Stats:
4 spawn points
24 bases
playable bounds: 209x215
main to main distance:
70 seconds for vertical spawn,
85 seconds for cross spawn
Natural to Natural Distance:
65 seconds for vertical spawn,
80 seconds for cross spawn

here it is, my first 2v2 map. there aren't many swamp maps yet so i decided to make one. this map is designed for long macro games, with many easy to take bases. the mains are separated but there is a bridge in between them in case of rushes.

Additional photos:
+ Show Spoiler +

the main:

the bridge in between the main's

the natural:

The third

the fourth

the middle area/XNT

the Fifth

the sixth

the center expo

Previous Version:
+ Show Spoiler +

Concerns:
+ Show Spoiler +

there might be too much dead space.
not sure about the xel'naga watchtowers

Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +

Version 2.0:
removed on of the thirds and moved the other one to the center.
made major changes to middle.(including removing the island and making more room)
Added Xel'naga watchtowers.
removed some dead space
flipped the fifth
Published on the EU server

i'm thinking of maybe entering this in the team liquid map contest, so tell me if you think i should use one of my spots or if i should make a different map.

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

April 25 2013 19:49 GMT

I feel like there really isn't a lot of space for engagements on this map. You'd just have armies bashing into each other with no real jockeying for position. Plus the amount of thin chokepoints.

Translation: everybody has to go air.

Callynn

Netherlands917 Posts

April 26 2013 10:12 GMT

While I like the generaly idea of this map's layout, everything is just too narrow. Especially in 2v2, there should be tactical choices to be made by each team. For example:

1. Who takes the (natural) or (third)?
2. Do we move as one deathball (and then open ourselves up to possible counterattack) or do we position seperately for counterattack/defense?
3. Will we go for an all ground, all air or hybrid composition?

I don't see those options. The players must choose for a single option. This map makes it feel like a 1v1 map that is copied, because there is no sharing or choice making as a team involved.

All that being said, as I noted in the opening: the map does have potential. So what I suggest:

- Open it up for a combined ground army to position tactically.
- Open up counterattack paths.
- Force third expansion choices (by only making one 'safe' per team) and thus forcing the map into a position that doesn't create a border that motivates turtle play.
- Add gold bases in the middle, they force a team to take action if it's taken.

To achieve this I would start by narrowing the water a lot. Removing an expansion as third in a mirrored spot is easy to do as well, and you can turn two center islands (not the exact middle!) into golds (though you should block them against Terran command centers with a tumor).

Good luck on improving your layout!

gronnelg

Norway354 Posts

April 26 2013 11:33 GMT

This could be cool as a 2v2 map, or as a fooling around and having fun map.

Some concerns:
1. Drop and airplay will be really powerfull, as ground armies have to go around the edges to get anywhere.
2. Long range units (primarly colo and siege) can take out island expands while on the mainland, and (primarly sieges) could be really powerfull defensive if put on the islands (and shoot to mainland).
3. A bit chokey (lack of open spaces) for zerg armies.

Dellron

United States69 Posts

April 26 2013 21:29 GMT

Ok guys, thanks for all your Help. i made major change to the center and i have updated it. so please give me any feedback you can.

EatThePath

United States3943 Posts

April 26 2013 22:04 GMT

Also, this is just a really big map. The ground distance between your main ramp and your own corner semi-island base location is like the nat2nat on most 1v1 maps. The bounds, imo, could easily be reduced to approx 180x180 and produce a better map. Here's a few thoughts on why:

The main base and nat2nat entrances are quite far apart for the defenders to coordinate. This makes the cheesy parts of 2v2 much stronger, and amplifies the strength of mobile armies, which are already strong in 2v2 by the nature of it.

The rush distance is quite far, which makes it hard to do any kind of reactive play. The reason is that your timing windows are all collapsed due to travel time. This creates two choices in the exreme: make a blind all-in, or play blind macro. That is a recipe for coinflip games AND blowouts without chance for comeback (those things often go together). This is also sort of the dynamic of 2v2, so it should me mitigated not emphasized by the map.

This feedback is based on your new version which is an improvement for sure, but becomes almost a new map and still has some problems. So this has some quick ideas on what you could do to fix some of those but preserve the ideas of the layout:

[image loading]

Basically this just simplifies and condenses the prominent parts of the map and adjusts the proportions in a few places. I reduced the width by just smushing the bases together more and bringing the corner peninsula closer. Food for thought, and I would be happy to talk about it more if this is useful.

Dellron

United States69 Posts

April 27 2013 02:55 GMT

On April 27 2013 07:04 EatThePath wrote:
Also, this is just a really big map. The ground distance between your main ramp and your own corner semi-island base location is like the nat2nat on most 1v1 maps. The bounds, imo, could easily be reduced to approx 180x180 and produce a better map. Here's a few thoughts on why:

The main base and nat2nat entrances are quite far apart for the defenders to coordinate. This makes the cheesy parts of 2v2 much stronger, and amplifies the strength of mobile armies, which are already strong in 2v2 by the nature of it.

The rush distance is quite far, which makes it hard to do any kind of reactive play. The reason is that your timing windows are all collapsed due to travel time. This creates two choices in the exreme: make a blind all-in, or play blind macro. That is a recipe for coinflip games AND blowouts without chance for comeback (those things often go together). This is also sort of the dynamic of 2v2, so it should me mitigated not emphasized by the map.

This feedback is based on your new version which is an improvement for sure, but becomes almost a new map and still has some problems. So this has some quick ideas on what you could do to fix some of those but preserve the ideas of the layout:

+ Show Spoiler +

hmmmm, that looks interesting. looks a little narrow in some area's but i would like to talk more, i could use all the help i can get.