|
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.
|
I've been inspired by this thread.
What does everyone think about this layout?
+ Show Spoiler +
main to main is ~ 55 seconds w/ worker, about 65 seconds if you go the long way, much less if you take the rocks down
you should be able to use the watch towers to spot if the rocks are going down. I might try to move the bottom left and top right most resources a bit closer to the ramps somehow.
|
On May 04 2012 11:50 TheFish7 wrote:
I've been inspired by this thread.
What does everyone think about this layout?
That actually looks really good for a sketch! Looks like getting up to 5 bases as a team is easy and other expansions are definitely possible with some map control.
I also like that the rocks that open up further paths for more countering opportunities.
I personally don't like the small chokes that are relatively close to each other into the main. As nice as it is to use as defense very early on, it also means it's easy to contain a team to just their main or to snipe a natural with just 2 ff's relatively easily.
The middle high grounds are worrying as far as getting siege units up there, but because that wouldn't really affect anything until the late game it would be more of a quirk than an impedance. But like you said, it's just a layout. I'd really like to see it fleshed out!
|
Wow that looks really good.
Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles.
|
On May 04 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow that looks really good.
Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles.
What do you think of this:
(aesthetics update July 22nd)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iIfna.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [old version] +
it's two teams but there are more bases.
mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep
published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements"
|
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.
BW didnt have shared bases because the pathing was horrible and having a shared base would only get you stuck
|
On May 04 2012 14:22 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow that looks really good.
Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles. What do you think of this: + Show Spoiler [map image] +it's two teams but there are more bases. mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep aesthetics are very WIP published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements"
Only if cross spawns are forced, you don't want close range tank shots being fired on those natural expansions.
|
On May 04 2012 14:22 Namrufus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow that looks really good.
Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles. What do you think of this: + Show Spoiler [map image] +it's two teams but there are more bases. mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep aesthetics are very WIP published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements"
Hell yea that looks like a fun map to play. Looks like it might be a bit choke heavy but I always say that.
|
TheFish7, I really like the way the map seem to look, even though if the rocks are broken taking expansions might prove very difficult, still, the map is really macro oriented. The one change I would like to do though, is maybe putting the 12 / 6 position expo's at a low ground, this will make it so the other bases are easier to defend, and make the rocks less powerful when they break, since there will still be a ramp there.
Namrufus, the way you used it, the main bases from Tyrador Keep do shine. The map really looks promising, I think these are the kind of maps that should be standard, very easy nat for 1 player, easy nat for the other and a pretty easy 3rd for the 1st player, and on top that of course the possibility for more bases what can lead into macro games, which is the goal here.
So, congraz you too and have fun texturing ^^
|
I got top 50 EU with fenix into carrier as standard in PT vs XX so yes you can definitely see carriers in 2v2. Would love to see new maps in the pool, been a clack of new maps for awhile now. 2v2 definitely has huge potential and i agree that is mostly maps at fault.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
What do you guys think of this design? I'm not super familiar with 2v2, is this any good?
|
Hey, a couple days and already we are having better ideas than blizzard!
I think this needs a mapping contest, maybe then we might have a chance at getting noticed.
|
wow nice job guys keep it up. i like how those expansion paths are going.
|
On May 05 2012 01:58 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What do you guys think of this design? I'm not super familiar with 2v2, is this any good?
Maybe add some mineral patches in the center, so the center becomes an important information to control.
|
On May 05 2012 03:41 PowerDes wrote:Maybe add some mineral patches in the center, so the center becomes an important information to control.
I think it'd be cool if center control would provide control of the 4th (7th and 8th) bases. Looking good so far
|
Lunar colony has ridiculous rush distance and expo openness. As zerg it is ok : as any other race it is impossible to expo.
I think the boneyard is actually the best map in the pool because it's the only one tha.t lets both players get their third+
|
On May 05 2012 04:50 ArcticRaven wrote:
Lunar colony has ridiculous rush distance and expo openness. As zerg it is ok : as any other race it is impossible to expo.
I think the boneyard is actually the best map in the pool because it's the only one tha.t lets both players get their third+
I agree. Boneyard is the only map I've ever had a real macro game on that didn't involve degenerate strategies or de facto starvation base denial because it's suicide to expand, or you've already won. Tyrador keep can sometimes produce games on a similar level but it suffers from a lack of viable expansions, but less so than the other maps.
Most ladder 2v2 maps have 4-5 bases per team that aren't super circle syndrome or as close to the opponent as you. To say nothing of the short rush distances, nonexistent or over-reward for center control, and silly 4wide main ramps WITH backdoor. There is just an endless list of noncompetitive features.
It's not really that hard to make a good 2v2 map either. Just make a good 1v1 map but with 25% larger proportions and a shared base. Bingo. Of course you can do more interesting things but it's sad there is no map like this basic layout in the ladder pool.
|
You can't possibly complain about lunar colony's rush distance while advocating boneyard.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
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 this map, even though I think you should maybe put just 1 watch tower, in the middle, since I think now it just lets you have total vision of every attack path. All in all this seems like a really cool map, a bit chocky, but as a Protoss player I support it 
Can't wait till there is a full map pool of good 2v2 maps
|
Hmmm... I don't know about the set up of the mains. Right now it is very easy for the attacker to split the players up. I would suggest bringing the ramps closer to each other. Maybe make it more like Tempest or Khaydarin Depths with it protecting a safe natural. That would allow players possibly wall off the lowground and defend a lot easier.
Personally I don't like backpaths between mains (especially such a long one). That means if its a 1-zerg team, both players essentially can't wall off. Ling/hellion can go through zerg's side and isolate the nonzerg. If you choose to get rid of the backpath, you could tuck the natural in more to have even closer ramps. Just something to think about.
|
Well, assuming both players have their armies near the ramps, they are both fighting to hold the same general space (the "nook" natural), unless you mean an army that's already in the base, then yes, that could be an issue.
|
On May 05 2012 05:58 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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!
|
I actually love playing 2v2 good contribution to the 2v2 community
|
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.
|
On May 05 2012 14:07 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
|
|
Alright I'm just going to say my order of preferred maps with a hopefully short explanation each. And for the record I play at what they call a plat level but the guy I play with sucks pretty hard so with my level partner I'd likely be diamond low master 2v2. Btw the rating is on how much fun I have on games, not how balanced the map is. Both me and my buddy play R though so we're fairly unbiased.
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
|
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.
|
afaik only person in here to be taken seriously when it comes to 2v2 is powerdes (ie even OP has no idea what he is talking about), if you want to make a good map for 2s you should talk with him probably
|
On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +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=4The 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.
|
On May 06 2012 04:29 Vecix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote: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=4The 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.
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.
|
On May 06 2012 05:27 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:29 Vecix wrote:On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote: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=4The 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. 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.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
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.
|
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
|
I like that Gfire. I'd be a little worried about attacks coming from the north thirds but as highground doesn't really give too much advantange it should be fine. There's enough space to manuver until you get huge armies at which you should have those bases. I'm looking at the Defense arc between the two positioning to protect both nats and both thirds though and don't know if that ramp would be big enough late game, if it gets there which it looks lik the layout could support well. Couldn't really tell without playing it though. Maybe just little tweaks from here on out. code 995 if you wanna message me and try it out with some other guys.
On May 06 2012 07:02 Toboe wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On May 06 2012 05:27 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:29 Vecix wrote:On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote: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=4The 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. 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. ^^
|
On May 06 2012 14:59 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 05:27 DoubleReed wrote:On May 06 2012 04:29 Vecix wrote:On May 06 2012 01:05 DoubleReed wrote: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=4The 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. 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. ^^
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.
|
I'm just posting this because some friend of mine is nagging me about posting it. Admins will probably note there are 2 accounts from this IP, yes, I read the rules, yes, I know it's frowned upon but I really don't want people to know who made this. I could have easily fired Ye Olde Onion Router to spoof an IP anyway.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/02jQOl.jpg)
And an old unskinned version which is some-what clearer to see levels and stuff in.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A6YCol.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.
|
|
|
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?
|
Personally I've vetoed High Orbit, Magma Core and The Ruins of Tarsonis (worst of the bunch). Here are my opinions on the rest of the ladder 2v2 map pool:
+ Show Spoiler +
Discord IV is bad (despite its excellent name), because you can really only ever get to 1+2 bases. Most games seem to be 1+1base push vs 1+2base push.
Lunar Colony V is an excellent map compared to most: while you start in shared bases (boring), you expand to one side each which makes you more spread out. Defending your bases is still reasonably easy (which is to say, probably easier than on any other map in the pool) -- I've even seen half-map splits.
Scorched Haven is the other decent map in the pool. 1+1, 1+2, 2+2, 2+3 base play are all viable. It does tend to promote 2+2 vs 2+2 200/200 pushes though, and expanding past 2+3 is quite difficult even super-late-game.
Tyrador Keep is depressing, but not imbalanced or anything I guess. 2+2 base play is dominant.
On The Boneyard, 1+1 or 1+2 base play are really the only alternatives. Cross positions are OK, close positions are VERY close. SoW close. Defending rushes is really hard in close pos.
2v2 can be quite fun; I would definitely welcome a better map pool. I think it has some promise for competitive play, too.
|
On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have.
Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack.
One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though).
The 6m1rg expansions also hope to aide in this, at least, that is the philosophy behind it, there's a thread about that some-where, it explains the motivation behind that.
A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
I have not tested it in any form yet, bugs are there as is.
It's published on friend's accounts and not my own so don't try to message them with any questions.
|
On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though).
So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces.
I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell.
Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now.
|
On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls.
I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL.
|
On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL.
Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all.
But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now.
Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though.
|
On May 07 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL. Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all. But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D Read it! ":D"
A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
|
On May 07 2012 06:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL. Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all. But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D Read it! ":D" Show nested quote +A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
Whoops.
Great Thanks!
|
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps.
The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions.
Early Rushing
This same problem existed in 1v1s before they got decent maps.
Look at 1v1 maps used in professional leagues. Every single 2v2 map is smaller and has less bases than every single 1v1 map. There are twice as many people in a 2v2 game the map should be twice as big with twice the bases, not half as big with half the bases.
To stop early rushing they made most of the 2v2 maps shared base.
Shared base maps stopped early rushes from being too hard to stop but they didn't stop 1 or 2 base all ins.
1 and 2 base all-ins
All-ins are so powerful because it is hard to hold expansions. This is because your expansions are as close to your enemies as they are your main. Or your teammates expansion is closer to the enemy's base than your own. This can be solved by making maps bigger. There is a balance to be made here, it shouldn't be a guaranteed easy expansion, but it should be easier to hold an expansion than it is to do a 1 base all in.
I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues.
|
On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself.
It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue.
The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions.
I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right?
There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger.
|
On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. Show nested quote +I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger.
Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are.
|
On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are.
The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout.
But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army.
@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on.
+ Show Spoiler +In map terms, I would blame this on 3 primary reasons. The nat2nat on that map is pretty short. The openness is ridiculous throughout each main route and at the early bases (can't hold any forward positions or use chokes at home). The route disconnectedness is also ridiculous -- it's basically Monty Hall. (Same with the lava maps.)
|
@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on.
So you can rely on your ally to defend your base, you know, especially if he is zerg because he has fast units. Like your ally can leave some forces at your base to help you secure it. There's no problem with doing things like that.
I usually put some forces in my ally's mineral line to fend off a possible ling runbys/marine drops for all his expansions because that's such a threat. With two people you have a lot more options about how to defend things.
|
On May 07 2012 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on. So you can rely on your ally to defend your base, you know, especially if he is zerg because he has fast units. Like your ally can leave some forces at your base to help you secure it. There's no problem with doing things like that. I usually put some forces in my ally's mineral line to fend off a possible ling runbys/marine drops for all his expansions because that's such a threat. With two people you have a lot more options about how to defend things.
Totally agree. But you either have to overmake static defense or rely completely on your ally, because protoss's "take my first expansion" plans don't work here, at all. It's probably really fun for a zerg to have a map that skews SO heavily towards army mobility and counterattack/flanking, but it's really NOT fun for a protoss. (By the way, the air space on either side of the main, especially behind the nat and the high ground expansions in that same direction, only exacerbates this.) 2v2 maps should at least let every race get 2 bases with minimal discomfort. I realize Boneyard is probably more enjoyable for me along these same lines, and less so you.
It also pushes low mobility towards deathball play, which is ideologically yucky and also really not fun after a couple games of stalker colossus.
|
On May 07 2012 08:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are. The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout. But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army.
Yeah, basically all the things they fixed with the 1v1 maps that when resolved make the map bigger. The problem is generic. The maps are too small. The amount of adjustments you can make to existing 2v2 maps is very limited because they are too small to fit anything in them. Make them bigger then we can start adjusting the number of routes and the air distance versus ground distance, the layout of the expansions, etc.
On almost every 2v2 map your teammate's 3rd base closer to one of the enemies' main bases than it is your own main base because there is not enough room on the map to position it otherwise.
|
On May 07 2012 10:29 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 08:03 EatThePath wrote:On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are. The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout. But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army. Yeah, basically all the things they fixed with the 1v1 maps that when resolved make the map bigger. The problem is generic. The maps are too small. The amount of adjustments you can make to existing 2v2 maps is very limited because they are too small to fit anything in them. Make them bigger then we can start adjusting the number of routes and the air distance versus ground distance, the layout of the expansions, etc. On almost every 2v2 map your teammate's 3rd base closer to one of the enemies' main bases than it is your own main base because there is not enough room on the map to position it otherwise.
Fair enough. =)
|
Theoretical question:
I know there are issues with not having a ramp to block the main base (4gate), but what about in a shared base 2v2 map?
In other words, is it viable to have a main base entrance that does not feature a ramp in 2v2 games? I don't think I've ever seen an all protoss 2v2 game... and plus, we are already dealing with weird sized ramps.
|
On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though.
Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/
|
I would advise taking a second look at the season 1 map War Zone, the size of the map is pretty perfect, only I believe players should have their own ramps.
|
Ohhh the nostalgia of War Zone. Back in my silver/gold league days the first thing I would remind myself was get that pylon built on both rocks to see if they backdooring us.
|
On May 08 2012 09:06 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though. Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The distance from ramp to ramp is shorter for the defender, if that's what you are referring to.
|
Yeah war zone was an awesome map really gives me nostalgia, I think it can be good if recreated with a nat for each player and a small bride to connect the players, I might try to do it if no one else would want it.
|
On May 08 2012 09:20 PowerDes wrote:I would advise taking a second look at the season 1 map War Zone, the size of the map is pretty perfect, only I believe players should have their own ramps.
Holy shit. That map which was rush-fest? There was literally no choke, and the rush distance was also ridiculously short. Grats on Blizzard removing that map after 1 season.
On May 08 2012 09:50 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 09:06 Heh_ wrote:On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though. Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/ I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The distance from ramp to ramp is shorter for the defender, if that's what you are referring to.
The defenders have to split themselves to defend two separate chokes. It feels like the attackers can commit to attacking one entrance, and the army defending the wrong entrance has to run all the way the other side.
|
On May 08 2012 10:16 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 09:50 Gfire wrote:On May 08 2012 09:06 Heh_ wrote:On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though. Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/ I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The distance from ramp to ramp is shorter for the defender, if that's what you are referring to. The defenders have to split themselves to defend two separate chokes. It feels like the attackers can commit to attacking one entrance, and the army defending the wrong entrance has to run all the way the other side.
You mean the natural chokes? Yeah, that's true for the natural chokes, which is why you have to take down the rocks when you expand. Is it broken?
|
On May 08 2012 12:03 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 10:16 Heh_ wrote:On May 08 2012 09:50 Gfire wrote:On May 08 2012 09:06 Heh_ wrote:On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though. Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/ I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The distance from ramp to ramp is shorter for the defender, if that's what you are referring to. The defenders have to split themselves to defend two separate chokes. It feels like the attackers can commit to attacking one entrance, and the army defending the wrong entrance has to run all the way the other side. You mean the natural chokes? Yeah, that's true for the natural chokes, which is why you have to take down the rocks when you expand. Is it broken?
I meant before expanding, when it's a 1base vs 1base scenario. Worst case scenario is 1 of the naturals is claimed, making defense virtually impossible.
|
On May 08 2012 12:06 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 12:03 Gfire wrote:On May 08 2012 10:16 Heh_ wrote:On May 08 2012 09:50 Gfire wrote:On May 08 2012 09:06 Heh_ wrote:On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though. Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/ I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The distance from ramp to ramp is shorter for the defender, if that's what you are referring to. The defenders have to split themselves to defend two separate chokes. It feels like the attackers can commit to attacking one entrance, and the army defending the wrong entrance has to run all the way the other side. You mean the natural chokes? Yeah, that's true for the natural chokes, which is why you have to take down the rocks when you expand. Is it broken? I meant before expanding, when it's a 1base vs 1base scenario. Worst case scenario is 1 of the naturals is claimed, making defense virtually impossible.
Defending 1 base while the rocks are up, the distance to bounce between the two ramps is shorter on the inside, so it shouldn't be a problem unless they can take down the rocks too easily.
|
Long story short, because I know I'm ending up at a page only a rare few people read:
I play 2v2 competitively.
Every map currently in the ladder pool, with the exception of Tyrador Keep is a nightmare due to their limited size, favoring rushes almost exclusively.
Every map I have seen suggested in this post is better than any map in the current 2v2 ladder pool, even without aesthetics.
How horrifying is it that Blizzard won't commit to better 2v2 maps.. =(
|
I play 2v2 for an hour a day with a partner on Skype. We're top 8 platinum, so we suck considerably, but we found the same thing. In 2v2 there has not been any of the progression that there has been in 1v1 for map design and gameplay evolution.
We played macro for a long time. We tried making some harass units, and keeping constant worker production. We couldn't get out of platinum.
Recently we've gone to a strategy of doing an all-in rush, catching up macro behind it, lathering, rinsing, and repeating. We've gone on a win streak now.
The problem with the current map pool is exactly what everyone in this thread is trying to fix. You can't expand in a 2v2 game unless you have total domination of the map. To get that domination you have to rush, and either do damage or contain your opponents.
Tyrador is a nightmare for altogether different reasons. The maps have improved since early seasons, but the IPL YOMT shows what 1v1 was like before. Rushes were incredibly effective because of the maps. 2v2 needs to have that evolution also.
|
On May 10 2012 02:05 Callynn wrote:
Long story short, because I know I'm ending up at a page only a rare few people read:
I play 2v2 competitively.
Every map currently in the ladder pool, with the exception of Tyrador Keep is a nightmare due to their limited size, favoring rushes almost exclusively.
Every map I have seen suggested in this post is better than any map in the current 2v2 ladder pool, even without aesthetics.
How horrifying is it that Blizzard won't commit to better 2v2 maps.. =(
It could be worse. They could layout the minerals like they do on 4v4 maps.
![[image loading]](http://eliteownage.com/blizzarddgafa4v4.jpg)
I think our best hope is that blizzard realizes how terrible the 2v2 maps are and releases a bunch of good ones in Heart of the Swarm. It would also be nice if they did for 3v3 and 4v4, but they stated they simply don't care about 3v3 and 4v4.
|
On May 10 2012 11:23 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 02:05 Callynn wrote:
Long story short, because I know I'm ending up at a page only a rare few people read:
I play 2v2 competitively.
Every map currently in the ladder pool, with the exception of Tyrador Keep is a nightmare due to their limited size, favoring rushes almost exclusively.
Every map I have seen suggested in this post is better than any map in the current 2v2 ladder pool, even without aesthetics.
How horrifying is it that Blizzard won't commit to better 2v2 maps.. =( It could be worse. They could layout the minerals like they do on 4v4 maps. I think our best hope is that blizzard realizes how terrible the 2v2 maps are and releases a bunch of good ones in Heart of the Swarm. It would also be nice if they did for 3v3 and 4v4, but they stated they simply don't care about 3v3 and 4v4.
Have you seen the mineral layout on Desert Oasis? Or any old Blizzard map for that matter. I only noticed it during the IPL YOMT. Anyway to fix that dumb drone problem, you have to move it to the "correct" side then resume mining. Something like how pathing sometimes goes crazy around buildings near gas geysers.
|
I would love to see new 2v2 maps. The current ones are just plain bad. I feel like there is no way to take even semi safe natural expand since all those backdoor rocks, wide main ramps and wide natural chokes make it really hard to defend early rushes. I also dislike the general lack of control points in maps. Its not much use to have a Xel Naga tower in areas where no one really travels through.
Also the maps seem to be really rushed out and never botherd to think if they actually work. Like bunch of kids got their hands on galaxy editor and planted some things and stuff without a thought.
|
On May 12 2012 07:26 Jaakoppii wrote:
I would love to see new 2v2 maps. The current ones are just plain bad. I feel like there is no way to take even semi safe natural expand since all those backdoor rocks, wide main ramps and wide natural chokes make it really hard to defend early rushes. I also dislike the general lack of control points in maps. Its not much use to have a Xel Naga tower in areas where no one really travels through.
Also the maps seem to be really rushed out and never botherd to think if they actually work. Like bunch of kids got their hands on galaxy editor and planted some things and stuff without a thought.
Everybody knows the maps are bad. Even the "best" ones (Boneyard) have several negative points. I wish I had 8 vetoes.
|
This is my brand new Broodwar Map. I know this is the SC2 forum but some may be interested:
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/pics/4493.jpg)
Thread CLICK HERE
|
Why don't you try to make it into a SC2 map? cause I seriously doubt BW has any future anymore. Also even if it would survive somehow after the kespa / blizz deal, and BW map making will have some future, I don't think many people who look at the SC2 forums play BW, so posting it here is futile.
|
Wrong forum, don't care.
Back on the correct track, TheFish7 is designing a few 2v2 maps. Hope they turn out well!
|
I meant some may be interested in the layout.
|
Yes I do believe that is what he was going for, just looking at the features of the map and see how they might translate into SC2
|
On May 12 2012 09:56 Heh_ wrote:
Wrong forum, don't care.
On May 12 2012 09:39 moskonia wrote:
Why don't you try to make it into a SC2 map? cause I seriously doubt BW has any future anymore. Also even if it would survive somehow after the kespa / blizz deal, and BW map making will have some future, I don't think many people who look at the SC2 forums play BW, so posting it here is futile.
Wtf??? Lower your hackles bros.
On May 12 2012 09:10 CardinalAllin wrote:This is my brand new Broodwar Map. I know this is the SC2 forum but some may be interested: Thread CLICK HERE
Isn't this a little constricted for a BW map? I guess maybe that's the point of the winding alternate path, to emphasize the bridge to center. Anyway this would make a sweet SC2 map except the 4 and 10 bases would need to the small ramp rearranged to be further away from the small ramp to the corner bases. And it could use at least one more set of bases. Thanks for sharing. ^^
|
your Country52797 Posts
Hello, I created a 2v2 map last week.
+ Show Spoiler +
I tried to make it pretty heavy macro style, please let me know what you think.
|
Can you label the spawn points? I can't tell, out of the 4 bases in each corner, which ones are supposed to have players. It's completely asymmetrical, devoid of any pattern or apparent reason whatsoever. Not that that's an inherently negative quality, but it could do for a little explanation.
|
Is that level underlava or something?
|
The player spawning at the 3/9 positions would have a hard time walling off the main choke because he's so far away. I like the idea of the backdoored natural though. Also feels like you could add more bases if you spread your map to the corners.
|
@TehTemplar - Cool! the pocket expo is an interesting choice, and the natural with the backdoor is safe at first, but vulnerable to warp ins and seige tanks later on. It looks good to me - I'm trying to come up with contructive criticisms, but its hard since we are in pretty much in uncharted territory now.
Here is my current WIP, I'm worried the 3rds may be a bit too easy
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Wow this map so open... even though since it is 2v2 it might turn out to be fine, but the lack of chokes will be hard on Protoss I think.
Easy 3rd is a good thing but I think that the 4th might be too hard to get, since it is so close to your opponents' 3rd.
Gold bases will be REALLY hard to take, not better to make them reward you more?
|
your Country52797 Posts
Can you label the spawn points? I can't tell, out of the 4 bases in each corner, which ones are supposed to have players. It's completely asymmetrical, devoid of any pattern or apparent reason whatsoever. Not that that's an inherently negative quality, but it could do for a little explanation.
...
-Highest ground bbases
-Perfectly symmetrical
Don't know what you're talking about.
Is that level underlava or something?
no
@TehTemplar - Cool! the pocket expo is an interesting choice, and the natural with the backdoor is safe at first, but vulnerable to warp ins and seige tanks later on. It looks good to me - I'm trying to come up with contructive criticisms, but its hard since we are in pretty much in uncharted territory now.
Thanks I am considering several changes currently.
|
On May 12 2012 21:36 TehTemplar wrote:Hello, I created a 2v2 map last week. + Show Spoiler +I tried to make it pretty heavy macro style, please let me know what you think.
Hmm, although it is better than the ladder pool, I still feel it's a bit too small. If you want a heavy macro map you should consider slower rush times (like over 185) and more 'safe' expansions for each team. Most 2v2 maps in the ladder pool have 4 blue and 1 gold per team (sometimes 5 blue and 1,5 gold per team). You map has 6 blue 1 gold per team, which is still not enough in my opinion.
Also, while the middle seems very open, the fortress problem comes into play on each team's plateau (if you remember twillight fortress, it was a horrible map where lower bracket teams would turtle a lot, making for very long horribly boring matches). This should be avoided.
On May 13 2012 03:33 TheFish7 wrote:@TehTemplar - Cool! the pocket expo is an interesting choice, and the natural with the backdoor is safe at first, but vulnerable to warp ins and seige tanks later on. It looks good to me - I'm trying to come up with contructive criticisms, but its hard since we are in pretty much in uncharted territory now. Here is my current WIP, I'm worried the 3rds may be a bit too easy + Show Spoiler +
I like this map a lot, it has a good open middle and relatively many bases to safely take per team.
Be sure to both publish your map and post about them when all aesthetics are done, and good luck with polishing them
|
Could we contanct blizzard soo they can take a look at this maps
|
Maybe someone should open a thread in the official forums and link to here? that would be the best solution I think.
|
2v2 was really good and a lot of good players from sc/bw were playing it, but that was before the shared main thing. When Lost temple and metalopolis were available for 2v2 (early beta). I used to love playing 2v2 back then, now it's more like a fun meh Umsy kind of game 100% casual.
People maybe dont realise but 2v2 was really competitive @sc/bw pretty much all leagues had 1x or 2x 2v2 and a lot of ex korean progamers played it (iccup) etc and enjoyed it, in sc2 blizzard took it away ;/
Btw maps like fighting spirit and python were the most popular@ sc/bw so random starting positions sometimes cross sometimes one side, and simetrical would be the best (lots of different openings/tactics)
|
your Country52797 Posts
Hmm, although it is better than the ladder pool, I still feel it's a bit too small. If you want a heavy macro map you should consider slower rush times (like over 185) and more 'safe' expansions for each team. Most 2v2 maps in the ladder pool have 4 blue and 1 gold per team (sometimes 5 blue and 1,5 gold per team). You map has 6 blue 1 gold per team, which is still not enough in my opinion.
There are no gold bases?
But yeah, 6 blue.
Also, while the middle seems very open, the fortress problem comes into play on each team's plateau (if you remember twillight fortress, it was a horrible map where lower bracket teams would turtle a lot, making for very long horribly boring matches). This should be avoided.
Well, if you concentrate on the low ground protecting all 6 bases, you are so vulnerable to drops, nydus, etc.
|
Here a new one I am working on for 2v2
2v2 map
|
Panda this looks more like a 1v1 map :S having only 12 bases + 2 golds. I think it would be better just as a 1v1 map and as such it looks cool, but if you want to make it a 2v2 map it needs closer bases or connecting the bases with a small strip of land (the 1 and 2 position bases and the 7 and 8 position bases), so it is possible to defend.
As a 2v2 map I would put another base between the 2 mains, there seems to be a perfect place for it
|
it stilll annoys me how team maps are smaller than 1v1 maps.
balance in this game is designed for 1v1 big maps...so why are 2v2 maps too small and why hasn't blizz done a better job uupdating this map pool...cmon..
|
@moskonia Yes it is a great idea! But if I do it I will have to place it to avoid proximity of siege tank... But map is also designed for 1v1... That why base are no connected or closer... But I think you are right about closer bases / connected bases on 2v2 because it's easier to defend against team push.
Personally I think 2v2 maps don't need to be that much big... Most of 2v2 games are played between 10 and 15 minutes because of the strength of timing push. I did a small 2v2 map (160x160) because I like small 2v2 map.
I also recognize that if 2v2 map are bigger and bases are connected, it will be easier to defend against team timing push.
Finally, it depends if you are looking for fast games or long games
EDIT: @moskonia I followed your tip about another base where you told me and I do like the result (looking). I will do some tests for gameplay...
|
Panda, I don't think it is possible to make balanced 2v2 maps that are 1v1 maps as well I might be wrong but if I am not, you might want to just make two versions of the map that look similar but has differences, one for 1v1, and the other for 2v2.
I too don't think that 2v2 maps needs to be very large, but they do have to have easy expansions just like 2v2, maybe even easier, they do need to have a way that you can help your partner when he is attacked, and they do need to have a decent amount of expansions: 6 bases is pretty bad, 7 bases is decent and 8+ I think is good for the moment.
About the golds, I think it would be better to rotate them, so it is a tiny bit easier to take one of them, since right now they are just so contested.
P.S. if you still want to focus on the 1v1 part, I think making the 3rd into a 6m1hyg expansion might be interesting idea, and maybe, only maybe, make the 2 rocks at each of the sides 1 rock only (I am guessing in 1v1 all spawn locations are enabled?)
|
Here the new result.
2v2 - 1v1 Map New result
The result is now better in both 1v1 and 2v2. I will have to do more tests.
About 1v1, I know everyone will not be agree, but only far by air (no-cross) position are enable. Third of both players are near of each other, but thirds are separate by 2lines of rocks. It will be more easy to take a fourth with your tip (the new base I did) on each site in the middle.
Check number down the main ramp of each base:
1v1: 1vs3 or 2vs4
2v2: 1&3 vs 2&4
I also think you are right. It's pretty pretty hard to have a good/balanced 1v1/2v2 map at the same time... Almost impossible. I did my best to reach this utopia 
|
So I am not a map maker but this topic got me thinking about how to team games better. When I think of team game I always think of giving players roles or some sort of positions. When I thought about what positions would be possible in a SC2 team game the main thing I could come up with is the idea of makeing a map that gave incentives for specific players to focus on different stages of the game. Early, Mid, and Late game (or just early mid for 2v2). This led me to a more teir structure and more seperation not just between allies but enemies. So that it is esentially a 1v1 in the early game (that players role) with the two other players doing something more econ focused due to greater distances and some barriers that can not be broken without significant investment like destructable rocks that seperate the players in to pairs. Howfully the picture below should help show what I mean. The idea is to make the inner area more like the size of Xel'Naga Caverns and the Outter area about the size of Shakuras or possibly larger. The black space is empty/impassable by ground.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Interesting idea, 2 1v1's idea was already suggested by someone,but making it so that you have a very long rush distance for 1 player and the other short distance might be interesting. Even though I suspect that what will happen is mainly feeding with basic defenses, or maybe helping your partner via air, warping past the barrier or some other sort of passing it, which would make it a 2v1 or atleast a 1.5v1, which would be very hard on the defender.
Still. there is no tell until some good map makers takes your idea and makes it a reality
|
Ya there are alot of things that I am not sure about, but what I was hoping is with the open path for say the longer rush distance players is if they help do some sort of 2v1 or 1.5v1 with air that it would open up the top lane to punishment for such play. Like say the top lane opens 1 base 2 port banshee and the inner lane some sort of early marrine tank push (supper 111). Then the top lane may be vunrable to say a big banneling bust from the top player. So counter attacking/punishing 2v1 early game would be possible. But untill it is created/played there is no telling what could happen.
|
With so many talented map makers I am sure someone will go up for the job
|
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.
|
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...?
|
I think he just mean there is more demand for 1v1 competitive map atm...
|
hmmm i'm a bit ok with some of the maps in the 2v2 pool but, i kinda want new maps.... it's just the same thing over and over again 
|
On May 16 2012 04:42 Callynn wrote:Show nested quote +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...?
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?
|
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!
|
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.
|
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)
|
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?
|
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.
|
I posted something about this back in February.
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
I was thinking of putting more minerals there, but since it is so contested maybe I should make a gold there? since it will be hard to hold for both sides. I wasn't sure actually of even putting a base there since it is so circle syndrome, but maybe it is better, I will think it through and when I texture it a bit I will send you the map, k?
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.
|
Hi all!
+ Show Spoiler +
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
|
bumping because I was hoping to get some feedback on this layout I've been working on.
I'm worried that defender's advantage might simply be too great with this setup.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I like it, every expansion adds another entrance, from 1 to 2 to 3 bases for each player, I don't think it will be super easy to defend a 3rd, but I do think you might want to altar the furthest expansion a bit, since right now tanks can easily prevent a 4th base for 1 player.
One more thing, what is the distance between the natural ramps? it seems awfully short...
|
The map seems awfully small. The set up kind of reminds me of Ruins of Tarsonis: Crazy short distances, cliffable naturals, awkwardly wide open spaces for bases.
|
main ramp to main ramp is 53 seconds
nat ramp to nat ramp is 23 sec
|
23 sec I think is to low even for a 1v1 map, though I might be wrong. Ruins of Tarsonis is 13 sec from nat ramp to nat ramp and 30 sec from main ramp to main ramp, so while it is alot shorter, it can still be compared I think. You should add something to block the middle so the distance is a bit longer, cause as a 2v2 map the distance shouldn't be this short.
|
If each team had two easily defended expos the matchup would break even more imho.
Remember that from the very start the game is 2 base vs 2 base.
Having only one easily defended expo means that it goes up to 3 vs 3 base relatively quickly.
If there was two easily defended expos the transition from 2 vs 2 base play straight up to 4 vs 4 base would make it incredibly hard to scout and react to what the other team is doing. This would definitiely make 2v2 play even more volatile and I think its a terribad idea.
|
I think you are comparing it to 1v1 is the wrong way, don't think about it as a 1v1 with bases each, think of it as a double 1v1 with 2base each. What I mean? when you have 4bases in a normal 1v1 it is most of the time lategame, you have high tech already, plenty of workers and big army, but when you have 2bases in a normal 1v1 it is most of the time the late earlygame, so you only have small army and tech, also you don't have large amounts of workers.
You see where I am going with this? even if you can get 2 early expansions in a 2v2, it is still early to mid game, and you wont have high tech or big army, so scouting is still possible, in face think of a 1v1 with 2base vs 2base, that is how hard scouting is, like a 2base 1v1.
Having easily taken bases will only help the 2v2 metagame to grow and become better.
|
On May 15 2012 00:58 Endrjuu wrote:
2v2 was really good and a lot of good players from sc/bw were playing it, but that was before the shared main thing. When Lost temple and metalopolis were available for 2v2 (early beta). I used to love playing 2v2 back then, now it's more like a fun meh Umsy kind of game 100% casual.
People maybe dont realise but 2v2 was really competitive @sc/bw pretty much all leagues had 1x or 2x 2v2 and a lot of ex korean progamers played it (iccup) etc and enjoyed it, in sc2 blizzard took it away ;/
Btw maps like fighting spirit and python were the most popular@ sc/bw so random starting positions sometimes cross sometimes one side, and simetrical would be the best (lots of different openings/tactics)
i played alot of 2on2 in sc/bw but sc2 2on2 is just completly different to it
the problem with sc2 2on2 is that cause of the mechanics and spells (like ff) matches on maps like lost temple and metapolis are often rushes and cheeses
|
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.
If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.
As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same.
|
On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.
If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.
As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same.
i doubt you ever played sc:bw 2on2 on medium or high level
the problem with 2on2 sc2 on non shared bases or atleast near bases is that its very hard to hold an 2on1 attack
in sc:bw it was much easier to hold an attack of 2 opponents, mostly cause of defensive buildings were better and the high ground bonus (some ranged attacks miss) and the dps of most units is lower than in sc2 so you can hold a choke for a longer time and get help from your ally
|
On June 11 2012 04:22 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.
If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.
As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same. i doubt you ever played sc:bw 2on2 on medium or high level the problem with 2on2 sc2 on non shared bases or atleast near bases is that its very hard to hold an 2on1 attack in sc:bw it was much easier to hold an attack of 2 opponents, mostly cause of defensive buildings were better and the high ground bonus (some ranged attacks miss) and the dps of most units is lower than in sc2 so you can hold a choke for a longer time and get help from your ally
No I never played 2v2 in bw I've just watched a bit. I'm not pretending to be that knowledgable, feel free to correct me.
However, is what I said about race combinations accurate?
|
On June 10 2012 22:56 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw in 2v2 in BW was that it was also filled with ridiculous cheeses, to the point where it was pretty much required to have a zerg on your team. So I'm not really sure why people are saying that 2v2 BW was more competitive. Maybe it's just the whole MAP thing, which is pretty serious issue for the 2v2 community. I don't think you need a shared main, but definitely having a shared side is required for having decent games.
If anything I think 2v2 is much healthier in Starcraft 2. You can actually do extremely solid macro play (even on some of the current maps) and all the race combinations seem viable and powerful.
As far as the 2base v 1&1base, no, it doesn't work that way. You are forgetting that pretty much everything in SC2 revolves around time. A 2base all-in refers to a timing. You can't talk about it as a '4base all-in,' just because there are 2bases for 2players. As far as time is concerned, the number of bases stay the same.
In official league play for BW, every team had a Zerg player. You're almost throwing the game by not having a Zerg in the composition. At least in 2v2 for SC2, not having a Zerg is not a near auto-loss.
|
yes its true about races in bw were also combinations with better chances to win
it was also map dependend but on the most common maps tz zz and zp were the best race combinations
|
I would like to add myself to this plight. Never played BW or anything, but as a zerg player I do feel it is quite hard to play macro games on this current map pool. Depending on the map and the starting locations a zerg either has to cheese or do a 2 base "all in" but do to the dynamics of the other races they don't suffer as much imo. For instance in Discord IV if the zerg spawns away from the ramp then there is just no way in hell that he can expand fast or safe, he has to do some sort of cheese to get the expansion close by air or the center, meanwhile a terran can expand to the natural outside the ramp and a PF pretty much keeps him safe early on.
Maps that do allow relatively early expansions like Lunar Colony, well they have the other problem which is short rush distance and when a zerg tries to hold the front expansion of Magma Core against 2 4gates then troubles are just beginning.
I love 2v2 but the amount of cheese and allins that it has kind of makes me not play as much and sometimes I do the 4v4 thing but that still rarely if ever get to a late macro game because there are not enough expansions on any map for 8 players so it is usually mass muta for me.
I feel the pros view team games as just fun and a place to goof around, a lot of players off race or play random just to play cheese or try out weird stuff without taking it as serious as 1v1 and therefore map makers don't care about the competitive aspect or balance aspect of their maps.
|
You can FE on discord if you spawn away from the ramp. Discord is one of the easiest maps for Zerg to FE on imo. It's after that that can be an issue for Zerg.
This mentality that 2v2 is just cheese and allins is self perpetuating as people continue to decry that things are "impossible" without ever really trying. How dull.
|
Honestly, I don't have much trouble taking an early expansion on any map. The hardest probably being high orbit. And I don't know what level you are playing 2v2 at but the games I play don't involve much more cheese than the 1v1's that I play.
|
At pro level games don't last more than ~12mins. Team are pretty strong in cheese and have devastator timing especially when bases are separated. When bases are together, games last a very little bit longer but it's still cheesy. If all players cheese, it now conventional, no more a cheese
|
The metagame currently is cheese, but I am sure with maps where defending bases is easy the metagame will change and involve to invent safe FE's.
|
One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases.
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped.
|
Separate bases is also problematic because you introduce the fact that you can easily forcefield one teammate INTO their base and gang up on the other one. Look at scorched haven - you have to watch your ramp like a hawk.
I do agree that highground advantage counts for less in team games since the utility of scans, overlord spotting, etc. is increased. There are plenty of strats involving early overlord spotting and warp ins or blink ins. This is another reason separate bases is complicated - a ZP team can use overlords pylons and speedlings to force an engagement wherever they want. At least with a shared base the defenders can be guaranteed to combine their forces.
The meta game in 2v2 games is also much more vastly more complex than in a 1v1 since there is an exponentially greater number of openings to face off against when you are facing 2 opponents, sometimes 2 races. There aren't just 3 matchups to learn in 2v2. this alone regardless of map causes more games to end prematurely.
|
On June 12 2012 06:29 Eatme wrote:
One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases.
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped.
highground was a big thing cause on hunters the most games were mass tier 1 units or rushes
in 2on2 with cliffs/choke you were able to tech in certain matchups on flat maps its often only 3 hatch lings and 3/4 gate goons
|
On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
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? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). The 6m1rg expansions also hope to aide in this, at least, that is the philosophy behind it, there's a thread about that some-where, it explains the motivation behind that. A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't. I have not tested it in any form yet, bugs are there as is. It's published on friend's accounts and not my own so don't try to message them with any questions.
I really like this map but layout and would like to play this more but it has serious lighting issues if you play with higher settings. The lighting is way too bright, so much so that it is unplayable.
Here is a screenshot of the map played on high settings.
![[image loading]](http://eliteownage.com/Kuihtuneet.jpg)
Can you please adjust the brightness to normal levels?
|
they should bring back shakuras plateau for 2v2
|
It seems people are generally in two camps; none being content with blizzard's maps.
The first complains that shared bases make zerg weak and 1 base timings too strong for non-zergs. Their solution? Split bases where you can't even share a wall.
The second complain that you can't play "macro" 2v2s.
I'll address the second camp first. 2v2 is not a "macro" game type. Games only go to "macro" games when an early exchange comes out evenly enough so that nobody leaves. Macro in 2v2 is not macro in the sense that it is in 1v1. Rarely should you go over 50 miners or mine off of more than two bases at a time, unless your opponent seriously misses a timing or you are waaay ahead. That's the way 2v2 is. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want NR15, go play some crappy custom game.
And to address the other group of whiners, split bases are impossible because it eliminates the possibility for more team compositions than it makes viable. Split base maps will heavily favor ZZ teams for this reason. TT / TP / PP compositions would auto lose vs PZ TZ or ZZ, because the amount of defense you have to make to hold a 1v2 (which you can't scout for because zerg takes early map control so you have to blindly prepare) is so much that the other team just macros out of a feigned aggression and you can never unite your armies.
But any TZ / PZ team is hard countered by ZZ. Double zerg well executed can and will kill the single isolated zerg player (you think you can march a zealot a stalker and a sentry or 7 marines to help your ally vs 30 zerglings/banelings?). So ZZ would be the heavily favored combo on split base maps.
What blizzard has done is tried to make 2v2 as dynamic as possible with their maps. ZZ is still viable on shared choke maps, where as TP is not viable at all on split base maps. The best 2v2 map of all time, scorched haven, has the perfect idea which blizzard has copied and even improved with its new map molten crater, where the bases are split, but there is a shared low ground choke behind which you can hold expansions. Molten improves on scorched because there are more auxiliary expansions, so the map is more zerg friendly. Blizzard knows what they are doing.
More people play 2v2 random than 2v2 arranged, and it would ruin the 2v2 random experience to put split maps in the pool, as well as ruin the 2v2 experience all together with everyone picking zerg (remember season 1 and 2 with monlyth ridge, tarsonis assault?). End of story. Stop crying and play 1v1 if you want to FE and make 60 workers.
|
On June 19 2012 15:11 saladToss wrote:
It seems people are generally in two camps; none being content with blizzard's maps.
The first complains that shared bases make zerg weak and 1 base timings too strong for non-zergs. Their solution? Split bases where you can't even share a wall.
The second complain that you can't play "macro" 2v2s.
I'll address the second camp first. 2v2 is not a "macro" game type. Games only go to "macro" games when an early exchange comes out evenly enough so that nobody leaves. Macro in 2v2 is not macro in the sense that it is in 1v1. Rarely should you go over 50 miners or mine off of more than two bases at a time, unless your opponent seriously misses a timing or you are waaay ahead. That's the way 2v2 is. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want NR15, go play some crappy custom game.
And to address the other group of whiners, split bases are impossible because it eliminates the possibility for more team compositions than it makes viable. Split base maps will heavily favor ZZ teams for this reason. TT / TP / PP compositions would auto lose vs PZ TZ or ZZ, because the amount of defense you have to make to hold a 1v2 (which you can't scout for because zerg takes early map control so you have to blindly prepare) is so much that the other team just macros out of a feigned aggression and you can never unite your armies.
But any TZ / PZ team is hard countered by ZZ. Double zerg well executed can and will kill the single isolated zerg player (you think you can march a zealot a stalker and a sentry or 7 marines to help your ally vs 30 zerglings/banelings?). So ZZ would be the heavily favored combo on split base maps.
What blizzard has done is tried to make 2v2 as dynamic as possible with their maps. ZZ is still viable on shared choke maps, where as TP is not viable at all on split base maps. The best 2v2 map of all time, scorched haven, has the perfect idea which blizzard has copied and even improved with its new map molten crater, where the bases are split, but there is a shared low ground choke behind which you can hold expansions. Molten improves on scorched because there are more auxiliary expansions, so the map is more zerg friendly. Blizzard knows what they are doing.
More people play 2v2 random than 2v2 arranged, and it would ruin the 2v2 random experience to put split maps in the pool, as well as ruin the 2v2 experience all together with everyone picking zerg (remember season 1 and 2 with monlyth ridge, tarsonis assault?). End of story. Stop crying and play 1v1 if you want to FE and make 60 workers.
Eh, I've gotten up to 70/80 workers plenty of times in 2v2. You can do it, you just need to be smart about it. Most of the maps don't have a very easily taken third so it's stupid to try.
2v2 is perfectly fine macro-wise. It's simply an issue of the maps that make it very difficult to hold any kind of third base, and a metagame rife with 1base all-ins. Saying 'that's just the way 2v2 is' is exactly the kind of idiotic mentality that I don't really care for. Figure things out and solve problems. Don't just be content with how terrible you are at the game.
|
I've been top 10 in the world at 2v2 since season 2
like i said, if you hit 70-80 workers you were either
a. way ridiculously ahead or
b. your opponents missed a huge timing they should have hit
|
On June 19 2012 23:54 saladToss wrote:
I've been top 10 in the world at 2v2 since season 2
like i said, if you hit 70-80 workers you were either
a. way ridiculously ahead or
b. your opponents missed a huge timing they should have hit
Dude, I don't care if you're fuckin' IdrA, that doesn't mean shit. This isn't a response. This is just repeating the same thing.
And honestly people were probably saying the same thing about 1v1 ladder before we got decent maps.
|
We have had huge maps in 2v2, but it doesn't change the fact that team games are all about mass offensive units - sure there are different timings, but my point is that "macro" games don't exist in the way that they do in 1v1. Two players can unite and hit a critical mass exponentially faster than a single player can in a 1v1, so defending on a razor's edge just isn't as viable as being aggressive. There's no two ways around it. Sorry dude, and I'm sorry that my thousands of 2v2s at the top of the ladder (not to mention all the 2v2 I played in bw) don't mean shit to you.
|
On June 20 2012 06:19 saladToss wrote:
We have had huge maps in 2v2, but it doesn't change the fact that team games are all about mass offensive units - sure there are different timings, but my point is that "macro" games don't exist in the way that they do in 1v1. Two players can unite and hit a critical mass exponentially faster than a single player can in a 1v1, so defending on a razor's edge just isn't as viable as being aggressive. There's no two ways around it. Sorry dude, and I'm sorry that my thousands of 2v2s at the top of the ladder (not to mention all the 2v2 I played in bw) don't mean shit to you.
Uhh... we have had huge shitty maps with weird inbase naturals and still very hard-to-take thirds. Those don't really count. There has yet to be a 2v2 ladder map with a third that's reasonable to take by anything close to 1v1 standards.
Again, these are the exact same arguments people used against SC2 when the metagame wasn't developed and we had bad maps. You can mass units too quickly, there's not enough defender's advantage blah blah blah.
And the reason this doesn't mean shit to me, is that I'm not convinced that you've tried. I get the impression that you have decided after a couple (or even several) games that "you can't do this in 2v2" and stopped trying. And look! You're in master, you're staying in master, so it's working, right? Sounds like confirmation bias to me.
|
I think it is silly to say that macro 2v2 is not possible even if there were good maps, when there aren't any, and so you haven't tested them. Also, your rank doesn't mean anything, I know a guy who was like rank 10 in Europe by cannon rush / 6pool every game.
Comparing this to 1v1, imagine someone who rushes every game, doing something like 1-1-1, 4gate or baneling bust and is GM (the comparison of you in 2v2), would you say that person knows anything about the game? he could say that rush is the best way to go, since he wins alot with all ins, and if he tried macro he would lose horribly, since he doesn't know how.
If you understood my analogy you would see why your opinion's value is not larger then my own, or anyone else to that matter, you simply haven't tried macro, since right now it is very hard to impossible. since the maps wont allow it.
|
Show me where i said macro 2v2 is impossible. I said macro games can't possibly exist in 2v2 in the same way they do in 1v1, and I said why. We've had all kinds of maps (barring ones with rocks in the middle to create NR scenarios which nobody with an ounce of skill wants) to play on, we've been playing team games in RTS games for over a decade now - it's basically figured out that massing offensive units is the way to go.
Why don't you guys make a 2v2 map, and we can 2v2 on it and I'll show you why you can't go nexus first and chrono out 40 probes on the back of 4 units. I'd be happy to.
Also, my point was that the two camps of people want completely contradictory things out of 2v2 maps. That is, split bases, which highly discourage macro games, or "macro maps" which nobody has described what makes a 2v2 map a "macro map". I've assumed it to mean shared bases and a long rush distance. Someone said something about taking a third. You want to take a fast third in 2v2? Be my guest and lose. If you want to play 400 vs 400 deathballs go play desert strike. I like 2v2 as is - aggressive, fast-paced, and micro-oriented - and I guarantee you anyone who plays 2v2 at a high level agrees.
I've backed up my points with solid arguments, but all you guys are doing is comparing 2v2 to 1v1. It's a completely different game, and changing the maps doesn't change that fact that at the core you still start with 2 town halls, 2 bases, and 12 workers.
Also, there are good 2v2 maps. Scorched haven is a good 2v2 map. Period, everyone worth a damn in 2v2 agrees. Molten Crater is a good 2v2 map as well, but as it is new, there's no consensus yet.
|
I don't agree that Scorched haven is a good map. while it is good at the start, when you need to go past 2 bases it sucks, since you can't really take expansions unless you pin the opponents in their nat.
And no, I don't want to play like 1v1 where you take a 3rd as z in 4 min and go nexus 1st and as such, I want to be able to have a safe expand build. If there is 1 ramp leading to the nat, even if it is quite big, you could still FE, and defend using 1gate / 1rax expo and 14pool 16hatch, or something like that. Right now on most maps you can't really take a FE, and if you can, you can't play a macro game, since you can't possibly take a 3rd.
Right now there are maps which allow for easy naturals, but taking a 3rd is near impossible. I want maps where while you can be aggressive and you can mass units, it is not the only option.
|
I've backed up my points with solid arguments, but all you guys are doing is comparing 2v2 to 1v1. It's a completely different game, and changing the maps doesn't change that fact that at the core you still start with 2 town halls, 2 bases, and 12 workers.
Also, there are good 2v2 maps. Scorched haven is a good 2v2 map. Period, everyone worth a damn in 2v2 agrees. Molten Crater is a good 2v2 map as well, but as it is new, there's no consensus yet.
Solid arguments? Where? You've just repeated yourself over and over again. No replays or map analysis or anything. Just baseless assertions.
Scorched Haven is not a good map for several reasons. I think it's fine for our current map pool though. Mostly it's because how absurdly difficult it is to take a third. It is almost exclusively 1base and 2base allins. There is not a single 1v1 map in the map pool that has such a terrible hard-to-take third. They are all incredibly far away. That's just a fact. Do you disagree with that?
And you do know that macrogames does not imply 200/200 deathballs, right? It usually implies fun back and forth games with a lot more than one deciding battle which is dull. It just adds more variety to strategies.
|
On June 12 2012 20:24 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 06:29 Eatme wrote:
One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases.
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped. highground was a big thing cause on hunters the most games were mass tier 1 units or rushes in 2on2 with cliffs/choke you were able to tech in certain matchups on flat maps its often only 3 hatch lings and 3/4 gate goons
Yeah I might have to take that back, atleast a bit. 2:2 on LT was very different from 2:2 on hunters and the difference was rapms and not startpositions.
That said we could have rampless maps in SC2 and get rid of the cliffwalking units and highground warp (if you want to get rid of them) and other things that comes with that.
Would be interesting to see some high level 2:2 on shattered temple and other (better) 1:1 maps to see how they play out. I doubt they'll be THAT bad really. Personally I've found that you can counter and nobody expects that since you cant do that on maps in the ladder pool.
If only we'd have highground advantage back things would be perfect.
|
On June 20 2012 23:25 Eatme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 20:24 TaShadan wrote:On June 12 2012 06:29 Eatme wrote:
One thing is certain, shared bases is the wrong way to go. You dont get the chance to counter or 1v2 coz if they are in your allies main they are in yours too. Honestly the map I've had the best 2:2 games on is shattered temple and that is a pretty shitty map regardles of player number but it's not shared bases.
I doubt that highground advantage is doing that much since hunters was really playable in bw and it didnt have any ramps at all. Perhaps the main problem is that alot of sc2 players are obsessed with big macro games being the only way to play the game while I see them as the result of both teams having a really solid early game with and even trade. Like when (circa 2002 for me) you went fast range goons in bw vs terran, once in a while you could win with that opening but it usually was just a step on the way to midgame but it still could not be skipped. highground was a big thing cause on hunters the most games were mass tier 1 units or rushes in 2on2 with cliffs/choke you were able to tech in certain matchups on flat maps its often only 3 hatch lings and 3/4 gate goons Yeah I might have to take that back, atleast a bit. 2:2 on LT was very different from 2:2 on hunters and the difference was rapms and not startpositions. That said we could have rampless maps in SC2 and get rid of the cliffwalking units and highground warp (if you want to get rid of them) and other things that comes with that. Would be interesting to see some high level 2:2 on shattered temple and other (better) 1:1 maps to see how they play out. I doubt they'll be THAT bad really. Personally I've found that you can counter and nobody expects that since you cant do that on maps in the ladder pool. If only we'd have highground advantage back things would be perfect.
well its useless to argue cause they will never change it
|
On June 20 2012 22:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +I've backed up my points with solid arguments, but all you guys are doing is comparing 2v2 to 1v1. It's a completely different game, and changing the maps doesn't change that fact that at the core you still start with 2 town halls, 2 bases, and 12 workers.
Also, there are good 2v2 maps. Scorched haven is a good 2v2 map. Period, everyone worth a damn in 2v2 agrees. Molten Crater is a good 2v2 map as well, but as it is new, there's no consensus yet. Solid arguments? Where? You've just repeated yourself over and over again. No replays or map analysis or anything. Just baseless assertions. Scorched Haven is not a good map for several reasons. I think it's fine for our current map pool though. Mostly it's because how absurdly difficult it is to take a third. It is almost exclusively 1base and 2base allins. There is not a single 1v1 map in the map pool that has such a terrible hard-to-take third. They are all incredibly far away. That's just a fact. Do you disagree with that? And you do know that macrogames does not imply 200/200 deathballs, right? It usually implies fun back and forth games with a lot more than one deciding battle which is dull. It just adds more variety to strategies.
Alright dude, you're kind of irrational, but I'll give you one last reply.
Here's an example of a 2v2 macro game. Trust me, we all want these games. They are the most fun, but you should realize how much has to align for these games to happen. The reason scorched haven is the best is because these types of games most often happen on scorched.
http://drop.sc/201017
Here is a macro game on a map everyone all ins on.
http://drop.sc/201019
And here's an all in on a "macro map".
http://drop.sc/128940
I have a ton of games, but I'm not going to post up 20 replays because nobody is going to watch them. These are just some gg's that illustrate the overarching trends that I've found in 2v2 in the last 2 years.
My point? Maps aren't going to make the game more or less all in. The only thing changing the maps will do (either in favor of split bases or longer rush distances with easier to defend naturals) is make certain race compositions more or less viable, and in turn make 2v2 in general stale. Blizzard's maps keep a diverse amount of play viable in 2v2, and judging by the recent two maps they added, I can say with confidence they know what they are doing.
|
On June 21 2012 02:01 saladToss wrote:Here's an example of a 2v2 macro game. Trust me, we all want these games. They are the most fun, but you should realize how much has to align for these games to happen. The reason scorched haven is the best is because these types of games most often happen on scorched. http://drop.sc/201017Here is a macro game on a map everyone all ins on. http://drop.sc/201019And here's an all in on a "macro map". http://drop.sc/128940
How are either of these games macro games in any way?
The first game is a macro game because it didn't end with the initial pushes? there was a lot of back and forth, but only one person ever got a 3rd base... 2 + 2 base vs 2 + 2 base the whole game, teal doesn't even mine from his 3rd until the game was all but won.
Like I said back on page 1,
Scorched Haven
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.
In the second game, (I'm guessing you are Levels) you had been way ahead when blue stupidly got all of his queens and banelings killed at 6:30. Then you were way ahead around 11 minutes when again, blue lost all his units to banelings. Furthermore, the entire game was fought with tier 1 / 1.5 units until the 20 minute mark when ghosts, dts, and medivacs started to come out and the game was basically over anyway. You finally won when they were unable to break your third, which is a whopping 2 screens away from their natural and were only able to secure because you planted your army in the middle of the map on the watchtower! Kudos to you for being able to hold a base 3 inches away from the enemy's mains, but in my mind this is actually a prime example of why 2v2 maps need to have possible 3rd bases.
Because otherwise you are stuck fighting back and forth with low tier units on few bases hoping to gain enough of an army advantage to safely take a base that is either insanely close to your enemy or completely out of the way. So many possibilities are removed; you can't macro, can't tech, you are stuck fighting with low tech on few bases. So no, Blizzard's maps don't keep a diverse amount of playstyles viable in 2v2, and while Molten Crater is a step in the right direction, you mean to tell me that this
+ Show Spoiler +
is a good map? If that was posted on these forums it would get torn apart.
|
Everything gets ripped apart on these forums, because in general people who post on forums don't actually know what they're talking about because they spend too much time complaining and not enough actually playing.
Yes I think it's a good map. I've already had a number of games go past the 15 minute mark on it. It strikes a nice balance in given ability to be effectively aggressive on 1 base but at the same time being hard to kill your opponent on 1 base, if that makes any sense. Hellion drops and blink stalkers are good on it, but you need followups to these 1 base plays, which on other maps (like high orbit which I think is the inspiration for this map) would just kill your opponents. The rush distance is surprisingly long, tower control is super important, and the 4 gold bases are a nice touch as well.
And I don't understand your question about the replays. People are so hung up on taking a third, I guess because that's what qualifies a macro game in 1v1, but you should think of it like the first player to expand in a 2v2 is actually taking the third, because in the context of Starcraft 2, that is actually what is happening. If both players expand, that is 4 base play. So yes, those are both macro games. The tier level of units is irrelevant. (They removed tempest because it was too all-in / terran favored btw)
People need to wrap their heads around the fact that 2v2 is a fundamentally different game than 1v1 in that you start with double the income spread out on 2 base, but everything else - unit cost, build time, movement speed - remains equal. It shouldn't take a genius to realize why early aggression is the result of this.
I also love how everyone "knows" that the blizzard maps suck, but nobody has put forth a viable alternative, or even expressed what they think would make a better 2v2 map because they realize once they start thinking about it that there is a very thin line between too turtle-friendly and too all-in-friendly, and finding that balance is much harder than it is for a 1v1 map (as we know the game is balanced for 1v1), with much less pay off because nobody actually takes 2v2 seriously.
tl;dr if you want to play 3 base macro style, 2v2 is not your game type and never will be, maps be damned.
|
You do know the TheFish7 is a mapmaker right? He has provided several alternatives. We're trying to get them into our Plat 'n Up 2v2 Tournament as we speak.
No, taking a natural 2v2 is not the same as taking a third in 1v1. This is ignoring the fundamental component of RTS which is time. A 1base all-in refers more to a timing and tech possibilities, because time is basically the most valuable resource in this game. And for the record (although arguments from authority are stupid), I'm also in master with 2k+ games under my belt.
|
saladToss - I don;t mean to rip anyone apart, at least from what I saw you're probably a better player than me. I also may be biased when talking about desolate stronghold because I've played 3 games on it so far, One where two protoss double cannon rushed, which we held off and won, another where we got double 8-pooled, which we held off and won, and a 3rd where we got 4gated via a low ground pylon + OL spotting + ling rush combo and lost. Diverse games perhaps, but really lacking in creativity.
Ruling out feeding strats, a 3rd base is worth getting hung up on because a 3rd is what allows you to max out in a reasonable time frame and have enough gas to tech up.
You are absolutely right to say that there is a very fine balance between too turtle friendly and too rush friendly maps, and I'm not saying I have all the answers butI have been putting forth some alternatives.
Anyway, here is another alternative, I don't have time to make a full thread atm plus i posted the layout before so I'll just post it here for now.
Tantalus
Published on NA
16 bases, 170X152
Main-main ~55 sec, Nat-nat ~26sec
Wanted to try a layout with a pocket third that was open to flank attacks. It should be possible to double FFE on this map with some clever building placement. The nats are very close, the middle is boring and subject to change.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
While we're not 'top 10 2v2 in the world', we're reasonably high ranked, as in 1-5 in master league 2v2 every season and I honestly disagree completely with SaladToss about 2v2. We have macro games almost every 2v2. In 2v2 deathballing is in fact more rare than in 1v1 by my experience because you got two players and it's actually pretty hard to coördinate that, we often end up flanking from two directions.
Basically, you can force macro games in 2v2 to some extend, or at least, force all ins, people often play 2v2 as if it's 1v1 and expand too quickly for it and the opponent then reacts with a way to punish that greed. If you expand gradually there's not a lot the opponents can do to stop it. Most of our 2v2 games are about 15-25 minutes long and see about 6-8 bases per team. As you take bases slower in 2v2 this does indeed lead to fairly long games. 2v2 in some way is to be approached as 1v1 where you start with an expansion already, not just double 1v1. You definitely except on some maps cannot 'both FE', one has to FE while the other has to stand guard and take a slower expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2KGZZ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QuRKT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cgdih.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CokQy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWXby.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/02jQO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A6YCo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LMzRU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AEYwB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IsjJF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i5tea.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EqzwI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/e29131267ff2121d3a88da3cd1e0e816275e2cf71d9c3e3c68b10c0a3034b89d4g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UvA9Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/b/bb/DesolateStronghold-950.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r5Psh.jpg)
