|
Good day people, today I wish to talk about an important matter, competitive 2v2 maps. I know, I know, 2v2 is mostly cheese, all ins and other imbalanced shenanigans, but that is only cause there are bad maps!
Today map standard for 2v2, correct me if I am wrong, is easy 1 expo and then hard to get expo's mostly, so 1 player (the zerg most of the time) gets to have an expo before you all in the crap out of the other team cause you can't have decent macro in such maps.
What I suggest is people trying to find ways to make 2v2 games better and longer, maps that you can FE with ease if you know the metagame for 2v2 (I don't play almost any 2v2 even though I like the matchup, so I don;t know the metagame sadly). If people want to get 2v2 to have big tournaments and stuff, there needs to be maps first.
Late-game 2v2 can be REALLY good to watch, it has so much more options then 1v1 it is just great to spectate (even though it is harder to play for sure). If you want a few examples I can think of right now, imagine this:
Late-game TP vs ZP, after all the mid-game pushes everyone is even and the Protoss wants to go for a transition into to the rarely seen carriers, normally in 1v1 it would be VERY hard since he will have a vulnerable time, but here the Terran can harass and force the enemies to stay in base and so we see things we would not see in normal games.
I can think of other much more exiting things that could never exist in 1v1, and make the game much better to watch, but sadly these things will very rarely if not never exist in today's 2v2 since the maps wont allow for macro games and are just more favorite to 1-2 base play, which is pretty sad.
I myself am not a good map maker, while I will try to make a good 2v2 map I will most likely wont succeed. And so, I ask you, the great map makers of TL to try and balance at least a bit the game for 2v2 macro play, if there will be some good maps I am sure people will try to make tournaments with these maps and the community will better recognize the 2v2 matchup as the great thing that it is!
TL;DR
I call in for the community to make good, macro oriented 2v2 maps, in order that we will not miss the awesome potential that lies in the matchup.
|
The sad thing about 2v2 maps is: they are mostly shared bases, which takes away a lot.
If one could find a way of making a 2v2 map that doesn't have shared bases but still isn't totally owned by a rush that would be a good start I think.
|
I am trying at the moment to make a semi shared base, something like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z9L3F.png)
I don't know if that counts as separate bases, but it does have two ramps so I think it is cool 
|
Expect some 2v2 maps from ESV in the near future. I know a few of us are looking to work on them.
|
Wow that is great news, looking forward to it :D
|
Separate base can be smaller, but shared base maps have to be larger.
And you are wrong, 2v2 is not mostly cheese. As blizzard child-friendly shared base maps were added into the pool, you see much more macro games; however, the blizzard maps are terrible and favored for certain race combinations based on spawning location and map size.
|
As one of the admins for the Plat'n'Up 2v2 weekly tournament, I fully support this call for mid-to-late-game oriented 2v2 maps. Maps that allow reactionary and defensive play to thrive while having the room for players to get three saturated bases are definitely needed for the format.
We would gladly rotate such maps into the map pool for the tournament that save us from casting even more 1-2 base all-ins
|
I had the idea of 2 bases with a small runway between them that would only allow small units like marines/lings/zealots to pass in order to defend rushes.
Otherwise the exits of the bases would be kinda far away from each other.
Example:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 04 2012 01:25 RubiksCube wrote:
The sad thing about 2v2 maps is: they are mostly shared bases, which takes away a lot.
If one could find a way of making a 2v2 map that doesn't have shared bases but still isn't totally owned by a rush that would be a good start I think.
You may want to take a look at Iron Curtain. Anyways, i don't think its necessary to have shared bases or the like, BW 2v2 maps didn't have sahred or near based and it as "fine".
shameless selfpromotion: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=147942 (thread and pics are old)
or this one with high ground: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316544
I had the idea to make a concept very similar to Iron Curtain but with neutral eggs instead of minerals.
|
I was just watching the 2v2 vods from MLG and was totally thinking the same thing. With the ability to restrict spawn positions, team games in SC2 could become something really great. 2v2 having a place in team leagues is something I would hope for in the future.
I'm definitely going to work on some 2v2 maps. I don't know anything about balancing it for the race combinations, though, other than what I can try to figure out in my head just based on what I know about all the units.
|
Maur while I like the style of the map, it is clearly not set for macro, with only the natural as a valid expansion, and maybe a 3rd if you defend with all you got on both sides to get it. It is clearly not the kind of maps I was asking for map makers to make, even though, the dual 1v1 is a really cool concept, but if it was made into a map, I think the map would need 4 bases per player, if not more.
What I am thinking will be good is not new ideas for interesting maps, but simply better maps, since the correct ones are just horrible, and until there are no new maps with higher quality, the 2v2 scene can not go off.
|
On May 04 2012 03:27 Maur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 01:25 RubiksCube wrote:
The sad thing about 2v2 maps is: they are mostly shared bases, which takes away a lot.
If one could find a way of making a 2v2 map that doesn't have shared bases but still isn't totally owned by a rush that would be a good start I think. You may want to take a look at Iron Curtain. Anyways, i don't think its necessary to have shared bases or the like, BW 2v2 maps didn't have sahred or near based and it as "fine". shameless selfpromotion: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=147942 (thread and pics are old) or this one with high ground: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316544I had the idea to make a concept very similar to Iron Curtain but with neutral eggs instead of minerals.
In Broodwar Team Games were very different. First of all, spawns were random, so you could spawn on the same side as your opponent. This is not the case in SC2. Second of all, Broodwar didn't have forcefield or shared unit control. With 3 sentries you can effectively trap a guy inside his base if there aren't shared bases.
I don't like shared bases. Mainly because things can get messy with creep, but also because you don't need to scout early aggression in order to prepare for defense. I think there should be a system to promote scouting, not just putting both allies into one base, so they can always defend together.
Another concept in to do that is, have the opposing team commit to attacking one guy early, so they can't just switch within seconds to attack the other if the first victim is well defended. Or make a back ramp with a way to your allies base that is long enough that it's not to easy to defend, but still possible if you scout who's the rush victim early enough. Or both.
Quick Example:
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: You'd prolly have to make them commit much earlier as in my example, its just the basic idea.
|
Just a quick point
In Broodwar Team Games were very different. First of all, spawns were random, so you could spawn on the same side as your opponent. This is not the case in SC2.
You can still have random spawns, just dont set the allied spawning positions.
I agree with what you two said, i was just pointing it as an example in case you didn't know it.
|
I believe that 2v2 maps have the potential to be balanced and provide great competitive play. The problem ATM is that the Blizzard 2v2 maps basically suck. I would suggest the following;
Several distances need to be taken into account in 2v2 matches. There is of course, main to main and nat to nat, but also consideration should be given to "assistance" distance whereby allies can come to help each other in the event of a rush. I think one of the weirdest things in 2v2 maps is that most of them drastically change the "assistance distance" when the allies start to take natural expansions. I think that this distance should remain mostly unchanged whether the allies are on one base or two bases. As of now, this distance is wildly inconsistent throughout the map pool, which means that each map basically has its own meta game and some rushing strats are quite OP imo.
Here are my opinions on the ladder pool, in order of best to worst.
Case study: The Ruins of Tarsonis
+ Show Spoiler +
I think this is one of the best 2v2 maps in the ladder pool, the bases are shared, but not so much that there are creep spread issues or one ally gets easier acces to expansions. There are also the potential to go up to 3 bases per player, which is good. The bad news is that the rush distances are laughably short, There are gold minerals (ew) and theres a backdoor into the main. Also the natural mineral line can get hit by tanks.
Case study: Discord IV
+ Show Spoiler +
The interesting dynamic in this map is that there is one close natural and one far, which makes for some interesting games. The problem is that bases beyond the close natural are very hard to secure, unless you are lucky enough to hide a base along the sides. Another good thing is that control of center is important, but too much so IMO.
Case Study: Scorched Haven
+ Show Spoiler +
The weird part about this map is that its almost easier to defend 4 bases than your team's initial 2 bases. However, this map really lends itself to 2base (4base) all-ins. There are some pocket expos but again, they are only interesting if you are able to to hide them from your opponents.
Magma Core: While cool in principal, the expansion pattern is just too weird. It actually makes for somewhat fun games, and does provide an opportunity to macro up, but its my feeling that Zerg is too strong on this map. The concept of random start locations that can be used as natural expos should be revisited though.
Tyrador Keep: Whats nice about this map is that its very large, but the in base natural is too gimmicky, and there is positional imbalance like WHOA.
High Orbit: interesting expansion patterns, with the risky gold base, out of the way double natural, and backdoor, but is way too in favor of one base play, or weird strats where one opponent harrasses while the other takes the gold. bleh.
The Boneyard: Not a fan of the pocket expo, or the low ground natural, or the gold base with rocks that basically slaps zerg in the face. The one redeeming quality is the interesting middle. The rotational spawns in kind of interesting too.
Hopefully this text wall will get people thinking a bit more about 2v2 maps, I know I have thought quite a bit about them, and I'm sure others have their own opinions about the ladder pool, which I'd be delighted to hear.
|
I liked the split base setup that Tempest had. Maybe if the naturals were a little closer and there was no crevice inbetween the naturals. Or maybe like Scorched Haven but with the ramps in the back of the naturals rather than the front. Little things like that really make it easier to deal with the early game. I personally don't like inbase naturals (you don't see that shit in 1v1 for good reason), and think that naturals need to have some positional risk to them.
On May 04 2012 06:58 TheFish7 wrote:Case study: The Ruins of Tarsonis + Show Spoiler +I think this is one of the best 2v2 maps in the ladder pool, the bases are shared, but not so much that there are creep spread issues or one ally gets easier acces to expansions. There are also the potential to go up to 3 bases per player, which is good. The bad news is that the rush distances are laughably short, There are gold minerals (ew) and theres a backdoor into the main. Also the natural mineral line can get hit by tanks.
O.O;
That's like saying Steppes of War is a good map because it has a lot of expansions. Who cares how many expansions there are if it has a short rush distance? The fact is that Ruins of Tarsonis is incredibly similar to Steppes of War and is one of worst maps in the map pool. You can move like two feet out of your base and siege the opponent's base. Nothing about the map is well designed.
Magma Core: While cool in principal, the expansion pattern is just too weird. It actually makes for somewhat fun games, and does provide an opportunity to macro up, but its my feeling that Zerg is too strong on this map. The concept of random start locations that can be used as natural expos should be revisited though.
Honestly, the fact that there is an expansion path makes it one of the best maps in the map pool. Magma Core and Lunar Colony are perfectly fine maps to play on. Much better than any of the others to play on. There are perfectly sensible ways to take expansions on the map depending on your playstyle. You can actually get some cool games on these maps due to the design.
|
Actually, if you evaluate the entire 2v2 map pool, all of them would fail by 1v1 standards. For example, Lunar Colony has only 1 close natural, and it's as open as a skinny dipper. And I would say it's one of the "better" maps. I hate Scorched Haven with a vengeance (veto) because the main ramp is SOOOOO far away from the main and that the ramps are forcefield heaven.
Please, someone design good team maps and replace Blizzard maps with them..
|
On May 04 2012 07:24 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Magma Core: While cool in principal, the expansion pattern is just too weird. It actually makes for somewhat fun games, and does provide an opportunity to macro up, but its my feeling that Zerg is too strong on this map. The concept of random start locations that can be used as natural expos should be revisited though. Honestly, the fact that there is an expansion path makes it one of the best maps in the map pool. Magma Core and Lunar Colony are perfectly fine maps to play on. Much better than any of the others to play on. There are perfectly sensible ways to take expansions on the map depending on your playstyle. You can actually get some cool games on these maps due to the design.
Perfectly fine? I think every blizzard 2v2 map in the pool has issues. My problem with Magma core is shown in the picture below.
The purple circles indicate the natural expansions taken for both players. The top indicates one possible expansion route and the bottom indicates another which I tried due to the easy blink defense between my main and natural. I guess this is also a good time to indicate that I mainly play protoss with a terran partner, masters 2v2 level. I haven't had much time to play in the last few months, but since the 2v2 map pool is ancient I feel confident posting about it.
+ Show Spoiler +
The author of this thread does a good job depicting the faults of lunar colony.
The fact is that there are serious problems with every blizzard 2v2 map, however different players/teams are better at dealing with various problems or don't mind that the exist, which is why most 2v2 teams don't agree on which maps are good and which are bad.
I started making a 2v2 map a few months ago, but never really had the time to finish it. It has imo an interesting idea for naturals with or without the pocket expansion. Preferably without it, they are imba imo. I think the problem with 2v2 maps is that map makers aren't experimenting enough with them. You can't just make the naturals and other expansions exactly like 1v1. I think weird map features need to be implemented to see which works out the best. The map is shown below.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 04 2012 07:24 DoubleReed wrote:
That's like saying Steppes of War is a good map because it has a lot of expansions. Who cares how many expansions there are if it has a short rush distance? The fact is that Ruins of Tarsonis is incredibly similar to Steppes of War and is one of worst maps in the map pool. You can move like two feet out of your base and siege the opponent's base. Nothing about the map is well designed.
Yea, what I should say is that this map would be the best 2v2 map if the rush distances weren't retardedly short. I was willing to overlook that in my analysis because I like the main/nat setup, and the fact that taking a 3rd is possible.
I also left out Lunar Colony V - I think the map would be a lot better if the naturals were in any way defendable. Expanding quickly on that map is just asking to lose. the other bases have good risk/reward, but one can only get 7 roach rushed, 4 gated, or 1-1-1'd so many times before they hit veto
|
On May 04 2012 04:01 RubiksCube wrote:
I don't like shared bases. Mainly because things can get messy with creep, but also because you don't need to scout early aggression in order to prepare for defense. I think there should be a system to promote scouting, not just putting both allies into one base, so they can always defend together.
Since both opponents can cheese simultaneously the fact that you share a base does not help much, you still need to scout early in case they cheese. Aslo you MUST scout if you have a zerg on your team to see how gready he can get because zergs need that early hatch to play normal game. I dont see anything wrong with shared mains since it makes early game allins less likely to succeed. And if you play 2v2 at high level you know that those are pretty strong even now at shared main maps. Protoss is already too vulnerable to early game cheese even with main shared I dont see how walking away from current trend of shared bases can be of any benefit. And the creep is not an issue at all if the zerg is mindfull of his partner. This is not sc1 u dont need that much space for your base.
|
On May 04 2012 08:26 Dark Lord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 07:24 DoubleReed wrote:Magma Core: While cool in principal, the expansion pattern is just too weird. It actually makes for somewhat fun games, and does provide an opportunity to macro up, but its my feeling that Zerg is too strong on this map. The concept of random start locations that can be used as natural expos should be revisited though. Honestly, the fact that there is an expansion path makes it one of the best maps in the map pool. Magma Core and Lunar Colony are perfectly fine maps to play on. Much better than any of the others to play on. There are perfectly sensible ways to take expansions on the map depending on your playstyle. You can actually get some cool games on these maps due to the design. Perfectly fine? I think every blizzard 2v2 map in the pool has issues. My problem with Magma core is shown in the picture below. The purple circles indicate the natural expansions taken for both players. The top indicates one possible expansion route and the bottom indicates another which I tried due to the easy blink defense between my main and natural. I guess this is also a good time to indicate that I mainly play protoss with a terran partner, masters 2v2 level. I haven't had much time to play in the last few months, but since the 2v2 map pool is ancient I feel confident posting about it. + Show Spoiler +The author of this thread does a good job depicting the faults of lunar colony. The fact is that there are serious problems with every blizzard 2v2 map, however different players/teams are better at dealing with various problems or don't mind that the exist, which is why most 2v2 teams don't agree on which maps are good and which are bad. I started making a 2v2 map a few months ago, but never really had the time to finish it. It has imo an interesting idea for naturals with or without the pocket expansion. Preferably without it, they are imba imo. I think the problem with 2v2 maps is that map makers aren't experimenting enough with them. You can't just make the naturals and other expansions exactly like 1v1. I think weird map features need to be implemented to see which works out the best. The map is shown below. + Show Spoiler +
Okay, so first of all, did you read that thread on Lunar Colony? It was explained to the author that no one takes that expansion path for the exact reasons he says. Many different people offered advice on a better expansion path. There is actually extensive map discussion in that thread. Lunar Colony is OK.
Secondly, those expansion paths on Magma core are fine. I typically think it's better to take the other main, because it's fantastically easy to turtle up on 5base when you do that. You have extremely little area to cover (although the threat of drops and air can enable a player to break you if you screw it up). You complain about mutas for some silly reason. Obviously you have to split your army up to deal with mutas. You have to do that on almost every map to deal with mutas. No wait, that's just how you have to deal with mutas in general. You have TWO PLAYERS. Come on!
Yes all the maps still have issues. I'm not saying they're the best ever, but Lunar and Magma are significant improvements on the previous maps. They're getting better with every season.
I also left out Lunar Colony V - I think the map would be a lot better if the naturals were in any way defendable. Expanding quickly on that map is just asking to lose. the other bases have good risk/reward, but one can only get 7 roach rushed, 4 gated, or 1-1-1'd so many times before they hit veto
Eh, I'm zerg so I think it's fine to expand on. It should be less open though. The lowground natural is not a good expansion path though. Take the high ground on the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bbSaC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dw9I9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/e/ed/The_Ruins_of_Tarsonis.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/3/3f/Discord_IV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/a/aa/Scorched_Haven.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qtNW8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RX0ho.jpg)
