|
4713 Posts
Lets please not bastardize the Starcraft franchise by turning it into a team game. The beauty of strategy games, and especially SC2 is just that, the focus on 1 vs 1.
Now, don't take this to mean team games should get no support at all, they should still be taken care off with constant and consistent map rotations like we've come to expect of the 1 vs 1 ladder, and with an evolution in the direction we take those team maps. There could also be some 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 smaller tournaments form time to time, but, and I repeat, these should NEVER become the priority and direction of SC2 as far as balance, unit design or tournament focus is concerned.
I'll use an analogy from sports here.
We have football and tennis, both are immensely popular, widespread, well accepted mainstream sports. Key difference, one is a team sport, the other is a single sport.
Yes you have 2 vs 2 tournaments in tennis, and yes they do have some measure of popularity, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that the main focus and the greatest prizes are in the 1 vs 1 part.
In video gaming I believe MoBA's and Shooters are the equivalent of football and strategy games or BW and SC2 in these case are the equivalents of tennis.
Also note, the reason why both tennis and football are popular is because there is a niche for both, there is a demand for team sports and there is also a demand for 1 vs 1 sports.
That's the same case in video games, SC2 moving into the direction of team play is not only a terrible decision because it gives up everything it has build upon now and enters completely new and uncharted territory demanding a radically new design approach, but it also gives up the 1 vs 1 niche, which, while smaller then that of team games, is still a very lucrative side of the market.
If you think SC2 has issues you are correct, if you think team games are the way to solve those issues, then you are dead wrong. The issues SC2 has is with the feel of it being too coin flippy at times, in the sense that a BO can decide a game before another player has time to scout it and react. Or, and this is the biggest issue, battles are over too quickly and there is nearly no time at all to micro and influence it, the only thing that matters is posturing.
That issue will only be exacerbated in team games, how exciting do you really thing team games would be if you, again have 10-15 minutes of build up with the games being decided and over in a battle that ends in less then 1 minute?
|
I play almost exclusively team games and I also watch Protech and Devolts whenever he streams.
2v2 is more balanced when you introduce players playing random (as Protech normally does).
IMHO randoms make the game more interesting.
I am a social gamer which is to say I game when I get together with my friends on weekends. This means that we only play team games. We have played mini 1v1 tournaments against each other before and those are fun, but the problem is that Starcraft is a game where the better player wins the vast majority of the time so the same guy (me) kept winning and everyone else kept losing. Play 1v1 with friends and you will suddenly appreciate the ladder a lot more.
Mostly we just played 3s and 4s on the ladder and had a blast doing it.
We drifted towards dota 2 one night because we had 5 guys coming which is a terrible number for starcraft. With 6 you can do 3s against each other, but with 5 you are stuck with 5v5ing the AI on Triquadrant redone or doing 3v3 with an AI thrown in.
As far as watching and viewing 4s I would totally do it, because I find watching 4s highly entertaining. I remember the 2011 tournament that TL did. I still have all those replays saved. My friends do not watch Starcraft and basically never have. They will watch a highlights video on youtube or something, but there is no way I could drag them to a barcraft when they could just be playing. These guys love to play games but are not into watching. The same is true of sports. They will play basketball for 5 hours but cannot sit through even an NCAA championship game.
|
the "age of" series was really awesome for team rts. I would spend all my time in 2v2, 3v3 with friends. It was REALLY entertaining, balanced and fun.
I think WC3 was along these lines too right?
Im not sure if SC2 has that, the factor(s) that allow it to become so great for team games, i havent played in a long while but what i did play of team games were certainly not of the caliber of "age of" teamgames. All rushes and stupidly sized deathballs. The game just doesnt allow for more then one battle to happen at once i think, more then two people on the map and everyones too close, you HAVE to deathball.
I could be wrong and i love team games, i just think unless HOTS changed a shitload about the game, my WoL knowledge stands true.
|
i once was 2v2 top 5 team in EU with Zerg & Zerg.
I believe 2v2 can be balanced mainly though map making. The popularity that it brings is a different stuff, and it's beyond our power, cus we need blizzard to make that happen, making more and better maps, making observation tools better developed. Other than that, the metagame for 2v2 is really something else from 1v1.
|
Is 2x2 balanced?
I wouldn't quite say so. Played hundreds of these and there usually seems to be something that just crushes in terms of composition and map orientation.
|
Although the map pools and resource sharing suck, 2v2 is more balance than most people think. I have always thought that 2v2 have a lot of potential and is just more fun to watch and play.
|
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group?
|
#1 question this OP has to answer for this :
why was there 2v2 competition in broodwar (com petitive) and not in sc2? people have always hated 2v2 in this game
|
On October 08 2013 22:15 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Most people saying it's not balanced just never reached top master lvl in 2x2 and think it's because it's not balanced, but let's be honest, it's just because they suck 
I was high master for a few seasons in a row, playing (and winning) against known GMs or the ever streaming ProTech.
2vs2 is so far from balanced that it really hurts. It's not just that some openings in certain matchups are way too powerful, the main problems are the maps and mechanics.
-You cannot build structures on the creep of your ally, greatly limiting when and where to place expansions and how to cover them with structures. Some maps even have the zerg player start too close to the ramp of your shared mainbase, making it impossible to wall-off.
-Some 2vs2 maps have the same size as Steppes of War with the same amount of expansions or less. The mapdesign overall is terrible and one of the reasons why I stopped playing 2vs2 semi-professionally. Seeing the lack of support and care is quite discouraging. HotS had the same map in it's pool that I already played during the WoL beta.
-Even in high masters most of the games are 1-base all-ins as they are incredibly strong. There was a time when T/P and T/Z had openings that were a guaranteed win on most of the maps. Most of it comes down to 2 players crashing down on 1 opponent while his ally is too far away to help - or protoss, who relies on being defensive in order to stay alive.
That said I still think 2vs2 has great potential. As with everything else: Whatever you do, it's more fun when you do it with a friend.
The constant communication helps to break the silence and tension that often comes when playing 1vs1 ladder. You can express your thoughts or get a second opinion on how to handle things in a certain situation. 6 different race-combinations for each side, shared control and ressource transfer all make for very entertaining and unique games. Most importantly, it breaks the staleness that some 1vs1 matchups have become.
It really all comes down to the support from Blizzard, the community and the pro teams.
As long as Blizzard is too stubborn to put any effort into 2vs2, nothing will change in that regard. I firmly believe that in the current state, you can not play 2vs2 professionally without looking stupid. Some mechanics simply don't work, the maps are terribly designed and Blizzard refuses to do anything in order to improve 2vs2.
And I fear they never will. I've played with a focus on 2vs2 from the WoL Beta up to now and it's still the same mechanics, the same maps with it's same flaws. Nothing ever changes until it gets the support from the community.
|
On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group?
As a protoss, I reached #8 EU / #15 World with my terran teammate called Vermillion who is Terran. So I may answer you : YES, OFC !!!!! 
|
On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group?
Yes it is, With the resource sharing thingy, you can make an unstoppable 16gate @ 11min mark Zealot Archon 2-2 with terran feeding.
|
On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group?
here's what you can do
Zerg/Terran
hellion and zerglings rush
Zerg/Zerg
macro
Zerg/Protoss
gate pressure and speed FE from Z
i think terran/protoss can work as well but good 2v2 players will tell you it is really hard against Z/P or Z/T because you cant play as greedy nnormally have to open with a predictable cheese or timing
terran/terran is not viable for a huge amount of reasons namely unable to punish greedy
protoss/protoss is not viable for a huge amount of reasons namely unable to be greedy
essentially with the new mutalisks, resource dumping is even more popular. most people rush then go for resource sharing mutas. this is kind of why you need a zerg as well or a protoss to make phoenix. if you dont have access to phoenix, you can never kill the muta ball, and 2v2 gives Z enough safety to make only muta/drone/hatches/geysers while their partner feeds them and it gets out of control before you can really do anyting about it.
|
On October 08 2013 23:43 HyDrA_solic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group? Yes it is, With the resource sharing thingy, you can make an unstoppable 16gate @ 11min mark Zealot Archon 2-2 with terran feeding.
interesting, i have never heard about this but i promise it's not unstoppable nor is it possible to get to that amount of gates without playing greedy / able to be killed early
|
2v2 isn't balanced at all...
|
On October 08 2013 23:10 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 22:57 ffadicted wrote:
Fact of the matter is, most gamers aren't looking for tough competition and hard work, they're just looking for some fun, entertaining way of killing time, which is what LoL is best at. No pressure, not nearly as much practice/skill/time required, support from teammates, etc etc Starcraft will always be for a different crowd, for the crowd that loves competition, hard work, and investing a lot of time... that crowd is rare when it comes to gaming tbh. Thats funny. I absolutely despise team games. I know I'm in the minority, but I find them infuriating. Unless I'm playing with someone in a coordinated manner through vent/skype or something, it's a frustrating experience every time. I can handle losing because I was outplayed by my opponent, I can't handle losing because I was paired with idiots. I don't at all agree that there's no pressure. Not to mention the screaming infant BM there is in every team game from FPS to MMOs.
What got to me was playing random team games and facing arranged teams that had 100+ games coordinated experience. Then you'd lose the game almost solely on how close you and your ally's playstyle was and in general rushing was the best idea for random teams, since it's the easiest thing to coordinate and only needs a short gameplan. Those losses against scrub 2v2-teams due to poor coordination with your ally was very frustating like build order losses in 1v1 and ultimately it had me stop playing 2v2 (after being rank 10-50 EU for a few seasons) and focusing on 1v1 instead.
|
On October 08 2013 23:43 HyDrA_solic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group? Yes it is, With the resource sharing thingy, you can make an unstoppable 16gate @ 11min mark Zealot Archon 2-2 with terran feeding.
ROFL. It is without that shitty idiot push (called FALCON push), which is one of the problem I talked about with the non balanced point in the first thread "ressources sharing".
But still, that shit is still holdable, and it's the worst and idiot way to get into master imho.
Playing 2x2 to just send ressources to your teammate is so silly.
|
I actually think there is alot of truth to what you are saying. I used to not be interested in 2v2 because it wasnt played at the highest level. BUT I started playing it a little recently and it is alot of fun. I would love to see Flash and jaedong vs Rain taeja.
(i know they have different sponsors, just saying)
|
On October 08 2013 21:53 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:
MAINLY, YES! After some thousand games, I'm pretty certain that 2x2 is quite balanced.
Dear Sir 2v2 is not balanced and you cannot know your skill level is to low to say if its balanced or not the reason you are saying this is because there is no pro who has 1000000 games at the highest level and then can say what is wrong.
Do not say things like this.
I dont get frustrated that people are better then me but i do hate 2v2 where some builds cannot beat other builds
|
On October 08 2013 23:45 c0sm0naut wrote:
terran/terran is not viable for a huge amount of reasons namely unable to punish greedy
protoss/protoss is not viable for a huge amount of reasons namely unable to be greedy
essentially with the new mutalisks, resource dumping is even more popular. most people rush then go for resource sharing mutas. this is kind of why you need a zerg as well or a protoss to make phoenix. if you dont have access to phoenix, you can never kill the muta ball, and 2v2 gives Z enough safety to make only muta/drone/hatches/geysers while their partner feeds them and it gets out of control before you can really do anyting about it.
When my teammate and I were active some weeks ago, we were top5 world with double Terran. It's perfecty viable. (Vetos: Geosync Quarry; Reclamation; Reflection.)
I play dual Protoss with another teammate on another account and I open MSC expand pretty much every game. You have to be more careful against Zerg(s) though. (Same vetos.)
Resource sharing should be strongly limited as feed strategies, or even someone intentionally leaving at the start of the game, are absolutely ridiculous.
On October 08 2013 23:53 JKM wrote:
What got to me was playing random team games and facing arranged teams that had 100+ games coordinated experience. Then you'd lose the game almost solely on how close you and your ally's playstyle was and in general rushing was the best idea for random teams, since it's the easiest thing to coordinate and only needs a short gameplan. Those losses against scrub 2v2-teams due to poor coordination with your ally was very frustating like build order losses in 1v1 and ultimately it had me stop playing 2v2 (after being rank 10-50 EU for a few seasons) and focusing on 1v1 instead.
Yeah, RT vs AT is stupid as well; sadly, without this, it would take several years for top AT/RT to find opponents. Even with this, I had frequently 7-8 minuts search time on the Europe server.
|
On October 08 2013 23:48 c0sm0naut wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:43 HyDrA_solic wrote:On October 08 2013 23:37 CruelZeratul wrote:
Is it possible to play 2vs2 on high level without a Zerg in your group? Yes it is, With the resource sharing thingy, you can make an unstoppable 16gate @ 11min mark Zealot Archon 2-2 with terran feeding. interesting, i have never heard about this but i promise it's not unstoppable nor is it possible to get to that amount of gates without playing greedy / able to be killed early
Its not unstoppable. You just have to do really weird shit to stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
