[D] Competitive 2v2 maps. - Page 8

On May 15 2012 00:58 Endrjuu wrote:
2v2 was really good and a lot of good players from sc/bw were playing it, but that was before the shared main thing. When Lost temple and metalopolis were available for 2v2 (early beta). I used to love playing 2v2 back then, now it's more like a fun meh Umsy kind of game 100% casual.

People maybe dont realise but 2v2 was really competitive @sc/bw pretty much all leagues had 1x or 2x 2v2 and a lot of ex korean progamers played it (iccup) etc and enjoyed it, in sc2 blizzard took it away ;/

Btw maps like fighting spirit and python were the most popular@ sc/bw so random starting positions sometimes cross sometimes one side, and simetrical would be the best (lots of different openings/tactics)

On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.

If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.

As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same.

On June 11 2012 04:22 TaShadan wrote:


i doubt you ever played sc:bw 2on2 on medium or high level

the problem with 2on2 sc2 on non shared bases or atleast near bases is that its very hard to hold an 2on1 attack
in sc:bw it was much easier to hold an attack of 2 opponents, mostly cause of defensive buildings were better and the high ground bonus (some ranged attacks miss) and the dps of most units is lower than in sc2 so you can hold a choke for a longer time and get help from your ally

On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.

If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.

As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same.

On June 12 2012 06:29 Eatme wrote:
One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases.
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped.

On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have.

Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack.

One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though).

The 6m1rg expansions also hope to aide in this, at least, that is the philosophy behind it, there's a thread about that some-where, it explains the motivation behind that.

A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.

I have not tested it in any form yet, bugs are there as is.

It's published on friend's accounts and not my own so don't try to message them with any questions.

On June 19 2012 15:11 saladToss wrote:
It seems people are generally in two camps; none being content with blizzard's maps.

The first complains that shared bases make zerg weak and 1 base timings too strong for non-zergs. Their solution? Split bases where you can't even share a wall.

The second complain that you can't play "macro" 2v2s.

I'll address the second camp first. 2v2 is not a "macro" game type. Games only go to "macro" games when an early exchange comes out evenly enough so that nobody leaves. Macro in 2v2 is not macro in the sense that it is in 1v1. Rarely should you go over 50 miners or mine off of more than two bases at a time, unless your opponent seriously misses a timing or you are waaay ahead. That's the way 2v2 is. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want NR15, go play some crappy custom game.

And to address the other group of whiners, split bases are impossible because it eliminates the possibility for more team compositions than it makes viable. Split base maps will heavily favor ZZ teams for this reason. TT / TP / PP compositions would auto lose vs PZ TZ or ZZ, because the amount of defense you have to make to hold a 1v2 (which you can't scout for because zerg takes early map control so you have to blindly prepare) is so much that the other team just macros out of a feigned aggression and you can never unite your armies.

But any TZ / PZ team is hard countered by ZZ. Double zerg well executed can and will kill the single isolated zerg player (you think you can march a zealot a stalker and a sentry or 7 marines to help your ally vs 30 zerglings/banelings?). So ZZ would be the heavily favored combo on split base maps.

What blizzard has done is tried to make 2v2 as dynamic as possible with their maps. ZZ is still viable on shared choke maps, where as TP is not viable at all on split base maps. The best 2v2 map of all time, scorched haven, has the perfect idea which blizzard has copied and even improved with its new map molten crater, where the bases are split, but there is a shared low ground choke behind which you can hold expansions. Molten improves on scorched because there are more auxiliary expansions, so the map is more zerg friendly. Blizzard knows what they are doing.

More people play 2v2 random than 2v2 arranged, and it would ruin the 2v2 random experience to put split maps in the pool, as well as ruin the 2v2 experience all together with everyone picking zerg (remember season 1 and 2 with monlyth ridge, tarsonis assault?). End of story. Stop crying and play 1v1 if you want to FE and make 60 workers.