STATS
dimensions = 107x176(narrow!)

watchtowers = 0
rocks = 4

17 total bases
12 8m2g
4 6m1hyg (islands)
1 6hym2g (center island)

tileset: + Show Spoiler +

FEATURES

This is a 2v2 melee map. The main features of the map are as follows:

Shared nat area: the mains are not shared, but the nats are. The mains have single width ramps while the nat has 2 one width ramps and 1 two width ramp.

Long rush distance: compared to the distance between the mains.

Two main attack paths. one on each side of the map.

Lots of islands: 5 island expansions, they can be blinked to.

CONCERNS

My largest concern for the map is the fact that the mains are not shared. I made the distance to the enemy much farther than the distance between the mains but I'm not sure if this is enough to prevent abuse.

The restricted number of attack paths might make for boring game-play, but the focus is supposed to be on the islands anyway. (make the thirds 6m1hyg and the islands full bases?)

I'm also considering putting watchtowers on some of the droppable pods, to further incentivize air play. maybe.

Please post your feedback, comments, and suggestions (if you have any)! Thanks for reading.

Inside.Out

Canada569 Posts

September 09 2012 02:04 GMT

i think it would be a bit too easy to do a double early timing push against one player and cut off his ally from reinforcing. the main to main path has an easy choke point that would make helping out a besieged teammate very hard. i think you should do a larger single ramp down from the naturals, or maybe have two ramps but in a way that they seem pretty neutral. theres also an issue with the middle of the three ramps and the one clockwise to it, as there is a shorter distance back and forth for the attacker, and it will be really easy to pull an army out of position and dart up their other ramp.

otherwise a very cool map

Farmer Poopy

258 Posts

September 09 2012 03:04 GMT

^ As ecstatic said, I would make the naturals at least a little bit easier to take.

having 5 islands is interesting, I want to say its not very balanced due to the lack of islands in competetive 1v1 but since there isn't really a competitive 2v2 scene it may work out ok. One thing I would do if you kept all the islands is position maybe 1 watch tower on each side* so if you have map control you can see if someone took an island instead of it being a semi-ninja expo that is difficult to get to.

*From what I can tell there are no watch towers on the whole map

TeamCuP

Sweden4 Posts

September 09 2012 07:59 GMT

its going to be 2v1 all they way. TP or PP can never play one it.

but it looks nic. but if you can make shared base!

MicroMonkey

95 Posts

September 09 2012 08:55 GMT

I suddenly have an idee for you. make one player from every team spawn on a island. If soo you dont need to change much in the map. I think it wont be balanced but maby it vill be. no one never try it.

digmouse

China6328 Posts

September 09 2012 09:23 GMT

All team maps should be fortress style sharing base imo.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

September 10 2012 22:46 GMT

Awesome, dude! Probably the best split-base 2v2 map I've seen.

I happen to be of the opinion that split-base can definitely work for 2v2 (and probably also for 3v3 and 4v4 too) if done right. As you point out, the long rush distance somewhat makes up for the distance between mains. Players will need to be vigilant about watching their main ramps to prevent being forcefielded away from their ally, but they have the opportunity to do so in this case.

If the islands prove to be imbalanced, you could always just add a small ramp or make them into semi-islands.

To me, the most interesting feature of the map is the two main attack routes. They might encourage base trading, but whats cooler is that the map encourages air play as it is now.

Unsane

Canada170 Posts

September 10 2012 23:50 GMT

In my eyes some of the split-base maps there is actually defenders disadvantage, but this one appears like it could actually be defenders advantage for once. I think TheFish7 is right, in my opinion the blizzard 2v2 maps are horrendous to begin with(almost every blizz map just cant compare to the pro mapmakers'), and blizz just keeps botching split based maps in particular.
Aesthetically very appealling, and if the mass islands prove to be imbalanced, ramps for one on each side would be a completely appropriate fix.

FlaShFTW

United States10114 Posts

September 10 2012 23:55 GMT

rush distance is too long imo. unless you want to force a long 2v2 game, then shorten that distance. since ur close enough to ur ally's base, it should really be on trouble.

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

September 11 2012 03:03 GMT

#10

Thanks for all of the comments!
I might do something like this:
+ Show Spoiler +

I could combine the mains together if it turns out to be necessary, though I am hesitant to do so.

@EcstatiC:
thanks for the suggestions, I'll probably do something similar.

@Farmer Poppy:
my concern for providing XWTs that watch over the center islands from the 'ground' is that it might make siege tank attacks on the mineral lines too powerful because of the vision they provide.

@micromonkey: a couple of full island 2v2 maps for sc2 already exist: example:Xel Naga Storm by Wnio though I don't think I've ever seen a semi-isalnd 2v2 like you describe for sc2 (there are a couple from BW) I've been wanting to try one of those, though I probably won't convert this one.

@TheFish
thanks for the detailed feedback! I'll try to keep all of it in mind. interestingly enough, in early versions of the map, the center expos weren't actually islands (connected to the rest of the map in a similar manner to the way that you describe)

@FlashFTW:
Well the rush distance is long main2main & nat2nat, however, expanding to the thirds brings you much closer to the enemy. So I don't think games on it will be too long and passive (you are stuck on 2base per player unless you take a forward third or some of the islands.) idk though.

------------------

thanks again

, I'll try to update the map soon.