|
On October 08 2013 22:15 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 21:59 DarkLordOlli wrote:
The map pool is horrible for 2v2 and I wouldn't say it's balanced. Let's say your team is Z/P and you run into two zergs. Against a double 6 pool you're simply screwed unless you specifically play hyper safe which screws you over if they play standard. Some races and their build combinations just flat out beat others, no way around it. Lol. Sorry, but when I'm playing with a normal ally Z, doing my usual 9 scout, if we see opponents doing double 6 pool, we instantly know that we won the game =] What you are talking about is a lack of knowledge, not balanced stuff. 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 
:O
Teach me! Me and my friend also plays P/Z. He scouts after 9-pylon and i usually open 14/14 when facing other zergs.
One of us usually dies when the other team double 6/7-pools us.
How do you hold it?
|
lol it sounds you want to make every hard/competitive 1v1 game into a team game... no... just no.
I guess you just weren't born for 1v1, that's fine.
I agree that having some 2v2s would be fun to watch, but it's kinda hard to have it considering every player is training to be 1v1. We usually had like 4x1v1 and 1x2v2 clan/team wars in BW (even in proleague, for a long time) and it made it more dynamic and interesting.
Also, it's funny, but you can actually get to #1 Masters in 2v2 easily by doing PZ cannon rushes+10 or 15 pool. :D
|
On October 10 2013 02:50 Masq wrote:
Interesting point of view.
You could probably attribute a lot of SCBW popularity to 3v3 hunters and such.
Correction, Big Game Hunters.
Hunters was for hipsters who felt they wanted to play a "more fair" money map lol
|
On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Just want to touch on a few points, specifically concerning maps. Why do I know anything about this? Well, I was master in all WoL team play modes and I am also a mapmaker whose had his 2v2 maps played in some community tournaments.
Map rush distances need to be increased to allow for better macro games.
It is difficult to describe why this doesn't work, but I've tried it and for every problem it solves, you end up with a new problem. Basically, if you increase rush distance you are disallowing whole play styles and certain rushes. The threat of rushes needs to be there in order to prevent an automatic late game rush. Larger sizes also favor base trading which upsets balance. In general it favors ling muta style and bio drops and makes everything else suck. Rush distances need to be roughly the same as in 1v1 maps, that is to say, no bigger than TDA cross positions at the very most.
The thing is, if the map isn't big, it should be a map with more than 3 statring place to prevent most ugly cheeses (cannon rush/ 6 pool with OV vision is the dirtiest s****...)
On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Separate v Shared bases.
I'm in the camp that says shared bases are the only way to go, unless there is some separate base layout that has yet to be discovered. Double proxies and forcefield ramp blocks are a problem on separate base maps. You shouldn't be able to section off two teammates from each other unless they make a strategic mistake (this goes for the center of the map as well)
I never had real problem with proxies. When scouted it's holdable most of the time, because the previous race that had trouble (protoss) have msc. The only annoying stuff is 6 pool/cannon rush, but a shared base makes it even better...
On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Feeder Strats OP
Unless something has changed in hots, there are no feeder strats that are impossible to hold if you know how to respond. Granted, some of the strats are very strong and hard to hold, and many require such outside-the-box defensive strats that its nearly impossible to do the right thing the first time you see the strat. That said, there is a way to hold all of the feeder strats that I know of. If you are dying to a player that had their teammate leave at the start, you are just not playing properly. 2 players with 500 gas is always better than 1 player with 1000 gas. Just turtle until 400 supply and its gg. The idea that one player getting fed can tech faster and therefore win automatically is just not correct. Again, you just need to respond in a much different way than normal.
What. The. Fuck. You don't make sense, you know ?
The idea that the player getting fed can tech faster IS correct.
For exemple I prefer to have a protoss with 1000 gas than 2 protoss with 500 gas, because if I tech to DT I can have 2-3 more DT, and at a faster timing.
Or, you can do a 2 robo collosus and have 2 more collossus at an realy timing (you avoid paying 200 for both the bay and the upgrade), ect...
And you know that you can still build units with the leaver ?
Nothing prevent the guy alone to tech with the leaver once he's got all the map (as his opponent turtle), and do 200 supply of whatever he wants ("why does the leaver suddently have 20 broodlords ?").
|
On October 10 2013 03:30 kubiks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Just want to touch on a few points, specifically concerning maps. Why do I know anything about this? Well, I was master in all WoL team play modes and I am also a mapmaker whose had his 2v2 maps played in some community tournaments.
Map rush distances need to be increased to allow for better macro games.
It is difficult to describe why this doesn't work, but I've tried it and for every problem it solves, you end up with a new problem. Basically, if you increase rush distance you are disallowing whole play styles and certain rushes. The threat of rushes needs to be there in order to prevent an automatic late game rush. Larger sizes also favor base trading which upsets balance. In general it favors ling muta style and bio drops and makes everything else suck. Rush distances need to be roughly the same as in 1v1 maps, that is to say, no bigger than TDA cross positions at the very most.
The thing is, if the map isn't big, it should be a map with more than 3 statring place to prevent most ugly cheeses (cannon rush/ 6 pool with OV vision is the dirtiest s****...) Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Separate v Shared bases.
I'm in the camp that says shared bases are the only way to go, unless there is some separate base layout that has yet to be discovered. Double proxies and forcefield ramp blocks are a problem on separate base maps. You shouldn't be able to section off two teammates from each other unless they make a strategic mistake (this goes for the center of the map as well)
I never had real problem with proxies. When scouted it's holdable most of the time, because the previous race that had trouble (protoss) have msc. The only annoying stuff is 6 pool/cannon rush, but a shared base makes it even better... Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:03 TheFish7 wrote:
Feeder Strats OP
Unless something has changed in hots, there are no feeder strats that are impossible to hold if you know how to respond. Granted, some of the strats are very strong and hard to hold, and many require such outside-the-box defensive strats that its nearly impossible to do the right thing the first time you see the strat. That said, there is a way to hold all of the feeder strats that I know of. If you are dying to a player that had their teammate leave at the start, you are just not playing properly. 2 players with 500 gas is always better than 1 player with 1000 gas. Just turtle until 400 supply and its gg. The idea that one player getting fed can tech faster and therefore win automatically is just not correct. Again, you just need to respond in a much different way than normal.
What. The. Fuck. You don't make sense, you know ? The idea that the player getting fed can tech faster IS correct. For exemple I prefer to have a protoss with 1000 gas than 2 protoss with 500 gas, because if I tech to DT I can have 2-3 more DT, and at a faster timing. Or, you can do a 2 robo collosus and have 2 more collossus at an realy timing (you avoid paying 200 for both the bay and the upgrade), ect... And you know that you can still build units with the leaver ? Nothing prevent the guy alone to tech with the leaver once he's got all the map (as his opponent turtle), and do 200 supply of whatever he wants ("why does the leaver suddently have 20 broodlords ?").
Would it be impressive to have 1v1 start as 3v3 and then 2 players drop at the team's choice.
1v1 with 3 bases and 600 max supply.
|
As much as I sing the praises of 2v2, just last night I had an infuriating night with my partner.
We played the same team 3 times in a row. It was ZP v ZP. And the opposing team did the same thing two games in a row, then KIND of changed it up in the third. The first game they did early pressure, a lot of speedlings + warp prism four warp gate. I had done 14-14-14 (gas/pool/hatch) I had wanted to hatch first, but the protoss blocked my expo. This was one... Reflection, I think the map is called. My partner took a lot of damage, and then the zerg just maxed out on 1-1 roached while the protoss supported with gateway units and they stomped us.
Next map... I don't remember what it's called, but it's the one with shared bases + a gold in the base as well. I went 14/14 because I expected them to do the same thing, as well as blocking my expo, which they did. My partner went for fast DT tech. He did some damage to the zerg, but they counter pressured with speedlings + 4wg again. We held it off, with less damage this time, but the Z maxed out on roaches and the P had gateway units again. At this point, I was a little frustrated and said "Max roaches ftw, I guess?" They weren't BM, I said gg as well and just said that I didn't know what to do to beat that. They responded with "go air." Over Skype, I said to my partner "Yeah, because mutas beat roaches, right?"
The next map we were matched up against them AGAIN. It was the lava tileset map. I was not going to go air, but this time I managed to get my 14 hatch up because I got there before the protoss blocked it. My partner decided he was going to go voids and gateway units. But because last game they had told us to "go air" to counter them, the protoss did a 2 stargate opening with phoenixes, into voids. SO I ended up getting supply blocked pretty hard by phoenixes, my partner didn't want to go voids because phoenixes... He snuck a pretty fast hidden expo, I got up a gold very quick and was planning on going ling/hydra (I don't know, I was on tilt at this point) Lo and behold, in came the 200/200 roach army, this time with phoenixes and voids and gateway units. And we got rolled for the 3rd game in a row.
The roach player rarely fought our armies. He would run past and snipe my hatches and my partners pylons. At the end of the games, we said the same things: "I have so much money, but I can't produce."
It was a very humbling and frustrating night, and brings up some of the points that were brought up earlier in this thread... some strats are just OP, it feels like. I'm sure if we played them a few more times we would have figured something out, but 3 games in a row, they did essentially the same strat, and 3 games in a row, we got smashed. And we're not a bad team, like I said, top Diamond, and we've been in Masters before.
|
Uhh the person in 2v2 for feeding strat doesn't leave the game. You simply play as terran and drop orbitals/mules the whole game after you build the initial wall. There's plenty of stupid shit you can do like mass muta or mass voidray.
|
every now and again one of these team games fanatic's shows up in a thread just like this.
I'm afraid that most of us don't care for team games, sc2 is made for 1v1 and that's the why i think it should be
|
On October 10 2013 04:14 igay wrote:
every now and again one of these team games fanatic's shows up in a thread just like this.
I'm afraid that most of us don't care for team games, sc2 is made for 1v1 and that's the why i think it should be
What about those of us that enjoy team games? I agree that the game is made for 1v1, and I love watching competitive 1v1 play, but I don't enjoy playing it. I much prefer team games, and even though the game is made for 1v1s, that doesn't mean that there should be absolutely no representation for team games. That, sir, is RACIST (j/k).
|
Team games in sc2 are so boring I can't see it ever being more popular then 1v1. If it somehow did I wouldn't join in I feel like team games in sc2 is just dull.
|
I completely agree with the 1st post..
I got the game with my friends and thus was immediately drawn to 2v2,3v3 & 4v4. I still watched 1v1 on streams + tournaments but only played a bit of 1v1 vs friends, if I had friends online, I played with them, if not, I played 2v2RT.
I too eventually felt pressured into getting masters in 1v1, got annoying knowing people assuming you're bad just because you're not placed in 1v1 with no icon on the side saying how many times I achieved master or masters portrait border. Less then 50 games later I was top 8 master and thought, what now? When my games got harder vs all the top masters I found I couldn't keep my 70+% winrate as random race due to the map pool (excuse I know, but pretty valid based off number of high ranked random players in 1v1). I kept losing games in stupid ways like zerg blindly 10 pooling on whirwind and my 9 scout finding their spawn location last while their lings run straight to my nexus, no scout etc. - Literally lost to that 3 times in a row. . . And then went and played LOL for a few months before coming back to 1v1 & 2v2 SC2.
3v3 & 4v4 got repeditive with long search times just to keep beating the same teams and only really losing when other friends logged in to take us on. Winning is fun but constantly having 90+% winrates with same build all the time got dull. It was basically fun until we lost 1 game in the season to see how long we could go undefeated and had no motivation to keep playing after that loss as we already would have top master secured. Unless we wanted to snipe other friends on ladder :p.
2v2 however became amazing once I had high mmr, sure I would keep getting same opponents, but often in different combinations and so many of them were just so skilled it was a pleasure to play with/against them as the games looked quite different to each other with different race combinations & maps + at that level you couldn't just keep doing the same builds as the opponents were too good and would just react to what you're doing. High level 2vs2 is more varied then 1vs1 from my experience, it is probably harder for an observer to keep up with though.
I have seen many of the top 2v2 players mostly stop playing 2v2 to switch to 1v1 (And got GM-High masters in 1-2 season with little knowledge of how 1v1 worked, so they obviously have good macro + micro) due to lack of tournaments/ competitive interest and I am sure that nearly all of these would have stayed with 2v2 if there was a serious 2v2 scene.
As for 2v2 balance, I think its great so long as you have the right map pools. Yes some teams get really high winrates unlike in 1v1 ladder, but there are less really good teams to take them on, so if they search when there are not other great 2v2 teams searching (Because they left 2v2 scene D=), they nearly always win..not because their race combo is imba, but because the game is balanced and the better team usually wins. Yes it easier to cheese your way to master in 2v2 then in 1v1, but thats mostly because in 1v1 your static defense protects you vs the 1 enemy army, in 2vs2 your static defense does not always protect your ally, amongst other things. Though, the cheese is definitely beatable and not seen much from the top teams.
So there are players around for good 2v2, and thats not even including the 1v1 players that would be willing to compete in 2v2 tournaments.
|
On October 10 2013 03:30 kubiks wrote:
The thing is, if the map isn't big, it should be a map with more than 3 statring place to prevent most ugly cheeses (cannon rush/ 6 pool with OV vision is the dirtiest s****...)
Cannon rushes with OV vision working is just a problem with poor map design, you should never put a mineral line close enough to low ground to allow that to happen. Agreed that when it does work it is some stinky smelly nasty cheese.
We don't have nearly enough >4 spawn maps in 2v2. Almost all the maps are 4 spawn, imagine if all 1v1 maps were 2 spawn, you'd see more inclination towards rushing then as well.
If you make a map too big though it's almost as bad as a map that is too small.
On October 10 2013 03:30 kubiks wrote:
What. The. Fuck. You don't make sense, you know ?
The idea that the player getting fed can tech faster IS correct.
For exemple I prefer to have a protoss with 1000 gas than 2 protoss with 500 gas, because if I tech to DT I can have 2-3 more DT, and at a faster timing.
Or, you can do a 2 robo collosus and have 2 more collossus at an realy timing (you avoid paying 200 for both the bay and the upgrade), ect...
And you know that you can still build units with the leaver ?
Nothing prevent the guy alone to tech with the leaver once he's got all the map (as his opponent turtle), and do 200 supply of whatever he wants ("why does the leaver suddently have 20 broodlords ?").
No amount of feeding is going to make a DT rush hit any faster - you still need to build a cyber core before you can. At best you will hit with more units like you say. This isn't a problem if you have a shared base map, because then both teammates can defend those higher numbers of DTs.
I do understand what you're saying about players leaving though, in those cases, you CAN actually hit a DT rush timing faster since you can start your gateway on 8 supply. And yes, you can dump some extra money into more colossii since you don't have to pay for two upgrades. I would rather have the APM of two players over that though. Even having one person controlling 400 supply is still not as good as two people each controlling 200. T
he good news is that players leaving is completely a non-issue in a tournament setting.
The untold problem with players leaving is this: Normally it is the player with low MMR that leaves the game. So now you have two guys with 70 APM playing against one with 130 getting fed free minerals. If that guy wins though its going to be because he maxed out at the 11 minute mark, not because he cheesed.
|
I don't think people are saying team games should REPLACE 1v1.... but it would go a LONG way in terms of overall popularity IF team games were "more refined" and somewhat involved in the pro-scene (because that's the best way to become more refined).
|
You're quite enthusiastic but you need to realize 2v2 is no savior of SC2. For a multitude of reasons...
I could go into a huge amount of detail on they why, but suffice to say 2v2 being pushed isn't new. I helped z33k by running the broadcasts for 2v2 tournament games back before SC2 began to decline in popularity and it 100% never took off. The best days would see maybe just over 100 people watching vs the multitude of people watching 1v1 streams, games, tournaments of similar reward values. (IE of similar prize pools).
Team games are great to bring in casual players, if the front end was in the game to support those players but it's not.
Long story short the game itself isn't casual friendly and as a result it's not as popular as it's predecessor.
|
On October 10 2013 04:21 blade55555 wrote:
Team games in sc2 are so boring I can't see it ever being more popular then 1v1. If it somehow did I wouldn't join in I feel like team games in sc2 is just dull.
I have the same opinion. Just the other way around. ;=)
|
I really enjoyed watching the 2v2 games in BW days,
There were lots of bad games, and bad maps.
I think primarily also is that 2v2 is really difficult from a pro-gamer scene. Back in bw days, the 2v2 players were often like 'second class citizens', they had to learn different builds and different styles of playing, and so never got to practice enough for the individual leagues.
For example, zergbong wasnt well known for his starcraft prowess until he became Nestea.
That being said, i'd love to watch a proleague 2v2 format again
(and i think they really would have to remove resource sharing)
|
On October 10 2013 08:19 worosei wrote:
I really enjoyed watching the 2v2 games in BW days,
There were lots of bad games, and bad maps.
I think primarily also is that 2v2 is really difficult from a pro-gamer scene. Back in bw days, the 2v2 players were often like 'second class citizens', they had to learn different builds and different styles of playing, and so never got to practice enough for the individual leagues.
For example, zergbong wasnt well known for his starcraft prowess until he became Nestea.
That being said, i'd love to watch a proleague 2v2 format again
(and i think they really would have to remove resource sharing)
I've always wanted a 2v2 map where one player on each side are isolated from the two "1v1ers"
I like the idea of two armies bashing it out and then suddenly reinforcements come in depending how good your carry is.
|
|
|
it was entertaining (and somewhat frustrating) to watch in the GSTL all-star game :D
I do think this would/could make for a nice addition in team leagues (start each team league match with a 2v2 - don't leave it for the ace match).
|
Havent really played any 1v1 in a looong long time.
The thing I like about teamgames is the socialpart. 1v1 games there is hardly any communication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
