|
Hi there,
First off all, I'm sorry for my english which isn't the best as it's not my mothertongue. I wanted to express a feeling I realised after trying some LoL games and comparing 1x1 and 2x2 in SC2. I'm mainly a 2x2 top master player, streaming when I have time (twitch.tv/Zepiii if interested), and I want to share with you my point of view.
1v1 and the high mental pressure
I never focused on 1x1, cuz I didn't really like it, but last season, I really wanted to try to get master at least for once in 1x1, so I mainly focused on it. I was top 1 diamond during a long time and I finally reach it after 300 games. But honestly, after 150 games, I was already starting to get pissed off after each lose, while I can handle easier losing in 2x2.
I really feel the mental pressure was so different from 2x2. And the first reason of it, was that I was ALONE when I was playing 1x1.
I read something on reddit, that gave me the idea to write this down, a guy just posted that he reached masters, then someone posted this :
- "Congrats bro! I think we all know whats next."
and someone replied
- "struggling in low-mid master before getting bored and trying LoL"
This sentence is so true and I'm sure it happened to a lot of players and this mainly happens because 1x1 is boring them, maybe not starcraft 2 in general.
Let's go to LoL, it's free and it's teamgames, so even if I suck it's might not be me the problem
Let's be honest, LoL is way much more popular than SC2 right now. Of course, LoL is a free game but ALSO, and I am quite sure of it, it's a TEAM GAME. And StarCraft 2 also got that possibily !
There are 2 types of teamgames, RT (Random Team) and AT (Arranged Team).
RT : The first one is the Random Team, which is something I personally don't enjoy as it's like fucking hard to get teamplay with half of the people playing it. At least, when you play that mod, you feel less frustrated if you lose, cuz you can always say : "Oh, that guy was so baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad". But the solution isn't here, I think the solution is in AT.
AT : The second is AT (Arranged Team). And I see a lot of positive points
- The MINDSET : The mindset is the first reason why we see people being good or bad from one day to an other one. This is also the main reason why people are leaving this game right now, playing 1x1, reaching a certain level, and feeling like you are not able to improve. If you are playing 2x2, you can talk with your teammate after the lose (or even win), and discuss how to improve, watch replay together and other stuff. Ofc, you can do that also when you are alone, but it's way much more fun/interesting to do it together.
- The UNEXPLORED KNOWLEDGE : Playing 2x2 is so different than playing 1x1. I already beat several times GM players, only because I have a better knowledge than them about how 2x2 has to be played. And this is something that might be really interesting to discover how professional players will play it if there are money around it.
- The EXCITING GAMEPLAY and TEAMPLAY : You can do different build order than in 1x1, just for one main reason, your ally can help you. Let's take an example : my ally knows that he can open reapers vs Protoss, I'll help him with my stalkers/phx if oracle arriving in his base. This teamplay is something that make 2x2 way more exciting for me than the 1x1.
Also, 2x2 are more intensive than 1x1, at least in the early game, people use to do a lot of pressure build order while macroing (at least at "my" level) and I feel this is so much more enjoyable to watch that a 10 min FFE vs Z with no actions...
So what are you waiting for? Do tournaments!
And this is the main reason for doing this blog. Congratz to MLG who organised 2x2 tournaments, congratz to Lewelys who made his Millenium Cup with a 2x2 match, congratz to day9 talking about doing 2x2 tournament, keep it doing this might be THE solution for sc2!
If tournaments get more popular, more players will get interested in it, and as explained in the AT part, when you train for 2x2, you are not anymore alone and this might help a lot for the mindset of a lot of players "getting bored of sc2 and leaving for an other game..."
Also, lot of people doesn't play 2x2 just because it's not popular... So try it at serious level and see how enjoyable it can be!
StarCraft 2 is a really nice game, David Kim and his team are doing huge balancing job, stop criticazing the game when the solution might in it... =]
Is 2x2 balanced?
MAINLY, YES! After some thousand games, I'm pretty certain that 2x2 is quite balanced. Even if in WoL, TZ cheese was freaking good against protoss, with the mama core and oracle, it's now more balanced, but of course, you have to do proper veto map depending the race you are playing. Protoss players shouldn't keep separated base map for example... ZZ shouldn't keep map where they can't expand, and so on... The build order are also slightly different from 1x1, just as a Protoss than I am, I feel like 9 ou 12 scout is ALWAYS quiet important...
The only balanced problem that I know, are feeded strats and some eco cheese when an opponent leave the game at start. But that can be easily fixed by blizzard 
Also, I insist that in my point of view, 3x3 and 4x4 are losing a lot of interest, when I talk about teamgames, I'm mainly talking about 2x2 in SC2 and LoL 3x3 and 5x5...
Do what ever you want, you will never be a good 2x2 player if you don't have a good macro, macro also exist at 100 % in 2x2, just as in 1x1 ! All the games I play goes in macro but CAN start with some pressure (3 stalkers reapers for example) and it's in general easy to win if people all-in us, cuz we know how to hold it.
I also would like to end by this. A lot of ppl use to say "OMG 2x2 is for noobs, you get reach master with stupid cheese and no skills".
Well, it's true that you can reach master by cheese, but just FYI, it's the same for 1x1.
And to all people saying taht 2x2 requires no skill, just try to stay one whole season in top master 2x2 AND with a record of more than 60/40, then you will realise how dumb you were.
Cheers,
Zepiii
|
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.
|
Austria24422 Posts
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.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Is 2x2 balanced?
MAINLY, YES! After some thousand games, I'm pretty certain that 2x2 is quite balanced
It so isn't ;_;
You can't defend certain pushes based on maps / map positions.
Some cheese is so hard to defend it silly. It seems very luck based. You can get to a point where certain pushes hit you before you even have scouted around the map. I do like to play 2v2 with my friend, its the only reason we would play SC2. We played at a diamond level since WOL, we have never played it extensively. When we played alot it was about 10 games per week and most of that was stopped due to silly builds we couldn't hold.
If specific 2v2 maps were made like 1v1 maps, i think 2v2 professionally could work, other than that it will just be a fun thing to watch pros do (imo)
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.
Chelsea fans to clever for this forum <333
|
I think a 4v4 f2p must be a huge boost to starcraft.
from a spectator PoV i think the team games (2v2 3v3 4v4) need a little of UI improvement, to be enjoyable. like make a team color in observer mode. it's hard to identify the team if you see pink + green vs blue + red
|
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.
|
The problem with 2v2 in tournaments is not necessarily balance, its more the view ability. In Dota or LoL it works because there are "only" 10 "players" which limits the amount of things that can happen at the same time. On a high level 2v2 it would be really hard to catch all the important pards and it would be a very hectic watching experience.
|
The two problems cited here: ease of viewing and better maps, are easily solvable issues. It would just take a lot of willpower from the community and Blizzard both of which are lacking at the moment.
Coming from WoL as a masters team player, the sheer variety of builds and strange cheeses is what made it hard to have any consistent good games in team play, especially in 2v2. For every cheese in 1v1, there are 3 times as many to scout for (that can be even more effective and require equally unusual responses to fend off) in 2v2.
Still, I wish there were more team play tournaments (and especially better maps for it- see my signature) but I doubt that 2v2 would ever be some magic pill that "fixes" the popularity of SC2.
|
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 
|
I'd like to see 3v3 where one of each race is compulsory, simple solution to any balance complaints.
|
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.
Denial is the first step to acceptance. Embrace it
|
Its true, team games need to be better to prolong the life of the game. That is one area that they took a step down in from WC3. Team games in WC3 were fun, even if certain race combinations were arguably stronger. It was possible to still have fun in WC3 even if you lost. Maybe you did a sweet hero surround or held out for a long time vs superior forces. Battles actually lasted a while. In SC2 the 30 second battles in 1v1 become 15 second battles in 2v2. One would think 2v2 battles would be much longer but, they are shorter because the dps is so high. Also, custom mods were big in WC3. I remember most of my friends left 1v1 and usually went to 4v4 or the like. Then some of them went on to play DOTA all stars, still in the WC3 client. So while they left 1v1, they were still online and we could still chat etc and play some team games together, which was fun. In SC2, most of my friends just quit and play other games rather than move to team games or play custom mods in the client.
|
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 reacher top master and think it's because it's not balanced, but let's be honest, it's just because they suck
I agree with you.
Most people say that team games are not balanced, but they have no reasons for this. Team games aren't played enough to know whether or not there are imbalanced strategies or not. You can look at any of the common 1v1 strategies that pop up, where players immediately default to "This strategy is completely broken, it needs to be fixed", while 3 weeks later, the strategy is null and void due to metagame shifts.
I say this as a master league 1v1 player, and previously top master team game player. I think team games have serious potential as a serious boon for the spectating portion of the game. The non-serious team games we've seen played at tournament show matches have been phenomenal, to say the least. Infinitely more entertaining than a 1v1.
|
still remember that 2on2 tournament with prize money, where stephano&bling or Mana&ThorZaiN played vs great 2on2 teams like kAra&delphi or CatZ&Drewbie.
that was so awesome.
i think team matches should get 1 2on2 bo3 in. all of them.
|
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.
That's not true. In WoL playing against TZ was a nightmare, especially with Protoss, because of stupid stuff like lings/Hellions or lings/maraus with the Overlord giving sight of the wall, but in HotS all those problems are gone. I don't see how a double 6 pool would be a problem for a PZ team, especially as Protoss always has the possibility to opt for a 10 gate (with good pressure options if they played standard, without being hopelessly behind) to be impervious against those kind of rushes.
The map pool has improved, though there are still too many 2011 undefendable maps that you just have to veto if you don't play ZZ or TZ.
It's a pity 2v2 isn't played in competitive team leagues; clanwars in War3 often included one 2v2, and that was really fun to watch.
|
i have a few ideas.
1) have two different observers, one to follow each team. viewers can chose which stream to follow. at a live event, there can be two screens (not next to each other)
2) have first-person cams. viewers choose which person to follow. (there will be a main obs as well). at a live event, the screens can be to the side.
3) have a large screen in the center that focuses on battles and smaller screens on the side to focus on drops/activity at the bases. the smaller screens can be placed relative to the spawn location so they act like magnifying glasses. in fact, they should do this for 1v1.
|
starcraft 2 pressure people to play 1v1 ladder too much.. even in broodwar the most fun was playing teamgames, bgh and ums
|
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 copy paste this answer from one of the SC2 APOCALYPSE! threads in order to be "first!" or did you actually read the op then decide to share that worthless poopnugget of brilliance? If anything I think this guy has found perfect way to love and accept a niche game. He's promoting a niche format of a niche game you can't get any more niche-loving than this guy.
Props to OP I will definitely play more 2v2 in these coming days.
|
On October 08 2013 22:31 GizmoPT wrote:
starcraft 2 pressure people to play 1v1 ladder too much.. even in broodwar the most fun was playing teamgames, bgh and ums
I agree, they really should make GM available for arranged teams in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4.
|
SC2 isn't just an accessible game for the vast majority of video gamers. You can blame this on game mechanics or modes, you aren't going to pull in a playerbase that there was 3 years ago. People need to accept this fact and focus on making the game more enjoyable for the existing audience because it is dwindling every time a major new game is released.
This isn't 2004, RTS as a genre is nearly dead. You can only innovate so much before players just move onto other enjoyable games.
|
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
Uh, 2Z is by far and away the dumbest MU for PZ next to TZ. I'd most certainly agree with him. I'm not sure what knowledge YOU are talking about though?
As for viewership, if you really want to watch 2v2 then support the streamers. There are tons of other 2v2 streamers out there aside from protech. I doubt there will ever seriously be a tournament scene around 2v2. Sure, maybe a random event or two(there have not been any since the end of the coL tournaments as far as I know..) but it still won't ever be as big as you're hoping. :/
but hey, that's just my 2v2 experience...
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.sc2ranks.com/character/us/754745/Kyo/hots/2v2t
|
I played thousands of 2on2s in SCBW and i loved it. In my oppinion sc2 2on2 is lacking. The maps are horrible and non shared bases are nearly impossible to play (atleast it was in WoL).
|
teamgames are for fun, but imo it isnt suited for huge tournaments since it lacks diversity.
Also even trying to compare 2vs2 to LoL or dota is just...ugh...common sense man...
|
I have never understood what 2xTerrans can do vs 2xProtoss Proxy Oracle with a double rush on either player :S
Seems like you can do so many extremly powerful cheeses.
|
On October 08 2013 21:53 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:
Let's go to LoL, it's free and it's teamgames, so even if I suck it's might not be me the problem
If you "suck", then you always are a problem, except that in 1vs1 you always are the problem and in team game you might be one of the problems, i.e. you can always blame the other players rather than reflect on yourself.
|
On October 08 2013 22:01 xuanzue wrote:
I think a 4v4 f2p must be a huge boost to starcraft.
This is possible the smartest idea I've ever heard regarding to the "death of SC".
Even better would be a f2p XvAI ladder + giving out beta keys for future Blizz games to the top teams of this leagues. Just to boost popularity.
|
I don´t think 2v2s would be fun to watch, because the observing could not keep up. Remember, in 1v1 each side has one screen, so has the observer (hence the viewer). In 2v2 there are 2 screen per side where micro happens, while there is still only one viewer screen. I assume the viewing experience would suffer from jumping between different spots a lot more, but I´m just assuming, of course.
|
I really do agree that if team games were better balanced (mainly map issues) and promoted more THE GAME WOULD BE MORE FUN. And fun = popular* (usually).
|
On October 08 2013 22:42 Glorfindel! wrote:
I have never understood what 2xTerrans can do vs 2xProtoss Proxy Oracle with a double rush on either player :S
Seems like you can do so many extremly powerful cheeses.
One of the reasons I feel shared bases are an absolute must in 2v2 games. If you have shared bases, it just becomes the same thing as a 1v1 with a proxy stargate - except with 2x as many units - both teammates need to scout and respond accordingly.
|
it's the wrong way to look both game.
League is designed for team play
SC2 is not
Think about 1v1 and team sport, tennis for example, single always has higher viewership than doubles
|
Austria24422 Posts
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
On maps where you're not sharing a base? You're screwed. They kill your ally, contain you and that's it. That's why I said the map pool sucks. I'm pretty sure you can't defend absolutely everything with all race combinations, much less so on every map. There are too many options to stay safe against anything in the early game without playing super overly safe
|
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.
|
On October 08 2013 22:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 22:15 2vs2.Zepiii wrote: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 On maps where you're not sharing a base? You're screwed. They kill your ally, contain you and that's it. That's why I said the map pool sucks. I'm pretty sure you can't defend absolutely everything with all race combinations, much less so on every map. There are too many options to stay safe against anything in the early game without playing super overly safe
It's an issue with non-shared maps, not races or builds.
|
I never knew why the SC2 community never embraced team games. Its the most fun I've had playing SC2 and it can be quite challenging and exciting with many more strats and depth than 1v1.
|
I agree with the OP in the sense that 2s is hard at top masters. At high levels you don't really see much cheese and it is MOSTLY macro games with a lot of harassment. I also DO think that 2s is balanced (high masters only) and more enjoyable. And this is coming from a player that has reached both ladder ranking of #1 in 1s and 2s.
In my WoL days... I was mostly a 2s specialist with my T race. Played with friends and we always were top masters if not ranked #1. I rarely played 1s. We played macro games 90% of the time. After a few seasons all of my friends quit... so I quit as well.
After a few months I returned to the game and started to 1s. In my first season I got to masters #1 rank with T. After just one season I got bored. I quit again.
Fast forward... And HotS came out. T was boring for me...so I switched to P. My very first season of 1s I got to rank #1 masters again (with only macro - I can't really cheese (too much luck involved tbh). After 1 season I quit .... yet again.
I just returned to SC2 again. Now i just hang around the channel 'adopt a newb) ... and help lowbies improve. I play with them, for instance.
In my long histroy of SC1 and SC2... I have always enjoyed 2s more than 1s. As long I had someone to play with I would play 2s. I played more seasons of 2s than 1s. I have played a ton of top players in both 1s and 2s. And i can tell you that unless you really try high level 2s, you won't know how balanced it is (it is not perfect balance though).
For example, just like in 1s you can say 4 gate is hard to hold in low levels... it is so EASY to hold at high levels. In 2s vs ZZ.. at low levels if they both 6 pool ... they probably win EASY. but from my OWN experience they could kill my partner but I would kill both Z later on ( using T 90% we win).
All my friends have quit the game. and it's hard for me to get back into playing 1s or 2s  ..
If I only had constant people to practice with 1s or 2s... I would for sure be more active.
Love you all.
|
Austria24422 Posts
But overall, let's face it. Unless you have very specific 2v2 decisionmaking the chances of dying to random shit are way higher than 1v1 - where tons of people are already complaining about it. That's pretty much exactly what a casual player wants to avoid
Like, I got to rank 30 masters or so with a friend based on mechanics and holding off silly all ins alone. I just don't think that's fun for casual players. That's why we stopped taking it seriously after a while and just do fun aggressive stuff now. It can be fun, yes. But only if the maps weren't as easy to cheese on and if you could actually take a healthy amount of bases to macro off.
|
On October 08 2013 22:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 22:15 2vs2.Zepiii wrote: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 On maps where you're not sharing a base? You're screwed. They kill your ally, contain you and that's it. That's why I said the map pool sucks. I'm pretty sure you can't defend absolutely everything with all race combinations, much less so on every map. There are too many options to stay safe against anything in the early game without playing super overly safe
This is why in the first thread, I talked about doing proper veto. As at each start of game in WCS, there are veto just as it has to be done for 2x2.
However, even on non shared based, double 6pool is easily holdable, this is definitly not where I would hatch first if I were Z, but probably 10p way much better if I want to be safe but still be able to put some pressure on.
However, I agree that on some maps, it's not balanced, this is why veto are very important.
To everyone claiming something is too powerful or something is underpowered, just check top world 2x2 here (http://nios.kr/sc2/global/2v2/hots/) and you will see that there are all kind of combo at the top level !
Next time I hold a double 6pool while streaming, I'll higlight it then, might be useful
PS : On shared maps, I hold it alone in general =] And with a normal 14 14 my ally rape them easily after that, and remember, I 9 scouted it so he can easily adapt if he planned to hatch first.
This is what I talked in first post : EXCITING TEAMPLAY
|
Dunno about 2v2 but i would like to see every team game starting with 4v4 as first game in series.
|
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.
|
People need to understand it is not the money, the community, or the pressure of playing 1v1 games that is a problem with SC2. It is just the game itself. If the game is good, it will do well.
E-sport games need sustainability, and SC2 has very little of that. Changing it to a 2v2 or some team game is not going give it sustainability.
(And, yes, LoL and DotA are both great games.)
|
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.
|
Let's go to LoL, it's free and it's teamgames, so even if I suck it's might not be me the problem
tbh, MOBAs are equally frustrating to play. at least to me. i'm still a noob but i've already gotten very frustrated. i often encounter situations that i feel can only be won by sick teamplay where every teammate knows exactly what's up and what to do or at least extremely good communication.
of course that doesnt happen. i prefer sc2 1v1 because i'm alone.
|
I'm a passionate 2v2 player myself. Laddering is great fun as it requires teamplay, communication and strategies for more matchups. The ladder has its fair share of cheese, but most of the time you can make a macro style work if you want. I've had hundreds of epic late games, incredible comebacks and close defenses. Discussing what went wrong, enjoying the latest victory or raging at imbalance is much more fun when you're on Skype with a friend.
However, I don't think 2v2 works well for competitive play. There are a number of rushes and feeding strategies that are extremely hard to stop and the professional metagame would degenerate to cheese vs cheese. Also, the map pool has always been terrible. At least nowadays most ladder maps have a natural expansion for each player, but they're still far from good. The maps may be relatively easy to fix, but the strategies are not.
|
On October 09 2013 00:12 Scorch wrote:
I'm a passionate 2v2 player myself. Laddering is great fun as it requires teamplay, communication and strategies for more matchups. The ladder has its fair share of cheese, but most of the time you can make a macro style work if you want. I've had hundreds of epic late games, incredible comebacks and close defenses. Discussing what went wrong, enjoying the latest victory or raging at imbalance is much more fun when you're on Skype with a friend.
However, I don't think 2v2 works well for competitive play. There are a number of rushes and feeding strategies that are extremely hard to stop and the professional metagame would degenerate to cheese vs cheese. Also, the map pool has always been terrible. At least nowadays most ladder maps have a natural expansion for each player, but they're still far from good. The maps may be relatively easy to fix, but the strategies are not.
to be fair 1v1 has always started as cheese vs cheese until the meta stabilizes. I think IF 2v2 ever had the chance to do so (tournaments, streams etc) we'd see the same happen.
|
Sad to say the koreans themselves killed 2v2 T_T. The first 2v2 champion was a kazakhstan duo as i recall and when the koreans realised its totally different meta, they removed it from competition T_T. Was very very fun to watch.
|
thousend of 2n2's and your telling me its balanced ?
there are some matchups that simply CAN NEVER beat some others ...
also 2n2 is boring to watch and frustrating play so ... no thanks
also i read "oh most fun was teamgames bgh in bw" well STOP saying that it WAS say it was for you
for me bgh was biggest crap on earth and after 20.000 1n1 broodwar games i still hade 2n2 there too
|
On October 08 2013 22:00 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +Is 2x2 balanced?
MAINLY, YES! After some thousand games, I'm pretty certain that 2x2 is quite balanced It so isn't ;_; You can't defend certain pushes based on maps / map positions. Some cheese is so hard to defend it silly. It seems very luck based. You can get to a point where certain pushes hit you before you even have scouted around the map. I do like to play 2v2 with my friend, its the only reason we would play SC2. We played at a diamond level since WOL, we have never played it extensively. When we played alot it was about 10 games per week and most of that was stopped due to silly builds we couldn't hold. If specific 2v2 maps were made like 1v1 maps, i think 2v2 professionally could work, other than that it will just be a fun thing to watch pros do (imo) 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. Chelsea fans to clever for this forum <333
What makes you think your definition of 2v2 balance applies for high level 2v2 when your highest league is diamond?
The op is right. The game has been balanced a little bit more with reaper nerf and mothership core. Now a team with a protoss doesnt die to ling hellion every game. And as for the maps, some are more turtle favored, some are more aggression favored. Just because you're bad at scouting and/or reacting it doesnt mean the maps are imbalanced.
|
This would be a nice step in the right direction imo and No, you can beat basicly anything in 2v2. There are a fewww builds that might give you some difficulty but seriously double 6pool is not one of them x) Maps would definetly need to improve though...
Oh and hi zepii
|
You got a point, good stuff! Hope for some 2v2 tournaments! // Swine
|
2v2 is kind of a poop chute, way too much emphasis on 1-base play and rushes, as mentioned a z/p combo tends to die horribly unless they turtle like mad and hope the opponent cheeses.
The problems that plague 1v1(critical mass units and terrible terrible damage specifically) are exacerbated in 2v2.
|
2v2 balanced? HAH man, that's a laugh. 2v2 is about as balanced as a blue whale on a seesaw with a chicken on the other side. it's fun, but it's terribly balanced in almost every respect.
|
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
everything in imbalanced in the 1s lower levels. 4 gate.. 6 pool... canon rush... maybe even 111.. but people still try to adjust to them.
WHY NOT do the same in 2s where supposedly is imbalanced??
|
I never understood why there even IS the possibility to share resources in Multiplayer games.
The only time I think it is OKAY to share resources is when one Player get's rushed out and loses his Hatch/Nexus/CC but still has workers left to rebuild it, just not enough money.
I think 2v2 could be played professional but it's mostly really the maps they need to change and not the balance.
If it's more enjoyable? I don't know...
But I'd really appreciate to put in GM-league for teams as well.
Edit:
But I don't think it would be ever getting more popular than 1v1 though.
|
for all the people saying cheese is the strongest strat for 2s... couldn't be more wrong.
for high level play...if anything defensive macro play is one of the best strat out there (not best - there is not best)
for lower levels though... cheesing is so easy. everybody panics and that's gg right there. cheese can win all the way up to lower-mid masters. but trust me.. at high masters... it's mostly macro play + aggressive harass play style (for the most part)
|
SC2 will never be as big as MOBA games simply because it's way too demanding to play in 1v1, and in 2v2/3v3/4v4 it all just boils down to 1 deathball vs deathball engagement to determine the winner.
Also SC2 is not free, DOTA2 and LoL are both free and reward players with shiny new skins and armors and stuff. When you get better at SC2 you just get a shinier icon.
Like somebody mentioned before SC2 is very niched and exclusive, kind of like boxing. Whereas DOTA2 and LoL are like football (or soccer for you Americans) and basketball, extremely popular.
Dream on but SC2 will never and can never surpass MOBAS in viewers due to the nature of these games.
|
2v2 is very unexplored. In WC3 every clanwar would have 2v2's as part of it.
I think this can easily be done in SC2 aswell. Biggest problem is that the 1v1 from every player perspective will be the most important, so 2v2's will take time from 1v1 experience.
|
I think one cool way that was proposed for fixing the ZZvXX type imbalances in team games is to have a 3v3 format where each team has to consist of one of each race, so that every match is TZPvTZP. It is clever because it does away with racial imbalances, and allows for largeish teams to compete. However the game becomes a complete different beast, so that finding good analytical casters for it and also observing it might become really hard.
Anyway, SC was designed to be an 1vs1 game, and since it is technically possible to play it in a team format, it does not really make much sense.
|
I could never enjoy 2v2 due to the resource trading system. If you play with an ally that doesn't mind just play terran and making walls for you guys/building orbitals everywhere and mining and sending you all the cash then it is a pretty much foolproof strategy.
one guy just sits on one base and builds a super high tech army with the massive gas he's getting and then just steamrolls the other team 1v2 with the aid of his ally's income. That would have to be removed to make 2v2 any where near competitive.
|
I think a lot of the balance issues of 2v2 really come down to maps, and since the scene is focused on 1v1 atm, map makers hardly have any incentives to actually get a sense of how the 2v2 meta game(as if there's one at all, my friend and I used to be 2v2 top masters in the kr server and we do things from double proxy to standard play to ultra hardcore turtle mech skytoss) is like and make maps tailored for that meta game so that 2v2 on those maps will be balanced(long sentence lol).
The time manpower investment will be immense to make the suitable maps alone. Whether this investment is worth it or not is anybody guess.
I can see how 2v2 can appeal to casual gamers more, because of how you have your ally to blame instead of all the self burden you get from 1v1. Also a lot of the time, players' lack of skills are often overcome by their teamwork. My friend and I were both 1v1 plats and we've managed to beat 1v1 masters in 2v2 with some smart coordination.
Even if 1v1 isnt accessible to casual players, 2v2s have the potential to be. And I don't see the harm in something like a blizzard 2v2 map contest that pools community resources to create interesting 2v2 maps that are used in some sort of 2v2 open tournament in blizzcon or something.
On a side note, if blizzard decides to use a community map for ladder/wcs, do the mapmaker(s) get paid by blizzard?
|
wc3 2v2 was briliant, I would go so far to call it better than 1v1, but something just doesnt click with sc2 2v2.. maybe its just not developed enough on playerside
|
Feeding (resource sharing) is the single most annoying shit in 2v2 right now. Blizzard has to limit what you receive to a non-100% fraction of what you've been sent. We'll worry about balance and maps later :D
It should only be used to dump some great amount of resources late game. Like, you have 1000 gas and you don't know what to do with it, send it to your protoss ally and he'll receive something like 500-750, which is already useful enough.
But mutas and zealot-archons? Meh.
|
How about a 3v3 no rush map, have three main lanes of attacks but give each player towers to help defe- wait a minute!
|
I play mostly team games and customs as I just don't find 1v1 very fun.
In my 2v2 games, I am High Diamond/Low Masters with my teammate. For clarification's sake, he is ranked High Masters in 1v1 while I am only High Gold/Low Plat. But we both enjoy 2v2s way more than laddering. One thing that we've come to notice a lot though is that almost every game is a rush/timing attack. My friend and I rarely ever cheese, we usually go for long macro style, I play Z and he plays P. We have a decent win ratio, about 70%.
Usually if we can hold off the timing, we win. It is very rare that we lose macro games. But I also tend to notice a lot more BM in 2s as well, I think people get mad when their timing doesn't work, and they don't know how to recover after it. I love macro games, but it's very rare to get them, because in most cases our opponents do a timing, win and BM, or lose and also BM. We take the BM in stride, but I don't know what it is in team games that causes more of it. Though it's pretty fun when the opposing team starts calling out their teammate in all chat.
We also play 3s with another of our friends who is god-awful. I'm talking copper league awful. When we play 3s, my 2s partner and I usually roll random. But it's just more of the same... rushes/timing attacks. I feel that team games could be more interesting if people actually macroed. I think the map pool has a lot to do with it, but it's rare to see a macro game in team games for whatever reason.
|
On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21
There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs.
And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol
|
On October 09 2013 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How about a 3v3 no rush map, have three main lanes of attacks but give each player towers to help defe- wait a minute!
LoL!
|
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.
ummm starcraft2 tournament viewer numbers have been on a decline for months now? he's right its not going to ever be as popular as LoL unless something drastic happens in LoL or SC2 that changes viewers.
|
The map pool is a big problem for 2v2s. Obviously it's a lot easier to defend cheese/rushes when you have a shared base with your partner. Maps like Reclamation or... um... that other one where your natural is on the high ground behind your main (basically a free base) are much harder to defend certain pushes like anything with sentries because they can get up your/your partner's ramp and block you out. That's obviously part of 2v2 though, you want to take out one of your opponents because 2v1 is going to be a hell of a lot easier, so it's up to the defending team to sniff out what's going on and defend it.
We usually don't veto any of the maps, but there are definitely some we like more than others.
|
On October 09 2013 02:27 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How about a 3v3 no rush map, have three main lanes of attacks but give each player towers to help defe- wait a minute! LoL!
Thx for making us all smile a little while :D.
|
On October 08 2013 22:41 TeslasPigeon wrote:
SC2 isn't just an accessible game for the vast majority of video gamers. You can blame this on game mechanics or modes, you aren't going to pull in a playerbase that there was 3 years ago. People need to accept this fact and focus on making the game more enjoyable for the existing audience because it is dwindling every time a major new game is released.
This isn't 2004, RTS as a genre is nearly dead. You can only innovate so much before players just move onto other enjoyable games.
to be fair, DotA is one of the lesser "refreshing" and "creative" games. Sure it has lots of different heroes, but in the end its just different animations playing the same mechanics.There are only so many different strats and ways to win one can come up with in dota.
Same obviously goes for LoL.
Same obviously goes for football, yet, somehow, Its huge. Remove that bumstick please
|
People these days are just generally less resilient, less prepared to fail, less prepared to take risks. People must have excuses to cover up any failures, no matter how small.
|
id like to see a gm style league for 2v2, maybe for the top 50 teams or something, could give a different portrait border if you get it too, i think that could spark some interest along with some half decent maps. There's really nothing to do once you get master in 2v2, this is one of the reasons i stopped playing it anyway cuz theres nothing to aim for.
|
Disregarding whatever balance/feeding issues there might be, I think that the 2v2 format could be very fun to watch and play. Obviously if it became a standard Blizzard would patch eventual probelms with feeding, and the maps would have to fix the early game problems (which I believe to be perfectly possible!).
It would add another layer of skill eniterly; coordination. Watching one tem infuse chaos attacking not 3, but 6 places at once would be great. Watching a medivac save those isolated HTs would be great etc.
I hope there will come more 2v2 tournaments with good commentators and observers!
|
I think it would be really fun. For everyone else that plays 2s, do you just use in-game type chat? Or do you use skype/raidcall or some sort of voice chat?
|
On October 09 2013 02:24 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21 There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs. And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol
kyo i agree with you that certain mu and builds work better than others depending on map. but you can say the exact same thing in 1s. canon rushing is better is X map compared to Y map. drop play/muta/air protoss os a better strategy in X map compared to Y map... and so on.
protech is definitely not a god. i used him as an example cus #1 he is a rigure known to the community that plays a lot of 2s and #2 he is ranked high in 2s... which means that he can give you good insight in high level 2s play, just like me.
|
I see no reason as to why 2vs2 could not go big. The issues at hand for now are map pools for practice and tournaments for attraction.
2vs2 are more complex than 1vs1 in the way it has more combinations, most in early game. Easily fixed with distances and starting positions. You really dont have to share bases as long as the maps are built with the volatile all-ins in mind. Remember steppes of war (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Steppes_of_War), an initial ladder map for 1vs1 in Wings of Liberty. A good example of why 2vs2 maps need be revised due to distances and starting positions, and the more people moan about the balance on the maps, the more the maps will be revised. As with 1vs1! Only 1vs1 will be alot quicker because it gets more exposure.
But I see no reasons for 1vs1 to _compete_ with 2vs2, they can co-exist. So let 2vs2 have it's pace and if people believe in it, it'll grow. Back in brood war, my favourite tournaments where the clanwars (back in the clanbase years), where a clan match were 3 1vs1 bo3's and 2 2vs2 bo3's. The best 1vs1 players we're not necessarily on the 2vs2 teams for good reasons and so on... Those clanwars were just for fun, price money maybe for the winners, and it wasn't big. If the 2vs2 entusiasts can take that, then, in time, 2vs2 might end up in a good spot for getting alot of exposure.
So what we need is a persistent/consistent tournament/clanwar that attracts players and their teams, with or without cashmoneyz, a cornerstone that press the issues with 2vs2. Even with their own maps for balance sake (this will remove practice on the ladder, which is a bad thing considering the small volume of players that will participate in the tournament to start with).
But as I see it, if the big picture is to play 2vs2 because it's challenging and fun, 2vs2 will be fine wherever it'll end up. But if the main goal is to "grow", and in worst case, to outgrow other games/formats, then bigger things need to happen. Huge sponsors need to step in and people who devote their life to 2vs2 will need to be carrying the 2vs2flag!
Just my two cents.
|
Blizzard dont give a shit about 2v2, im sorry to tell you .
No tournaments & terrible maps... thats why all the good 2v2 players are not playing anymore.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
What are some good/often online 2v2 streams to watch? I only know protech.
|
The current state of team and custom games in SC2 is probably the main reason for the decreasing popularity: whoever can't stand the 1v1 pressure quits the game because he has nothing left to do.
Anyway, 2v2 is all but balanced. First of all, maps suck: I lost the count of the perfect spots for cannon rushes and siege tank. Just yesterday I learned that on Resupply Tanker you can cannon rush the opponents' main base from HIGH ground, with pylons covered by the natural's mineral patch and geyser. I mean, that's smart, isn't it? I really need to congratulate the map designer asap!
Apart from that, there is no reason to have the same units stats for 1v1 and team games. Blizzard should consider to balance separately each game mode.
|
Imagine if SC2 would have more viewership than LoL. You think Riot would consider a 1o1-style LoL?
StarCraft should stay on its roots. In Broodwar you had to be much more hardcore to be a fan. StarCraft has to be difference than other games, thats the only way it can show that its something special.
The Solution for StarCraft 2 is:
- make it for free (at least in korea)
- leave WCS-korea to kespa
-
|
On October 09 2013 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How about a 3v3 no rush map, have three main lanes of attacks but give each player towers to help defe- wait a minute!
thank you sir
|
On October 09 2013 02:45 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
to be fair, DotA is probably the least "refreshing" and "creative" game. Sure have lots of different heroes, but in the end its just different animations for doing the same thing over and over again.
Man, this was painful to read. One of the more idiotic things I've read on TL lately, and that's saying something.
|
On October 09 2013 03:10 DinosaurJones wrote:
I think it would be really fun. For everyone else that plays 2s, do you just use in-game type chat? Or do you use skype/raidcall or some sort of voice chat?
2v2 is a lot of fun. I play PZ with a good friend (and sometimes PT with another good friend). We use Skype. In-game chat does not work. I've tried a few random 2v2 and that is alright too, but playing in an arranged team (especially with people you know) is a lot more fun and gives better games. But, even playing with friends you've met through laddering 1v1 is cool, too.
I recommend it, playing PZ with my friend in 2v2 is the most fun I have in SC2 and approximately half my total games are team games (with most of these in 2v2). Sure, it is not totally balanced and the maps suck, but if you go into it not expecting a a balanced game, you should be alright. You will rage though from time to time. Some of the cheese can be infuriating.
But suck it up, take a deep breath, have a laugh with your teammate, and press "find match". You'll be right.
|
On October 09 2013 03:28 PiPiGranDe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 02:24 -Kyo- wrote:On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21 There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs. And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol kyo i agree with you that certain mu and builds work better than others depending on map. but you can say the exact same thing in 1s. canon rushing is better is X map compared to Y map. drop play/muta/air protoss os a better strategy in X map compared to Y map... and so on. protech is definitely not a god. i used him as an example cus #1 he is a rigure known to the community that plays a lot of 2s and #2 he is ranked high in 2s... which means that he can give you good insight in high level 2s play, just like me.
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.
|
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.
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)
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.
The map pool is bad.
This is true. it needs to improve. I keep thinking Blizzard is getting better at this but the most recent additions to the 2v2 pool have proved me wrong. (When will they figure out about cannon rush spots for christsake?)
For more discussion on maps see the below threads, its been discussed to death.
Competitive 2v2 maps
Why the 2v2 map pool is stunting the matchup
|
Sc2 isn't a game that gets more fun the better you get. The better you get the more time consuming it is to maintain that. It isn't fun.
|
On October 09 2013 05:01 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:28 PiPiGranDe wrote:On October 09 2013 02:24 -Kyo- wrote:On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21 There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs. And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol kyo i agree with you that certain mu and builds work better than others depending on map. but you can say the exact same thing in 1s. canon rushing is better is X map compared to Y map. drop play/muta/air protoss os a better strategy in X map compared to Y map... and so on. protech is definitely not a god. i used him as an example cus #1 he is a rigure known to the community that plays a lot of 2s and #2 he is ranked high in 2s... which means that he can give you good insight in high level 2s play, just like me. 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.
Examples please?
|
All the criticism about 2v2 being unbalanced is unfair because, ultimately, 2v2 hasn't been well explored enough to say that there are not undiscovered but CORRECT responses to each situation.
|
On October 09 2013 05:03 HeeroFX wrote:
Sc2 isn't a game that gets more fun the better you get. The better you get the more time consuming it is to maintain that. It isn't fun.
hm i actually think otherwise... it's harder to maintain a certain level, but if your ego isnt hung up on it, SC2 can still grow in fun for me . like sometimes i just get some cool strategy ideas (after not having played for a whole week) and feel all giddy about it.
playing fast and accurate is in itself fun to me. i just recently started loving playing as fast as i can. i'm a guitar player and most of what i did in 5 years was trying to play as fast as i can. i started trying to translate that to sc2 now and it has become a new source of fun.
ey, i had a jump of 30apm after a week of not playing. can you imagine that? lol. like i used to play 140apm every single game, now i play 170 consistently. wtf!
|
|
|
On October 09 2013 05:10 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:01 -Kyo- wrote:On October 09 2013 03:28 PiPiGranDe wrote:On October 09 2013 02:24 -Kyo- wrote:On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21 There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs. And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol kyo i agree with you that certain mu and builds work better than others depending on map. but you can say the exact same thing in 1s. canon rushing is better is X map compared to Y map. drop play/muta/air protoss os a better strategy in X map compared to Y map... and so on. protech is definitely not a god. i used him as an example cus #1 he is a rigure known to the community that plays a lot of 2s and #2 he is ranked high in 2s... which means that he can give you good insight in high level 2s play, just like me. 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. Examples please?
I've played 3v3 and 4v4 far more than 2v2, but I imagine it's fairly similar in that if your team has a lone zerg and the other team has multiple zerg's, your lone zerg is gonna get double/tripple early pooled and it's very difficult for your allies to help.
|
On October 09 2013 04:58 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:10 DinosaurJones wrote:
I think it would be really fun. For everyone else that plays 2s, do you just use in-game type chat? Or do you use skype/raidcall or some sort of voice chat? 2v2 is a lot of fun. I play PZ with a good friend (and sometimes PT with another good friend). We use Skype. In-game chat does not work. I've tried a few random 2v2 and that is alright too, but playing in an arranged team (especially with people you know) is a lot more fun and gives better games. But, even playing with friends you've met through laddering 1v1 is cool, too. I recommend it, playing PZ with my friend in 2v2 is the most fun I have in SC2 and approximately half my total games are team games (with most of these in 2v2). Sure, it is not totally balanced and the maps suck, but if you go into it not expecting a a balanced game, you should be alright. You will rage though from time to time. Some of the cheese can be infuriating. But suck it up, take a deep breath, have a laugh with your teammate, and press "find match". You'll be right.
Haha, no, I usually use Skype with one of my best friends from college. We used to do in-game chat, but once we started using skype, our win rate improved dramatically. We went from platinum 2v2 to Masters. Now, we hover at high diamond, we just don't have the time to make it into Masters, unfortunately.
|
On October 09 2013 05:01 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:28 PiPiGranDe wrote:On October 09 2013 02:24 -Kyo- wrote:On October 09 2013 00:50 PiPiGranDe wrote:
to be honest and with no offence intended... the people saying that 2s isn't balanced and that there is a build that beats everything or a certain combination of races that beat the other races.. is just people that have never played high high masters. these people probably loss to silly builds (double 6 pool.. canon rush + lings.. etc) or lose to very standard builds (lings/hellions, reaper/stalker) and just say the game in 2s is unbalanced.
i could also say that 4 gate is unbalanced too anything lower than platinum/diamond.
i have beaten protech numerous times in the past in 2s and have also played 2s with him. i'm sure he will agree with me that 2s for the most part is balanced. just a little bit less than 1s.
bottom line is: there is no build that beats everything or combination of races that beat others.
See my previous post which everyone seems to have ignored: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=431516¤tpage=2#21 There are most certainly things in 2v2 that are disproportionately good on certain maps/instances for certain MUs. And just for the record, protech isn't the end all be all of 2v2. You shouldn't look to him to explain balance to you... lol kyo i agree with you that certain mu and builds work better than others depending on map. but you can say the exact same thing in 1s. canon rushing is better is X map compared to Y map. drop play/muta/air protoss os a better strategy in X map compared to Y map... and so on. protech is definitely not a god. i used him as an example cus #1 he is a rigure known to the community that plays a lot of 2s and #2 he is ranked high in 2s... which means that he can give you good insight in high level 2s play, just like me. 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.
agreed as well. but tbh... no build beats all other builds. maps for 2s are very sucky currently. with better maps, 2s would be undeniably better. but even with current maps, if you know what is coming, it is easily stoppable. just need good scouting.
in regards to what you said about protech, i agree. but not 'any' GM could get to a top #1 RT (i don't care for RT nor i was talking about RT but AT). i have achieved #1 masters in both 1s and 2s and the mentality to play both games is different. just because someone is good in 1s... that doesn't make them good in 2s. So a GM in 1s won't necessarily mean high masters in 2s (assuming they tried hard). i used to have plenty of high masters friends in 1s but didn't really understand 2s much. builds that are done in 1s don't necessarily translate in 2s. and many 1s players don't understand this. but yes, in general if you are good in 1s, you have better chances of being good in 2s.
and to be honest.. top master team vs top master team at high levls is mostly aggresive play and not cheese. often time going for 2-3 bases. sometimes you see 4+ bases. i don't think many people have experienced this or seen this. (i talk about AT not RT).
certain maps suck for certain mu and they are unfair for certain combination of races. but they can vetoed. everybody says ZZ is hard to play against. i really disagree with that. for me the hardest to play against has to be TZ.
i win most of my games vs ZZ. there is only so much that can be done in ZZ
|
|
|
the problem i have with this personally is that team games are dreadful in sc2. in war3, team games (and FFA... war3 FFA is the greatest RTS experience EVER, but i'm pretty sure that will always remain a niche thing) were fucking amazing, in sc2 it's just two people playing 1v1 together. what i'm trying to say is the amount of team coordination you can, or at least you HAVE TO, do is much less signifcant than in war3. and that just isn't interesting to me. might as well watch an easier to follow and already balanced and tailored for viewing 1v1. of course things could be changed but i think the core mechanics for sc2 are really not very conducive to team games in the first place, whereas in war3 there were enough elements that allowed for a rich and very different from 1on1 experience in the team format (correlations between heroes, items, creeping camps alone or together, upkeep, etc.) this is true even more so for FFA, but let's not get into that.
what i would like to see though would be to just include like one 2v2 match in a teamleague format, like if you have a bo7 SPL match you make the 3rd or 4th map a 2on2. that would be fine and would mix things up a bit without throwing everything off balance.
|
You say way much more popular and 2x2/3x3/etc to describe versus modes..???
Anyway, I like what TeslasPigeon said on the first page: SC2 isn't as accessable of a game to most gamers. It's quite the niche genre, it's on the more expensive side of price tags for games, it's got a damn competitive ladder (which is why I feel you shouldn't complain about masters) and, as stated, the fanbase can be knocked down as time goes on when new games are released. It's the same for any game regarding my last comment.
You can say LoL won't die, but it will. It'll dwindle as time goes on, maybe not as much as some think. Personally, I believe a lot of people who play League are/were fans of PvP on mmo's such as WoW.. A lot of people abandoned WoW over time due to the expansions being letdowns and whatnot. Blizzard has made both SC2 and WoW, and if SC2 is caught in the middle of what I consider a very plausible but overlooked competition between 2 major pc titles, it's going to suffer in some way more than it would normally.
I still don't think you should've brought League into the discussion of "2v2" or multiplayer tournament play. I know for a fact that many SC2 fans do not enjoy watching 2v2 as much as 1v1. It's very different but not completely different. SC2 isn't designed well for team games, at least in my opinion. If it were balanced separately from 1v1, then maybe it'd be more popular than it currently is (that's a good idea, actually).
Either way, I don't see 2v2 going anywhere as far as 1v1 has come/gone.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
Isn't ling helion still broken in 2v2?
(I'm a noob)
|
|
|
Not a tourney that i would call 2v2 tourney only because the first game in RO5 is 2s and the rest are 1s lol. Whatever.
|
If only Blizzard had released an expansion since then.
|
|
|
make the maps bigger and make tournaments be Protoss , Zerg and terran vs Protoss Zerg and Terran only ! No other combination !! this is intresting
|
On October 09 2013 05:27 DinosaurJones wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:58 aZealot wrote:On October 09 2013 03:10 DinosaurJones wrote:
I think it would be really fun. For everyone else that plays 2s, do you just use in-game type chat? Or do you use skype/raidcall or some sort of voice chat? 2v2 is a lot of fun. I play PZ with a good friend (and sometimes PT with another good friend). We use Skype. In-game chat does not work. I've tried a few random 2v2 and that is alright too, but playing in an arranged team (especially with people you know) is a lot more fun and gives better games. But, even playing with friends you've met through laddering 1v1 is cool, too. I recommend it, playing PZ with my friend in 2v2 is the most fun I have in SC2 and approximately half my total games are team games (with most of these in 2v2). Sure, it is not totally balanced and the maps suck, but if you go into it not expecting a a balanced game, you should be alright. You will rage though from time to time. Some of the cheese can be infuriating. But suck it up, take a deep breath, have a laugh with your teammate, and press "find match". You'll be right. Haha, no, I usually use Skype with one of my best friends from college. We used to do in-game chat, but once we started using skype, our win rate improved dramatically. We went from platinum 2v2 to Masters. Now, we hover at high diamond, we just don't have the time to make it into Masters, unfortunately.
Cool! Sorry, did not mean to address my post as if you were new to 2v2. It's just that your post made it seem that way.
Still, my post holds true for other people who may not have played teams. 2v2 is a lot of fun.
Strangely enough, I rage a lot more in team games than 1v1 when it comes to cheese. I don't know why. Maybe I feel more responsible for the team if we lose to something silly? Or, it may be because in 1v1 there is almost always something you could have done while in 2v2 this is not always the case? However, scouting on 9 while your teammate scouts around for proxies goes a long way towards deflecting most cheese. You can still die to stupid shit, though.
Stupid shit you do can also be more funny in a team environment. Recently, I played a PT (with my mate) against a TT. I was out and about on the map poking with my Stalkers and spotted an incoming push. I kited back to my base, read the map wrong and took a wrong corner and got backed up. Thankfully my MSC was out on the map. But, my mate thought he'd come to my rescue. I forgot to tell him I'd be recalling out. He showed up to "save" me only to have me vanish in front of his eyes. He got his army massacred. Needless to say, I didn't hear the end of it for the next 5 minutes. Good times! :D
|
On October 09 2013 05:58 TheDwf wrote:If only Blizzard had released an expansion since then.
Hots is way more cheese friendly than wol so it would be ever worse.
|
On October 08 2013 22:19 moochu wrote:
I'd like to see 3v3 where one of each race is compulsory, simple solution to any balance complaints.
Yeah I wish they did this as well as revamp the entire balance and maps. Make maps really unique and different (somehow)
|
On October 09 2013 06:29 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:27 DinosaurJones wrote:On October 09 2013 04:58 aZealot wrote:On October 09 2013 03:10 DinosaurJones wrote:
I think it would be really fun. For everyone else that plays 2s, do you just use in-game type chat? Or do you use skype/raidcall or some sort of voice chat? 2v2 is a lot of fun. I play PZ with a good friend (and sometimes PT with another good friend). We use Skype. In-game chat does not work. I've tried a few random 2v2 and that is alright too, but playing in an arranged team (especially with people you know) is a lot more fun and gives better games. But, even playing with friends you've met through laddering 1v1 is cool, too. I recommend it, playing PZ with my friend in 2v2 is the most fun I have in SC2 and approximately half my total games are team games (with most of these in 2v2). Sure, it is not totally balanced and the maps suck, but if you go into it not expecting a a balanced game, you should be alright. You will rage though from time to time. Some of the cheese can be infuriating. But suck it up, take a deep breath, have a laugh with your teammate, and press "find match". You'll be right. Haha, no, I usually use Skype with one of my best friends from college. We used to do in-game chat, but once we started using skype, our win rate improved dramatically. We went from platinum 2v2 to Masters. Now, we hover at high diamond, we just don't have the time to make it into Masters, unfortunately. Cool! Sorry, did not mean to address my post as if you were new to 2v2. It's just that your post made it seem that way. Still, my post holds true for other people who may not have played teams. 2v2 is a lot of fun. Strangely enough, I rage a lot more in team games than 1v1 when it comes to cheese. I don't know why. Maybe I feel more responsible for the team if we lose to something silly? Or, it may be because in 1v1 there is almost always something you could have done while in 2v2 this is not always the case? However, scouting on 9 while your teammate scouts around for proxies goes a long way towards deflecting most cheese. You can still die to stupid shit, though. Stupid shit you do can also be more funny too in a team environment. Recently, I played a PT (with my mate) against a TT. I was out and about on the map poking with my Stalkers and spotted an incoming push. I kited back to my base, read the map wrong and took a wrong corner and got backed up. Thankfully my MSC was out on the map. But, my mate thought he'd come to my rescue. I forgot to tell him I'd be recalling out. He showed up to "save" me only to have me vanish in front of his eyes as he got his army massacred. Needless to say, I didn't hear the end of it for the next 5 minutes. Good times! :D
No problem. I generally don't rage at games at all. Occasionally I'll get mad, usually if I'm getting harassed a ton and I know that I'm falling further and further behind and am about to get rolled by a big army very soon.
Most of the time my teammates rage pretty hard though. I'm usually the only one to say "gg" at the end of games. TO be fair though, our 3rd person is terrible. But yeah, doing silly stuff can be fun. I usually roll random in 3s, and I just rushed straight to carrier in one game. I didn't reveal them until I had 3 bases (and a 4th on the way) and about 7 2-2 upgraded carriers. I don't expect stuff like that to ever work, but it was definitely fun!
|
On October 09 2013 06:29 shid0x wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:58 TheDwf wrote:If only Blizzard had released an expansion since then. Hots is way more cheese friendly than wol so it would be ever worse.
Do you can elaborate this?
|
On October 09 2013 06:29 shid0x wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:58 TheDwf wrote:If only Blizzard had released an expansion since then. Hots is way more cheese friendly than wol so it would be ever worse.
Nope, it's the reverse. HotS has way more tools to defend early agression.
|
On October 09 2013 07:09 TheDwf wrote:
Nope, it's the reverse. HotS has way more tools to defend early agression.
OF COURSE... Can't more agree.
HotS 2x2 way more balanced in early game than before and way much more macro designed :-)
|
On October 09 2013 07:15 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:09 TheDwf wrote:
Nope, it's the reverse. HotS has way more tools to defend early agression. OF COURSE... Can't more agree. HotS 2x2 way more balanced in early game than before and way much more macro designed :-)
check your inbox.
OnTopic: HotS gives you more tool than WoL to defend cheese...
|
who cares about cheese though? Feeding is easily the best strategy in 2v2. can't be competitive until they get rid of that.
|
maps are terrible, and starcraft is designed terribly for team games. solution is blizzard to change their views on certain topics mentioned 100 of times
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
On October 09 2013 03:57 HornyHerring wrote:
What are some good/often online 2v2 streams to watch? I only know protech.
quoting myself coz nobody replied
|
Players should only be able to feed another player if he/she is about to be (or has been) revealed. I thought that was the purpose of it anyway (to allow a player to get back in even after he/she has lost almost everything). And/or have a 12 minute (or some other number greater than 5) time limit.
|
On October 08 2013 22:49 Daswollvieh wrote:
I don´t think 2v2s would be fun to watch, because the observing could not keep up. Remember, in 1v1 each side has one screen, so has the observer (hence the viewer). In 2v2 there are 2 screen per side where micro happens, while there is still only one viewer screen. I assume the viewing experience would suffer from jumping between different spots a lot more, but I´m just assuming, of course.
Nah it's rare that anything that hectic ever happens. Players usually act together.
|
The solution to any 'problems' with 2v2 (balance, viewing, etc...) can all be solved the BW way. That is, through the support of the community. It was through the innovation of players that balanced BW, and the support of tournament organisers that perfect the viewing experience.
If we just had some high profile 2v2 tournaments (eg MLG), then I think drawing numbers to the genre will prove if it really is a broken format or not.
|
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.
The WoL beta started with 1v1 and 2v2 enabled (3v3 and 4v4 came later) so Blizzard had 2v2 in mind from the start. They also made special maps with shared highground or at least close bases.
While SC2 is probably not as appealing to the mass as Lol, I think there are more categories than popular or niche.
|
Why cant people just accept that RTS is not a popular game genre- it never has been, it never will be simply because of the fully focused time commitment it requires. It isnt like WoW or LoL where you can talk to your buddies and just chill out before you go to bed- you have to be fully awake and concentrated on playing or you get absolutely demolished in SC2.
|
Well, maybe they could do some off-season 2v2 as a test platform and invite some community map makers to provide decent maps.
Love to play XvX as well due to being more social, chat with team mates while owning, share the taste of victory and the bitterness of defeat :°)
|
On October 08 2013 22:19 moochu wrote:
I'd like to see 3v3 where one of each race is compulsory, simple solution to any balance complaints.
This would be really fun to try out for showmatches and things like that. For how much fun (non-competitve) stuff this community does, I'm surprised something teamgame oriented like this hasn't happened yet. Get on it Papa John's lol!!!
|
I would really like to see some 2v2 tournaments with big prize pools, it would be some thing new after watching however many hundreds of SC2 games and could maybe grow into something bigger. All balance complaints can be solved with the map editor, which should be limited to disabling resource sharing and custom maps IMO. It will still require all the skill of 1v1 with the addition of teamwork and a deeper understanding of the game so it's not correct to say it's the easier mode.
|
Interesting point of view.
You could probably attribute a lot of SCBW popularity to 3v3 hunters and such.
|
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.
|
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.
|
game + 2v2 dead, confirmed. happy to receive the warning. xD
User was warned for this post
|
I don't understand, here's someone coming out with a form of enthusiasm, saying "hey, I have an idea, I'm gunna have the balls to put it out there and say it in a fairly positive way" Sure, he includes analogies from LoL/DotA which aren't really that great to add and don't prove much of a point.
2v2 might be awkward in it's current form, and 1v1 will probably always be the biggest focus for an RTS, but how can any of the issues be identified and even considered if it's never tried?
But hell, who wants enthusiasm/some sort of suggestion about having fun in the game anyway? It's not about being the biggest game or anything like that, it's just making something else in the game that can be fun/good.
|
On October 13 2013 18:43 Sylfyre wrote:
I don't understand, here's someone coming out with a form of enthusiasm, saying "hey, I have an idea, I'm gunna have the balls to put it out there and say it in a fairly positive way" Sure, he includes analogies from LoL/DotA which aren't really that great to add and don't prove much of a point.
2v2 might be awkward in it's current form, and 1v1 will probably always be the biggest focus for an RTS, but how can any of the issues be identified and even considered if it's never tried?
But hell, who wants enthusiasm/some sort of suggestion about having fun in the game anyway? It's not about being the biggest game or anything like that, it's just making something else in the game that can be fun/good.
2v2 isn't awkward in its current form in any way. and there are hardly any issues with 2v2 except some shitty maps.
and to kyo: i've seen you got shit on by protech literally everytime you and futs run into him on stream. that is, you lost to him like everytime with AT vs RT (+ his random race).
|
I would probably watch more SC2 if there were 2v2s with players/ teams I cared about. I spent years watching GSLs, DHs HSC, everything that was out there. Now, I can't be bothered to turn on a tournament unless a player I enjoy is in it and as soon as they are knocked out, I shut off the stream. I used to really be into it, but I just got tired of Zerg BL/ festor, and after HotS, the love was just gone. I think if there were real team leagues I would be more interested. I never watched DotA until liquid got a team, now I watch all of their games I can catch, and even from time to time flip on a stream even if they aren't playing, which is more than I can say for SC2 these days. I like the idea of real "team" leagues but I have no experience to speak of as far as balance is concerned.
|
I agree with 2v2 missing in the scene.
In SCBW, the focus was also on 1v1 but 2v2 was compared to now HUGE. There was one or even two 2v2s in every clan war/nation war. In some league even a 2v2 and a 3v3!
It was pretty nice and spiced things a bit up for every clan war.
Really sad, that 2v2 doesn't cut it in SC2.
|
too little too late my friends. this should have been raised ages ago when wol was starting to wane. sc2 just becomes too repetitive.. every game is the same strats similar builds. 2v2 is unique and should have had more importance.
|
I have to agree that 2v2s are actually quite fun and are one of the main points that I am still playing it. I usually feel the urge to play 1v1s every now and then after watching tournaments or after times of inactivity. But mostly when I am playing team games with my friends I am much more willing to jump on, it feels much more fun when you are actually playing with someone.
|
2v2 was an official wcg event back then!!!!! until a duo from kazakhstan smashed the korean duo lol.
|
There is a reason why people have winrates like 997 to 3. It's the simply they know exploitive builds on every map in any matchup, with good/decent mechanics.
Starcraft will always be a 1v1 game on a professional level and nothing else.
Teamgames is/might be a lot of fun to play but it's bound to a rather casual level.
|
On October 13 2013 20:02 Luisa_2 wrote:
There is a reason why people have winrates like 997 to 3. It's the simply they know exploitive builds on every map in any matchup, with good/decent mechanics.
Starcraft will always be a 1v1 game on a professional level and nothing else.
Teamgames is/might be a lot of fun to play but it's bound to a rather casual level.
That is horse poo at its finest. The reason stats like 7x:x happen is because of ATs going versus RTs most of the time with the combination of the bad map pool: 1) shared base with a ramp bigger than the ego of IdrA. 2) no shared bases with super short rush distance (like reclamation) or its bigger brother (not that worse): resupply bunker.
What's holding back 2s is: AT vs RT is bullshit most of the time, the map pool and the broken matchmaking system. Other than that it's just fine. It's being played just about as much as 1s: 70k RT players, 130k teams AT compared to about 300k players. Those numbers are global, taken from nios.kr.
|
I see no reason why 2v2 would then become that thing you did until you reached low/mid masters and then retired for other games. You'll be expressing that boredom intimately with a teammate, but the same height of skill would eventually be reached. I'm with you on the pressures of 1v1 being slightly assuaged in 2v2, but I'm not on believing there would be any end difference. I'm mainly talking about the pressures on improvement.
The biggest question would be: Are we then balancing this game for 2v2 or 1v1 gameplay? I'll take my cap and say goodbye for the next game that keeps 1v1 balanced, should these ideas be accepted by Blizzard. There's only so much you can do with maps. Eventually the predominant 2v2 strategies would be called to be nerfed (hellion speedling comes to mind, but is more impacted by map choice ... watch Protech for any length of time to fill in the other dominant ones).
Is 2x2 balanced?
MAINLY, YES! After some thousand games, I'm pretty certain that 2x2 is quite balanced. Even if in WoL, TZ cheese was freaking good against protoss, with the mama core and oracle, it's now more balanced, but of course, you have to do proper veto map depending the race you are playing. Protoss players shouldn't keep separated base map for example... ZZ shouldn't keep map where they can't expand, and so on... The build order are also slightly different from 1x1, just as a Protoss than I am, I feel like 9 ou 12 scout is ALWAYS quiet important...
The only balanced problem that I know, are feeded strats and some eco cheese when an opponent leave the game at start. But that can be easily fixed by blizzard
Also, I insist that in my point of view, 3x3 and 4x4 are losing a lot of interest, when I talk about teamgames, I'm mainly talking about 2x2 in SC2 and LoL 3x3 and 5x5...
Do what ever you want, you will never be a good 2x2 player if you don't have a good macro, macro also exist at 100 % in 2x2, just as in 1x1 ! All the games I play goes in macro but CAN start with some pressure (3 stalkers reapers for example) and it's in general easy to win if people all-in us, cuz we know how to hold it.
I also would like to end by this. A lot of ppl use to say "OMG 2x2 is for noobs, you get reach master with stupid cheese and no skills".
Well, it's true that you can reach master by cheese, but just FYI, it's the same for 1x1.
And to all people saying taht 2x2 requires no skill, just try to stay one whole season in top master 2x2 AND with a record of more than 60/40, then you will realise how dumb you were.
It looks like you're comparing 2v2 balance with how it used to exist back in WoL and not how it compares to 1v1 balance. It is not about cheese and it is not about how far good macro carries you in leagues. It is examination of the winning team comps; it is the teams that are run in the tournaments that involve them. Skilled players play the race they're skilled at, but there are clear winners and losers in the 2v2 realm.
I find your suggestions more appropriate for the other half of the RTS spectrum: Several "races," small differences between them. They lend themselves to RTS team atmospheres much more readily.
|
On October 13 2013 20:02 Luisa_2 wrote:
There is a reason why people have winrates like 997 to 3. It's the simply they know exploitive builds on every map in any matchup, with good/decent mechanics.
Starcraft will always be a 1v1 game on a professional level and nothing else.
Teamgames is/might be a lot of fun to play but it's bound to a rather casual level.
Totally disagree. I've played many rts at a high level and they are all very fun/fair/competitive in 2v2! Unless you're a top master 2v2 player, you really have no right to even make such comments.
I agree with the original post. There's really nothing stopping people from giving 2v2 a try, other than not being familiar with a different style of gaming. But a little tournament exposure (including some 2v2 games for money at 1v1 tournaments) would be fantastic.
|
United States125 Posts
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.
Why the hate for this guys post?
It's truth. It's an extremely challenging and competitive 1v1 game. It's great for spectating and following favorite players(imo it beats Dota/LoL in this department) but not friendly to casual gamers. There is going to be no solution to make SC2 half as popular as MOBA's because of this fact.
Don't hate any opinion counter to yours and recognize truth when it's thrown at it. Just enjoy SC2 for what it is.
|
On October 13 2013 20:47 kaos00 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. Why the hate for this guys post? It's truth. It's an extremely challenging and competitive 1v1 game. It's great for spectating and following favorite players(imo it beats Dota/LoL in this department) but not friendly to casual gamers. There is going to be no solution to make SC2 half as popular as MOBA's because of this fact. Don't hate any opinion counter to yours and recognize truth when it's thrown at it. Just enjoy SC2 for what it is.
Look at the first sentence. "Sc2 is not a popular game." That is not true. Millions of people play it. It has DECLINING popularity. So the first line of his post is a stupid lie. Why? He probably has some psychological issues.
Then he goes on to say anything which will boost sc2 popularity is "improbable" and "based in fantasy." Who wants to hear such a negative opinion in a thread made with POSTITIVE input...
|
I don't think 2v2 is well balanced. Also I don't think it would be necessarily a pretty game. All-ins might dominate. And finally the notion of Protoss and Zerg fighting on the same side is really weird and looks weird.
I would, however, like a MicroMacro style 2v2 very much. I wish Blizzard would include that as an official game mode for LotV.
|
There's some french sneaking in that post :o
|
On October 08 2013 22:41 TeslasPigeon wrote:
This isn't 2004, RTS as a genre is nearly dead. You can only innovate so much before players just move onto other enjoyable games.
I agree. Blizzard has done absolutely nothing to innovate sc2 the only thing keeping sc2 alive is the community which is becoming smaller and smaller as time goes on.
|
RTS games require lots of practice, intelligence, patience, and hard work. Of course games like Angry Birds and Wii Sports or _______ other casual game will have more players. That's fine. Let's just make this the best RTS for those of us who like a challenging war game. Let Grandma keep her Wii. Let your mom play Candy Crush. But let's play Starcraft 2.
* PS: LoTV will bring in more players and some of them will stay.
|
People would win tournaments with FOTM builds and comps. Having the chance to make compositions made up of not one, but two races opens up TONS of possibilites. All-ins can simply be solved by having better designed maps. It would need a ton of juggling around and rock paper scissors to make it work.
|
On October 13 2013 06:36 kcNight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 05:45 2vs2.Zepiii wrote: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.
I agree with you Night, it may not be enough explored. But here, all the people complaining that it's not balanced are talking about cheese that are unstoppable from their point of view, but with proper veto, there are 0 cheese that are unstoppable.
Also, people talk about combo that are weaker, but if I compare it to LoL, it's exactly the same thing that if you choose 2 wrong heros vs 2 good heros.
I still think that TZ is the best combo and easier to play but that doesn't mean that 2x2 can't be competitive !
|
On October 10 2013 06:17 Nerski wrote:
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.
I"m gonna have to agree w/ you nerski but hots is way better for 2v2 than wol was. in the 2v2 masters it started out well but the depth of 2v2 in wol wasn't there.
with that said i think 2v2 in hots is way deeper and it has some semblance of balance.
As with most things, I think there are a lot of elements that top 2v2 players/posters point out and I think some of them are worth mentioning.
I do agree with Night that 2v2 is unexplored somewhat. Gaemtoss/Anai are a perfect example of this and their ZZ.
Without any major exposure except for protech, people can't really pick up 2v2 all that fast. Not to mention the amount of games to get the sychronicity with a teammate. Whereas in 1v1 you can get the experience by playing a bunch alone (not having to wait for teammate to be on) and the multitude of content out there.
I also do agree with Kyo some MU and some maps are sorta crappy. I think you really have to wait for more balance fine tuning in lotv to see 2v2 viable. Its really hard to balance a map for all the potential matchups out there. Like in my response to nerski, I am in agreeance that 2v2 won't be the next big thing but definately will gain more attention in future. I disagree with Kyo's bashing of Protech for obvious reasons (incorrect facts).
So in short, 2v2 will gain a bigger audience and bigger share but it will never be as big. Its gonna have some semblance of balance but there will always be maps and MU imbalances within those maps.
|
Interview of MKP :
Q: What aspect of LoL do you prefer to SC2 ?
A: I don't think LoL is better than Starcraft, they just have different good aspects. Since LoL is a team game, it makes me feel more relaxed to play with friends, it cheers me up to not play alone. Always being alone in Starcraft made me lonely and pressured. I still think that Starcraft is the better game tho.
Exactly what I explain in post 1
|
On October 25 2013 17:27 2vs2.Zepiii wrote:Interview of MKP : Q: What aspect of LoL do you prefer to SC2 ?A: I don't think LoL is better than Starcraft, they just have different good aspects. Since LoL is a team game, it makes me feel more relaxed to play with friends, it cheers me up to not play alone. Always being alone in Starcraft made me lonely and pressured. I still think that Starcraft is the better game tho. Exactly what I explain in post 1
MKP dropping
![[image loading]](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/images/b-1b_4.jpg)
Like the bad-ass he is
But seriously though, programers are humans too. They know why they play LoL instead of SC2, and its the same reason we play LoL as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
