|
On December 16 2013 22:57 Destructicon wrote:
I voted for no. The beauty of SC2 is that it is a individual game, its focus is on 1 vs 1, like it or not that's its strength its creating those moments of jaw droping awe when someone does something you never thought possible, micro, macro or multi-tasking all on his own.
I feel like any form of team play would just ruin what SC2 stands form. If you feel SC2 is stale strategically then you should be doing everything in your power to get the message across to Blizzard to do some balance changes that will fix that, not ask for stupid shit like 2 vs 2, that also dilute and divide the community.
And if you think team games provide variety, you're dead wrong, they only provide novelty right now. Team map making is not very well understood, but once it does develop you'd see not only the maps but also the metagame have to conform to a certain standard, because, no matter what you still have to have mains a certain position, with resources at a certain angle, with ramps in certain places and you can't have it too narrow or FF rape everything and you can't have them too open or zergs destroy everything, that's just how it is.
Yeah, we all do love the elegance and skill of a fencer.
But hey, doesn't everyone enjoy a good brawl from time to time? :D
|
Hell yes, but we need actual 2v2 KeSPA-quality maps. The preseason 2v2s were so fucking miserable. Also, they need to make resource transfer only possible after reaching a certain tech level, to prevent low-tier feed strategies.
|
I never saw pgm that know how to play a 2v2. I would fucking love to see that, high level 2v2, but this will take a lot of time, to develop the meta and the understang of 2v2 which is so different from 1v1.
|
On December 16 2013 22:37 Undead1993 wrote:Show nested quote +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 did you even watch today's 2v2s? they were horrible not even slightly worth watching.
No shit, there's no 2v2 pro scene and the maps suck so obviously we're not going to see good games right off the bat if they decide to implement it.
Personally, I'm all for it as long as the restrictions on resource sharing are increased. Whether that's by instituting a limit of minerals and gas per minute or simply increasing the time before you can share, or something else entirely, I'm not sure. What I do know however is that feed strategies are lame as fuck and I don't want to see them.
|
On December 17 2013 06:02 Pontius Pirate wrote:
Hell yes, but we need actual 2v2 KeSPA-quality maps. The preseason 2v2s were so fucking miserable. Also, they need to make resource transfer only possible after reaching a certain tech level, to prevent low-tier feed strategies.
If they actually did do 2v2, they wouldn't use a map like alterzim, that was just to show 2v2's for fun in the preseason, and resource transfer is fine after a certain time limit, the 5 minutes in standard should be extended to 10 or 15 minutes in a professional match
|
I think 2 v 2 would be more fun, if it were used more as exhibition matches. To use 2 vs 2 in a Proleague setting could cause a lot more problems than solutions, although I loved some of the games such as MVP vs. CJ.
|
i like the idea of implementing 2v2 , makes it gives it much more of that team aspect ! plus anything involving more content is good for sc2 +1
|
I didnt vote but its true that SC2 meta is becoming a bit redundant, but thats because the ultimate goal is balancing the game... the more its balanced the less meta shift we will see...
|
The caveat you had in the poll is rather unfair because, quite frankly, the maps are awful and the balance even more so. That's the main argument against 2v2 so that poll is going to show some unfair results.
|
I feel like the only benefit of 2v2 is more "for fun" content, so rather than seeing it as part of PL I'd like to see it as exhibition matches that might give rookies a chance at broadcast time they otherwise wouldn't have. And frankly at that point, why limit it to 2v2? Do 3v3 or 4v4.
|
I say yes. 2v2 would awesome to watch at pro level but the maps they had for preseason were shit. if they do 2v2 they need to create maps specifically for it as i reckon maps are the biggest factor in 2v2, cant be to small or else we get rush games all the time.
|
United States23455 Posts
I think it goes without saying that we'd have different maps for it if it was added to the regular season.
If they did that, I would potentially enjoy 2v2 coming full time into Proleague. Although it would be hard to balance.
|
On December 17 2013 07:47 j4vz wrote:
I didnt vote but its true that SC2 meta is becoming a bit redundant, but thats because the ultimate goal is balancing the game... the more its balanced the less meta shift we will see...
i kinda like that its shifting every time , unless you mean when it gets balanced we will see an abundance of strategies working?if not , then if it gets "balanced" then wouldnt we see the same redundant strats ?
|
On December 17 2013 08:21 JunQkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 07:47 j4vz wrote:
I didnt vote but its true that SC2 meta is becoming a bit redundant, but thats because the ultimate goal is balancing the game... the more its balanced the less meta shift we will see... i kinda like that its shifting every time , unless you mean when it gets balanced we will see an abundance of strategies working?if not , then if it gets "balanced" then wouldnt we see the same redundant strats ?
i meant
if it gets "balanced" then wouldnt we see the same redundant strats
|
Yeah good idea.
PvZ
ZvZ
shitty 2v2
ZvP
PvP
Can't wait !
|
Not sure, I haven't seen the games I must say but I have a feeling 2v2 would end up being broken. It's generally a rough format to balance but I haven't watched or played it at all in HotS so I have no idea how bad or good it is.
Feeding should be removed I think since it's just silly (wc3 at least had upkeep to balance that for example) and the maps would need to be thought out very well. Since it's never really been played competively I can't really say what is good for it, separate bases probably makes it a complete rush fest but bases too easily shared could make it a camp fest too much, generally 2v2 tends to be rushfests too much though because the defenders advantage get's so low.
Still there can be real beauty in it and I wouldn't mind having it looked into. I always thought it was a cool part in wc3 albeit never really taken serious either (many teams just had separate 2v2 players which kinda sucked in solo). There were the problems of just massing tier 1 units and attacking being too good but sc2 lacks aura's so it could actually work. There are a ton of interesting combinations that could really make for novel play, ranging from simple cute stuff like fungal + storm into really novel combinations. I still think it's bound to have something broken if pro's really look into it, either some sort of nearly unstoppable aggressive strat like 1-1-1 + 4 gate or whatever or some broken unit combination.
|
Would like to see some 2v2s on better maps
|
On December 16 2013 22:35 Waxangel wrote:
where's the GOD NO option?
I am in the same boat. Pray to god they don't ever add it :D
|
Jesus Christ no thank you.
Just imagine how hard it would be to balance the game for 2v2s....
|
2v2 can never be balanced without breaking 1v1 balance.
And the novelty of speedling rush/proxy every game is going to grow old very very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
