|
Southbound Voyager
published on NA as "Southbound Voyager"
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z5R6MfY.jpg)
There are three paths to the enemy. Which path leads to victory?
+ Show Spoiler [previous versions] +
+ Show Spoiler [vanity shots] +
STATS
dimensions: 144x144
rocks: 4
bases: 16, all 8m2g
watchtowers: none
DESCRIPTION
This shared-base 2v2 map has three independent paths from main to main: two open ones to the sides and one blocked off by rocks in the middle. There are three "naturals": one closed off one, one very open one, and the bases in the middle, which could serve as in-base naturals in the very early game. It is possible to see one of the middle base's geysers from the high-ground pods adjacent in the middle area, but it can't be reached by stalkers/marines etc from the pod. There are some extra bases off the side paths and the islands can eventually be taken pretty safely (the islands are blocked by rocks and are accessible to cliff-walkers).
please post any feedback/comments/suggestions you might have. Thanks for reading!
|
So once you start taking thirds you end up right next to the enemy's third?
|
what is the point of the random high ground in the middle
|
How about adding an in-base expansion? This will allow to expand safely without having to take the forward expansion which later on becomes very contested. Besides that I think that there are way too many 1 width ramps, even 2 width ramps are pretty small and barely get used on 1v1 maps, so on 2v2 map I feel that 2 width ramps are the minimum except in the mains, and 3 width ramps are preferable. I can see why you chose 1 width ramps, but I think it's too much.
Ramps I feel should be changed are the backdoor to the main to a 2 width, the 10 and 4 expo's to have either two 2 width or 2 and 3 width. I feel like these changes will make the map less constricting and will allow for more compositions to be viable.
Anyways, I think it's awesome to see more 2v2 maps, if there are ever going to be tournaments for it there should be good maps ready to be played. This map is very nice, even with the ramps staying 1 width, although tanks will probably be pretty imba here, but we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
namrufus, how much 2v2 do you play? this map suffers from one of the worst problems with almost every 2v2 ladder map, which is short push distance and bases too close to each other. I know there are other options and the rocks delay for a while, but it just makes for a really frustrating dynamic in some matchups, and makes it hard to play longer than 1 fight once the rocks are down.
also, why are the nat chokes so disparate?
I agree with moskonia that an inbase expo would be good. Up against the forward cliff so that there is more to the lowground than a dangerous base and a short push distance, also some cliff harass.
|
I think if you increased the size of this map (to increase rush distances between thirds) it would be a lot of fun to play on. Also a lot of ramps too small like others have said.
You make me sick!
|
This looks like a 4 players version of that blizzard 8 player map that used to be in rotation for a long time starting with the WoL relase. I forget the name, its desertlike.
|
On September 26 2013 12:08 eTcetRa wrote:You make me sick!
Nou.
It does look a bit like Extinction, now that you mention it.
|
Good map. Khaldir always looks so shiny and sexy. I kind of tend to agree that it might be better with an in-base expo and slightly longer nat-nat. What I really like though is the two paths where players are better off each fighting on their side of the map, but they aren't forced to do so and don't get forced into an automatic 2v1 situation. You also have the middle being good for air units which is fun.
Also Extinction was an awesome map (except for the couple of imba reaper spots and that one planetary fortress rush spot that ruined it lol) I'm glad to see a similar concept show up. Welcome back btw dude.
|
First off: my apologies for this late reply. I could make a variety of excuses, but most would boil down to "Namrufus is a big dumb idiot", so I will not.
@skdeimos:
well, the "intended" expansion pattern would have the players expand to the single-entrance third first, (the entrance to that third is much more close to the entrance to the nat on the same side. The third with two entrances is more intended to be a more "neutral" base.
@a176:
just some stuff to move around on, nothing in particular is intended.
@moskonia:
Inbase expansion seems like a good idea, I'll do that - move the center base into the main next to the cliff into the center. I hear you on the ramp sizes; my current plan is to move the small-ramped base with two entrances one level lower, opening up that area and underscoring that base's more neutral status (compared to the base with only one entrance). For the "backdoor" ramp, I'm hesitant to increase the size (I don't want it to be too easy to attack up from the center, since the distance is so short.) Maybe I'll just get rid of those ramps altogether - and maybe add smallish entrances to the center from the sides (or maybe leave it as an island, tho that would be kinda weird)
@lorestarcraft:
thanks!
@EatThePath
Not at all, which is probably the problem here.
The chokes are such different sizes because I wanted one easier nat and one harder nat.
@TheFish7
Thanks! Hey fish.
Thanks for the responses and feedback.
edit: New version published:
+ Show Spoiler [map image] +
|
|
|
On November 06 2013 11:16 TheFish7 wrote:
Good changes IMO
Agree 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8HhmZD5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SCS63oj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yh4ZbTP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fnr95j0.jpg)
