|
On October 10 2013 19:18 DusTerr wrote:
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).
Nestea is a living example of why you shouldnt add 2v2s in teamleagues. Pretty much destroyed (along with other factors) his BW career.
|
On October 10 2013 20:16 iLoveKT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 19:18 DusTerr wrote:
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). Nestea is a living example of why you shouldnt add 2v2s in teamleagues. Pretty much destroyed (along with other factors) his BW career.
... as if this would be a knock-down argument.
|
dlo league of laughter plug. its beautiful how tl doesnt recognise lol in its core games.
|
Without having read more than first 2-3 pages, I play almost exclusively team games (2 to 4) with AR, and would easily watch a serious 2on2 tournament with the ebst player pairs over yet another world GSL proleague championship league of the golden mouse 1on1.
|
2v2 is a mostly unexplored realm in sc2. We don't fucking know what would happen if 2v2 tournaments actually became the norm O.O
|
On October 08 2013 22:01 OneSpeed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 21:57 torm wrote:
You need to accept that starcraft 2 is not a _popular_ game. It is a challenging game that requires a lot of time investment. It's never going to be on the same level as LoL, never. Accept it and love it for the niche game it is and will continue to be and quit coming up with improbable solutions grounded in fantasy. Did you come straight from a league stream with a giant LoL stick up yours? Stop fantasizing your own reality. SC2 is in ever growth and will surpass the trendy game for youngsters which is League of legends.
This is by far the most delusional thing I've ever read in my entire life
Team games definitely kept me interested for a year after I quit 1v1s, It's fun just trolling with your friends
|
It would definitely be a lot of fun to watch 2v2 in team leagues.
|
I realy hope that we would see high level 2v2 tournament. I enjoy more 2v2/3v3 than 1v1.
|
On October 08 2013 21:57 torm wrote:
You need to accept that starcraft 2 is not a _popular_ game. It is a challenging game that requires a lot of time investment. It's never going to be on the same level as LoL, never. Accept it and love it for the niche game it is and will continue to be and quit coming up with improbable solutions grounded in fantasy.
I don't know why a game has to be popular for people to like it.
|
2v2 is not balanced. PT v ZZ is pretty much insta-lose assuming high level-play. Forcefields + terran is just too strong against zerg.
|
I play some 2v2 with a friend and it's very fun. We play ZZ we only 6pool in a map with a back door, all the other games we try and FE and defend..
I think it's balanced and we do have some longer games with T3 units so overall i think it's a good and BM free experience..
Don't know if it can improve SC2 popularity but for me it's very fun
|
On October 12 2013 18:11 Yamulo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 21:57 torm wrote:
You need to accept that starcraft 2 is not a _popular_ game. It is a challenging game that requires a lot of time investment. It's never going to be on the same level as LoL, never. Accept it and love it for the niche game it is and will continue to be and quit coming up with improbable solutions grounded in fantasy. I don't know why a game has to be popular for people to like it.
By definition, games are popular *only* when people like it.
The argument is really about how *many* people constitutes as a legitimate scene.
|
On October 12 2013 18:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
2v2 is not balanced. PT v ZZ is pretty much insta-lose assuming high level-play. Forcefields + terran is just too strong against zerg.
Mmm...in general you want two different races, so any pair of two of the same race will be weak. Possibly excepting TT because mech and bio cover different niches.
ZZ vs PT is not unwinnable depending on the map, though. Often you can just double early pool and kill the protoss if it's split base...which doesn't end the game by any means--the Terran can still 1v2, but it evens the playing field. There's also some shared bases where the ramp is so wide that you can just double six pool and kill some buildings as they're making. If you think your opponents will be paranoid, you can sometimes just power hard and get a crushing macro advantage. If they turtle to 200 supply in that scenario that can still be scary, but probably more manageable than WoL thanks to vipers.
I'm not going to deny that all of these feel a little coinflippy to me. But like...I have a top 8 masters team with ZR, and it's not like we instantly lose if it's ZZ vs PT. Although...granted, not sure if top 8 masters counts as high level play.
|
On October 12 2013 18:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
2v2 is not balanced. PT v ZZ is pretty much insta-lose assuming high level-play. Forcefields + terran is just too strong against zerg.
#1 World in 2x2 : Gaemtoss and aNai from ESC Gaming, playing ZZ.
Once again, nearly all the negative post about unbalanced metagame are from noobs with no knowledge from 2x2.
|
On October 13 2013 05:45 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 18:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
2v2 is not balanced. PT v ZZ is pretty much insta-lose assuming high level-play. Forcefields + terran is just too strong against zerg. #1 World in 2x2 : Gaemtoss and aNai from ESC Gaming, playing ZZ. Once again, nearly all the negative post about unbalanced metagame are from noobs with no knowledge from 2x2.
This kind of attitude won't fly far if you're looking to appear like a credible source for strategy. The game has never been balanced for multiplayer situations beyond 1v1 and its taken a lot of patches and changes to get to where that is now and even then its not perfect. To attempt to state that the game works fine in multiplayer while the units and stats constantly are being adjusted for 1v1 is to make yourself look utterly stupid and foolish. Take a humility pill.
|
On October 13 2013 05:45 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 18:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
2v2 is not balanced. PT v ZZ is pretty much insta-lose assuming high level-play. Forcefields + terran is just too strong against zerg. #1 World in 2x2 : Gaemtoss and aNai from ESC Gaming, playing ZZ. Once again, nearly all the negative post about unbalanced metagame are from noobs with no knowledge from 2x2.
I don't really agree with this. Gaemtoss and aNai are ranked high with ZZ because the 2v2 scene is mostly unexplored and noncompetitive. Historically TZ has been the strongest composition by a significant margin in 2v2 and I'm pretty sure this is still the case. (although nobody can be certain with how unexplored 2v2 actually is).
In the current state of the 2v2 scene pretty much any 2 grandmaster level players can get themselves ranked very high with any race combo, but that doesnt mean it is balanced. That being said i do really like some of the matchups in 2v2, and even if it winds up resulting in TZ mirrors a lot of the time I would love to see more competitiveness in 2v2.
|
Has anyone ever considered maybe doing a one player controlling 2 races? I think it would be really interesting kinda a 2v2 in race terms and 1v1 in player terms? Any thoughts?
|
On October 09 2013 05:01 -Kyo- wrote:
The key phrase I used was 'disproportionately good'. You might die to a cannon rusher a few times but you learn to counter it, or be prepared for it. However in 2v2 with some MU, on some maps, even if you know what you're doing you have an incredibly hard time stopping it, and often end up being behind simply because of MU. That's not how the game should work.
In response to the bold... Just because you're ranked high in 2v2 doesn't mean you necessarily have good insight; I want to highlight this fact especially due to how easy it is to get high ranked in 2v2. Almost any GM player could easily, and I mean easily, remove protech from #1 RT 2v2 player if they cared at all/had some incentive to do so. This does not mean they have some insane understanding of 2v2 no one else has. It just means they have more skill to carry RT players through 2v2.
Ok where to start with someone who is so wrong but thinks they are so right...hmm. Guess I'll be direct....
"However in 2v2 with some MU, on some maps, even if you know what you're doing you have an incredibly hard time stopping it, and often end up being behind simply because of MU."
Name ONE. Just ONE that fits your criteria, I will gladly inform specifically how this is inaccurate with any example put forth.
"Almost any GM player could easily, and I mean easily, remove protech from #1 RT 2v2 player if they cared at all/had some incentive to do so."
Idiotic statement, protech can and has (on many MANY occasions) beaten legit GMs in both 2v2 and 1v1. This point is therefore irrelevant, both in specifics (towards protech) and in general. Could a GM beat a top masters 2v2er? Yes, IF that GM has 2v2 experience and knowledge and assuming they are the better player in general...but duh right?
TLDR: You have yet to make anything near a valid point in this thread. Please, make one or stop posting. Thank you.
|
On October 13 2013 08:32 bluesteel22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:01 -Kyo- wrote:
The key phrase I used was 'disproportionately good'. You might die to a cannon rusher a few times but you learn to counter it, or be prepared for it. However in 2v2 with some MU, on some maps, even if you know what you're doing you have an incredibly hard time stopping it, and often end up being behind simply because of MU. That's not how the game should work.
In response to the bold... Just because you're ranked high in 2v2 doesn't mean you necessarily have good insight; I want to highlight this fact especially due to how easy it is to get high ranked in 2v2. Almost any GM player could easily, and I mean easily, remove protech from #1 RT 2v2 player if they cared at all/had some incentive to do so. This does not mean they have some insane understanding of 2v2 no one else has. It just means they have more skill to carry RT players through 2v2. Ok where to start with someone who is so wrong but thinks they are so right...hmm. Guess I'll be direct.... "However in 2v2 with some MU, on some maps, even if you know what you're doing you have an incredibly hard time stopping it, and often end up being behind simply because of MU." Name ONE. Just ONE that fits your criteria, I will gladly inform specifically how this is inaccurate with any example put forth. "Almost any GM player could easily, and I mean easily, remove protech from #1 RT 2v2 player if they cared at all/had some incentive to do so." Idiotic statement, protech can and has (on many MANY occasions) beaten legit GMs in both 2v2 and 1v1. This point is therefore irrelevant, both in specifics (towards protech) and in general. Could a GM beat a top masters 2v2er? Yes, IF that GM has 2v2 experience and knowledge and assuming they are the better player in general...but duh right? TLDR: You have yet to make anything near a valid point in this thread. Please, make one or stop posting. Thank you.
It's pretty easy to find strategies on certain maps that are incredibly difficult to stop. We dont need to pretend like they don't exist. For example, on Reclamation it is incredibly difficult for a ZP team to come out ahead against 10pool + baneling aggression from ZZ or 10pool + reaper aggression from ZT. I've played many games from both the ZP, and ZZ/ZT perspective and the ZP team almost never wins on this map given remotely equal skill. Another example would be the cannon rushing position on Graystone Ravine, where you can hit the opponent's nexus/hatch from the low ground with cannons and an overlord giving vision. I love 2v2 as much as the next guy but to pretend there are no imbalances at all is pretty silly.
As for the protech deal, while it is true that GM players dont crush 2v2 with no experience at all, it doesn't take a huge amount of games to get an understanding of 2v2 enough to be able to reach the top. Numerous GM players (like Baz, Kyo, Guitarcheese to name a few) have gotten to the top of 2v2 RT rather quickly but lack the motivation to sit through long searches all day to maintain their rank. 2v2 is definately not some super balanced competitive scene in its current form.
|
I dont wats the fuss about 2v2 being streamed. It used to be competitive man even in BW. And it was very fun to watch. It might not be balanced but thats fine. Its very exciting. U could also make it a rule 2v2 must be mix races if u fear the ZZ 6pool.
End of the day, it allows some of the current 1v1 progamers who cant make it to the premiere to have a shot at shinning in another field of the game they like.
It might be tough in the beginning with prize money but audience wise lots more of the casuals will tune in. Once the audience follows, then prize money shld be comparable. And hell foreigners would prolly be way better than koreans in 2v2. Koreans tend to sucks at 2v2 since they all play 1v1 well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
