So I've already set aside a huge cash prize pool (thousands) for a team league that I and some friends want to get off the ground. Everything's set in stone and we are in the preparation stage, but there's just one thing that's been bothering us.. do we want 2v2 play to be incorporated into the wars? A war would then be four 1v1s and one 2v2, for example. I've always been an advocate for 2v2 and I'm a strong believer that it won't become popular unless people take risks into making it popular. I know that 2v2 isn't exactly as balanced as 1v1 is currently, but it is pretty darn close at the high level. That all being said, would you all mind taking a little 3 question survey below?
Poll: Does SC2 have a future in 2v2?
No; just no. (606)
52%
Yes; give it time. (324)
28%
Yes; now's the time to act. (152)
13%
No; maybe in a few years. (73)
6%
1155 total votes
Your vote: Does SC2 have a future in 2v2?
(Vote): Yes; now's the time to act. (Vote): Yes; give it time. (Vote): No; maybe in a few years. (Vote): No; just no.
Poll: Does 2v2 have a place in team leagues?
Maybe; if done right. (464)
47%
No; waste of time and/or focus. (355)
36%
Yes; it's a must. (173)
17%
992 total votes
Your vote: Does 2v2 have a place in team leagues?
(Vote): Yes; it's a must. (Vote): Maybe; if done right. (Vote): No; waste of time and/or focus.
It doesn't really have a future, but it's a nice mix in the clan wars. I have always enjoyed the 4x1v1 1x2v2 format in team clan myself both to play and watch - ever since bw. 2v2 shouldn't be a priority though.
Edit: Btw i think 2v2 should still be implemented in team leagues :d
I'm on the fence about this, and I'll vote once I've given it more thought. My immediate response to the issue is - well - that the game isn't balanced around 2 vs 2 (or larger games). 2 vs 2 tends to devolve the least into early cheese from both sides of the team matchups, so it could be interesting to watch - however, certain race combinations (ZP for example) are far stronger than others (PP).
The race combination thing could be a severe issue for certain teams.
I don't know about the highest level, but I enjoy 2v2 because it requires a player to be more adaptive and reactive than a 1v1 (where ppl are often in auto-pilot mode w/ the same builds they do every game cuz they have practiced it a million times zzz). and teamwork is an entire skill on its own.
2v2 is quite fun as a non-serious, non-competitive way to play the game, much like 3v3, 4v4, or FFA. However, I don't really see it rivaling 1v1 as an alternative competitive mode.
Although SC1 had a 2v2 at some point, it did die out, and for good reason. Though it was fun to see top BW progamers team up and play off-races, it just didn't have the same aura of competition as the 1v1 games, especially since some builds and races were just way too imbalanced and broken in 2v2.
Plus, many of the Blizzard 2v2 maps involve shared bases, which make it much easier to cheese or turtle. If serious 2v2 competition is to be considered, then adjustments to the map pool must be considered.
It's fun to play 2v2 and to do so competitively, but I have a strong feeling that it would just be absurd at the highest level simply because of imbalances that would easily arise in early game unit compositions. Ultimately we would just continue to see the same narrow strategies over and over and over again because of how powerful the niche is.
But in any case it might be cool to see if anything comes of it. 1v1 will always be more popular and demonstrate true player skill no matter.
You can't have 2v2 balance as well as 1v1, unless you have two different games. That would be very confusing. Wont happen. Still love playing it anyway.
I love team games, and mostly play them. I would rather a CW with 4*1v1 and 1*2v2, but im not your typical SC viewer. Because ide like to see a whole tournament around only team games
From a tournament organizers prospective, I not sure. Do you want to try and bring team games out of the competitive 'shadows' or do you want to get the most viewers possible?
There is a percentage of people that really really dont like team games, search for 2v2 on TL and look through some of the threads. There's a lot of responses from ppl that saying its completely imbalanced or not competitive or some other negative thing about them.
On the other side of the equation, there are very few people that actively choose to watch team games eg ATM there are ~3.5k-4k viewers watching stream's on TL, 13 of that 4000 are watching protech's stream. Protech in a member of the second highest ranked 2v2 team in the world (at least pre ladder reset)
I really hope you choose to include 2v2s into the clan war. I really want a tournament to start pushing team games or else the stereotypical team game mentality of its IMBA or its impossible to hold early rushes will never end.
EDIT: or if you cant be bothered searching for 2v2 just read most of the responses in this thread
On April 07 2011 16:42 eviltomahawk wrote: 2v2 is quite fun as a non-serious, non-competitive way to play the game, much like 3v3, 4v4, or FFA. However, I don't really see it rivaling 1v1 as an alternative competitive mode.
Although SC1 had a 2v2 at some point, it did die out, and for good reason. Though it was fun to see top BW progamers team up and play off-races, it just didn't have the same aura of competition as the 1v1 games, especially since some builds and races were just way too imbalanced and broken in 2v2.
Plus, many of the Blizzard 2v2 maps involve shared bases, which make it much easier to cheese or turtle. If serious 2v2 competition is to be considered, then adjustments to the map pool must be considered.
While shared bases can be pretty gay. I don't want to take that "variety" out of the map pool. There's plenty of shared base maps that have dual ramps or multiple destructible rock passages.
On April 07 2011 16:26 WindOw wrote: It doesn't really have a future, but it's a nice mix in the clan wars. I have always enjoyed the 4x1v1 1x2v2 format in team clan myself both to play and watch - ever since bw. 2v2 shouldn't be a priority though.
SC2 2on2 is just not enjoyable to watch, so much cheese, so many hardcounter, it's just a bad game imo. 2on2 was amazing @ WC3 tho, but that's because the slower and much much more microoriented gameplay was more fun to watch, it involved much more teamplay and didn't really have any hardcounter at all, except air>melee. The only downside was orc/elf.
I loved 2on2 in WC3, I play it a lot with friends in SC2 but I don't want to see it in teamleagues.
On April 07 2011 16:36 zizou21 wrote: I don't know about the highest level, but I enjoy 2v2 because it requires a player to be more adaptive and reactive than a 1v1 (where ppl are often in auto-pilot mode w/ the same builds they do every game cuz they have practiced it a million times zzz). and teamwork is an entire skill on its own.
That's what I love about 2v2, it really brings out an aspect of player interaction that's not found in 1v1. Not to mention all the new builds that the community has only begun developing.
I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
nope team games have no place in competitive play. take the strength of cheese play and multiply it by multiple players, and all you have is a cheese fest.
2v2 is like swiss cheese... it's filled with holes and, well, cheese. Shared bases can only go so far to alleviating this, and I doubt it's possible to create a balanced 2v2 game without affecting 1v1.
That said you know you'd get viewers for a 2v2 component. How many of us would watch something like a 1-day 2v2 tournament from GOM? My guess is the vast majority. Things might change if we see crappy all-ins every game, but I think you can't count on viewership for the first major event or two just thanks to novelty.
I voted No, maybe in a few years. Because you never know, Blizzard may decide to release a new "2v2" version of sc2, which would be tuned & balanced only for competitive 2v2.
In my opinion, from a spectator point of view, 2v2 can be very entertaining; I love the combination of units from different races, and I love huge battles. Too bad you can't balance 2v2 without screwing 1v1 balance
I actually find team games to be more fun than 1v1, but the game is poorly balanced for it. For example, Protoss and Zerg make a very strong combo against Terran. Terran can't go bio because they're playing against Zerg and can't go mech because they're playing against Protoss. The 1v1 game is reasonably balanced (except maybe PvZ), but 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 are not even close.
Imagine if people put time and energy into builds in 2v2, could probably be some awesome timing with switching resources, harass would be awesome to watch, but it would probably be hard to cast... it would be like selecT in mlg... IMAGINE TWO selectT's HARRASSING.
However, I don't know if it would be possible, there's probably some majorly abusive builds that would be unstoppable/crazily good and people wouldn't say "people just need time to figure it out" they would just say that 2v2 is imba and go back to 1v1 .
I think Beyonders idea of limiting double race could be an interesting idea. From what I've played (very little) the double race teams I've come up against are really strong.
Speaking from experience in top rated 2v2s on eu server (Season 1 + 2) both arranged team and random team I can say that it's not a good idea. There an an unreal amount of abusive pushes that sometimes literally can't even be stopped (8pool + Proxy marauder vs T/P as example).
Games can turn out to be a crazy fun game with everything you'd expect in a high level 1v1 just x2 but that rarely happens and the game is usually decided in the first 10 minutes, sometimes a LOT less.
Someone mentioned bigger maps, this would be nice to see however they can't just be BIG they must also be designed well - maps are tough to balance in 2v2 because of the race/strategy combinations available but if blizzard or anyone for that matter ever wanted 2v2s to be taken seriously things would have to change. And no, just shared bases is certainly not the answer.
On April 08 2011 01:30 Ren91 wrote:
I think Beyonders idea of limiting double race could be an interesting idea. From what I've played (very little) the double race teams I've come up against are really strong.
Double race isn't actually the problem at top levels, it's more about synergy of specific builds/rushes. Sometimes they involve double races but more often than not they don't, so that's kind of a non-factor.
First, I have to preface this with the following observation: I have always felt that teamliquid is the last community where the vocal consensus would be to accept anything other than 1v1. I think these forums will always be saturated with players who view anything other than a 1v1 bo5 in BW as a joke. + Show Spoiler +
I'll spoiler this rant because it doesn't have much to do with 2v2's place in the sc2 community, but probably will spawn a bunch of flaming and other reactions... Apparently scouting and proper mechanics are thrown out the window and cheeses become not just more powerful, but somehow magically "unstoppable" in any setting other than 1v1. I don't understand this. Of course cheese is more powerful when its less known. If someone 6 pools you and you've never heard of a 6 pool before, you're going to get messed up. People simply do not know all of the cheesy plays that exist in 2v2 yet, and with the lack of a strong community, it's difficult to figure out proper reactions to the ones that are known. Unless you've played hundreds of games in the 1v1 setting, you probably can't fend off even half of the cheeses out there - even if you know how, you just don't have the experience. So for so many people to play a few dozen 2v2 games (if that) and then declare it "cheese fest" is either asinine or reveals serious problems with scouting and knowing how to properly react.
This is rather disappointing because at a point where the market is oversaturated with 1v1 content for sc2 (literally hundreds of streams/youtube channels and the sc2 tournament subforum is hyperactive with money tournaments) and it's beyond the point where any individual can keep up, and even material like sc2 center has a hard time keeping up with everything. And with NASL and other big circuits coming, the small amount of viewers (in proportion to the amount of content) is going to be split. Choices are good, but there's more to be done
Expanding the audience base, in my opinion, is a very important obstacle that needs to be dealt with. I personally hope a 2v2 community that focuses on mechanics and teamwork can grow to exist and attract more people to sc2. Yes, this creates even more content, but it also creates material that isn't as similar to the rest of the content already out there. 2v2 is different enough that I believe it can attract people that are otherwise not interested in what's already out there.
I wouldn't mind watching 2v2's and such. It's more for fun and entertainment and discussions of balance don't really belong.
They should make "all-star" lineup team games similar to how the NHL/NBA does All-star games.... that would be ...if anything...interesting and fun to watch me thinks.
I really enjoyed the 2v2s in BW Proleague but it was quite evident that the game wasn't balanced for it, with artificial rules like double race bans. I'm not sure we can say the same for SC2, though. The maps and ability to control the map with a much more mobile, tightly packed army are improved in SC2, and balance changes such as the Reaper build time and Barracks build order were made to address 2v2 imbalances. I think it definitely has its place in a league format, much moreso than 2v2 in BW.
After playing in CSL this season, which had a 2v2 in every match, it was stupid. Completely and utterly stupid.
2v2 is simply too fragile, even more so than 1v1 (I know right??), even with double racing banned cheese is the strongest strategy no matter what. Both teams have to cheese, which makes games very boring to watch and play.
Honestly, 2v2 is fun for friends and shit but for competitive games that are meant to reflect skill and training, 2v2 is a joke.
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
I completely agree with your post Beyonder. If maps were adjusted (bigger maps) to deny the too powerful early aggression, it would definitely be a lot more fun.
The definitive answer to this question is as follows:
In BW, every pro team had a 2v2 pair. In general, these players were less successful in individual tournaments because they had to spend a lot of their time practising 2v2. It is unfair to the players on the 2v2 team.
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
I completely agree with your post Beyonder. If maps were adjusted (bigger maps) to deny the too powerful early aggression, it would definitely be a lot more fun.
With proper maps, this could be a lot of fun.
Do you realize how hard balancing a 2v2 map would be to ensure that cheese isn't as strong?
You would have to create a map that is balanced for EACH of the 2v2 MU's, which is more than the normal 5 MUs. Not only that, complex unit combos which never were even considered balance wise would have to be accounted for.
I've played my fair share of 2v2 games (around 100) and most start with at least one person cheesing, and if you live through it you win. However, at a professional level, these cheeses would also not be amazingly strong, but they would also be exceptionally well timed.
I think that people are trying to make something out of nothing personally. If you watch BW 2v2 it is a joke, the only good VoD was the one with Yellow doing that Larva Egg wall off against a, GASP! 4 pool...
The fact is that team games are cheese games no matter what level you are at.
2v2 is very ridiculous currently as something like the Hellion/22 Speedling build is almost unbeatable if you dare to play with a Protoss partner. And it feels like 50% of the high master 2v2 teams are running this tactic, or a small variant of it. It's just impossible to make it a competitive bracket currently.
I'm surprised how many people say 2v2 is around 10pool-reactor hellion rush and 'LoloLOl turtle cheese'. Did you ever watch 2v2 competo cup stream or any other high-level 2v2 games?
I would absolutely love to see pros playing 2v2 in teamleagues. It's very action-packed and there are a lot of match-ups. Also it would be nice to see some mad builds and unit combinations.
2v2 In my opinion will remain how it is now, as a casual way to play with friends. Maybe some tournaments will be run for a 2v2 format with minimal prizes and prize pools. But, I don't believe we will ever witness a 2v2 having prizes or competition like MLG or an NASL event.
As far as a part of a huge tournament goes, I would definitely wait a bit longer. At least until the game is mostly balanced.
On April 08 2011 03:30 FreezerJumps wrote: The definitive answer to this question is as follows:
In BW, every pro team had a 2v2 pair. In general, these players were less successful in individual tournaments because they had to spend a lot of their time practising 2v2. It is unfair to the players on the 2v2 team.
Reach played 2v2, so your point is void. But, seriously it is up to the player. So can you really say that when this "unfairness" is self-imposed?
2v2 died in BW because each team only had to prepare for one 2v2 match per week, if that. If it had a dedicated league, teams would've put in more effort to create new strategies and have better synergy, making it a viable format. Personally I feel 2v2 in SC2 to be better balanced than in BW, but the maps need to be bigger if played competively. But most of all it needs to be integrated into tournaments on a larger scale, preferably having some tourneys of its own, to make people consider it a viable mode aside 1v1 instead of just an amusing distraction.
Have any of you played against the Hellion/speedling build other posters were talking about?
I would say that it has a 90-95% win rate against any team with a protoss. How is that balanced? Do you want to ruin 1v1 so that we can have lack-luster 2v2? Get serious.
I don't think people understand how dynamic team games are in SC2 now... They definitely have a place in tournaments (Mainly 2v2).
On April 08 2011 01:15 da_head wrote: nope team games have no place in competitive play. take the strength of cheese play and multiply it by multiple players, and all you have is a cheese fest.
Anyone who doesn't think team games have a place in competitive play has an absurd way of looking at SC. You obviously haven't played team games, so please refrain from saying things like this.
On April 08 2011 03:42 TwilightStar wrote: I don't think people understand how dynamic team games are in SC2 now... They definitely have a place in tournaments (Mainly 2v2).
On April 08 2011 01:15 da_head wrote: nope team games have no place in competitive play. take the strength of cheese play and multiply it by multiple players, and all you have is a cheese fest.
Anyone who doesn't think team games have a place in competitive play has an absurd way of looking at SC. You obviously haven't played team games, so please refrain from saying things like this.
Have you played team games against good ppl? Players who abuse the OP unit combos? All my team game friends play TZ and rush hellion speedling almost every game, and win almost every game. I understand that this is a balance issue, but to address it would ruin parts of the MUCH more important 1v1 game.
2v2 will be an ugly-step child for SC2 until Blizzard either makes a stand-alone balance setup for team games, or people give up on trying to make something out of nothing.
2v2 is better than most people here would like it to be. I do agree that the ladder is full of cheese, and that some unit combinations are incredibly, if not nearly impossible to stop on some maps for some race combinations. As far as balance goes, it's not really well balanced at the moment, as the hellion/ling-opener has become ever so popular. I'd consider it the 7rax-7pool v2.0 of imbaness. Hellions dealing splash damage that early in the game, where protoss needs to use crappy dumb-AIed stalkers, isn't really fair. But that problem aside, 2v2 has a lot of potential. If the maps were a bit bigger and better designed (I am not trying to say that blizzard needs to balance them for all race combo's, but close bases or shared bases are a pretty good start, with some dynamic move paths and stuff, and again bigger maps - longer rush distances), I think the game in itself would be better. Defensive macro-style play is so much stronger at the moment (ignoring the imba hellion builds), if you just cooperate well with your partner, scout well and know how to respond. There's also a lot of mind games you can play on your opponent team.
Anyways, openers and especially mid/late-game strategies are continually evolving these days, so given some time, I think 2v2 can be played competetively at a really high level, and be very fun to watch from a spectators point of view.
I wrote quite a long post about balance and the current state of 2v2 (my opinions). Check it out and please feel free to discuss what I mentioned there
Clan Wars and in essential WC3L used 2v2 in their format and it was extraordinary entertaining to watch. I'd love more 2v2 play in competitive SC2 but im afraid it won't work out quite the same as it did with Wc3 :/
The Collegiate Star League and Collegiate ESports Series are using/have used 2v2s in their format, and its worked pretty well. You can really tell when teams don't prepare for it though, lol.
I think 2v2s may have potential with custom made maps, the ladder ones are just meh. Too rush friendly. It would be nice to have a game last longer than 10 min yeah?
lol i dont understand why people think shared bases is bad in 2v2. imo shared base maps are the most balanced cuz you can actually fast expand (if you play terran) and defend your ramp against rushes. When you have seperate bases cheeses become so much stronger. I think 2v2 can become balanced only if blizzard makes the maps bigger.
Shared base maps are going to be a necessity but the bases need to be more vulnerable and open to harass.
Ling/ ranged unit openings are too powerful currently if the opponents are in separate bases that are far apart. Mostly a problem with TZ teams.. as ling/reaper, ling/helion,ling/mm pretty much beat everything.
I'd blame most of that on the maps though, blizzard clearly doesn't recognize that strategies like that are impossible to stop and keeps cranking out shitty maps like Gutterhulk & Omega Sector
High Orbit is actually a pretty good map, the only imbalance is zerg is really not able to fast expand. Discord IV is not bad. It'd be better if the mains had some open space area around them to make them more vulnerable to drops. I also like Tempest. I feel like that's a really solid map for 2v2.
Ruins of Tarsonis is bad, too easy to take 3 bases and too hard to harass, usually ends up a 200/200 battle for everyone. Reminds me of twilight fortress.
But hell we can make our own maps.
Also I feel like the 2v2 game in a team fight should be like.. a tie breaker? or something. Or like the lead off match to pick who gets map choice in round 1. At least until we've seen a lot of team matches and know what to expect.
And No i don't advocate balancing for 2v2 if it affects 1v1. They should patch the game types individually if they want 2v2 to become a viable format.
My first thought was "Never, no! How dare you to insult the holyness of SC2 1on1?" But then again, I never watched/played competetive 2on2. How should I know if it turns out to be awesome / horrible?
Also it's your money, and it only takes the place of the Ace match in the team match (4x 1on1, 1x 2on2) so I dont see it too much affecting the series. So if you think it might be worthwhile to have that, go for it. If after one season you realize "All the matches were boring to watch this sucked" just get rid of it. Just try it, if you think it might be fun - we dont really know yet.
2v2 seems like to solely consists of 2 people trying to figure out the absolute cheesiest all-in they can think of and then doing that every game until someone figures out an even cheesier build.
I see a lot of comments in this thread which make me sad . So many people deriding 2v2 as being really bad, and then posting their explanations like "it's just a cheese fest where cheese wins every single game".
It's a cheese-fest in the sense that aggressive builds are typically the best because it's more difficult to defend against two people hitting a single spot than it is one person hitting a single spot. If both teams play well, it's entirely possible to block the "cheesy" play and then transition into a macro game. I feel that a lot of people who don't play 2v2 much try it a bit, are not good at it, and thus die to the early aggression. Rather than improving their team play knowledge / skill, they then disregard the game as being a "no skill cheese fest".
On April 07 2011 16:52 EonShiKeno wrote: You can't have 2v2 balance as well as 1v1, unless you have two different games. That would be very confusing. Wont happen. Still love playing it anyway.
I agree with this guy completely. The game just isn't balanced for 2v2. You can't have both. So you'd either have to re-balance for each, which would be weird, or just not do it.
I voted for No, because ultimately the game is balanced around 1v1 as many have stated. There just isn't that ability to play at the highest level for 2v2s I believe. However, 2v2s DOES have some strategy around it, much more than 3v3/4v4 (the more players you add, the less balanced and more cheesy or mass unit the game becomes). People shouldn't be as blindly dismissive of it.
On April 08 2011 06:26 PartyBiscuit wrote: I voted for No, because ultimately the game is balanced around 1v1 as many have stated. There just isn't that ability to play at the highest level for 2v2s I believe. However, 2v2s DOES have some strategy around it, much more than 3v3/4v4 (the more players you add, the less balanced and more cheesy or mass unit the game becomes). People shouldn't be as blindly dismissive of it.
Barely. It still revolves around hellion/4gate/10pool rushes.
I would absolutely love to see more team play at the highest levels. The few games I have watched have been incredibly entertaining. Team games are non stop action start to finish. This is exciting to watch as a fan!
team matches would be no fun without a 2v2 hehe. But as there is not alot spotlight on it, it will take way longer to evolve. I don't really see balance issues in 2v2 right now and i lik the gas sharing xD. Probably zergs complaining because they can't fast expand. (but maybe there will be some fe strats soon involving one feing and the other blocking the ramps with some unfinished ebays)
On April 08 2011 03:42 TwilightStar wrote: I don't think people understand how dynamic team games are in SC2 now... They definitely have a place in tournaments (Mainly 2v2).
On April 08 2011 01:15 da_head wrote: nope team games have no place in competitive play. take the strength of cheese play and multiply it by multiple players, and all you have is a cheese fest.
Anyone who doesn't think team games have a place in competitive play has an absurd way of looking at SC. You obviously haven't played team games, so please refrain from saying things like this.
Can I ask why you think team games are dynamic? That is probably the last word I would use to describe them. Team games have very little variation. People just execute the same rush build every game.
I do think team games could be entertaining to watch though because of all the intense non-stop micro.
I am reading a lot of misconceptions about 2v2 balance here from a lot of you. There is a counter to most if not any strategy out there in 2v2 right now. The key factor is the amount of practice you get with one teammate. If you and someone else play a lot of games together you will be able to think up a way to counter every playstyle on every map. Maybe not "counter", but "deal with" would be more accurate.
However, on battle.net what you will find is pairings doing 1 strat for 40-50 games at a time. People playing with different partners, where their chemistry is very low.
Games between long time teammates are very intense and often go on to heavy macro based games that would be/are entertaining to watch.
From Blizzard's reaper nerf, there is no reason to believe they will not make balance decisions with at least a little team play involved.
2v2 hasn't been given enough tournament attention and thus for the most part easy to pull off strategies are running wild. In time though, 2v2 will take off it is inevitable. Never to the extent of 1v1, but it will play a much bigger role. In wc3 FFA was considered the least popular game type and that had its own little community and even a league where you could win money in the final years of wc3.
This is expected as SC2 itself is very new still and people are excited just for the 1v1s. People will demand new kinds of entertainment in time and 2v2 will be a solution that is on the table. For leagues are implementing new formats (ie captains playing multiple opponents 1v1), having GSL groups picked the players, etc etc. Always looking to spice things up.
Again for balance, the only dual race that is perhaps imbalanced is double zerg on a non shared base map that is fairly small.
Blizzard needs to diversify the map pool more - why was Omega sector removed? Don't add something like a GIANT ramp and destructible rocks on the other side and expect it to be playable with a Protoss ally. What were they thinking with Red Stone Gulch? Seriously, this map is outrageously badly designed.
Shared bases make up for the zerg ally mobility advantage, after probably a thousand games I feel these are the most balanced.
To answer why team games are dynamic. There is simply at times a lot more going on in the game. From DTs running rampant, multiple drops, to skirmishes all over the map. Mid -> late game 2v2 is very exciting. This doesn't happen in a typical all in early game you may find yourself in during ladder, but if you combine two teams that know what they are doing you will see it. People haven't figured out 2v2 at all. It would be like solo if there was a lack of replays/strategies on it. It would be a lot more gimmicky.
2v2 is fun, but it's not really skill based. I think it could be a fun thing to see pro's duking it out in team games vs eachother, but not for money/etc
I don't see it getting big, just think of the nightmare that it would be to cast the game. Even in the GSL, or TSL3 (Hot_Bid is REALLY good though) the camera man will miss something, even in a 1v1. Just imagine if you had a 2v2, the fighting would get so intense. In 1v1s some players like QXC or Drewbie, or SelecT drop at 3 places at once, now imagine if QXC and a teammate was playing SelecT and a teammate. There would just be so much going on.
2v2s do not have a future in sc2 as for example: if you are TZ vs ZZ, the ZZ double 6 pools, the zerg on your team instantly dies. Then you are 1 base vs 2 base and if your tech rush fails you lose.
Right now in 2v2, if done properly a Zerg/Terran team should never lose to a Toss xxxx team. The speedling/straight blue flame strategy on most of the maps is too dominating and fast. Plus CHEAP so they can still tech as well. You will only see Cheese in 2v2. Unless you get very specific and pick maps that are very large.
It won't be the end of the world if you use 2v2 in your league, but I just don't favor it.
judging from the few 2v2 tournies that have gone on, it is all rock paper scissors, the way to win is do a planned out build everytime, ZP combo has the best, it is boring to watch and at a high level would be so dull
lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game.
You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
The casting of the game is the main legitimate issue I've seen brought up.
My only thoughts are that there are 2v2 casts on youtube that seem to work out reasonably well, and so have the CSL casts. However, their quality is not of the same kind as the solo casts. So what I think will happen is that the more practice people get casting 2v2 the better it will be. There simply isn't enough critique and exposure for it to be as finely tuned. Kind of like the actual strategies and gameplay of 2v2.
the game isn't buildto be balanced in team games. it will never work and no progamer will want to practice it. the combination of match up is 6. not like the normal 3. PP ZZ TT TZ TP PZ. and are you sure you wanna study both opponents? no.
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game.
You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
Theres like, zero proof from you to prove that their wrong actually.
On April 08 2011 07:57 PPTouch wrote: 2v2s do not have a future in sc2 as for example: if you are TZ vs ZZ, the ZZ double 6 pools, the zerg on your team instantly dies. Then you are 1 base vs 2 base and if your tech rush fails you lose.
Hmm no. This is of course not true, as the game would have been completely broken. No disrespect, but you, and so many others here, unfortunately, lack experience and knowledge in 2v2 games and offer such simple explanations or incorrect accusations. If you scout properly, you will be able to spot a 6 pool in time so that your zerg ally can put down a pool and fend off double 6 pool alone. Is it the easiest thing in the world? No. Do you win 95%+ of the games where your ally stops this? Yes. You just need to invest some time in your scouting timings on different maps and drone/ling/queen/spine micro to stop the lings. As a protoss, I usually scout with 8 probe against double zerg (minor eco loss if they play standard, instawin if they double 6 pool), so that I get the info even quicker, on short rush distance maps. 9 pylon scouting is usually good enough on shared base or longer distance maps. As a terran, you have to figure out your own timings.
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game. You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
As much as I agree with most of your post, I completely disagree that you can insta gg any hellion build as a protoss. Actually, I'm going to go completely against you here and say the quite opposite. It's nearly impossible to stop a well executed and nicely timed hellion build (TZ vs PZ). There's so many transitions (cloaked banshee, 3 rax marauder, eco expand, tank slow pushing) and so on. Hard to scout, and even harder to stop, even though you know what's coming. The hardest part is of course that stalkers use ages to kill hellions, and hellions fry your ally's lings like there was no tomorrow. It's insane even though you do a proper stalker-ling-bling dance, and even have an additional hatch for ling production compared to your opponents.
Please feel free to elaborate on how to "insta gg" hellion builds, cause the Europe server is completely broken due to that right now. I would also like to know what you do as a PP team, since you say you only lose to TZ. I probably regard PP as the weakest combination there is, so I would be interested in hearing more about your style, and more about how 2v2 currently works out on the NA server.
Me and xSixAzide, top 5 world 2v2 team (points) since the release of Sc2. as double Protoss.
Here you go. Insta gg cheese against the Hellion build with Zerg. This game isn't of the hellion build, but that build is even weaker because the terran gets a late rax and has less minerals due to more gas early game.
Works extremely well with any ZX team. This is one out of a large bag of tricks we have for 2v2. We'd prefer a long macro game where he is more robo heavy and me more stargate/templar archives heavy, but sometimes you have to own noobs early.
Against 10 pool, the cannon is up before his zerglings are out. If they pull drones you get into a very intense micro battle ^^
On April 08 2011 07:57 PPTouch wrote: 2v2s do not have a future in sc2 as for example: if you are TZ vs ZZ, the ZZ double 6 pools, the zerg on your team instantly dies. Then you are 1 base vs 2 base and if your tech rush fails you lose.
Hmm no. This is of course not true, as the game would have been completely broken. No disrespect, but you, and so many others here, unfortunately, lack experience and knowledge in 2v2 games and offer such simple explanations or incorrect accusations. If you scout properly, you will be able to spot a 6 pool in time so that your zerg ally can put down a pool and fend off double 6 pool alone. Is it the easiest thing in the world? No. Do you win 95%+ of the games where your ally stops this? Yes. You just need to invest some time in your scouting timings on different maps and drone/ling/queen/spine micro to stop the lings. As a protoss, I usually scout with 8 probe against double zerg (minor eco loss if they play standard, instawin if they double 6 pool), so that I get the info even quicker, on short rush distance maps. 9 pylon scouting is usually good enough on shared base or longer distance maps. As a terran, you have to figure out your own timings.
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game. You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
As much as I agree with most of your post, I completely disagree that you can insta gg any hellion build as a protoss. Actually, I'm going to go completely against you here and say the quite opposite. It's nearly impossible to stop a well executed and nicely timed hellion build (TZ vs PZ). There's so many transitions (cloaked banshee, 3 rax marauder, eco expand, tank slow pushing) and so on. Hard to scout, and even harder to stop, even though you know what's coming. The hardest part is of course that stalkers use ages to kill hellions, and hellions fry your ally's lings like there was no tomorrow. It's insane even though you do a proper stalker-ling-bling dance, and even have an additional hatch for ling production compared to your opponents.
Please feel free to elaborate on how to "insta gg" hellion builds, cause the Europe server is completely broken due to that right now. I would also like to know what you do as a PP team, since you say you only lose to TZ. I probably regard PP as the weakest combination there is, so I would be interested in hearing more about your style, and more about how 2v2 currently works out on the NA server.
On April 08 2011 07:57 PPTouch wrote: 2v2s do not have a future in sc2 as for example: if you are TZ vs ZZ, the ZZ double 6 pools, the zerg on your team instantly dies. Then you are 1 base vs 2 base and if your tech rush fails you lose.
Hmm no. This is of course not true, as the game would have been completely broken. No disrespect, but you, and so many others here, unfortunately, lack experience and knowledge in 2v2 games and offer such simple explanations or incorrect accusations. If you scout properly, you will be able to spot a 6 pool in time so that your zerg ally can put down a pool and fend off double 6 pool alone. Is it the easiest thing in the world? No. Do you win 95%+ of the games where your ally stops this? Yes. You just need to invest some time in your scouting timings on different maps and drone/ling/queen/spine micro to stop the lings. As a protoss, I usually scout with 8 probe against double zerg (minor eco loss if they play standard, instawin if they double 6 pool), so that I get the info even quicker, on short rush distance maps. 9 pylon scouting is usually good enough on shared base or longer distance maps. As a terran, you have to figure out your own timings.
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game. You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
As much as I agree with most of your post, I completely disagree that you can insta gg any hellion build as a protoss. Actually, I'm going to go completely against you here and say the quite opposite. It's nearly impossible to stop a well executed and nicely timed hellion build (TZ vs PZ). There's so many transitions (cloaked banshee, 3 rax marauder, eco expand, tank slow pushing) and so on. Hard to scout, and even harder to stop, even though you know what's coming. The hardest part is of course that stalkers use ages to kill hellions, and hellions fry your ally's lings like there was no tomorrow. It's insane even though you do a proper stalker-ling-bling dance, and even have an additional hatch for ling production compared to your opponents.
Please feel free to elaborate on how to "insta gg" hellion builds, cause the Europe server is completely broken due to that right now. I would also like to know what you do as a PP team, since you say you only lose to TZ. I probably regard PP as the weakest combination there is, so I would be interested in hearing more about your style, and more about how 2v2 currently works out on the NA server.
I agree with about everything you said here. I play on the NA server. The problem is the 2v2 maps are plain terrible. Every 2v2 map favors highly aggressive non-macro play. The 2v2 ladder maps are way smaller and have less bases than professional 1v1 maps. A lot of them even have back door rocks and a big front door and expansions that are near impossible to defend.
To make it worse most of the cheeses don't even require much skill to execute so you have hordes of people vetoing any map with any hint of macro so they can quickly rank up to masters playing a gorgeillion games in no time at all. Blizzard sees the statistics on how the macro maps have the most vetoes and fewest games played and replaces them with more crappy cheese maps!
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game.
You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
Theres like, zero proof from you to prove that their wrong actually.
Yeah seriously. Just because you said that doesnt mean its true.
Please inform me how a Protoss can stop it without going straight forge cannons.
Pray tell, how can a non cheese zerg who 13 pools hold off a double 6 pool (thats 2 zerg spamming lings, the initial push will be 12 lings, plu more hitting the zerg)?
I think you're just a cheesy player who cheeses every 2v2, and thus thinks 2v2s are balanced.
Newflash. Theyre not.\
EDIT: I think all these guys just 4gate every game as PP
I love 2on2 games, probably because I totally lack the skills to compete on a higher level 1on1, whereas you can get quite far in 2on2 if you get yourself some experience. I like the 2on2s in clanwars, like you have them in SC2CL already, for example. It is kind of refreshing and fun to play and watch.
The YT vid you post Makica just proves nothing at all. I've been playing some forge-walloff with my mate as well, just works way better with PT, imho, if at all. You win this game because Sorcery fails to defend against the proxygates. If he is able to get to stim-tech at any point this game is lost, cause neither of you have any tech. Don't see what the vid should prove at all, as said. T_T;
I tend to agree with Richy on most of the points. Still, I don't know about the hellion/ling. It is incredibly hard to stop if it is executed well, still at least on shared bases or pseudo-shared bases it should be able to defend against it with PT/TT with wall/bunker/cannons. It's just incredibly hard to get the timings right, but still hellion/ling is quite low-eco so using some bunker/cannons should be alright.
On April 08 2011 10:45 PPTouch wrote: Pray tell, how can a non cheese zerg who 13 pools hold off a double 6 pool (thats 2 zerg spamming lings, the initial push will be 12 lings, plu more hitting the zerg)?
I think you're just a cheesy player who cheeses every 2v2, and thus thinks 2v2s are balanced.
Newflash. Theyre not.\
EDIT: I think all these guys just 4gate every game as PP
10p is much more common than 13. And usually much better overall.
And actually, SuperNinja is one of the few 2v2 players who can hold himself in a macro game.
On April 08 2011 10:45 PPTouch wrote: Pray tell, how can a non cheese zerg who 13 pools hold off a double 6 pool (thats 2 zerg spamming lings, the initial push will be 12 lings, plu more hitting the zerg)?
I think you're just a cheesy player who cheeses every 2v2, and thus thinks 2v2s are balanced.
Newflash. Theyre not.\
EDIT: I think all these guys just 4gate every game as PP
10p is much more common than 13. And usually much better overall.
And actually, SuperNinja is one of the few 2v2 players who can hold himself in a macro game.
On April 08 2011 10:45 PPTouch wrote: Pray tell, how can a non cheese zerg who 13 pools hold off a double 6 pool (thats 2 zerg spamming lings, the initial push will be 12 lings, plu more hitting the zerg)?
I think you're just a cheesy player who cheeses every 2v2, and thus thinks 2v2s are balanced.
Newflash. Theyre not.\
EDIT: I think all these guys just 4gate every game as PP
Its not like he has to hold them off without losing drones as long as he forces them to make a second round of lings to kill him hes done his job. It's all about dieing slowly as Day9 said.
If both zergs have 6pooled and then made 20 lings each there is no way they can counter any tech build from the 1 zerg's teammate.
Its why we need bigger maps not more joint nats, so that they cant double 6 pool attack one guys and then move right onto the next guys right away.
I'm primarily a 2v2 player for some reason... I dunno, my friends just like it. It's broken, stupid, and unbalanced. Zerg can't wall off so any early attack is a huge threat, so basically every zerg in teams has to do nothing but mass lings, forever.
It's all a massive rush war, a battle of who can mass the most tier 1 units and micro them the best. It's not that fun and there's no strategy to it. Most matchups have one single viable build order, anything else is an auto loss.
Honestly, 3v3 and 4v4 are actually better competitive games. At least there, if you team rush you might kill one opponent and damage a second one, but meanwhile opponents #3 and #4 have built up armies (or teched to DTs/banshees/whatever) and are going to strike back hard. 4v4 is a chaotic mess but at least teamwork and strategy are more of a factor than in 2v2.
It was incorporated into this tournament http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182520 The Machinima invitational - i thought it was quite cool, it added a nice dynamic and proved to turn the tide in many clan wars; some players just don't understand the 2v2 dynamic.
I think 2v2 could have a future if enough people take it seriously and learn the ins and outs of the match-ups. Right now, a lot of people can lose to cheese just like the early stages of 1v1 because of inexperience and lack of organized practice.
Although, a big hurdle would be balancing. Blizzard must focus balance issues on 1v1, which could impact 2v2 negatively depending on the change. If this was going to be truly a serious competitive endeavor, it would require Blizzard to devote balance time to 1v1 and 2v2 separately. I do not see them doing this until 1v1 reaches an acceptable competitive balance state and thus have the resources to spare. And this could take a while to do.
Cheesy 2v2 will not work for long. 2v2 requires different approaches, and requires players to macro harder (than micro), and expand just like 1v1. And it is certainly fun lol.
There has been an attempt for a pretty big 2v2 tournament by SCMalaysia with some pretty big names (Huk/Select team as example) but I think they cancelled it after Ro32 or at least there are no more informations about it after that.
I'd find it cool to see some high level 2v2 games but as many people already said, it might be really hard to get some good and exciting games. On the other hand, if you ever start such a leage and you're looking for non- Blizzard 2v2 maps, hit me up ^^
Yes, 2v2s become more macro oriented in the higher levels. My team beats all kinds of cheeses (except for one) with solid scouting, macro play and responses.
The sad part about reading this thread is that a lot of people don't seem to believe that 2v2 can be played in a solid fashion (non-cheese). Even double 6pool, 5gate warpin and the fast DT-style is beatable.
What bothers me right now, is hellion/speedling. It feels imbalanced at the moment, but we are still in the process of trying to counter it. We have soft countered it with baneling stalker against lesser skilled players, but the ease and variety of transitions the terran can go into make me feel that it's broken, I think RiChY has elaborated on this already.
The current speedling/hellion vs stalker/baneling/speedling balance is off, and the map changes just made it worse. It breaks 2v2 ZTvZP at least. I believe that if a TZ team encounters an equally skilled PZ team, the TZ will come out victorious.
Apart from this, go ahead. Proper 2v2 is amazing and so fun to play and watch. It's well worth supporting it.
On April 08 2011 07:57 PPTouch wrote: 2v2s do not have a future in sc2 as for example: if you are TZ vs ZZ, the ZZ double 6 pools, the zerg on your team instantly dies. Then you are 1 base vs 2 base and if your tech rush fails you lose.
Hmm no. This is of course not true, as the game would have been completely broken. No disrespect, but you, and so many others here, unfortunately, lack experience and knowledge in 2v2 games and offer such simple explanations or incorrect accusations. If you scout properly, you will be able to spot a 6 pool in time so that your zerg ally can put down a pool and fend off double 6 pool alone. Is it the easiest thing in the world? No. Do you win 95%+ of the games where your ally stops this? Yes. You just need to invest some time in your scouting timings on different maps and drone/ling/queen/spine micro to stop the lings. As a protoss, I usually scout with 8 probe against double zerg (minor eco loss if they play standard, instawin if they double 6 pool), so that I get the info even quicker, on short rush distance maps. 9 pylon scouting is usually good enough on shared base or longer distance maps. As a terran, you have to figure out your own timings.
On April 08 2011 08:36 Makica wrote: lol PPTouch, Nizzy , Slago you guys are out of touch with this game. You can insta gg any hellion build with a Protoss ally if you think its coming. If it doesn't come you still have a winnable game.
A zerg player can fight off a double 6 pool BY HIMSELF.
My PP team only loses to TZ when the map is terrible and we mess up.
Like I said, once people learn to play 2v2, they will know how to counter the cheese, and then the game evolves. Same thing as solo, except solo is played much much more extensively so we are farther along in solo.
As much as I agree with most of your post, I completely disagree that you can insta gg any hellion build as a protoss. Actually, I'm going to go completely against you here and say the quite opposite. It's nearly impossible to stop a well executed and nicely timed hellion build (TZ vs PZ). There's so many transitions (cloaked banshee, 3 rax marauder, eco expand, tank slow pushing) and so on. Hard to scout, and even harder to stop, even though you know what's coming. The hardest part is of course that stalkers use ages to kill hellions, and hellions fry your ally's lings like there was no tomorrow. It's insane even though you do a proper stalker-ling-bling dance, and even have an additional hatch for ling production compared to your opponents.
Please feel free to elaborate on how to "insta gg" hellion builds, cause the Europe server is completely broken due to that right now. I would also like to know what you do as a PP team, since you say you only lose to TZ. I probably regard PP as the weakest combination there is, so I would be interested in hearing more about your style, and more about how 2v2 currently works out on the NA server.
He's easily a top 2v2 player and makes the top of the ladder consistently using a PP team, commonly known as the weakest race combination.
Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
I don't care if he's Barrack Obama's mother dressed up as the Queen of blades or Flash's younger brother, oGsPenis. Please refrain yourselves from appeal to authority arguments. If he's good, I'm sure he has some good arguments to back up his claims rather than hearing about how many pointz on tha ladraaar he has gotten in previous seasons.
Me and xSixAzide, top 5 world 2v2 team (points) since the release of Sc2. as double Protoss.
Here you go. Insta gg cheese against the Hellion build with Zerg. This game isn't of the hellion build, but that build is even weaker because the terran gets a late rax and has less minerals due to more gas early game.
Works extremely well with any ZX team. This is one out of a large bag of tricks we have for 2v2. We'd prefer a long macro game where he is more robo heavy and me more stargate/templar archives heavy, but sometimes you have to own noobs early.
Against 10 pool, the cannon is up before his zerglings are out. If they pull drones you get into a very intense micro battle ^^
Lol dude, I don't know what to say. I stopped the replay when I saw the the forge and gates going down in your opponents base. I might finish it later for the lols, but come on. Okay, I agree, if you "think", that is, if you GAMBLE on your opponents going hellions, sure, this might be a viable counter-"cheese". But that's just what it is. A cheese! It's an all-in. That's not solid play, it's rock, paper, scissors. And in my opinion, it sucks. What I'm talking about is actually scouting your opponent and reacting appropriately. If you try to play standard, it's gonna be harder. But listen, PP doesn't neccessarily belong to the category "is extremely weak against hellion/ling", cause toss doesn't have units that disappear when a hellion turns the heat on. So my arguments cannot be applied in your case. I am talking from experience based on PZ games, and I hear other race combinations have problems as well. But PZ, try it out, and see what you can figure out. It's really really hard to not fall behind.
On April 08 2011 10:45 PPTouch wrote: Pray tell, how can a non cheese zerg who 13 pools hold off a double 6 pool (thats 2 zerg spamming lings, the initial push will be 12 lings, plu more hitting the zerg)?
I think you're just a cheesy player who cheeses every 2v2, and thus thinks 2v2s are balanced.
Newflash. Theyre not.\
EDIT: I think all these guys just 4gate every game as PP
Okay, first of all, like some other guy here explained, you don't HAVE to 13 pool against 2 zergs. If you wish to play safe and not scout early, you should go an earlier pool and adapt your strategy to how early you put down the pool. If they drone up, put pressure on or expand or even tech.
But okay, it's been a while since I was double six pooled last time (I'm a toss player in at PZ team, and my ally is a really strong zerg, and he never seems to die to early dual z all-ins, since I scout early so he can put down his pool correctly). But we were double 8 pooled earlier today. Now, I am going to say that this doesn't prove that double 6 pool is as easily stopped, since the lings will hit earlier, but he did go 13 gas, 12 pool and use 3 drones for gas (and stop at 100). He then gets 1 spine and 1 queen, then 6 lings. The lings pops right after the 12 lings enter his base. So he microes, loses some drones and the spine, but his queen survives, and 6-7 of his drones lived to see another day. Okay, he has 100 gas ready for speed, I am untouched, we are ahead by quite a bit. Now listen, in this case, I actually visited our opponents base when my ally had 10 drones. I saw their pool and EVEN though we scouted an 8 pool, he droned up a bit more and went gas first, because we try to be as greedy as possible. Now, say that it was a double 6 pool and he went 10-11 pool before gas (and no gas mined) instead. I am pretty confident to say that it would be a solid hold with proper micro.
And I don't know if you were talking to me or someone else when you pointed your finger and called (possibly me) a cheeser, when I in fact am a macro oriented player, who almost NEVER cheese. We almost always put down hatch before pool and try to get into a mid/late-game with an economical and positional advantage. Since most 2v2 teams are weak or just allins poorly, we have to respond by 4 gating ever so often, but hey, the alternative is to die, and I don't really want that.
On April 08 2011 11:34 bkrow wrote: It was incorporated into this tournament http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182520 The Machinima invitational - i thought it was quite cool, it added a nice dynamic and proved to turn the tide in many clan wars; some players just don't understand the 2v2 dynamic.
EG won that almost solely on 2v2, it definitely adds an interesting aspect to team leagues. Like in 2008 Samsung KHAN didn't have the best 1v1 lineup but they were so dominant in 2v2 that they won the team league.
I was top 3 in points as a Random in 2v2 in SEA back in December and my games were actually rather varied. I played as zerg and rarely 10pooled, though I always did get rushed. Helped me learn how to hold off any kind of pressure, and after a failed rush the games get pretty interesting.
I think 2v2 CAN have a future; I don't think it's as imbalanced as people think. I've won as ZZ vs anything, and that's probably the most "underpowered" combination unless you both 10pool.
The main problem with 2v2 is probably map size. The maps are tiny when you consider 4 players are playing on it, and the rush distances just make it more tempting to do a quick attack. I guess larger maps could help make 2v2 more interesting and less all-in oriented.
Sure it can be used as a fun thing to do for a showmatch or something, but when there is money on the line lets use the game mode that the game is balanced around.
2x2 isn't so interesting, because maps are so weird. I can't call any balanced map from current map pool except scorched haven. Every TZ use helions/p10 build on any map, any match up without scouting and it mostly works because of maps or low skill of most 2x2 players.
But 1v1 players/spectators have to stop viewing 2v2 through the lens of 1v1. It is very different. It is naturally more aggressive and lower econ, except on maps with shared bases (or 'almost-shared' bases). It is also less predictable due to the much larger space of potential matchups and openings.
Furthermore, even MC/Nestea will lose to a couple mid-masters players if they fail to coordinate. Solo decision making and solo mechanics are not the only factor when you're not playing solo.
2v2 got no future especially against the matchup T/Z, P/P got no chance at all at decent level, and that inbase proxy and photon rush wont work vs good teams, not since the ramp buff and a good scoute. so no future for 2v2 and other team games.
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
All the SC2 maps are retarded shared bases maps tho -,.-
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
All the SC2 maps are retarded shared bases maps tho -,.-
ye or there is only one natural, and not even a 3rd etc. wich makes it 1baseonly games most of the time
No, no, no. Blizzard will then try to balance around 2v2 like they are already and stupid shit will arise. The only possible way 2v2 has a future is if Blizzard decides to change 2v2 and 1v1 balance ENTIRELY. Shit specifically balanced around rushes and whatnot for 2v2 that would only apply to 2v2. That's the only possible way 2v2 has a future.
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
All the SC2 maps are retarded shared bases maps tho -,.-
That's why we need new SC2 maps for 2v2 play.
Remember we had Steppes of War in the beginning ^_^
I would really like to see 2v2. I know it died out in BW, but I really think we're doing ourselves a disfavour by writing them off before we even in try them. It's a different game and things could play out differently. (For the same reason, I think island maps should be tried again.)
Better to make an dedicated if low budget attempt and fail then to have never tried because in BW it didn't work out.
No, just no. One of my favorite changes in SC1 proleague was the removal of 2v2s. 2v2s may be fun and shit, but 1v1 is the shit. I myself want to see more 1v1s and no 2v2s.
On April 08 2011 01:12 Beyonder wrote: I would absolutely love for 2v2s to be incorporated in to clanwars again. It was fun in BW and it was even more fun in WC3! I believe that with decent maps (read: big!) this could be quite fun. As long as you do not allow double race (e.g., 2x protoss... uhm...).
This is basically how I feel but I don't mind people double racing
Competitive 2v2 in BW was so fun to watch, and I usually have a blast playing 2v2 with mates as well.
I'd like to see 2v2, but I don't think the ladder maps are really appropriate for it. There are plenty of map makers around, who are probably capable and willing to make suitable 2v2 maps though.
2v2 is and has been garbage for competitive play. sc1 and wc3 are prime examples.... Anyone remember that map vampire.... yea..... vampire.... 2v2 sucks for competitive play.
I always liked seeing 2v2 competitive matches in WC3. Haven't seen too many of them in SC2.
There was a pretty entertaining showmatch between Jinro/TLO and Artosis/QXC in SC2 a while back also where most of the games didn't end in the first rush:
You would have to be careful with map selection since on some maps double 6 pools are basically unstoppable. But once the macro games come through you can see epic battles that 1v1's cannot show. I voted yes!
I enjoy 2v2s just because of the crazy mixes but i guess balancing is always a problem. How bout people just play 3s instead and each team has to play one of each race that way no one can argue imba.
With players being able to share control, I think it would be awesome to see MKP or Tester control 400/400 armies while their partner macro'd like a beast!
I voted positively for all options! I would pay a gstl price to see these incorporated similarly to what they did in bw
2v2 is obviously not quite as balanced and competitive as 1v1 is, but I think it would be nice to maybe play the first map of a team event in 2v2 mode and let the winning team choose the first map for the "real" event or let them veto one of the other teams players for the first 2 sets - something like that. Nothing that will really matter in the end, but will add some flavor.
I strongly dislike anything but 1v1. I think including team games in tournaments and team leagues etc is fine so long as it is show match only and has counts for nothing so far as results go and is shown after or before the real games so that it doesn't cause interruption.
It is also upsetting that Blizzard considers 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 when making balance changes. The reaper nerf is an example of this. That is, nerfing something because of it's strength in 2v2, where it wasn't necessarily an issue in 1v1. If balance changes need to be made, they should be made considering 1v1 only, 2v2 only etc. and apply different unit attributes/variables for each of the different team game types if it is necessary.
Just an idea on balance: it is possible to change unit stats in the editor, right? So if some people can come up with a more "balanced" SC2 for 2v2, they can just implement custom maps and play the tournaments on them (with helions cositng gas or whatever). (Actually, you could do the same for 1v1, but it seems void as the game is being continuously balanced by Blizzard themselves).
It would take a lot of work and testing, but what in the life comes without a price?
I love team games. The one very big reason is the food supply cap, which makes the 1v1 armies kinda small. You can just have much mor epicness with 2,3,4.. times 200 and I would love to see, how our beloved sc2 pros work that out.
It's always fun to see two different races work together in teamgames, so I would vote for any option that says: "occasionally you'll get to see teamgames, but not in a competitive capacity, more as showmatch".
Just like Free For All games, for that matter. Those are all fun, as long as it is just for show, not for money.
I would love to see some 2v2's again, i love playing and watching them, but in all honesty, 2v2 is simply not balanced in SC2 and it makes me wonder if it could ever work.
I think 2v2 has a place in team leagues, like how it used to be the 3rd set in proleague matches. A full 2v2 tournament isn't something I'd be interested in seeing.
I think there are people who would like to watch it and there is obviously an audience for it. I don't think anyone would NOT watch or be interested in you teamleague because you have 2v2, I think the vast majority of people would be interested to see how top players would play 2v2 when it matters.
I really don't like 2vs2 on a competitive level, it's more a for fun/casual mode like 3vs3, 4vs4 and FFA. The game is simply not balanced around 2vs2 (and it shouldn't be) and it isn't as entertaining to watch as 1vs1.
Prior to the ladder reset, I played a lot of 2v2 random because of the fact that I was quite busy with my study (and other interests) so I couldn't spend a lot of time gaming. I thought that 2v2 was much more easy to learn and understand without spending a lot of time practising. Either way, I was right about that and ended somewhere on the ladder with around 3420 points, despite the fact that I was only a 980 diamond player in 1v1. However, currently I'm only playing 1v1 and rapidly improving.
The problem is that 2v2 is currenty extremely imbalanced on all fronts; in regard to the different races, the maps, the possible strategies or the general core mechanics of the game. Either way, I just grew sick of the constant rushes, cheeses, early pushes and so on that currently define 2v2 games and it's definitly not interested to play, let a lone watch.
As said before, 2v2 suffers from a huge vulnerability to cheese on separated bases, huge vulnerability to the "spend 20 minutes building your blob, whoever got the best blob wins" on team-sahred bases and INSANELY powerful 1-base pushes.
However, there is a single, quite easy way to fix all that shit: changing units balance for team games. Well, maybe not so easy, but it could make 2v2 (and any team format) awesome, provided some things get nerfed and others gets buffed.
When you think about it, it's quite idiotic to make team formats with units balanced for a 200 max population. I did quite some 2v2 with a friend back when diamond meant something, and hell, half of units were utter shit and half was god-tier.
The only issue with 2v2 is, right now, there are certain combo/strats that seemed to be very overpowered.
Such Z/P 10 pool/10 gate fast WG or early pool + proxy marauders or hellions.
Maybe there are ways to beat the above without cheesing yourself... but it's hard to know because the counters aren't "crowd-sourced" like they are 1v1.
On April 08 2011 22:02 Logros wrote: I really don't like 2vs2 on a competitive level, it's more a for fun/casual mode like 3vs3, 4vs4 and FFA. The game is simply not balanced around 2vs2 (and it shouldn't be) and it isn't as entertaining to watch as 1vs1.
you can just change the 2v2 maps to favour the "underpowered" races without affecting 1v1 balance.
2v2 in clan wars would be a great addition to many of these team leauges. Its always nice to watch every once in a while, but shouldn't be a big priority.
We used to do them all the time in BW for clan wars so I don't see why not. Although, some do make a valid point. The map pool for 2v2s leaves something to be desired. I would borrow the old WGTour model and include it. It would add more flavor to your tournament and teams would actually have to practice for it.
If you want to make 2v2 work, find a way to fit it in. Your tournament your rules.
I suggest turning the 2v2 into a showmatchish type thing where the most entertaining 2v2 all season long gets a reward. Better yet, have 5 1v1's and 1-2 2v2's and instead of having the 2v2s count towards the individual CW's, have them count towards overall standing points only so teams can decide how serious they want to take them.
On April 08 2011 05:48 Disconnect wrote: SC2 is a 1v1 game with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 tacked on for lols. Next you'll be suggesting 2v2 chess.
If you want to play a competitive team game there are much better games out there.
It's funny you bring this up because it's a perfect analogy. 2v2 chess is called Bughouse and it's hilariously fun (if not very competitive). It's also less understood/developed than 1v1 and based on the chess equivalent of cheese.
On April 08 2011 05:48 Disconnect wrote: SC2 is a 1v1 game with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 tacked on for lols. Next you'll be suggesting 2v2 chess.
If you want to play a competitive team game there are much better games out there.
It's funny you bring this up because it's a perfect analogy. 2v2 chess is called Bughouse and it's hilariously fun (if not very competitive). It's also less understood/developed than 1v1 and based on the chess equivalent of cheese.
Except that 2v2 has worked perfectly fine before in both BW and SC2. I predict it to be like 1v1 before, soem imba at the start, but once people know what to expect and how to counter it (on half decent maps), it will become insanely fun with a lot of strange and interesting strategies.
Wish the nay-sayers would see the glory of early 2v2.
Also, did you guys know some of the (semi)top SC2 players were top WC3 players in 2v2? Hasuobs and Fury for example, also strife and Grubby Such awesome games to remember >_
2v2 can be fun. When me and my friend play and we hold off the early rush it often turns into a nice macro game and is often very exciting. When people say 2v2 is all cheese, they're only partially true. But compared to 3v3s and 4v4s 2v2's cheese is nothing.
StarCraft 2 needs more 2v2. The balance issues that exists will not get fixed if no one cares about them, and what better way to get some attention than incorporating it in team leagues around the world?
And to everyone who think shared bases is lame, what the hell are you thinking? I bet most of you never play 2v2, and that most of the good 2v2 players would wipe the floor with you, pro solo player or not.
2v2 seems to have more future. If we give it a try, we can probably figure out some build or strategies to counter the cheese. For example, with terran, its very easy to skip gaz for double rax to stop cheese. Proper scouting is more useful than ever. Me and my friends sometimes send a VERY early worker to scout everything. Yes, you are sacrificing some economy. But that's better than whining when getting rushed
We veto some of the separate base, because its very hard, if not impossible, to stop a 2v1 early push in separate base.
And to be honest, with about 600-700 team games played, I can say that the scariest cheese always involve speedlings. Proxy gates/rax, canon rush, 6 pool... the common cheese in 1v1 are fairly easy to scout and to stop.
If you guys want some trivial tips : When facing Protoss or Zerg, ALWAYS wall. Always scout, as early as you can. Also, scout around your base. Based on your scouting info, modify your build if needed. Note that 1v1 builds may not be optimal for team. Veto away the map where your ally base is too far.
I find team game to be very entertaining simply due to fact that ALOT of stuff can be happening at once and the battles just feel more gigantic.
I think 2v2 is important part of leagues, clanwars. I myself am a 2v2 player and i was on the USA A team for 2v2 in SC1. Alot of Nation wars and clan wars come down to a 2-2 series or 3-3 and ended up going into a 2v2. It was fun to play and even watch others 2v2 due to the fact its team work and alot of action. I think 1v1 is definatly more balanced than 2v2 right now but good 2v2 players cant defend those all in builds everyone complains about. A whole league in 2v2 i dont think will happen due to fact its not gonna draw the crowds but if you could see MC and MVP 2v2 it would probaly pull the biggest audience ever. .
I think we should see more 2v2. Organized coordinated strategic play with 4 players would be awesome to watch. Not only would we see individual talent but team play as well, and how players complement each other, bigger battles, more harass, weird strats. Yes, let's have more 2v2.
I would love to see some 2v2's. Obviously it would be a much more relaxed and less competitive outlet for the players, but with the right maps and the right attitude I think it could be insanely fun to watch at the pro level, at least as much so as it was in bw.
On April 09 2011 01:00 NrT.RuSH wrote: I think 1v1 is definatly more balanced than 2v2 right now but good 2v2 players cant defend those all in builds everyone complains about. A whole league in 2v2 i dont think will happen due to fact its not gonna draw the crowds but if you could see MC and MVP 2v2 it would probaly pull the biggest audience ever. .
Just for clarification, did you mean to say can defend against the all ins?
I really enjoys 2s, 4s, and 3s with my buddies when i need a break from the intensity of 1s. My buddy (T) and I (Z) have gotten pretty good with our starts and I would love to see some high level 2s or any other team battles being streamed. I think your idea for a team tourny is great Spartan. It will give the more casually players a chance to learn some new and unique starts when it comes to organized team battles. I would love to see this happen. Watching show matches of pros team is a lot of fun. Often the games end early but sometimes there are some epic battles and comebacks. Go for it!
In my opinion 2v2 in SCII is just great but it is abused by stupid players by making stupid rushes or all ins to make their stats better. Recently with my friend we played a CW vs the best team in the world (Wizardsleza and Executor) and we won 2-0. Games were 54 minutes and 30 minutes long, and they were much better then every 1v1, a lot of action everywhere, just very nice to watch. I think that 2v2 will get better in next few years when blizzard makes new maps and people will not care about their stats and it will possible to play great macro games.
2v2 is impossible to defend early rushes off 1 base, the closest you'll get to a straightup game would be mass units vs "defensive" mass units with a few more workers (similar to PvP 4gate vs 4gate) until the defenders have enough stuff to survive while teching/expanding or getting an upgrade... not very fun imo
On April 09 2011 01:37 AWakefield wrote: Im a fan of 2v2, its just a shame their isn't more room for it. Most 2v2 games I see end in rushes and less then epic games. Which is unfortunate.
Because its not possible to defend against a ZT team as Px on the majority of the maps in the 2v2 pool.
Just chill I don't think anyone is asking for balance changes other than better 2v2 maps. After all I feel like after the reaper nerf(that was indeed due to team games, but really it has been the only change that was done with team games in mind) I don't think there is a strategy imba enough that it can't be fixed with better maps
2v2 will never be truely balanced, but i think like with 1v1 a good map pool it would be a lot better than it currently is.
If a league wanted to run 2v2, they should have someone make maps with 2v2 balance in mind instead of the blizzard crap with rocks everywhere, multiple ramps etc etc. Im not exactly sure what makes a good 2v2 map, but i know its not the ones on blizzards ladder.
On April 08 2011 05:48 Disconnect wrote: SC2 is a 1v1 game with 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 tacked on for lols. Next you'll be suggesting 2v2 chess.
If you want to play a competitive team game there are much better games out there.
It's funny you bring this up because it's a perfect analogy. 2v2 chess is called Bughouse and it's hilariously fun (if not very competitive). It's also less understood/developed than 1v1 and based on the chess equivalent of cheese.
Except that 2v2 has worked perfectly fine before in both BW and SC2. I predict it to be like 1v1 before, soem imba at the start, but once people know what to expect and how to counter it (on half decent maps), it will become insanely fun with a lot of strange and interesting strategies.
Wish the nay-sayers would see the glory of early 2v2.
Oh I'm not a nay-sayer, I love team games and play them much more than 1v1. What I meant with my bughouse comment was that 2v2 will always have the stigma associated with being a "lesser" game, regardless of how fun/competitive/balanced it is. I would love to see more 2v2 games though.
I probably shouldn't have quoted the "there are better games out there" part when I first posted, since that's not what I'm saying at all.
On April 09 2011 02:42 QuixoticO wrote: I have a dream where Blizzard separates the 1v1 balance from the 2v2/3v3 and 4v4 balance.
Would make life so much easier and could make team battles EPIC.
The thing is, people have been saying this about WoW for years. Blizz simply won't separate pve and pvp, and I highly doubt they'll separate 1v1 from team games for sc2.
On April 09 2011 01:37 AWakefield wrote: Im a fan of 2v2, its just a shame their isn't more room for it. Most 2v2 games I see end in rushes and less then epic games. Which is unfortunate.
Because its not possible to defend against a ZT team as Px on the majority of the maps in the 2v2 pool.
Between the introduction of the Queen, the build time reduction of the Spawning Pool (which used to take longer than a Gateway to build), and the increased difficulty of blocking a ramp (Zealots block less space, more Zerglings can pack together more tightly), the Protoss very-early game got much uglier.
I suspect Protoss players are too eager to start Warpgate research and that delaying gas will be necessary when the opposing team has no Protoss. An aggressive TZ can punish you hard before the 6:00 mark.
Aside from going something like gateway forge, protoss needs that gas to get stalker/sentry out. Without adequate stalker/sentry numbers zealots won't have a chance against terran that gets early concussive shells. And having more zealots doesn't help stop speedlings if the terran is picking off the z's on your ramp with range.
Protoss are a little greedy trying to get their 4gates up without really having any units. I've seen plenty of 2v2 games where a guy had nothing but a zealot and one gateway until warpgate finished.
map pool is the problem though. Bases spread far apart will always lead to dominant speedling play.
2v2, 3v3, etc is always going to be a sideshow compared to the 1v1 scene. The games are usually far less interesting, and cheese is even stronger than it is in 1v1, which is saying a lot. Also, I don't think that the community has the attention span to invest in two separate brackets. As a result, they're going to stick with what they're comfortable with, which is 1v1.
2v2 is only balanced if it's a mirror match up TZvTZ for example. It would make for entertaining exhibition matches, but it shouldn't "matter." 2v2 is much more interesting than 3v3 and 4v4, at least (imo).
I always favored 2on2s in team wars over 1on1s. It just has more team spirit and it makes team wars something special. 1on1s I see a lot in every normal tournament...
On April 09 2011 03:27 DuneBug wrote: Aside from going something like gateway forge, protoss needs that gas to get stalker/sentry out. Without adequate stalker/sentry numbers zealots won't have a chance against terran that gets early concussive shells. And having more zealots doesn't help stop speedlings if the terran is picking off the z's on your ramp with range.
Protoss are a little greedy trying to get their 4gates up without really having any units. I've seen plenty of 2v2 games where a guy had nothing but a zealot and one gateway until warpgate finished.
map pool is the problem though. Bases spread far apart will always lead to dominant speedling play.
The thing is, of course it's impossible for Protoss to defend 1v2 without cannons. (Roach/Ling would be similarly punishing.) That's why you need your ally. And for your ally to be able to move out, he needs YOU to have sufficient units to support him.
A Protoss with 5 Zealots can push out and be useful. A Protoss with 2-3 units & partially-researched Warp Tech cannot.
Of course, this all fails if the bases are too far apart and you don't have a Zerg against a mass-ling Zerg, in which case you are forced to turtle to units like Hellions or Air. Which might be viable - if Zerg goes early pool early speed heavy ling, his economy will be terrible - is it actually not viable (in that scouted circumstance) for P/T to separately cannon/bunker in and tech? I would readily believe it is.
2v2 is so fucking fun to play with friends and family on your team if you are using skype. I like to play it so much more than 1v1s. Yes it's obviously not the pure form of starcraft. But it's definitely more a more social form.
2v2 is not always rush vs rush as some people make it out to be. If you play terran you can actually fast expand (on shared base maps) by building the cc in base and then defend rushes with bunkers. My friend and i have been doing pretty well with this strategy and were almost to masters without every cheesing or rushing people. Most of the time the game ends after we defend their rush as we have an expo and they dont. I think in the end as the game becomes more figured out, strong macro will win out over cheese.
2v2 is great. I love playing it, and I don't understand the hate. All-ins (apart from 2 that are actually good) are really quite bad. If you've never played it or only palyed it a few times, play as many games as I have (~1800 2v2s) before you hate.
I think it would be cool if you set it up like a tennis team plays their matches. There are 7 total matches (6 singles and 1 doubles) Whichever team wins 4 out of the 7 wins the overall match. What if we could see a battle between say, Team Liquid and Team oGs where some strategy comes into play as to who plays whom and which 2 guys will join the 2v2 team. Just an inteesting take on the OP's idea
Can you imagine watching a tournament with 2v2s for like 3 hours? LOL bro think about it it's just not gonna happen. (well maybe it will but nothing big)
On April 09 2011 02:42 QuixoticO wrote: I have a dream where Blizzard separates the 1v1 balance from the 2v2/3v3 and 4v4 balance.
Would make life so much easier and could make team battles EPIC.
The thing is, people have been saying this about WoW for years. Blizz simply won't separate pve and pvp, and I highly doubt they'll separate 1v1 from team games for sc2.
I don't get why people say this. Spells work not just differently in PvE and PvP, there are also talent specs made to let you specialize, so that Blizzard can change those talents to influence PvP/PvE balance separately.
Unfortunately, this way of balancing doesn't work for SC2, since basically you'd need to have units or strategies that are essentially only used in teamgames, not solo play. (so you can change those strats without affecting 1v1)
On April 10 2011 01:14 cocosoft wrote: I think 2v2 favors rushes too much to ever be competitive. Just due to Starcraft 2's volatile nature.
Back up your claim, please. Which rush, specifically, is too hard to stop?
If you don't have a Terran on your team, every rush in 2v2 is very hard to stop. It's even worse on non-shared base maps.
We're very nearly masterleague(beating masterleaguers on a regular basis anyway) and we're a PZ setup, using generally no rushes in our tactics. Granted, there is some shit that's tough to stop, but you gotta understand that it balances out in the sense that they're sacrificing so many resources trying to kill one person, if they rush, while your partner's economy flourishes, which basically means he has a very fair chance of taking the game 2vs one after they have exhausted their forces on your team mate. I believe Day[9] did a daily about this.
2v2s can be good, but what it really comes down to are the maps. If you have maps where the distance between allied bases are long, then rushes are a lot more powerful. If you have shared bases and an easy natural (like twilight fortress) then games are more macro and a lot longer. Right now, there are some pretty bad maps (which I have downvoted) such as war zone. If the community had a big interest in 2v2s, I'm sure we could come up with better maps. I love playing 2v2s because it's not super hectic and closer to 1v1s but you have a partner to help you.
tl;dr 2v2 depends on the maps but it could be great.
I play a lot of 2v2s with my friends and would love to see it: A: Incorporated into clan wars more B: Have a tournament specifically around it
I'm currently a silver level 1v1er and bronze 2v2er (leagues known for cheese) and while talking over skype me and my friends are quite competent at holding early rushes and can usually out-macro our opponents. So, I think 2v2s don't have to revolve only around cheese and could be I absolutely love watching pros play them.
EDIT: I also hate the fact that most of the maps have backdoor rocks for both players.
No one wants to be the "2v2 player" just for clan events. 1v1 is where all the tournaments and big matches are, in broodwar it ended up hurting a lot of players having to just focus on 2v2.
It'd be interesting to see if 2v2 could be balanced independently from 1v1, though it'd be damn difficult. Each combination could be considered a "race", but had shared components and units from other "races" that remained set between all races, and there's twice as many races (PZ,PT,ZT and duals) as in the 1v1 game. Balance and game-flow would be hugely dependent on the maps, even more so than 1v1; separated mains/ramps promotes rushing, while combined mains/ramps with in base Expos promotes turtling. A truly competitive 2v2 league would be very entertaining to watch though.
On April 10 2011 01:49 dacthehork wrote: There is a reason it got taken out of broodwar
No one wants to be the "2v2 player" just for clan events. 1v1 is where all the tournaments and big matches are, in broodwar it ended up hurting a lot of players having to just focus on 2v2.
Not really, it actually rewarded oldschool players with a lot of experience and great teamwork.
You think that Reach, Yellow, Clon or Nestea could have an OSL after 2006 if they didn't practice for 2x2 ? lol... They basicly started a new career and they could get play time because of 2x2. Oh and Clon retired when 2x2 got taken out of broodwar because he was mediocre at 1x1. If it didn't happen i'm pretty sure Nestea would be still playing 2x2 with Reach for KT lol.
Also 2x2 in broodwar was amazing if it was played on good maps ( Iron Curtain or Hannibal for example ).
really just no. I mean the only scenario is if Esports and all esport 1 v 1 games go huge and it becomes the next baseball. Then there can be room for other secondary esports things like 2v2s. Like softball
On April 09 2011 02:42 QuixoticO wrote: I have a dream where Blizzard separates the 1v1 balance from the 2v2/3v3 and 4v4 balance.
Would make life so much easier and could make team battles EPIC.
The thing is, people have been saying this about WoW for years. Blizz simply won't separate pve and pvp, and I highly doubt they'll separate 1v1 from team games for sc2.
I don't get why they wouldn't if it improves the gameplay for both sides. In WoWs case I even find it more retarded not to separate something that is causing them headaches for so long already.
This could make 1v1 a lot more interesting too because they don't have to take team games inconsideration with balance. lolcarrierslol.
I really dislike the idea of mixing 2v2s in with 1v1s, I just really doubt the top teams want to divide their gamers attention like that and so it'll end up kinda flat and just doing something they think might be good instead of refined builds and timings.
Would be very interested to see competetive 2v2 as a standalone event though, but not sure if that'll have the necessary draw.
Its kinda sad how much misconception about 2v2s ITT, most comes from prejudice from those who have no idea, ldo. 2v2 is really fun and competitive, however requires a bit different skill spectrum than 1v1. The current state of the gametype is mostly broken due to the map pool, these maps just forces early attacks, 5min pushes bc thats the most viable thing to do. Shared base maps arent the answer, those are pretty bad too. The game needs 2x if not 4x bigger maps, than youll see tier2 units, longer games etc... A competetive ladder could help too where you wont be paired in imbalanced teams. I mean what ppl expecting when playing vs PP team as ZT for example, obv they gonna cheese bc thats their best bet, why bother to playing for 10-20 mins just to end up losing? Im not saying a PP team can never win, but if they would do, thats would be because of skill difference, why waste the time than? Just finish the game early and start a next one where they hope gonna be paired into a team that actually makes sense. That way maybe not just only 1 match from every 5 would worth to play through or be interesting and people would stop hating the gametype. Id be gladly watch 2v2s myself, a whole league or just matches in team leagues but im affraid with the current state of the game, and the common prejudice wont allow that for a long time =(
Totally agree, it would be a novelty and I would definitely tune in out of curiosity. 2v2 is also shorter than your average 1v1, so I doubt people would complain about the length/boredom level of the games.
On April 09 2011 02:42 QuixoticO wrote: I have a dream where Blizzard separates the 1v1 balance from the 2v2/3v3 and 4v4 balance.
Would make life so much easier and could make team battles EPIC.
The thing is, people have been saying this about WoW for years. Blizz simply won't separate pve and pvp, and I highly doubt they'll separate 1v1 from team games for sc2.
I don't get why people say this. Spells work not just differently in PvE and PvP, there are also talent specs made to let you specialize, so that Blizzard can change those talents to influence PvP/PvE balance separately.
Unfortunately, this way of balancing doesn't work for SC2, since basically you'd need to have units or strategies that are essentially only used in teamgames, not solo play. (so you can change those strats without affecting 1v1)
Well this is getting a bit off topic but I'm simply saying what Blizzard's philosophy has been. If they actually stick to a design philosophy of separating pvp and pve specs for each class, the game would be much more balanced and competitive, but Blizzard does not do that.
Relating to sc2, balanced has to be focused for a specific bracket. Sc2 is mainly balanced around 1v1, so of course there are team unit compositions (e.g. hellion/speedling, ol giving sight for warp ins, etc) that simply cannot be balanced without completely changing 1v1. The same is true in wow; for example, you absolutely needed a shaman in 5v5 but not so much 2v2/3v3, and ring of frost is good in 3v3 but turns retardedly overpowered in bgs.
What would you suggest for balanced 2v2/3v3/4v4 matches in sc2? There are unit compositions at all stages of the game which are brutally difficult to deal with, ranging from hellion/speedling pushes, 4gates with ol for sight, and colo backed up with MMMV.
On April 10 2011 05:30 TheArtOfFugue wrote: Totally agree, it would be a novelty and I would definitely tune in out of curiosity. 2v2 is also shorter than your average 1v1, so I doubt people would complain about the length/boredom level of the games.
The competitive 2v2 scene will need to grow first. Remember all the scv/marine all-ins in early GSL seasons and how much that sucked? Likewise, imagine if you watched an entire tournament of only protoss players 4gating each other.