EPT[D] Competitive 2v2 maps. - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On May 16 2012 03:54 IronManSC wrote: I have no desire to create team maps unless there is a demand for them; much like there's a demand for more 1v1 competitive maps. This thread is giving that demand - right? Or you mean you want to get paid or something...? | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
| ||
|
TC_Beynbio
Norway81 Posts
 | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On May 16 2012 04:42 Callynn wrote: This thread is giving that demand - right? Or you mean you want to get paid or something...? No. E-sports, tournaments, organizers, and players want competitive 1v1 maps. There are a few people, who are merely players, who say "we want more team maps." Which one sounds more demanding? | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Beside the cycle theory, I think that trying to make 2v2 maps might be fun and new no? it is a completely different thing then 1v1 maps, and that is interesting to balance. Since there are so little 2v2 maps, you can easily create a unique map that has cool features, and is still better then the current pool! you can experiment alot if you like, since your almost certain of getting a decent map out. At last there is always a demand, even if small for competitive 2v2 maps, since there are already small 2v2 tournaments, and of course there are the clan wars which require a Bo3 series of 2v2 (atleast the ones I played in), so if there will be good 2v2 maps, you will have a place to publish them, and you are almost certain to get your map in! | ||
|
Andross88
United States1 Post
Although the layouts aren't great, at least there are a decent amount of bases. Rush distances are similar to most of the current 2v2 ladder maps, but on the higher end of the scale (think Discord, not Boneyard). I don't know, just an idea. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On May 16 2012 13:50 Andross88 wrote: Until some of the really cool map ideas in this thread are completely fleshed out, maybe Blizzard's 4v4 maps that have a 2-base setup could be used, like High Ground, Deadlock Ridge, or Outpost (In case anyone was wondering, when you set up a 2v2 on one of those maps, it does place you and your ally together in a base, with your opponents on the opposite side of the map. Well, except for High Ground.) Although the layouts aren't great, at least there are a decent amount of bases. Rush distances are similar to most of the current 2v2 ladder maps, but on the higher end of the scale (think Discord, not Boneyard). I don't know, just an idea. I think High Ground might work for this if you just changed the middle a bit (no gold bases, make it less death-trappy) | ||
|
thezanursic
5479 Posts
On May 16 2012 03:54 IronManSC wrote: I have no desire to create team maps unless there is a demand for them; much like there's a demand for more 1v1 competitive maps. I am pretty sure blizzard would add good 2v2 maps to their map poll. Is that enough of a demand? | ||
|
thezanursic
5479 Posts
On May 16 2012 06:33 moskonia wrote: Even though there is a bigger demand for 1v1 maps, it is only like this cause 2v2 balance is sh!t and the games are boring rush fests, and the is because of the maps. As you see it is a cycle, you bring good maps (no need for excellent maps like in 1v1, where only the best maps are used), and then people see 2v2 has better games, then there is bigger demand since there are more tournaments with 2v2 and it goes on. Beside the cycle theory, I think that trying to make 2v2 maps might be fun and new no? it is a completely different thing then 1v1 maps, and that is interesting to balance. Since there are so little 2v2 maps, you can easily create a unique map that has cool features, and is still better then the current pool! you can experiment alot if you like, since your almost certain of getting a decent map out. At last there is always a demand, even if small for competitive 2v2 maps, since there are already small 2v2 tournaments, and of course there are the clan wars which require a Bo3 series of 2v2 (atleast the ones I played in), so if there will be good 2v2 maps, you will have a place to publish them, and you are almost certain to get your map in! I agree. And I am a 100% sure that there are 2v2 map designs that would produce interesting games, but what blizzard has in their polls is very far from that. | ||
|
Blindo
United States102 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309673 Unfortunately most of the maps in the current 2v2 map pool feature close rush distances with wide open naturals. I wish Blizzard would consider just increasing the size of 2v2 maps, I think this would go a long way to improving the league. If map size was increased, then we wouldn't run into the "You have to have center control to take a third" problem that most 2v2 maps have. There's many maps, like scorched haven, where one team having a third excludes the other team from having a third. I do not think that shared bases are a necessity for macro 2v2 maps. Half of the current 2v2 ladder maps where present in season one. More than anything, this shows that Blizzard doesn't really care about team games. I was once a top 8 masters 2v2 player, but now I hardly even bother to play 2v2s, because of the map pool and meta game. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
 it is has almost no texturing for right now (Except for a cave I colored  ) so don't be harsh on me. Here it is:+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EqzwI.jpg) I have a spot for 2 more expansions for each team, but I don't think it is really needed. Anyways the playable bounds are 188x164 | ||
|
locopuyo
United States144 Posts
On May 17 2012 01:50 moskonia wrote: I have tried making a map, tell me what you think about it, I have made the cliff levels in different colors, it is has almost no texturing for right now (Except for a cave I colored ) so don't be harsh on me. Here it is:+ Show Spoiler +I have a spot for 2 more expansions for each team, but I don't think it is really needed. Anyways the playable bounds are 188x164 I like the way it looks so far. The middle might be a little too open though. Also maybe through some minerals at the top and bottom centers where there is nothing there. I would really have to play it to get a better feel for it. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Anwyays about the middle I though since it is a 2v2 it better be open, but if after playing it, it seems very open I will change it. | ||
|
-rndmMusliM-
14 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/e29131267ff2121d3a88da3cd1e0e816275e2cf71d9c3e3c68b10c0a3034b89d4g.jpg) This is my 2v2 map. I'm not an artist so it doesn't look that good. Regarding the map size and style; it has two easy naturals, thirds and was constructed with an anti a click one base mind set. It is hosted as "NightbreakLE" or "Nightbreak" (One of the two) Again, i am not an artist so i know it looks pathetic compared to the maps in the map pool but I wanted to make a map that was more macro oriented and would maybe help a 2v2 game go past the 10 minute mark without having to take your natural expo after you have one based for the first 10 minutes. Feedback is appreciated! Thanks, rndmMusliM | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
I'm worried that defender's advantage might simply be too great with this setup. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UvA9Y.jpg) | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
One more thing, what is the distance between the natural ramps? it seems awfully short... | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
nat ramp to nat ramp is 23 sec | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
| ||
