Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (72)
81%
Tournament Ready (6)
7%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
7%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (5)
6%
89 total votes
Your vote: Discord IV
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (54)
69%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (6)
8%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (5)
6%
78 total votes
Your vote: High Orbit
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (62)
78%
Tournament Ready (10)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
5%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (3)
4%
79 total votes
Your vote: Lunar Colony V
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (43)
61%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (14)
20%
Tournament Ready (9)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
70 total votes
Your vote: Magma Core
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (41)
53%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (21)
27%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
3%
77 total votes
Your vote: Scorched Haven
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (48)
75%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (11)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
Tournament Ready (1)
2%
64 total votes
Your vote: The Boneyard
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (37)
57%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (19)
29%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
11%
Tournament Ready (2)
3%
65 total votes
Your vote: The Ruins of Tarsonis
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (31)
48%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (18)
28%
Tournament Ready (12)
18%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
65 total votes
Your vote: Tyrador Keep
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
8%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (3)
6%
51 total votes
Your vote: ICCup Citadel of Gaia
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (16)
27%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (1)
2%
60 total votes
Your vote: Twilight Fortress
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (17)
55%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (7)
23%
Tournament Ready (5)
16%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (2)
6%
31 total votes
Your vote: Fields of Strife
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (38)
73%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (9)
17%
Tournament Ready (3)
6%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
4%
52 total votes
Your vote: Tempest
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
I believe the LDLC Winter Trophy 2v2 tournament map pool is covered in the above polls
It's not just a problem with the 2v2 pool, but also the 3v3 and 4v4 maps. The nature of team gives an automatice advantage to the aggressors rather than the defenders, so maps need to give as many defending advantages as possible for team games to get anywhere closed to balanced. Blizzard's map pool, however, punishes defense hard, so team games (at higher levels) are centered around early aggression (games do often advance past that, but the early aggression is the crucial strat part).
This problem has been recognized for a long time, though. We have still not had the intrepid mappers trying to fix the problem, so it is going to remain a problem for the forseeable future.
Well I think I can speak for all the other mapmakers as well:
If we get a good reason to make 2v2 maps (big tournaments that need them) and if we get feedback from people who know high level 2v2 well (cos we mostly have no idea) then there's no problem for us making some.
At the moment I don't see how those two requirements can be achieved tho.
i loved playing 3vs3 on Hunters back in scbw times, wish we had a 3vs3 map like Hunters in sc2, no base sharing no symmetry, rnd spawn location, so each game is different from the game before
I would love it if the multiplayer maps got a little more love
i think something like daybreak would be optimal where the rush distance is made larger by map design.
i also find that most 2v2 maps only have about 3 bases per player. Depending on the map, it is either a 1, 2, or 3 base all-in. given the nature of multiplayer games, you usually end up taking a third when your main is nearly mined out, so you never really get to have full saturation
Yeah, the map pool is horrible. I can only think of that map where you have a triple ramp (protected by rocks) where it lead right into both mains. What an horrible idea.
Seriously people think Citadel of Gaia and Twilight Fortress should be in the map pool? Personally as a macro player I'm against the idea of inbase naturals. There should be some risk to taking your natural but also it screws up creep spread for zergs. Plus, Turtling is way too encouraged.
the maps are getting better though. Lunar Colony is probably the best map right now for variety of play IMO. If it had an easier second natural that would definitely help of course.
On February 08 2012 01:22 Ragoo wrote: Well I think I can speak for all the other mapmakers as well:
If we get a good reason to make 2v2 maps (big tournaments that need them) and if we get feedback from people who know high level 2v2 well (cos we mostly have no idea) then there's no problem for us making some.
At the moment I don't see how those two requirements can be achieved tho.
Well, I'm going to take the feedback from this topic for maps to use in the ESL Country Championship at least And will put the same maps in our 2on2/clanwar ladders, VERSUS and 2on2 Tuesdays, for what it's worth!
As a zerg player who tries to play macro in team games I just absolutely hate the maps. On all but two maps the naturals are just a pain in the ass to defend. :-\
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some.
An excellent video response, I myself got tired of doing all the MS paint, so I'm glad someone picked up the slack
On February 07 2012 21:38 413X wrote: I made a video response of my opinions. Instead doing a huge amount of pics in paint, i just put on xsplit and explained some. + Show Spoiler +
From a master arranged team member that's played around 2k 2v2 games, 413X here is absolutely correct. Even if it takes him longer to explain it than it takes me to read this entire thread and write up this response to what he says in the video :
Lunar Colony: 413X is absolutely correct. The expansion path that the OP gives is foolish and after you try it once or twice it should be clear that taking that low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell "natural" is far worse than taking the side expansions behind the other natural.
I would suggest, if getting that base at all, the player that gets their 3rd faster can take that low ground expansion but always be ready to let it die in favor of getting a better engagement between your main armies (either they sent a small contingency to take out that base in which case their main forces are smaller, or they send their entire army in which case you have the whole time that they're killing it to get a good concave and your splash units set up right).
Scorched Haven: I agree with the expansion path given in the video completely. Taking golds is really either if you're already ahead and just want to safely end the game, or if you're so far behind you hope the other team makes the mistake of letting you mine enough from them to catch back up. If you can get spotting obs at the front of their naturals, it's often times better to take your second third on the outside opposite from your 1st third instead of what is suggested in the video. You can set up closer to that 2nd third because the third that's on the same side as your mains/naturals is just really far away from your enemy. With the spotters by their front and your army set up closer to that second 3rd, you can always meet them in time to get a good engagement.
This is a great thread for 2v2 players to read so we can share good expansion paths, but I'm including these two comments to get more novice 2v2 teams thinking critically about larger concepts of the game and hopefully improving the 2v2 community:
Watch out for odd ideas like "you must always expand away from your opponent". This isn't necessarily true. If you're turtling and doing large timing pushes you actually want to expand towards the other player if possible on the map. Since you're turtling you can defend easier, and removing the space between you and your enemies gives them less time to react to your big push. However, if you macro and play defensively/reactively then you should expand away.
Similarly I don't believe "splitting the map evenly" is quite right. You want to split the map in a proportion that matches the cost effectiveness of your units compared to the enemy's. If you're using units that are cost inefficient against theirs (which by the game's design usually give you more map control to expand faster), then you need to have consumed more of the resources on the map. Then, by the time both of you get into your desired late game composition (where you're both using the most cost efficient units you have available), it ends up even or hopefully a little in your favor. Splitting the map this way can manifest in taking a base on their side or even just denying their expansions long enough that your late game kicks in to "catch back up" from using those cost inefficient units earlier.
Tyrador Keep: I'd just like to add that, in general, zergs that favor fighting in open spaces will take the outside natural as the first expansion of the team because it spreads creep there defensively. The choke to the natural is a bit better than letting your enemy take over your ramp (and screwing over the player that spawns closer to it), and if they take the back door down then they have to get well into the main (a nice open space) before you have to engage and you have a flank opportunity through the open exit from your main. What's really bad about this map is the symmetrical imbalances. And I don't mean spawning counter-clockwise from your enemy where they can just siege your in base natural. I'm talking about if you spawn in top right and the spawn in bottom, the gold you can take (the one furthest from your enemy) is significantly farther away from you than in any other position. It's... just not good map execution on Blizzard's part.
Tempest: This is a terrible map as 413X says. The middle is a single circle that fits within the radius of a single xel'naga watch tower. I've found the first team that rushes to siege the middle has full map control and forces the other team to either build up and break out or do some crazy drop/nydus antics. The point being that the map severely limits you in the ways you can effectively play it.
Magma Core This is a pretty sweet map for expands as said in the video. I've got nothing to add.
I think this is a great post. I've never really thought about it, but you're completely right on Lunar Colony. It's still pretty hard to hold that base, but it's much easier than the "low-ground-with-a-back-door-from-hell natural"
Tyrador Keep is better than some of the other maps, but the positional imbalances and backdoor rocks make it annoying. I like the idea of a shared base with one expansion to share between players(so zergs can get their expo). I do not like maps like Scorched haven however that give you an easy natural, but no easy third. Basically this map boils down to 2 base timings that either allow you to win, or contain your opponent so you can take the gold for a safe victory.
As well as the other two honorable mentions of the Team Liquid map contest (Citadels of Gaia and Hipster Heaven, if memory serves).
This make looks great. Not only is it large, but the actual shared bases have alot of space to build in as well. Many times with shared base maps, zerg won't be able to creep spread normally, because it would interfere with your wall off or choke up to much of your building space. However, there still aren't too many expansions, but at least I could feasibly see myself grabbing a third safely without already being 30 food ahead of my opponent.
On February 08 2012 00:43 th3rogue wrote: As a tournament organizer, please tell me what 2v2 maps that we should use that are available right now?
ICCup Citadel of Gaia, Twilight Fortress, and potentially Citadel of Strife. I was really sad when they removed Twilight Fortress because it tended to encourage 2v2 teams to "turtle up". Sure, it would be nice if taking the naturals made you a little more exposed, but beyond that, the expansion progression was very nice on this map. Each new set of expansions opened up only a few addition attack paths.
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (72)
81%
Tournament Ready (6)
7%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
7%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (5)
6%
89 total votes
Your vote: Discord IV
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (54)
69%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (6)
8%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (5)
6%
78 total votes
Your vote: High Orbit
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (62)
78%
Tournament Ready (10)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
5%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (3)
4%
79 total votes
Your vote: Lunar Colony V
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (43)
61%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (14)
20%
Tournament Ready (9)
13%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
70 total votes
Your vote: Magma Core
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (41)
53%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (21)
27%
Tournament Ready (13)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
3%
77 total votes
Your vote: Scorched Haven
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (48)
75%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (11)
17%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
Tournament Ready (1)
2%
64 total votes
Your vote: The Boneyard
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (37)
57%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (19)
29%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
11%
Tournament Ready (2)
3%
65 total votes
Your vote: The Ruins of Tarsonis
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (31)
48%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (18)
28%
Tournament Ready (12)
18%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
6%
65 total votes
Your vote: Tyrador Keep
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (6)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (4)
8%
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (3)
6%
51 total votes
Your vote: ICCup Citadel of Gaia
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (16)
27%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (7)
12%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (1)
2%
60 total votes
Your vote: Twilight Fortress
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (17)
55%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (7)
23%
Tournament Ready (5)
16%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (2)
6%
31 total votes
Your vote: Fields of Strife
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments) (38)
73%
Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (9)
17%
Tournament Ready (3)
6%
Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (2)
4%
52 total votes
Your vote: Tempest
(Vote): Tournament Ready (Vote): Situationally Tournament Ready (only in map pools with downvotes, not as a necessary first map) (Vote): Needs Minor Physical Adjustments (rocks added/removed, golds<->blues) (Vote): Not Tournament Worthy (needs major changes including ramp size and location adjustments)
I believe the LDLC Winter Trophy 2v2 tournament map pool is covered in the above polls
Could these please be added to the OP?
Certainly! Great job on constructing the poll, it looks very professional, I'll add them in now!
Sir, I agree with everything you are saying in the OP. The maps need current 1v1 map characteristics in order to be good, as we can see from the improvement in 1v1 maps.
On February 08 2012 01:26 Art_of_Kill wrote: i loved playing 3vs3 on Hunters back in scbw times, wish we had a 3vs3 map like Hunters in sc2, no base sharing no symmetry, rnd spawn location, so each game is different from the game before
Yes, I cant se that SC2 is so different from that you now have to share bases to play teamgames. Hunters was so figured out that it was balanced on high level play. Atleast in 3:3. The hunters conversions in SC2 are too small (due to editor conversion), only BGH and/or broken with sc2 hotkeys for BW mode and stuff like that. If someone has found a low hunters with a "correct" size please tell me.
The closest I can come to bw teamgames now is Shattered Temple 2:2. 2nd option is 3:3 ladder with some maps where you can counter. But teamplay in sc2 really suffers due to the maps. I was happy with only one map for 3:3 and 4:4 in BW and I have yet to find anything close to that in sc2 and even if such a map exists, I have to manage to find 5 other people willing to play with me due to the custom matchmaking system.
Sorry for going a bit too much into 3:3 but it's still about maps and teamgames.
I do think that the 3v3 and 4v4 maps need to be changed, but to try and achieve balance and macro for them would be incredibly difficult. 2v2 is much easier because the armies are still small enough that they can work together but when you start adding in many more units its just a cluster fuck of who has more dps. I would love to have a competitive 2v2 map pool and a nice set of fun maps for 3v3 and 4v4.
I think that if the maps were changed in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 so that there were some larger maps were macro games were a possibility then the game modes might become more viable, but until then, it's all going to be kind of a joke mode. the other thing that makes the modes kind of a joke is how, 4,3 or 2 people can get together, win their 5 placement matches with some all in strategy what is hard to deal with or whatever, and get ranked masters and then players consider themselves masters...I think that if something was done about both of these, then the team matchups would become much more viable. My 2 cents XD nice post OP
I really disliked Twilight Fortress, that map was horrible for me. If I have to choose between long macro games and fast, intense micro battles I'm choosing the latter.
I'm in Master 2v2 league and even with all-ins it's really hard to win/lose in less than 10 minutes. 2v2 has to be more violent, so length of the games would be more like 1v1s. I'd hate 2v2 if every game would be 30-minute long.
On February 10 2012 23:37 Indolent wrote: I really disliked Twilight Fortress, that map was horrible for me. If I have to choose between long macro games and fast, intense micro battles I'm choosing the latter.
I'm in Master 2v2 league and even with all-ins it's really hard to win/lose in less than 10 minutes. 2v2 has to be more violent, so length of the games would be more like 1v1s. I'd hate 2v2 if every game would be 30-minute long.
The thing with good maps is that both playstyles are perfectly viable.
Although obviously playing for the long game is more solid.
EPT
Discord IV
