|
On December 16 2013 23:43 lichter wrote:
I really like 2v2 but I'm not sure how you'd implement it. It definitely shouldn't weigh as much as 1v1 in a match. But then if you only play one of it, where do you put it? If you put it in the first 3 spots, then it will definitely be played. If you put it 4th, there is a chance it might not be played often. For players that practice solely for 2v2 that might feel unfair. Play it first, and some will feel it matters too much (first map sets the pace). Play it second and it's in this weird almost irrelevant position. Play it third and it feels like a momentum breaker.
Perhaps if PL were a best of 7, we could do
1v1
1v1
2v2
2v2
1v1
1v1
Ace: 1v1
I was going to write something like that. adding 2v2 can make proleague bo7 instead of the actual bo5
I prefer team games, but the interface must be changed, I dislike this pink/cyan v green/purple , maybe a option to make same team color to be observed.
|
I'm all for it. One thing I like about 2v2 is that I feel it has the potential to bring a few more players into the limelight, because the format is so different that "minor" players can have a new lease of life working together to devise good strategies and win 2v2 games for their team. It would also, as others have said, increase the sense that teams are exactly that - teams - rather than just groups of individuals.
Obviously we know that teams practise together and help each other prepare for specific matchups and all that, but I think that seeing cooperation and teamwork actually on screen is really exciting, personally.
|
GSTL became much more common after those initial seasons back in 2011. It didn't hold my interest quite as much. I'm not sure if that's the reason why, but I'm saying that the novelty of 2v2 will wear off.
|
TL is just so strange. Rules say no vote threads but this is still here?? :D
I voted yes
|
On December 17 2013 00:00 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
TL is just so strange. Rules say no vote threads but this is still here?? :D
I voted yes
does it really? lol
poll threads are really fun, they generate alot of debate.. which is what forums are all about o.O
|
Voted no. I don't want mediocre-at-best team games taking time away from the proper format. Especially now that PL is only bo5.
For showmatches and silly stuff, sure, but not as a main thing.
|
On December 17 2013 00:00 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
TL is just so strange. Rules say no vote threads but this is still here?? :D
I voted yes
But Pro>Rules is another one of their rules! 
I voted no. I didn't enjoy those games today, didn't enjoy other 2v2s I have dipped into (as a viewer) and I think 2v2s are inherently broken/cheesy and no map in the world can repair that.
*Maybe* if the allies didn't share vision, couldn't share money and couldn't talk to each other during the game and the maps were really, really well designed for it (maybe with triggers etc) it could have potential. But as it is, it's just two guys ganking one, or the maps being designed in a way that two guys turtle together at first to try and gank one later on.
|
2v2 for fun can be enjoyable but I wouldnt expect them to be good when played in a competition and you play to win.
If anything, give me more 1v1 with these amazing players o_O
|
I think 2vs2 would be great to watch in the regular season, i mean only cause the 2vs2 matches right now weren't all that great doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fun if teams and players invest time into it. Maybe it is more "cheesy", but if it gets "figured out" both teams would know how to counter these things and we could see a lot of cool early game fights, maybe even innovative mid to late game strategies.
|
SC2 should just switch to 2v2, TBH.
Be designed for and balanced around it.
|
On December 16 2013 23:50 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 23:43 lichter wrote:
I really like 2v2 but I'm not sure how you'd implement it. It definitely shouldn't weigh as much as 1v1 in a match. But then if you only play one of it, where do you put it? If you put it in the first 3 spots, then it will definitely be played. If you put it 4th, there is a chance it might not be played often. For players that practice solely for 2v2 that might feel unfair. Play it first, and some will feel it matters too much (first map sets the pace). Play it second and it's in this weird almost irrelevant position. Play it third and it feels like a momentum breaker.
Perhaps if PL were a best of 7, we could do
1v1
1v1
2v2
2v2
1v1
1v1
Ace: 1v1 2 2v2's is too much, 1 is more than enough (as the 3rd or 4th match) 1v1 1v1 1v1 or 2v2 1v1 or 2v2 1v1 1v1 ace 1v1
Problem here would be that in this system 2v2 would be completely marginalized, no one would bother practicing it or take time to develop builds. It would just be a cheese-fest with no real tangible connection to the tournament at large.
|
I agree that the game feels really redundant and dull a bit to often, and what it needs is a redesign in the next expansion, not 2v2 or 3v3 or turn it to a FPS or what the fuck.
|
Would maps and balance really work for 2v2 though? I find that there's enough balance whine already in 1v1 and calibrated/calculated maps. Also, I like watching 1v1 more, so that's a personal take.
|
On December 17 2013 00:26 IntoTheheart wrote:
Would maps and balance really work for 2v2 though? I find that there's enough balance whine already in 1v1 and calibrated/calculated maps. Also, I like watching 1v1 more, so that's a personal take.
gamewise, i dont think theres a balance issue with 2v2. what i meant in my OP is that they might want to remove stuff like shared ressources. the balancing would have to be done around 2v2 specific maps
|
On December 17 2013 00:33 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 00:26 IntoTheheart wrote:
Would maps and balance really work for 2v2 though? I find that there's enough balance whine already in 1v1 and calibrated/calculated maps. Also, I like watching 1v1 more, so that's a personal take. gamewise, i dont think theres a balance issue with 2v2. what i meant in my OP is that they might want to remove stuff like shared ressources. the balancing would have to be done around maps
Shared resources makes scrub-level 2v2 kinda fun though, same with shared units.
Would they remove that feature for pro-maps?
|
On December 17 2013 00:35 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 00:33 TT1 wrote:On December 17 2013 00:26 IntoTheheart wrote:
Would maps and balance really work for 2v2 though? I find that there's enough balance whine already in 1v1 and calibrated/calculated maps. Also, I like watching 1v1 more, so that's a personal take. gamewise, i dont think theres a balance issue with 2v2. what i meant in my OP is that they might want to remove stuff like shared ressources. the balancing would have to be done around maps Shared resources makes scrub-level 2v2 kinda fun though, same with shared units. Would they remove that feature for pro-maps?
i guess, i mean it shouldnt be a big issue. having shared ressources favors teams like tz for example, t is a min heavy race so they can dump it all into bio and share their gas with z (for mutas and such)
|
No, based off the games I watched in the preseason. I've seen very few interesting 2v2s and I used to play them all the time back in the beta with friends. The science of 2v2 just isn't really there. ;/
|
On December 17 2013 00:39 StarStruck wrote:
No, based off the games I watched in the preseason. I've seen very few interesting 2v2s and I used to play them all the time back in the beta with friends. The science of 2v2 just isn't really there. ;/
Those games were played on Alterzim, which is as terrible (if not more) in 2v2 as it is in 1v1. Any map in the regular 2v2 map pool would have produced better games.
|
On December 16 2013 22:49 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 22:41 Waxangel wrote:On December 16 2013 22:36 TT1 wrote:On December 16 2013 22:35 Waxangel wrote:
where's the GOD NO option? fuckin traditionalist, get with the times grandpa i'd rather not pros waste their time playing 2v2's solely for PL when there's way more opportunities outside PL in SC2 compared to BW how so? only a small % of koreans play in foreign tourneys and theres only a few leagues in korea. also, i doubt it would have an effect on the higher tier kors seeing as teamplay matches usually involve 2nd tier pros. if anything it just gives lesser known players more exposure
Yes, but as long as you play and practice 1v1 there's a hope of eventually becoming that top tier player. Getting assigned to 2v2 is a fucking death sentence career-wise (except for ZergBong, I guess).
|
On December 17 2013 00:42 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 00:39 StarStruck wrote:
No, based off the games I watched in the preseason. I've seen very few interesting 2v2s and I used to play them all the time back in the beta with friends. The science of 2v2 just isn't really there. ;/ Those games were played on Alterzim, which is as terrible (if not more) in 2v2 as it is in 1v1. Any map in the regular 2v2 map pool would have produced better games.
Exactly, i don't understand why you would rate these 2vs2 games we saw so highly for your opinion.
The teams probably didn't really train 2vs2 and the map wasn't that great for teamgames either.
I think it is quite funny, on the one hand people don't like a stale meta, on the other hand they are extremely conservative if anything changes then, kinda ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
