Update ! I proceeded to tighten the in-base expansions and remove the previously existing rocky cliff. Here is what it looks like now.

+ Show Spoiler [in-base expansions] +

With this change, I could cut an entire water tile (8 units) both on the top and bottom edges of the map. Playable bounds are now 138x172.

+ Show Spoiler [overview] +

This intermediary version of the map has been published on B.net EU (current version is 0.7) so I can start working on detailing the main base. It's still time to share your comments

DoubleReed

United States4130 Posts

October 29 2011 02:45 GMT

#22

Wow that looks really good.

I'm not really sure if its a huge problem, but can't the main get lowgrounded like lost temple (place a bunch of siege tanks and such) if you're like double zerg or something? It's not really a big deal I guess.

You might be able to stick in another expansion somewhere. Maybe on the other side outside the main? Maybe turn the islands into expos? I dunno, just a thought.

Apom

France655 Posts

October 29 2011 11:36 GMT

#23

On October 29 2011 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow that looks really good.

I'm not really sure if its a huge problem, but can't the main get lowgrounded like lost temple (place a bunch of siege tanks and such) if you're like double zerg or something? It's not really a big deal I guess.

You might be able to stick in another expansion somewhere. Maybe on the other side outside the main? Maybe turn the islands into expos? I dunno, just a thought.

Hey, thanks for your feedback !

I have never encountered a slow push strategy in 2v2. It may be because I'm not playing at a high enough level, but I think it's more likely that the team dynamics simply do not favor them. So you may very well be right on low ground sieging, but I think that, as you put it, it's not really a big deal.

Regarding an extra expansion, this is something I have considered. For now, I'm sticking with Blizzard standards : 4p 2v2 maps normally have 7 bases per team ; the only exceptions are Monlyth Ridge which has 6 and Twilight Fortress which has 9. I will not use the islands for expansions, because I don't want to make the actual play area larger than it already is. However, the location on the other side outside the main could indeed be used for an expansion, with minor terrain reworking. I may do something there one day, but the lack of high-level feedback on 2v2 maps makes it hard to know if pushing beyond Blizzard standards is a good thing or not.

Apom

France655 Posts

October 29 2011 17:12 GMT

#24

Update ! I have finished texturing the main bases. I finally decided against any doodad there, as the texture mix already gives enough variety and there isn't a lot of space.

+ Show Spoiler [overview] +

+ Show Spoiler [angled overview] +

Besides making a couple of aesthetic changes here and there, I also moved the rocks blocking the extra front ramp to the bottom of said ramp, as the previous solution (70% scale factor) produced bad results with the fog of war. Why Blizzard would make all the square obstacles fit on single or double ramps, except the 4x4 rocks, will forever remain a mystery to me.

This version is available on B.net EU (v0.8) ; I will likely send it to the TL map conterst later today, as I will be unavailable in the following days.

L4mppu

Finland40 Posts

October 29 2011 17:50 GMT

#25

I really like it. I think the center of the map is awsome and map looks cool and still has space to move. =D

Apom

France655 Posts

October 29 2011 20:09 GMT

#26

Thanks L4mppu

I added a rock texture lining to the cliffs of the main bases, in order to make a clearer distinction between high ground and low ground (a player-perspective issue that only affected the south base, but I did both for symetry). Also made some minor aesthetic changes to various mineral lines. Map is published as v0.10 on B.net EU.

For those interested, some real-life pictures that may relate to this map (also added to OP) :
- low ground : Sabarmati River floodlands (India)
- middle ground : Val Terbi (Switzerland)
- high ground : South Dakota high plains (USA)

Finally, the map has been submitted to the TL contest.

Apom

France655 Posts

November 10 2011 19:48 GMT

#27

Some minor changes :

- cosmetic adjustements to some doodads' variations and alignments (changes do not affect gameplay).
- slightly extended map bounds in all directions, because it hurt my heart that the B.net overview would cut some parts of the map.
- added a water tile to the bottom of the map (outside of play area) to prevent a visual glitch.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed feedback in this thread or outside, that feedback was invaluable in helping me reach a stage where I obtained an honourable mention in the Team Liquid Map Contest !

As a last note, I have made my own working version of the map private on B.net. The point is to use the TLMC version as reference.

thezanursic

5478 Posts

November 11 2011 20:21 GMT

#28

LOVE IT!!!
People should make more 2v2 maps. I think people should follow your example and make more 2v2 maps. I was kinda suprised people didn't try to enter more 2v2 maps in to the contest.

Apom

France655 Posts

November 12 2011 05:57 GMT

#29

On November 12 2011 05:21 thezanursic wrote:
LOVE IT!!!
People should make more 2v2 maps. I think people should follow your example and make more 2v2 maps. I was kinda suprised people didn't try to enter more 2v2 maps in to the contest.

Thanks

I think that most serious mappers aim for their maps to be "competitive". In large part, this is because the only way that a map can achieve some level of visibility outside of a small circle of fellow map-makers is if it's featured in a tournament. Since almost no tournament takes 2v2 seriously, it follows that almost no mapper takes 2v2 seriously.

The TL contest offered an opportunity for some team maps to be brought in the limelight, and a few mappers seized that opportunity, but even so the teamplay maps that received an honorable mention did not actually win (no prizes etc.). Of course there is the possibility of making it into the ladder pool, that probably would count as a victory, but for now we can only hope that Blizzard will make that move - there is no guarantee that any map will be retained for ladder, at all. On the other hand, the 1v1 finalists will have their maps played in a TL Open Tournament, and the winners will receive valuable prizes. It makes sense that people with a strong line-up of 1v1 maps would focus on that part of the contest.

Apom

France655 Posts

May 20 2012 16:00 GMT

#30

Warning: The last post in this thread is over two months old.
If you bump this, you better have a good reason.

As a matter of fact I do ! :p

I updated Fields of Strife with the following changes :
- made the outer expansions regular yield instead of high yield
- the low ground surrounding said expansions is now entirely unpathable, and has been slightly reworked for aesthetics
- minor texture improvements in a few places
- made custom melee available, for people who want to play with AIs

+ Show Spoiler [overview] +

The map has been uploaded to B.net EU under version number 1.0.

(note to mods : I can't update the OP because the edit link is unavailable, can you help on that issue ?)

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

May 20 2012 16:51 GMT

#31

Hey this map really looks good

even though I think you should maybe give it a couple more expansions, so every player can at least have 3 bases? right now there are 12 blue bases and 2 gold bases, which is very much a small number for a 2v2 map I think.

My suggestion would be to put an expansion right under the LoS blocker in the main, near the ramp, that would make it easier to get more expansions.

I think I played this map a long time ago, but I am not sure ^^ what I can say besides to add more expansions is that it seems the middle is very chokes compared to the area near the main ramp which is very open, I don't know if that is good or bad, what I can say that I see a Protoss / Terran team having problems expanding since there is so much area to cover, but I think we shall wait and see.

Apom

France655 Posts

May 20 2012 17:54 GMT

#32

Hey moskonia,

Just as you counted, there is indeed a total of 7 bases per team, which is exactly the same as every 4 player 2v2 map made by Blizzard, except Monlyth Ridge / Arid Wastes (which only have 6) and Twilight Fortress (which has 9). It should be noted that, when Blizzard retired Twilight Fortress from the map pool, they stated that the excessive (in their eyes) number of expansions was a reason for its retirement.

It is of course arguable that there should be "competition-oriented" maps with more emphasis on macro and multiple expansions, and some mapmakers have done just that (Citadel of Gaia comes to mind), but I personnally have doubts on the matter.

I also wished to produce a map that was very compliant to ladder standards - better, but not revolutionary - in hopes that Blizzard would consider it for ladder roation, but that is another story. At any rate, thanks for your feedback

moskonia

Israel1448 Posts

May 20 2012 18:24 GMT

#33

Blizzard maps sucks

there is no doubt in that matter, don't try to make a map that is at that level, if your map is good and can be used in competitions it can also be used in ladder. I think 2v2 maps can be and will be competitive in the future, it is important that there will be a good number of decent maps in order for the match up to start being competitive. Yours is already quite excellent, but I think 1-2 more expansions for each team would do it just good

Toboe

United States276 Posts

June 22 2012 22:48 GMT

#34

The 1.0 version of this map is now uploaded to NA under the name (2v2) Fields of Strife. You can find it fastest by looking for "2v2 Fields Strife" since including "of" gives you about a billion other maps. It's published under "SingleReed" but credit is given to Apom in the description.

Guardian85

162 Posts

June 22 2012 23:48 GMT

#35

But why 4 Xel'naga towers?
Maybe its just me, but...
Ok so its hard to control 4 towers.. but even just running 4 workers there would let you observe anything hostile in good time before it happens..

I'd reduce it to maybe 3 just for the challenge bit.

Anyways great Aesthetics and cool idea for making a habitable colony.
And since the map bounds are what they are, i think 7 bases per side is pretty good.

Apom

France655 Posts

June 23 2012 05:58 GMT

#36

I fixed a couple of unpathable terrain issues (thanks to Toboe's feedback), and uploaded v1.1 to EU with these fixes.

Guardian, making defending somewhat easier is - in my opinion - a reasonable goal in 2v2. I agree with you in that I would not want a 1v1 map with that kind of Xel'Naga coverage, but I find it fine for 2v2.

Also it's impossible to hold all four towers, unless you contain your opponents so hard you have practically won, because the central towers are very close to the teams' respective bases. Plus the side towers can be stalemated (is that a word?) if each player sends a worker there, because you can't attack the other side in melee before breaking the rocks.