered temple, it is waay more fun than the maps in the 2:2 pool.
As some of you mentioned the two new maps added in season 4 were horrible, but the worst thing is that blizzard said that they changed them to make naturals easier to take when you atleast had a possibility to take nats and play 2base on the maps they removed. If you look at their track record I fear even shittier maps for all types of teamgames if they start to meddle with the map pool.
On February 07 2012 21:42 Eatme wrote: So extremely much this. I really hate that you cant counter in 2:2. If the opponents manage to get in to your allys base they are in your base too and you only have one option while on 2:2 in bw you could counter while your ally died slowly. In some of the 3:3 maps you can still counter and thats why I mostly play 3:3.
Yeah, 3v3 has the best maps and the new ones are good enough. 2v2 is pure shit in comparison.
the only 2v2 map i can think of that had a lot of safe bases was twilight fortress (beta), and people complained about it. most of my games on that map were pretty long, and allins usually only worked b/c the ramp was very wide (took a while to wall it)
I really don't understand why most of the team maps are designed in a way that prevents you from taking expansions. Not a single map encourages you to opt for a macro game.
I agree with you, by saying that 2v2 map pool, atm sucks real hard along with the current metagame (all inning at 8minute mark and stuff). However, we need to pass through that, like we did with Steppes and Jungle Basin. Play the map as it supposed to be, not how you want to play.
For example: I have a 2v2 Top 2 Master Team. We play some games for fun, we vetoed some maps, but we kinda like Lunar Colony. We both Zerg, and we already know that in certain matchups, we can double expand, in other we cannot. We already had some 30+ macro games there, as also, we defended a lot of all ins there (and lost to some ofc).
Learn to play the map, according to it's flaws. And then, pressure Blizzard to make more maps. They don't need to be the perfect maps, then again, 2v2 is still far behind for 1v1 metagame, but still, with more maps, with more variation, we'll learn more.
me and my mates micky and crusader top10world, always go over the maps and try to explain tactics, adjusted to each map and matchup. maybe u guys wanna tune in and listen to our while-playing-commentary
On February 07 2012 22:05 JOJOsc2news wrote: I really don't understand why most of the team maps are designed in a way that prevents you from taking expansions. Not a single map encourages you to opt for a macro game.
Scorched Haven, where "macro game" means "2 base allin". :D
On February 07 2012 22:05 JOJOsc2news wrote: I really don't understand why most of the team maps are designed in a way that prevents you from taking expansions. Not a single map encourages you to opt for a macro game.
Scorched Haven, where "macro game" means "2 base allin". :D
Exactly. Whilst you might be able to somewhat secure a natural on Scorched Haven, the map is still designed in a way that screams in your face "Do NOT make anymore expansions!!!!"
Ok, all team games map seem to small, another big problem is some maps, for example arkadan citadel in the 3v3 map pool, only has 2 bases that can be easily secured, so where does the 3rd player take his second base ? Especially when the 2 bases that can be secured cant be taken by a zerg with, for example 2 terran teammates, cause the creep covers the other base.. So Zerg has to expand, literally, in the middle of the map and just die to rushes every game. There are several other maps which also do not have enough expansions that can be secured even for the whole team to just have a second base without one expanding in the middle. Forget ever having a third unless the games already over.
Team games would be seriously more fun with better maps ! Expand or die trying !
P.S , Recent maps seems to be the worst ones T.T I miss Tempest apart from tanks could siege natural gas .
The 2v2 Maps are slightly better now then they were on release. Some of the release maps were tiny with backdoor rocks. It was brutal to defend. I find it frustrating that 1v1 maps are bigger then all 2v2 maps and about the same size as 3v3. Blizzard has some weird theory about maps. They think if maps are to big casuals won’t have fun. I'd like them to make maps where thirds weren’t impossible to hold.
I remember starcraft 1 had some giant maps for release. Now i don't want maps that encourage 200/200 carrier armies but stepps of war esc maps in team games. is not fun. It becomes battle of who has the best all-in or cheese tatic.
I had to veto colony V. It just has to many issues, the multiple attack paths. The mineral line being right by a cliff that can be sieged or cannoned is just silly. The natural on low ground that is super hard to hold promotes 1 base all-ins. The giant ramp to your main makes walls really difficult without 2 terrans. This map has a lot of issues as well as a few others.
Nice read, I have to agree 100%
PS. I have been complainging about the RT vs AT bull since beta
Nice read, I have to agree 100%
PS. I have been complainging about the RT vs AT bull since beta
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some. + Show Spoiler +
From a master arranged team member that's played around 2k 2v2 games, 413X here is absolutely correct. Even if it takes him longer to explain it than it takes me to read this entire thread and write up this response to what he says in the video :
Lunar Colony: 413X is absolutely correct. The expansion path that the OP gives is foolish and after you try it once or twice it should be clear that taking that low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell "natural" is far worse than taking the side expansions behind the other natural.
I would suggest, if getting that base at all, the player that gets their 3rd faster can take that low ground expansion but always be ready to let it die in favor of getting a better engagement between your main armies (either they sent a small contingency to take out that base in which case their main forces are smaller, or they send their entire army in which case you have the whole time that they're killing it to get a good concave and your splash units set up right).
Scorched Haven: I agree with the expansion path given in the video completely. Taking golds is really either if you're already ahead and just want to safely end the game, or if you're so far behind you hope the other team makes the mistake of letting you mine enough from them to catch back up. If you can get spotting obs at the front of their naturals, it's often times better to take your second third on the outside opposite from your 1st third instead of what is suggested in the video. You can set up closer to that 2nd third because the third that's on the same side as your mains/naturals is just really far away from your enemy. With the spotters by their front and your army set up closer to that second 3rd, you can always meet them in time to get a good engagement.
This is a great thread for 2v2 players to read so we can share good expansion paths, but I'm including these two comments to get more novice 2v2 teams thinking critically about larger concepts of the game and hopefully improving the 2v2 community:
Watch out for odd ideas like "you must always expand away from your opponent". This isn't necessarily true. If you're turtling and doing large timing pushes you actually want to expand towards the other player if possible on the map. Since you're turtling you can defend easier, and removing the space between you and your enemies gives them less time to react to your big push. However, if you macro and play defensively/reactively then you should expand away.
Similarly I don't believe "splitting the map evenly" is quite right. You want to split the map in a proportion that matches the cost effectiveness of your units compared to the enemy's. If you're using units that are cost inefficient against theirs (which by the game's design usually give you more map control to expand faster), then you need to have consumed more of the resources on the map. Then, by the time both of you get into your desired late game composition (where you're both using the most cost efficient units you have available), it ends up even or hopefully a little in your favor. Splitting the map this way can manifest in taking a base on their side or even just denying their expansions long enough that your late game kicks in to "catch back up" from using those cost inefficient units earlier.
Tyrador Keep: I'd just like to add that, in general, zergs that favor fighting in open spaces will take the outside natural as the first expansion of the team because it spreads creep there defensively. The choke to the natural is a bit better than letting your enemy take over your ramp (and screwing over the player that spawns closer to it), and if they take the back door down then they have to get well into the main (a nice open space) before you have to engage and you have a flank opportunity through the open exit from your main. What's really bad about this map is the symmetrical imbalances. And I don't mean spawning counter-clockwise from your enemy where they can just siege your in base natural. I'm talking about if you spawn in top right and the spawn in bottom, the gold you can take (the one furthest from your enemy) is significantly farther away from you than in any other position. It's... just not good map execution on Blizzard's part.
Tempest: This is a terrible map as 413X says. The middle is a single circle that fits within the radius of a single xel'naga watch tower. I've found the first team that rushes to siege the middle has full map control and forces the other team to either build up and break out or do some crazy drop/nydus antics. The point being that the map severely limits you in the ways you can effectively play it.
Magma Core This is a pretty sweet map for expands as said in the video. I've got nothing to add.
Rather than maps getting bigger as the number of players increases, they tend to get smaller :S. Some 3v3 maps have a natural each, then 2 other bases. Tal'darim has more bases as a 1v1 map than a 3v3 map.
But yea, as a masters 2v2 player who's favorite format is 2v2, the map pool definitely needs a change. It might not cure rushes completely, but hopefully it will give a lot more chances to go into a long, drawn out macro games.
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 ^_^
play metropolis, yes i know the bases are so far away we would have to scout to defend from a push of the opponent, horrible. I guess nothing stops you from commissioning a 2v2 map from a mapmaker to use it in one of the 2v2 tournaments. And maybe rant at blizzard that you want a macro map in 2v2 pool.
My take on lunar colony would be, neat you can take 1 expansion for 3 base pressure and you can take 3 expansions + a gold for a macro game (only having to defend 2 positions that take longer for the opponent to reach, giving you enough scouting time, unless they take the way through the middle which is basically a deathtrap). So the map itself is quiet nice, like steps of wars was (nice layout on the bases, but short rushdistance to really use it), but i guess the problem is the short. But i doubt you have problems holding the north or south of this map if you want.
Anyway i would say better then ranting randomly at blizzard maps without thinking about them (seen how the op wants to take expansions on lunar). Is if good 2v2ers would work together with a mapmaker to improve this, a good 2v2 map would promote the mapmaker also as he can expect to have the map used in every 2v2. Ranting and just playing ladder won't help 2v2 though at getting a place in teamleague tournaments. (i so hate this allkill fomat, want some funny 2v2, with stuff you never see in a 1v1, even if its just zzvzz all the time)
Still good luck with your 2v2 thing and hopes Blizzard listens and releases a bigger macro map. With just one path like they did with shakuras and say here you go, you can expand without thinking if its good or bad.
Great post. There is so much potential in the 2v2 scene, but if only there were good map pools. After all, 2v2 helps build the team aspect of SC2 as well as potentially set up for some amazing comebacks (1 player manages to comeback against 2 opponents after their ally was overwhelmed or whatever). Hopefully this can spur mapmakers to start on creating some better 2v2 maps.
I've always liked, and played team league quite frequently, and I know exactly what you mean, most of the maps are just so hard to expand, and does nothing but favour boring one-base play, as if that wasn't strong enough as it is in team league. There are a few good maps, but they come in rarity in team games
Edit: 4v4 maps arent that much better, 3v3 is really the only good team league, it outclasses the others in comparison imo.
Completely agreed with the OP. My friend and I focus on 2v2s. The team/communication aspect adds a nice depth to playing SC2, however the map pool makes it painful a lot of the time.
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some.
great vid...thx for taking the time to post it. my friend and i play 2v2's while on skype and alot of how we play is " i don't like this map, i can't expand...let's rush". it got to a point where we were rushing on like 90% of our games doing all ins and i got sick of playing that way, so i enjoy 2v2's less now. here's hoping Blizz will be adding better 2v2 maps next season.
I think I am the minority in that I play a lot of team games, and yet think that the whole point of team games is 1-2 base timings and thats the way it should be. I just don't get it. If you want to macro greedily than play 1v1. (Master across all brackets btw)
I think clever, tricky, timing builds are very cool in 2v2 and am fine with that being the meta game. Still some of the maps just suck majorly, not denying that. I just don't think a map has to give an "easy" third to all players to be good.
3v3 and 4v4 are going to be a shitfest no matter how the maps are, so yeah don't think they matter too much there. But there are a couple that I despise still.
We just need way larger maps, most of the maps you're unable to take thirds or fourths let alone fifths...
Because of this people lean towards 1 or 2 base plays and try to end the game there. Take a look at Ruins of Tarsonis, this map makes me cry a little inside
I feel like blizzard will start fixing team games and other interesting features that people enjoy when they see that only 10-20% of the whole sc2 original buyers will upgrade to HotS, myself included.
As mainly a 2v2 player, I fully agree. Me and my friend (both zerg) enjoy long hard-fought macro games, but they barely ever happen. There isn't even a natural for both players on some maps, much less a third one could realistically take and defend. Not on a single ladder map in two years. It's just sad.
On February 08 2012 00:43 th3rogue wrote: As a tournament organizer, please tell me what 2v2 maps that we should use that are available right now?
I would say;
The entire map pool of 2v2 with the exception of high orbit and that means;
lunar colony v The boneyard magma core ruins of tarsonis tyrador keep discord iv scorched haven
Also having in the best map at the top and the least good map in the bottom. Depending on how you want the map pool. However, that said. If you really want to punish players who generally play 1vs1 and reward players who play 2vs2. I would suggest scorched haven. That map have some insanely powerful rush possibilities that 1vs1 players have no possibility in stopping with the exception of blind counter. But if your a 2vs2 player, you should be able to recognize the threat and deal with it correctly. The only reason for this is due to seperate bases. But you should concider this map for short games.
I play team games a lot, I think if you add more rocks, and I don't mean rocks blocking and expansion, it would help, like... I don't remeber the map but its a 3 player map, with rocks blocking lanes, and a middle high ground lane between the 2 teams
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (72)
81%
Tournament Ready (6)
7%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
7%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (5)
6%
89 total votes
Your vote: Discord IV
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (54)
69%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (6)
8%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (5)
6%
78 total votes
Your vote: High Orbit
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (62)
78%
Tournament Ready (10)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
5%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (3)
4%
79 total votes
Your vote: Lunar Colony V
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (43)
61%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (14)
20%
Tournament Ready (9)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
70 total votes
Your vote: Magma Core
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (41)
53%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (21)
27%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
3%
77 total votes
Your vote: Scorched Haven
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (48)
75%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (11)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
Tournament Ready (1)
2%
64 total votes
Your vote: The Boneyard
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (37)
57%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (19)
29%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
11%
Tournament Ready (2)
3%
65 total votes
Your vote: The Ruins of Tarsonis
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (31)
48%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (18)
28%
Tournament Ready (12)
18%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
65 total votes
Your vote: Tyrador Keep
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
8%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (3)
6%
51 total votes
Your vote: ICCup Citadel of Gaia
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (16)
27%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (1)
2%
60 total votes
Your vote: Twilight Fortress
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (17)
55%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (7)
23%
Tournament Ready (5)
16%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (2)
6%
31 total votes
Your vote: Fields of Strife
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (38)
73%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (9)
17%
Tournament Ready (3)
6%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
4%
52 total votes
Your vote: Tempest
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
I believe the LDLC Winter Trophy 2v2 tournament map pool is covered in the above polls
It's not just a problem with the 2v2 pool, but also the 3v3 and 4v4 maps. The nature of team gives an automatice advantage to the aggressors rather than the defenders, so maps need to give as many defending advantages as possible for team games to get anywhere closed to balanced. Blizzard's map pool, however, punishes defense hard, so team games (at higher levels) are centered around early aggression (games do often advance past that, but the early aggression is the crucial strat part).
This problem has been recognized for a long time, though. We have still not had the intrepid mappers trying to fix the problem, so it is going to remain a problem for the forseeable future.
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 loved playing 3vs3 on Hunters back in scbw times, wish we had a 3vs3 map like Hunters in sc2, no base sharing no symmetry, rnd spawn location, so each game is different from the game before
I would love it if the multiplayer maps got a little more love
i think something like daybreak would be optimal where the rush distance is made larger by map design.
i also find that most 2v2 maps only have about 3 bases per player. Depending on the map, it is either a 1, 2, or 3 base all-in. given the nature of multiplayer games, you usually end up taking a third when your main is nearly mined out, so you never really get to have full saturation
Yeah, the map pool is horrible. I can only think of that map where you have a triple ramp (protected by rocks) where it lead right into both mains. What an horrible idea.
Seriously people think Citadel of Gaia and Twilight Fortress should be in the map pool? Personally as a macro player I'm against the idea of inbase naturals. There should be some risk to taking your natural but also it screws up creep spread for zergs. Plus, Turtling is way too encouraged.
the maps are getting better though. Lunar Colony is probably the best map right now for variety of play IMO. If it had an easier second natural that would definitely help of course.
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.
Well, I'm going to take the feedback from this topic for maps to use in the ESL Country Championship at least And will put the same maps in our 2on2/clanwar ladders, VERSUS and 2on2 Tuesdays, for what it's worth!
As a zerg player who tries to play macro in team games I just absolutely hate the maps. On all but two maps the naturals are just a pain in the ass to defend. :-\
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some.
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some. + Show Spoiler +
From a master arranged team member that's played around 2k 2v2 games, 413X here is absolutely correct. Even if it takes him longer to explain it than it takes me to read this entire thread and write up this response to what he says in the video :
Lunar Colony: 413X is absolutely correct. The expansion path that the OP gives is foolish and after you try it once or twice it should be clear that taking that low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell "natural" is far worse than taking the side expansions behind the other natural.
I would suggest, if getting that base at all, the player that gets their 3rd faster can take that low ground expansion but always be ready to let it die in favor of getting a better engagement between your main armies (either they sent a small contingency to take out that base in which case their main forces are smaller, or they send their entire army in which case you have the whole time that they're killing it to get a good concave and your splash units set up right).
Scorched Haven: I agree with the expansion path given in the video completely. Taking golds is really either if you're already ahead and just want to safely end the game, or if you're so far behind you hope the other team makes the mistake of letting you mine enough from them to catch back up. If you can get spotting obs at the front of their naturals, it's often times better to take your second third on the outside opposite from your 1st third instead of what is suggested in the video. You can set up closer to that 2nd third because the third that's on the same side as your mains/naturals is just really far away from your enemy. With the spotters by their front and your army set up closer to that second 3rd, you can always meet them in time to get a good engagement.
This is a great thread for 2v2 players to read so we can share good expansion paths, but I'm including these two comments to get more novice 2v2 teams thinking critically about larger concepts of the game and hopefully improving the 2v2 community:
Watch out for odd ideas like "you must always expand away from your opponent". This isn't necessarily true. If you're turtling and doing large timing pushes you actually want to expand towards the other player if possible on the map. Since you're turtling you can defend easier, and removing the space between you and your enemies gives them less time to react to your big push. However, if you macro and play defensively/reactively then you should expand away.
Similarly I don't believe "splitting the map evenly" is quite right. You want to split the map in a proportion that matches the cost effectiveness of your units compared to the enemy's. If you're using units that are cost inefficient against theirs (which by the game's design usually give you more map control to expand faster), then you need to have consumed more of the resources on the map. Then, by the time both of you get into your desired late game composition (where you're both using the most cost efficient units you have available), it ends up even or hopefully a little in your favor. Splitting the map this way can manifest in taking a base on their side or even just denying their expansions long enough that your late game kicks in to "catch back up" from using those cost inefficient units earlier.
Tyrador Keep: I'd just like to add that, in general, zergs that favor fighting in open spaces will take the outside natural as the first expansion of the team because it spreads creep there defensively. The choke to the natural is a bit better than letting your enemy take over your ramp (and screwing over the player that spawns closer to it), and if they take the back door down then they have to get well into the main (a nice open space) before you have to engage and you have a flank opportunity through the open exit from your main. What's really bad about this map is the symmetrical imbalances. And I don't mean spawning counter-clockwise from your enemy where they can just siege your in base natural. I'm talking about if you spawn in top right and the spawn in bottom, the gold you can take (the one furthest from your enemy) is significantly farther away from you than in any other position. It's... just not good map execution on Blizzard's part.
Tempest: This is a terrible map as 413X says. The middle is a single circle that fits within the radius of a single xel'naga watch tower. I've found the first team that rushes to siege the middle has full map control and forces the other team to either build up and break out or do some crazy drop/nydus antics. The point being that the map severely limits you in the ways you can effectively play it.
Magma Core This is a pretty sweet map for expands as said in the video. I've got nothing to add.
I think this is a great post. I've never really thought about it, but you're completely right on Lunar Colony. It's still pretty hard to hold that base, but it's much easier than the "low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell natural"
Tyrador Keep is better than some of the other maps, but the positional imbalances and backdoor rocks make it annoying. I like the idea of a shared base with one expansion to share between players(so zergs can get their expo). I do not like maps like Scorched haven however that give you an easy natural, but no easy third. Basically this map boils down to 2 base timings that either allow you to win, or contain your opponent so you can take the gold for a safe victory.
As well as the other two honorable mentions of the Team Liquid map contest (Citadels of Gaia and Hipster Heaven, if memory serves).
This make looks great. Not only is it large, but the actual shared bases have alot of space to build in as well. Many times with shared base maps, zerg won't be able to creep spread normally, because it would interfere with your wall off or choke up to much of your building space. However, there still aren't too many expansions, but at least I could feasibly see myself grabbing a third safely without already being 30 food ahead of my opponent.
On February 08 2012 00:43 th3rogue wrote: As a tournament organizer, please tell me what 2v2 maps that we should use that are available right now?
ICCup Citadel of Gaia, Twilight Fortress, and potentially Citadel of Strife. I was really sad when they removed Twilight Fortress because it tended to encourage 2v2 teams to "turtle up". Sure, it would be nice if taking the naturals made you a little more exposed, but beyond that, the expansion progression was very nice on this map. Each new set of expansions opened up only a few addition attack paths.
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (72)
81%
Tournament Ready (6)
7%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
7%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (5)
6%
89 total votes
Your vote: Discord IV
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (54)
69%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (6)
8%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (5)
6%
78 total votes
Your vote: High Orbit
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (62)
78%
Tournament Ready (10)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
5%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (3)
4%
79 total votes
Your vote: Lunar Colony V
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (43)
61%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (14)
20%
Tournament Ready (9)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
70 total votes
Your vote: Magma Core
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (41)
53%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (21)
27%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
3%
77 total votes
Your vote: Scorched Haven
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (48)
75%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (11)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
Tournament Ready (1)
2%
64 total votes
Your vote: The Boneyard
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (37)
57%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (19)
29%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
11%
Tournament Ready (2)
3%
65 total votes
Your vote: The Ruins of Tarsonis
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (31)
48%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (18)
28%
Tournament Ready (12)
18%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
65 total votes
Your vote: Tyrador Keep
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
8%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (3)
6%
51 total votes
Your vote: ICCup Citadel of Gaia
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (16)
27%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (1)
2%
60 total votes
Your vote: Twilight Fortress
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (17)
55%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (7)
23%
Tournament Ready (5)
16%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (2)
6%
31 total votes
Your vote: Fields of Strife
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (38)
73%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (9)
17%
Tournament Ready (3)
6%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
4%
52 total votes
Your vote: Tempest
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
I believe the LDLC Winter Trophy 2v2 tournament map pool is covered in the above polls
Could these please be added to the OP?
Certainly! Great job on constructing the poll, it looks very professional, I'll add them in now!
Sir, I agree with everything you are saying in the OP. The maps need current 1v1 map characteristics in order to be good, as we can see from the improvement in 1v1 maps.
On February 08 2012 01:26 Art_of_Kill wrote: i loved playing 3vs3 on Hunters back in scbw times, wish we had a 3vs3 map like Hunters in sc2, no base sharing no symmetry, rnd spawn location, so each game is different from the game before
Yes, I cant se that SC2 is so different from that you now have to share bases to play teamgames. Hunters was so figured out that it was balanced on high level play. Atleast in 3:3. The hunters conversions in SC2 are too small (due to editor conversion), only BGH and/or broken with sc2 hotkeys for BW mode and stuff like that. If someone has found a low hunters with a "correct" size please tell me.
The closest I can come to bw teamgames now is Shattered Temple 2:2. 2nd option is 3:3 ladder with some maps where you can counter. But teamplay in sc2 really suffers due to the maps. I was happy with only one map for 3:3 and 4:4 in BW and I have yet to find anything close to that in sc2 and even if such a map exists, I have to manage to find 5 other people willing to play with me due to the custom matchmaking system.
Sorry for going a bit too much into 3:3 but it's still about maps and teamgames.
I do think that the 3v3 and 4v4 maps need to be changed, but to try and achieve balance and macro for them would be incredibly difficult. 2v2 is much easier because the armies are still small enough that they can work together but when you start adding in many more units its just a cluster fuck of who has more dps. I would love to have a competitive 2v2 map pool and a nice set of fun maps for 3v3 and 4v4.
I think that if the maps were changed in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 so that there were some larger maps were macro games were a possibility then the game modes might become more viable, but until then, it's all going to be kind of a joke mode. the other thing that makes the modes kind of a joke is how, 4,3 or 2 people can get together, win their 5 placement matches with some all in strategy what is hard to deal with or whatever, and get ranked masters and then players consider themselves masters...I think that if something was done about both of these, then the team matchups would become much more viable. My 2 cents XD nice post OP
I really disliked Twilight Fortress, that map was horrible for me. If I have to choose between long macro games and fast, intense micro battles I'm choosing the latter.
I'm in Master 2v2 league and even with all-ins it's really hard to win/lose in less than 10 minutes. 2v2 has to be more violent, so length of the games would be more like 1v1s. I'd hate 2v2 if every game would be 30-minute long.
On February 10 2012 23:37 Indolent wrote: I really disliked Twilight Fortress, that map was horrible for me. If I have to choose between long macro games and fast, intense micro battles I'm choosing the latter.
I'm in Master 2v2 league and even with all-ins it's really hard to win/lose in less than 10 minutes. 2v2 has to be more violent, so length of the games would be more like 1v1s. I'd hate 2v2 if every game would be 30-minute long.
The thing with good maps is that both playstyles are perfectly viable.
Although obviously playing for the long game is more solid.
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
Thank you for pointing out the dire need of 2's players for new maps. I am trying to think of some now that will address your issues. Might have 1 in mind already.
Does anyone else agree that the 4 spawn locations (8players total) seems really unnecessary for 2v2 maps? Why aren't they all 4 player team maps? All that space used for spawn locations could be put to much better use.
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
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.
NO. Those maps you posted are so FUCKING boring to play on. A lot of the blizz 2v2 maps are pretty linear, but at least they are fast paced, and encourage aggression.
yup it really does suck, pretty sure tho blizzard mentioned sometime that tho they want to balance the 2v2, they wanted 2v2 maps (or did they just say team games in general, or did they mean only 3v3 and 4v4?) to still be "noob-friendly" meaning quick, simple games, which I guess means rushes and stuff
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this is because their map making crew stinks. its probably a separate division and they probably marginally work with david kim.
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.
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.
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.
I posted on the beta forums that 2v2 is all about the maps. The good change between SC1 and SC2 is that you can now have teammates spawn next to each other. The problem with twilight fortress wasn't that people spawned next to each other with a shared choke(this is actually a good feature). The problem was you had free expansions behind the shared choke. This forced long turtled games
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?
I don't think that some of the 2v2 maps are that bad.
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.
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.
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 :/
I just veto the 2v2 maps that are hardest to get naturals in.
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.
There are a lot of things wrong with team games and SC2. The entire game is built to make team games amount to little more than a clusterf*** of random crap, rushing, and cheese, for two reasons.
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.
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.
My buddy linked me here. I basically don't play 1v1 (though I watch plenty of it), but I have played 2v2 "seriously" with a variety of players, most recently with someone I'd consider better than me.
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.
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.
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.
i love the team games, but the dynamics are pretty awful.
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'.
I will agree with you in the sense that 2v2 Maps really suck... I pretty much stopped playin cause most maps have turned into rush maps after getting to Rank 2 in SEA 2v2's and then played other stuff... Hopefully in future seasons they will put more thought in 2v2 maps.
Decent OP, agree with most points, other points I disagree with but only because you don't see some other 'sides' to them. Like I have no problem with the 1 expo in the back of the bases. It brings strategy to the game, like "who should take the expo?" etc...
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 agree on alot of the mapspecific problems you post here.
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.
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.
I play a lot of 2v2 in the diamond level with my buddy. And we almost never have very short games. Because the maps sucks, and the current metagame, you have to know how to defend the 6-8 minute push, that comes in almost every game. (That or some cheese earlier)
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.
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 +
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.
Great post OP, thanks for raising these issues. I've always been frustrated with the rushy nature of 2v2 but never realized how much the maps influence that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the 2on2 pool is completetly ridiculous. there is not a single good map in there, ranging from below mediocre to horrible. blizzard just doesn't really care about 2on2.
I play a lot of 2v2s with my friend. We really prefer to play macro-games (sure a 9-pool/proxy 2-gate every now and then is fun) but to tell you the truth, most of the time we play a combo 7RR/4-Gate. Not because we want to but because we have to. Anything more macro-oriented than that is basically gg.
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.)
I am a believer that with a macro oriented map pool, (And stopping AT from playing RT...) will help develop the 2v2 ladder. As it currently stands, you are forced to 1 base, or more realistically, forced to all in.
However they are showing promise of change to come by letting us vote for the 1v1 map pool. It's getting there!
I like1v1 Ladder but 2v2 and 3v3 w/ friends has me clicking the [Find Match] button 50 to 100% times more than 1v1. The bad map pool does discourage me and my main practice partner as he and I like macro games.
I went 4-0 2v2 today because 4Gate + Roach Bust is just favored in all the maps. So please, better 2v2 maps!
My impression is that there are a ton of people who pretty much only play 2s (and occasional 3s and 4s) and almost never play 1v1 ladder. These people tend to be casual and wouldn't even know about a site like TL but they just like playing wiht a friend. I'm basing this off the few people I've encountered in 'the wild' and asked them about how they play the game. All of them tried a bit of ladder 1v1 initially but now ONLY play team games, if they play at all.
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.)
I feel like this is a big problem of 2v2s - the amount of effort required to hold an expansion is too comparable to the amount of effort required to destroy your opponent. You can't really use an expansion as a way to get ahead. You get ahead first, THEN you choose between expanding or winning right now.
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
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.
You would think that Blizzard would do something about the ladder pool for 2v2 and beyond, especially considering how there's a huge demographic that plays with their friends in those games and never touch 1v1 (all my friends are like that). Hopefully they do something about it.
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.
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.
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.
Boneyard makes it seem like you can FE safely, but the distance is so short its easy to pull off a coordinated roach rush/4gate or something similar... I don't think its any better than the rest of the pool.
I don't think Boneyard is THAT bad. Boneyard and Scorched Haven I think are the two decent ladder maps.
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..)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Holding early rushes isn't an issue in 2v2s most the time imo (I find it's a lot worse in 4v4/3v3 with split/separate bases).
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.
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 +
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I played the Team Germany 2v2 qualifier and am now on Team Germany for 2v2. I can seriously say, if it wasnt for the onebase strengh of my terran ally, at some points in the tournament i would have liked to cry. Certain strategies are too strong at them moment, which is simply because of maps. If my only options as Zerg in a ZT combination is to either open 10or14 pool speedling baneling allin or onebase roach with the support of a 111 of my T ally, things can get frustrating. Taking a natural on most maps is like shooting yourself. 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Totally agree with op. The map pool is an abomination. There have been so many blatent lapses of understanding of Starcraft and the community since release, and we always game the same explanation "we want it to be fun and interesting, so we tried something different" I really wish thier goal was to create the game as "competitive, balanced, and flexible to many playstyles" Because honestly, macro players (the core of long term starcrarft players) haven't been getting enough love. Furthermore, the map making community is capable of fixing this in no time. If only they would get a little love from Blizz....
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
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've been saying it for ages- 2v2 is barely shittier and barely more imbalanced than 1v1 on Steppes of war.
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.
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.
In light of the proposed season 8 map pool, I'd like to revisit this thread. Particularly after the following quote from Blizzard.
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.
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.
As someone who's been top 10 NA 2v2 for a few seasons, I have to agree the 2v2 maps promote all-in play and it really takes away from the MU. There need to be more in-base 3rd maps.
Long time AT 2v2er. I agree as well. I don't have as much time to play SC2 as I used to, but when I do I try to play with friends. The 2v2 map pool totally ruins the experience for us. Almost every game is an all-in fest. The maps are so small and/or poorly designed that it makes for really uninteresting play, and prevents development in the metagame. As mentioned previously, if a 2v2 map doesn't allow for relatively safe 3rd base for every player, then the map does not allow for anywhere near the full gamut of what 2v2 has to offer.
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/d/d6/Steppes_of_War.jpg/400px-Steppes_of_War.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/c/ce/Tal%27darim_Altar_LE.jpg/600px-Tal%27darim_Altar_LE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/3f/Lunar_Colony_V.jpg/600px-Lunar_Colony_V.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ldErA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yU6Dm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lSVmP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7fQnV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lLTTT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/89Gpy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/act7k.png)
Discord IV
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TFghd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/4/4f/Tyrador_Keep.jpg/150px-Tyrador_Keep.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/e/ed/The_Ruins_of_Tarsonis.jpg/400px-The_Ruins_of_Tarsonis.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/f/f6/War_Zone.jpg/483px-War_Zone.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/2/27/TwilightFortress_SC2_Map1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tUKxr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/5/51/Citadel_of_Gaia.jpg/400px-Citadel_of_Gaia.jpg)
