Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Starcraft 2 Ranting - 1v1 screws up my 2v2!

I've been playing a lot more 1v1 on ladder instead of my usual 2v2, and while I'm enjoying Spanishiwa, my 2v2 strategy is suffering terribly - I'm trying to play it like a 1v1, and it's not working.  Worse, I'm not syncing with my partner very well - it's like we're each trying to play separately, despite being on ventrilo and everything!


Things to remember:
  • Attack (or defend) together
  • Follow up with a successful attack, but don't throw units away, or I'll die to the counterattack!
  • Make sure at least one player builds anti-air and detection.  Losing to DT's when you would have won is very disappointing.

1 comment:

  1. Heya, Zrog. Followed your link here. I like your posts. Your 2V2 experience echoes my own in that I find myself struggling to establish a style that works outside of a 1V1 environment.

    In particular, I find that both the presence of a Zerg opponent and the layout of the main and natural severely alter the way I have to play in 2V2 in order to get safely into the midgame. Zerg's hyperaggressive potential in the early game can simply break the riskier opening styles that are possible in 1V1 without sacrificing the whole of the team's economy or tech. Wrapping my head around the many ways in which one player can cover for another in order to bring an extreme style into standard, prolonged play has been the biggest challenge (besides lag!) for my 2V2 game.

    I also feel like the 2V2 map pool plays very differently than the 1V1 maps. On most of the 2V2 maps, the third and fourth bases are distant or spread out, making them difficult to claim and difficult to defend reactively. I think this is one area in which Zerg can shine; the sheer mobility of Zerglings, Mutalisks, and occasionally Nydus Worms can go a long way toward denying enemy expansions. But at the same time, a player who loves to Drone and tech (hi) feels out of his element on these maps.

    Even the number of expansions feels too small for longer games to be possible. Often, on the rare occasion that I reach the late game in a 2V2, I avoid saturating a fourth base and pursuing Hive tech because I know viable expansions will quickly be mined out, leaving me with an excess of Drones and too few Hive units with too little support to be continually effective compared to a strong mid-game army.

    Ultimately, I think a keen understanding of early aggression and two-base aggression are the most effective tools for succeeding in 2V2. But on those maps where third and fourth bases do manage to appear, I think aggressive map control becomes most important. The simple ability to keep the opponent from deciding to move out, whether it be through harassment, denial of map vision, or heavy containment, is what makes expansion styles possible.

    Contrary to 1V1, the worst thing in the world in 2V2 seems to be waiting for the big push to arrive on your side of the map. Almost as soon as it successfully leaves the enemy's base, it becomes capable of isolating expansions, executing multi-pronged attacks, and overall shutting down economic play. In essence, 2V2 maps make little to no distinction between map control and defensive capability, and delaying battles until expansions are contested is a losing strategy. And therein lies my second greatest challenge in 2V2.

    [Massive, off-topic, rambling chunk of post deleted for the sanctity of blogs everywhere.]

    Anyway, let me know if you ever want to play. I'm up for 1V1 or practice games or 2V2 (if you don't mind my lag). I think Seri's also around, and Newdles plays from time to time as well. I'd love to get a StarCraft group back together. I had a lot of fun at release when everyone was still playing, but I think it's just us these days.