EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/30gmu2e.png)
2v2
160 x 160
16 regular bases
2 gold bases
EU | NA | KR
Close spawns are allies. The rock towers can be collapsed from the low ground without vision.
+ Show Spoiler [Analyser] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wRADAJi.png)
+ Show Spoiler [Bases] +
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain016tnsq0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain013n8quy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/terrain015bwomu.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [Old version] +
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/sacrifice60035sns.png)
![[image loading]](http://abload.de/img/sacrificeanalyzer35jo1.png)
glhf
[M] (4) Sacrifice
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
2v2 160 x 160 16 regular bases 2 gold bases EU | NA | KR Close spawns are allies. The rock towers can be collapsed from the low ground without vision. + Show Spoiler [Analyser] + + Show Spoiler [Bases] + + Show Spoiler [Old version] + glhf | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Poll: What to do? Keep everything as it is. (4) Combine the main bases. (4) Other (please specify). (2) Block off main cliffs so Reapers can't jump up. (0) 10 total votes Your vote: What to do? (Vote): Keep everything as it is. Obviously, combining the bases would be the safest option but also the most boring one. I would assume that 2v1 isn't as big an issue here as e.g. on Resupply Tanker since the fourth player isn't threatened at all by early aggression, but this is just me guessing since I really don't know shit about 2v2 where everything seems to be different than 1v1. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
184 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On February 23 2015 01:56 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Really I think the map would be fine without the rocks separating the naturals. Would lessen the effect of 2v1, while still leaving the bases farther apart than many 2v2 maps, making Warp-Ins and floating buildings into a partner's base still possibly better while allowing Zerg to help defend more. It would actually amplify the effect of 2v1 since the attackers could then easily join up forces with the defenders still unable to help each other in the very early game. See Resupply Tanker for an example why this won't work. On February 22 2015 22:59 OtherWorld wrote: Trying to get your map on the next 2v2 tournament to see how it plays out would be my vote. Yes, well, how? | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On February 23 2015 11:59 And G wrote: It would actually amplify the effect of 2v1 since the attackers could then easily join up forces with the defenders still unable to help each other in the very early game. See Resupply Tanker for an example why this won't work. Yes, well, how? Meavis almost got his 2v2 map played on BaseTradeTV's 2v2 tourney by just asking in the LR (it would have been played if not for a bug finding the map) so it's definitely possible, unlike with 1v1 maps. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10361 Posts
| ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
I am not sure if a few tournament matches would reveal that certain 2v1 behavior. But I guess that's better than nothing. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On February 23 2015 12:20 Uvantak wrote: I don't consider there is a need to fusion both mains completely, even tho i'll be the first to say that not as experienced on 2v2 as i'm on 1v1, i think that just adding a small terrain bridge between both mains would fix for the most part the issues you are facing. This is actually what I had in mind, just a small connection near the map edge to still preserve some of the split map effect. Here's a mockup: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3vMCrsk.jpg) Not sure about cannon rushes though, maybe I'll have to make it larger. By the way, are unbuildable bricks still necessary with the mains combined? Or generally in 2v2? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
In any case, the design will only ever be highly unstable and rush based without a connection between the mains. I think the best solution would be to have a narrow connection like you've shown. Maybe not quite that narrow, more like 4-6 squares, possibly including a rock tower that could be collapsed to split the defending allies. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10361 Posts
| ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
On February 24 2015 17:59 FlaShFTW wrote: maybe a set of rocks that separates the two mains? maybe that would help a lot with defense. That would have the exact same problems with very early aggression as completely separate mains. On February 24 2015 15:52 OtherWorld wrote: How about a rock tower that can be destroyed from the low-ground to cover the path between the allies? I quite like this idea. It would make it much easier for the defenders to defend both ramps initially since that path would be close to the naturals so the distance between the ramps for the defenders is very short, however it would preserve the split-map effect in a quite unique way. I generally dislike rock towers but this is a really cool idea and unless I can find any problems with it I'll probably do just that. Edit: Implemented the collapsible rock towers, updated OP. Also removed the unbuildable rocks. | ||
| ||
