EPT[D] Competitive 2v2 maps. - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Kmatt
United States1019 Posts
| ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:58 Gfire wrote: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CokQy.jpg) Here, I updated it a bit. There are now watchtowers on the high ground and bases near the middle, and changed the structure and sizes of some chokes a bit. Is the center too powerful now? I like the idea. Definitely much better than the Blizzard maps. I would have some suggestions; attached is an image detailing my ideas. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M8LVR.png) 1: Move the mains slightly closer together. It's currently pretty easy to bust into the inner main. 2: Move one of the main ramps away from the middle, and cut away part of the high ground. Currently, the high ground is too good for tanks. I know I seem to be contradicting point 1. My point is that this area is too strong when defending, but if poorly defended it becomes so easy to attack 1 guy's main. 3: Rotate the 3/9 o clock bases so that the low ground path is wider. Also serves to put some distances between the low/high ground base. Currently, a set of PFs literally lock down everything. We need more maps like this! | ||
|
Adventure
United States16 Posts
 good contribution to the 2v2 community | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:40 DoubleReed wrote: You can't possibly complain about lunar colony's rush distance while advocating boneyard. Your first 5 expansions on Boneyard are away from the opponent. Lunar Colony lacks the viable flank paths that are integral to army positioning an engagements on Boneyard. A number of other things like LosB and tower setup contribute as well. If you've played any 2v2 you know Lunar Colony, Magma Core, and Scorched Haven are all a trainwreck of playing chicken with expansion timing. Boneyard imo is the map that least exhibits this trait which is common to all the other maps in the ladder pool currently. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:07 EatThePath wrote: Your first 5 expansions on Boneyard are away from the opponent. Lunar Colony lacks the viable flank paths that are integral to army positioning an engagements on Boneyard. A number of other things like LosB and tower setup contribute as well. If you've played any 2v2 you know Lunar Colony, Magma Core, and Scorched Haven are all a trainwreck of playing chicken with expansion timing. Boneyard imo is the map that least exhibits this trait which is common to all the other maps in the ladder pool currently. Boneyard has an incredibly short rush distance, significantly less than Lunar Colony. End of story. Holding off rushes is way harder on it, because you're also further from your ramp (and the ramp is essential to fending off things like ling/hellion). And the bases really aren't that easy to take (other than the inbase natural), so I'm surprised you're defending it. Boneyard is just a straight up rush map. Taking bases "away from your opponent" isn't the only thing you need to be concerned with taking bases (and that's also false if you spawn cross position anyway). Lunar Colony and Magma Core are OK. You can take bases on them pretty well, and Magma Core you can actually turtle up on five bases incredibly easily. It's really quite simple to defend two ramps and the middle expo on your side. I don't know why people are saying that's hard to do. Lunar Colony isn't really that bad (other than the open natural). Are you trying to take the lowground natural? That can cause a lot of problems. I don't really know why you brought up Scorched Haven because it's a completely different monster altogether. | ||
|
PowerDes
United States520 Posts
| ||
|
Vecix
9 Posts
Tyrador Keep - I like it because one person can safely fe while the other can successfully defend most 1base cheese all ins because of the powerful positioning of the highground main. (sucks to have double Z though). What I don't like is the spawn imbalance. Bottom sucks. If the left and right main were kept but the center was taken out and redone along with the bottom spawn it has the potential to be an amazing map. 2v2 makes it so taking out the rocks is no real problem for the defender if they want to take the gold third in L-R spawns because it's easy to watch for opponent army movement and defend easily. The thing is it is kind of risky because there is nowhere to go after that. It needs some more positional reworking in cross and the bottom needs to be taken out is my say. It has a ton of potential that it just doesn't live up to. Fun map though Scorched Haven - hard to fe because you die to early rushes but I like it. It's pretty balanced I think (muta strong) though the side bases (6 and 12) need another base nearby toward the main away from the hidden thirds (11 and 9) to promote that expo pattern and give a better risk-reward ratio to those daring to take it. Makes the currently worthless XWTs worth fighting for too, maybe put them on lowground. Overall a fun map with a lot of 2-3 base play by us using the hidden third noone ever checks. Magma Core - Fun. My friend always puts a hatchery in their wall and somehow it always works. We've gone 4wins of 5 by just placing a hatch in their wall spine/ling it up and than have a 1gate/6gate/+1+1 ling follow it and somehow always win. Makes for shortish games but macro games are crazy bad. It's impossible to defend harass once you try to take 5 bases. The attack arcs are way way shorter than the defenders arcs, especially with blinkstalker colo, muta, any air really, or storm drops. All of which I abuse to the max whenever I play on this map. Lots of things to abuse. Good expo pattern though. Fix mains so the D arcs are shorter than the A arcs and it'd be pretty good. Maybe give it mains like The Ruins of Tarsonis tried for. Discord IV - Close nat -> far nat makes for interesting games. I don't have too much to say. Tanks are really really powerful because of the possible positioning. Ling/muta is insane for harass, really lets you take map control which secures the gold. Really nice for ZT teams that go tank/marine/ling/muta/festor because ling/muta makes it so you opponent can't move out without risking losing their whole econ while the tank marine festor keeps them from attacking as the ling/muta can just pull back and kill the scraps left from attacking that kind of army with god positioning. Usually fun though because it hardly gets to that stage. Usually 1base all-ins like most 2v2 maps or 1base 2base all-ins that can be crushed with a good ling/marine/stalker sentry timing. Boneyard - Good but really really gimmicy. I like what was tried with the pocket expo but after that there is nowhere to expo at all. It is necessary to either win via beast harass or do a huge timing push contain so you can sneak in another base or two until your better econ can just stomp them. It really comes down to who wins the first decisive engagement or snipes more hatches/CCs/Nexuses. The Ruins of Tarsonis - Stepps of War of 2v2. Good idea with the layout but take three steps and your in your opponents base. Suggested it earlier, put a similar type of main in Magma Core and it'd be super awesome. Or just expand this map taller so it's not, quite literally a 3 second distance nat-nat. High Orbit - Good but the backdoor is far too gimmicy. ZZ teams can 7rr the back rocks until the sun implodes and win every game. We've veto'd it because we just got tired of having a backdoor sniped midgame and losing half our econ and all of our tech because we forgot to recapture their XWT. Yes theirs, with both armies in the middle defending the front the D arc for defending the rocks is longer than the A arc which would never stand in 1v1 games. Makes for huge imbalances toward mobile armies. Hence whenever we used to play it T=MMM Z=Roach festor (mobile but canstill engage in the weird small chokes near rocks created by building and army positioning) P=Stalker colo or stalker ht dt cannon. (cannon make good D from harass and stalker dt is super mobile while ht kills everything in straight engage.) Lunar Colony V - There is no expanding. You might be able to hold the pocket expo but you best kill their army and try to contain them before you can be sure it's kinda safe. It's like Boneyard without the pocket expo or the ability to harass because how the mains are shaped. 1 engage and it's decided usually. Lame too because of the rocks on the second "nat" that can be blinked away midgame by an army you didn't notice decided to attack. Again veto'd because it's no fun. Too many rushes that you lose to if you don't do the same thing and micro better. @Namrufus: You are a god with Tyrador Battlement, looks so nice. I want to try it. @Gfire: Expo patterns are looking nice. On the bottom main I’d move the left spawn and switch it with the low ground nat positionally and give a bigger shared ramp on the 6 o clock main. Makes holding off bane busts and the like ten times easier than with two separate ramps. Also your D arc is way bigger than your attakers arc making it so, early game, they can poke one side, force both armies over to defend (especially if teching and not rushing yourself) than hit the other ramp while the defender can’t reposition to save it and it’s insta win for anybody who rushes instantly with, say bane marine or sent anything as sent could just ff the one ramp while the armies are on opposite sides, bust up, kill 1 army reinforce, kill the second as it arrives and win. Two ramps especially in positioning like that is bad. Fix that up though and it looks pretty awesome. Heh_’s suggestions are pretty good too imo. Well wrote way more than intended. Whatever. Read it or not. Tl:dr a lot of current maps have potential but suck as is. I would but I can’t figure out the editor for my life. Have fun. Edit: Clearing a few things up. Finding an emote that killed one of my sentences. Woo for it being 1am | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Lunar Colony V - There is no expanding. You might be able to hold the pocket expo but you best kill their army and try to contain them before you can be sure it's kinda safe. It's like Boneyard without the pocket expo or the ability to harass because how the mains are shaped. 1 engage and it's decided usually. Lame too because of the rocks on the second "nat" that can be blinked away midgame by an army you didn't notice decided to attack. Again veto'd because it's no fun. Too many rushes that you lose to if you don't do the same thing and micro better. Sigh... can people at least TRY to take the base on the other side before just writing off a map as impossible to expand on? Yes, the second natural with the rocks is terrible. Nobody is doubting that. Then don't expand there. Take the expo on the other side with the highground. It is much easier. This is gone over in great detail in this thead: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309673¤tpage=4 The author makes a similar statement of the apparent impossible expansions on the map, and multiple people correct him on the better expansion path. | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
| ||
|
Vecix
9 Posts
On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote: Sigh... can people at least TRY to take the base on the other side before just writing off a map as impossible to expand on? Yes, the second natural with the rocks is terrible. Nobody is doubting that. Then don't expand there. Take the expo on the other side with the highground. It is much easier. This is gone over in great detail in this thead: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309673¤tpage=4 The author makes a similar statement of the apparent impossible expansions on the map, and multiple people correct him on the better expansion path. Yeah I see what you're saying and I have tried that expo path but again, you either die by an attack to you first nat because your armies are split trying to defend both that nat and the highground bases. Yes one army can defend the highgounds because it's so positionally strong but there is zero defenders advantage at the first nat so if it's 2 armies vs 1 army there, assuming you're equal skill macro as your opponent. Then you've lost a base, you can't engage without super good positioning and they have free reign of your mains with all your tech and production. And if you have both armies at that nat to defend it vs those exact circumstances than you're susceptible to that being scouted and a ling/hellion/zealot/bstalker runby at those highground expos, or if you wall it off, a full attack there that can kill that production, mining and get away to their base before you can usually defend. Or if you pull around to cut them off and do win decisively it's game. I don't like maps where 1 fight always wins and this is one of those maps. You're defending the highground expo path when there's little to defend. I didn't go in depth to that map cuz I was getting tired and figured the things wrong that path were obvious enough. Admittedly it might be good if the close base was pulled down-left and the far base was pushed up-left a tiny bit with the ramp close to the opponent was spun to resemble the direction of main choke of Tyrador Keep more. would make it easier to hold 2-3 bases. It'd could be good fairly easily but, imo, as it it's one of the worst, if not the worst, map in the pool right now. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 06 2012 04:29 Vecix wrote: Yeah I see what you're saying and I have tried that expo path but again, you either die by an attack to you first nat because your armies are split trying to defend both that nat and the highground bases. Yes one army can defend the highgounds because it's so positionally strong but there is zero defenders advantage at the first nat so if it's 2 armies vs 1 army there, assuming you're equal skill macro as your opponent. Then you've lost a base, you can't engage without super good positioning and they have free reign of your mains with all your tech and production. And if you have both armies at that nat to defend it vs those exact circumstances than you're susceptible to that being scouted and a ling/hellion/zealot/bstalker runby at those highground expos, or if you wall it off, a full attack there that can kill that production, mining and get away to their base before you can usually defend. Or if you pull around to cut them off and do win decisively it's game. I don't like maps where 1 fight always wins and this is one of those maps. You're defending the highground expo path when there's little to defend. I didn't go in depth to that map cuz I was getting tired and figured the things wrong that path were obvious enough. Admittedly it might be good if the close base was pulled down-left and the far base was pushed up-left a tiny bit with the ramp close to the opponent was spun to resemble the direction of main choke of Tyrador Keep more. would make it easier to hold 2-3 bases. It'd could be good fairly easily but, imo, as it it's one of the worst, if not the worst, map in the pool right now. I don't know what you're talking about. The bases are pretty close. I don't see why you would be put into a 1v2 situation. I mean unless you're completely blind about everything and don't help your ally. | ||
|
Vecix
9 Posts
On May 06 2012 05:27 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know what you're talking about. The bases are pretty close. I don't see why you would be put into a 1v2 situation. I mean unless you're completely blind about everything and don't help your ally. Yeah or unless you're facing someone who's half decent and will attack so that you have to defend or you lose half your econ and follows you shifting your D with a bigger stronger attack against whichever location doesn't have as much D. Agressive always wins on this map, and if both teams are agressive than agressive + good harass wins unless you somehow manage to pul a hero D and your opponent messed up on attacking. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWXby.jpg) I tried to alter the base setup a bit. Now it takes longer to move from ramp to ramp on the outside than the inside, unless the rocks are destroyed, at which point the defenders will have to seize a forward position. I guess they'd probably have to anyway, since the opponents could be expanding while containing and then they'd need to expand as well. Does this seem playable? Will it be too hard to expand before taking down the rocks, maybe? I think the collapsable rocks from HotS could help a lot in 2v2 base setups. | ||
|
Toboe
United States276 Posts
On May 06 2012 06:29 Vecix wrote: Yeah or unless you're facing someone who's half decent and will attack so that you have to defend or you lose half your econ and follows you shifting your D with a bigger stronger attack against whichever location doesn't have as much D. Agressive always wins on this map, and if both teams are agressive than agressive + good harass wins unless you somehow manage to pul a hero D and your opponent messed up on attacking. Please provide replays where you are forced into this situation and could not avoid it | ||
|
Vecix
9 Posts
On May 06 2012 07:02 Toboe wrote: Please provide replays where you are forced into this situation and could not avoid it Don't have them anymore. One was a festor attack were it was either go down and deal with IFs or lose a base though. The other was a feint to the front, killed our scouting obs than move in and kill econ. We were PP. Both games were ages ago. As I said we've had the map veto'd. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 06 2012 05:27 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know what you're talking about. The bases are pretty close. I don't see why you would be put into a 1v2 situation. I mean unless you're completely blind about everything and don't help your ally. I don't think I'm going to change your mind with map based arguments, and I'm fine if we just disagree. But I'd like to know, what level do you play 2v2 at? My personal experience at top masters has been that my best, least gimmicky macro games are on Boneyard and Tyrador Keep. Every other map is either mexican standoff or impossible middle expansions --> cost effective engagements / starvation from 5 minutes on. @vecix: thanks for sharing. ^^ | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 06 2012 14:59 EatThePath wrote: I don't think I'm going to change your mind with map based arguments, and I'm fine if we just disagree. But I'd like to know, what level do you play 2v2 at? My personal experience at top masters has been that my best, least gimmicky macro games are on Boneyard and Tyrador Keep. Every other map is either mexican standoff or impossible middle expansions --> cost effective engagements / starvation from 5 minutes on. @vecix: thanks for sharing. ^^ I"m master with a PZ team (maybe mid or high master I dunno?). I don't really think it matters because people should be trying to figure out maps before writing them off so quickly. I'm not trying to use arguments from authority or whatever. Again, Boneyard encourages far more cheesey gimmicky games. Because even after failed cheeses, you don't have any positional disadvantage from taking a natural (inbase naturals are weird). My experience at masters is that Boneyard has the most gimmicky play out of all the maps. Super quick tank contains, quick rush into turtling, just straight up rushing because of the shitty rush distance. I suppose I could say I think it's a 'terran favored map', but really it's just a rush map. Tyrador has those terrible positional problems where the team on the bottom tends to get an extra base over their opponent. After two-base the positional issues become prevalent. But before that it's pretty good. Tyrador and Boneyard are both extremely tiny maps in comparison to Lunar and Magma, and smaller maps tend toward more "1 fight wins the game" games which are boring as hell. So in terms of actually having fun games where you expand, defend, be aggressive, use quick armies, use slow armies, blah blah the best variety and macroness comes out of Lunar and Magma imo. I have had far far far more fun, interesting, epic, macro-based games on Lunar and Magma than I have ever had on Boneyard. Edit: I suppose I do fight a lot of1base all-ins on Lunar, because I guess people don't know how to expand on that map. But we don't have any problem defending them, and getting way ahead with expansions \o/. I do think Lunar is good map for Zerg. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/02jQO.jpg) And an old unskinned version which is some-what clearer to see levels and stuff in. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A6YCo.jpg) It has no name, nothing, it's not published. Anyway, the charactaristic features which I do believe improve competitative 2v2 play: - Shared fortress but with two different entrances from 2 different location - There are two 'naturals', one natural has a standard 8m2g node and another 4m1g node, the other natural only has one 6m1rg node. Offering the choice to expand together but with fewer resources or expand away from each other for slightly more resources. The 6m1rg node is the most defensible of all 3 expos. - All players can secure a third, or even a fourth (total of 22 resource nodes on the map) - Most nodes are 6m1rg, however some 8m2g nodes exist on locations which are hard to secure and some unusual thinghs like 4m2g nodes exist in some awkward places. - Purposefully there are many different lanes and paths to the enemy one can take, but one centre path. - There's a lot of terrain, especially in 2v2 I do not feel for wide open spaces as it will just encourage large 400/400 battles which are actually not as efficient any more the more chokes and terrains occur. Also, since Z is popularly understood as the most powerful 2v2 race having less open spaces shouldn't hurt that much. - It isn't Steppes of War in the rush distance department like most Blizz maps. Again, it doesn't have a name, and it's not published or playable, it's just a concept of what I believe would perhaps lead to a good 2v2 competitative map. | ||
|
Toboe
United States276 Posts
That map is so aesthetically pleasing I want to use it as my desktop background  On May 07 2012 00:17 SiskosGoatee wrote: - Shared fortress but with two different entrances from 2 different location - There are two 'naturals', one natural has a standard 8m2g node and another 4m1g node, the other natural only has one 6m1rg node. Offering the choice to expand together but with fewer resources or expand away from each other for slightly more resources. The 6m1rg node is the most defensible of all 3 expos. - All players can secure a third, or even a fourth (total of 22 resource nodes on the map) - Most nodes are 6m1rg, however some 8m2g nodes exist on locations which are hard to secure and some unusual thinghs like 4m2g nodes exist in some awkward places. - Purposefully there are many different lanes and paths to the enemy one can take, but one centre path. - There's a lot of terrain, especially in 2v2 I do not feel for wide open spaces as it will just encourage large 400/400 battles which are actually not as efficient any more the more chokes and terrains occur. Also, since Z is popularly understood as the most powerful 2v2 race having less open spaces shouldn't hurt that much. - It isn't Steppes of War in the rush distance department like most Blizz maps. Really great design ideas behind it too. I like how you solved the design problem of having 2 entrances to a shared main by using a  High Orbit style of making the attacking team really commit to one or the other. And at the same time you used the two paths from the main to cater to different styles of 2v2 by letting teams easily select their expansion timings. Please publish this map  | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 07 2012 00:17 SiskosGoatee wrote: + Show Spoiler + Anyway, the charactaristic features which I do believe improve competitative 2v2 play: - Shared fortress but with two different entrances from 2 different location - There are two 'naturals', one natural has a standard 8m2g node and another 4m1g node, the other natural only has one 6m1rg node. Offering the choice to expand together but with fewer resources or expand away from each other for slightly more resources. The 6m1rg node is the most defensible of all 3 expos. - All players can secure a third, or even a fourth (total of 22 resource nodes on the map) - Most nodes are 6m1rg, however some 8m2g nodes exist on locations which are hard to secure and some unusual thinghs like 4m2g nodes exist in some awkward places. - Purposefully there are many different lanes and paths to the enemy one can take, but one centre path. - There's a lot of terrain, especially in 2v2 I do not feel for wide open spaces as it will just encourage large 400/400 battles which are actually not as efficient any more the more chokes and terrains occur. Also, since Z is popularly understood as the most powerful 2v2 race having less open spaces shouldn't hurt that much. - It isn't Steppes of War in the rush distance department like most Blizz maps. Again, it doesn't have a name, and it's not published or playable, it's just a concept of what I believe would perhaps lead to a good 2v2 competitative map. :O Wow that map looks amazing. I would definitely like to play on it. Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? | ||
| ||
