|
On June 23 2012 08:14 emc wrote:
this might be a shocker, but blizzard hasn't updated their team map pool in quite some time, so why would you expect blizzard to suddenly care?
between 1.5 arcade, HotS, mists of panda and managing and updating D3, I think blizzard has enough on their plate to not give a shit about how balanced 2v2 is at the moment.
since blizzard ain't doing shit to help you, maybe you should come up with counter strategies. Burrow your entire army right where he is likely to siege, then pounce. Get tanks on the high ground prior to the engagement. Get void rays to attack from above or something.... I'm sure you can think of ways to counter this strategy other than hoping blizzard will hear your QQ and come to the rescue.
Funny. You do realize that just because someone makes a comment on map imbalance that does not mean they simply leave a game and refuse to try and counter a build right? Don't act like an elitist jerk. Oh and go QQ yourself elsewhere about racial imbalance or something.
|
On June 23 2012 08:16 GinDo wrote:Sorry OP, but this is the wrong place to post about 2v2s. Nobody here really plays 2v2 being that competative Starcraft has for the most part revolved around 1v1. That's why Blizzard balances the game around 1v1 and mapmakers specifically concentrate on 1v1 mode. Consider posting in the B.Net Forums. 
That's also an odd statement because there has been more than just him posting about this. Oddly enough this is the SC2 boards and .... even weirder... I know, but I had to double check myself... there is more than just a 1v1 mode in the game. Another shocker is that this is a SC2 general board and since other people have an interest in his post and mods have no issue with it now, I would say that you could either make a relevant post or simply ignore it.
Hating on it because it is not something that YOU do and because it is popular to hate on is simply ignorant. Let those who enjoy non 1v1 discuss it and you can go on your happy life, hating on a part of the game that others enjoy.
|
People that enjoy team games need to find a focused approach to boosting their scene. That includes creating opportunities for high-level games as well as getting more exposure and generating interest.
Right now the Collegiate Starleauge is one the biggest tournament that features 2v2. CSL currently is using Blizzard 2v2 map-pool, however, with the right petition and some help from mapmakers, you could possibly use CSL to launch new maps.
|
Hey OP! I'm sorry to see so much hate for you. I want to say that I love playing 2v2, and I appreciate you for calling out this nonsense here on Teamliquid. The Blizzard (2v2) maps are horrible, and I agree with your original point 100%. Its hard for me to believe that some guy got paid to make this crap. It also makes me sad and depressed to see so many people resorting to the "nobody here likes 2v2 cuz its imbalanced and can't be competitive" argument as a dismissal to your post. I for one would enjoy watching competitive, balanced 2v2 pro games so much more than the standard 1v1s, and I feel the biggest hurdle right now are these horrific maps.
Something about real cooperation within the game itself takes the experience to a whole other level for me. To me teams in SC2 feel like little more than groups of practice partners and/or friends united under the same banner. But the closest they get to really fighting together for victory is in a team league... and look how AWESOME Team Leagues can be. Now try to imagine your favorite players playing together, within the game, at the same time to take down to other opponents. Imagine the feeling of sharing a victory and a prize pool with a close friend and teammate over a series of games truly played together. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, and I know the unlikelihood of balanced, high level 2v2 happening in the near future, but I will not hesitate to support someone who calls Spade a fucking Spade.
C'mon Blizzard.... what the fuck.
|
You won't get much love from this community, 2v2's are kinda taken as a joke (or at least not serious enough to care about) by most players.... Anyway, just downvote it.
|
Just leave it! We need more siege tank use, its a dying unit 
|
On June 23 2012 08:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
You won't get much love from this community, 2v2's are kinda taken as a joke (or at least not serious enough to care about) by most players.... Anyway, just downvote it.
Almost every map needs to be replaced, so that's not always an option.
|
On June 22 2012 18:18 padfoota wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 18:12 Bagi wrote:
Well arguably these things matter less in 2v2s, as you have more opportunities to deny the siege tanks before they get to that position. On this particular game, my teammate got cannon rushed. I had to pull half my scvs and constantly make marine/bunkers to fend off the cannon rush/wall off at nat. By the time we defended it, I had 10 marines and a tank half way done, while the purple player was walking across the map with 4 tanks and at most 10 marines. Yes, given a better situation I would have tanks sitting there already, units on both towers...etc.etc The ramp is extremely far from where the siege tanks are places, meaning an interception is unlikely, as the map is designed to be split left and right. Also - your argument really sucks. How is it different from telling a player who just got 3 rax SCV-allined to "You couldve scouted better and denied it?" Too generic man. Try giving that kind of answer on the strategy forums and enjoy a ban.
You created a thread about balance and stated that you weren't open to suggestions as to how to stop what you claim is OP. You really shouldn't be telling someone they're going to get banned.
|
Thank you OP for the analysis, I was gonna play some 2s with my friend tonight and now I know to veto this.
|
read title. looked at two maps. yep, those maps are horrible. i downvote them everytime i can.
|
My ally and I faced some of this abuse before. Was pretty difficult to deal with, but nothing game-breaking imo. Especially when you know it's a possibility it becomes easier to stop.
|
its 2v2 stfu n00b
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 22 2012 18:11 i.of.the.storm wrote:
I personally think 2v2 can be competitive, if not fully balanced, by a good map pool. Problem is that there's no demand for a competitive map pool because there are no (big) tournaments, and there are no (big) tournaments because it's not competitive right now. Stupid chicken egg situation IMO. The only way for it to get better is for players and fans to start calling for 2v2 tournaments and better 2v2 maps. I think I asked Diamond about it once and he basically said that there's no point in making 2v2 maps because there are no competitive tournaments, and I've seen mapmakers make similar statements. At the least inserting 2v2s into team leagues such as EGMCSL would help but I think they got rid of that... (haven't watched in a while unfortunately). Perhaps we can lobby GSTL to include 2v2s in their sets? But if they keep the winner's league format it doesn't really make sense (I personally feel that they should follow Proleague and do phases of normal format and winner's league format because winner's league allows teams without depth to get farther than they should).
It's not a chicken egg situation, there are just tons of reasons why 2v2 doesn't work well:
- cooperation between the players, which is for a large part random, is of huge influence who wins. Tactically 2v2 won't ever get interesting because of this really
- The balance between defensive capabilities and offense is different for 2v2 and since the game is balanced for 1v1 it just won't work out in 2v2.
- Aggresive strategies practically always dominate 2v2 because of this aggresive advantage, this has always been the case in any 'high' level 2v2 RTS game.
Problems for 2v2 are just beyond maps and not fixable, it's just a fun format without any competetive interest. Has always been for RTS and probably will always be.
|
This isn't surprising. A lot of the 2v2 maps have this type of crap, and the old maps were even more race favoured. Remember the old 2s maps that had separated mains with wide ramps AND destructible entrances to the main?
I can't help but feel like either
a. nobody tests the 2v2 map pool when their maps are created
b. they intend for 2v2s to never last longer than 6-7 minutes, and as such design maps so that moves like this end games quickly.
These problems are even worse for Protoss, as Stalkers get obliterated by tank shots and unless you open stargate tech you can't do much of anything to stop these sieges (and if you open stargate, you get shit on by mostly every other standard 2s openers)
|
On June 22 2012 18:41 Polygamy wrote:
Shared base is the death of 2v2!
thats complete nonsense. shared base is the only way you can play 2v2. if you think otherwise than your a cheesy noob who actually cant play this game
|
Why not prevent tanks from getting there in the first place?
|
So easy to counter.... people in 2v2 just don'tk now how to play, it's not as figured out as 1v1
with a friend we basicly never lose 2v2's (an no, i am not a little bronze noobie talking, we're top masters 2v2, 35° or somehting like that last season in 2v2 worldwide on sc2 ranks), and we NEVER all in, only macro, macro, macro (white ra white ra we love you so much!)
That is FREELOSE vs, cloack banshee, robo, other guys making siege tanks, and zerg just making mass speedlings, it's just so easy to kill those tanks
Yeah, they hit the main, that's so good when you lose 2 workers, react, kill 3 tanks, worth it?
Edit : also, i don't understand people who veto maps, the only maps i might veto are the ones i master perfectly, don't veto a map you SUCK on, how do you learn to play?
|
On June 22 2012 18:03 FinalForm wrote:
Blizzard doesn't care because we don't care. It's 2v2. Go start a 2v2 league with a following as strong as GSL then Blizzard will start paying more attention to maps.
No they wont... otherwise the ladder maps in 1v1 would have no golds, nutdepos and no close on antiga
|
On July 01 2012 07:02 baldgye wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 18:03 FinalForm wrote:
Blizzard doesn't care because we don't care. It's 2v2. Go start a 2v2 league with a following as strong as GSL then Blizzard will start paying more attention to maps. No they wont... otherwise the ladder maps in 1v1 would have no golds, nutdepos and no close on antiga
People need to really understand how 2v2 works first anyways, or it will do like 1v1 and oh, shit, we made even more sucky maps when we actually thought they would be better!
Mappool isn't the issue in 2v2, yet.
|
Taking that siege position puts their army sooo far out of position so either you can save up some forces, surround it and kill it or counter attack and win.
They put features like this in 2v2 maps so the games don't turn in to boring standoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
