[M] (4) Sacrifice

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 21 2015 14:04 GMT

I made a 2v2 map.

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

February 21 2015 15:34 GMT

I love proper 2v2 maps! And I like ur idea here. The only thing that worries me is that if a team with at least one Terran was to rush early, they can build raxes and lift them to the other side so we have 2v1 situation due to the rocks.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

February 21 2015 19:30 GMT

I'm only a very occasional 2v2 player but I like what you did there. Looks like there's been an actual thought process behind the map, unlike for most 2v2 maps.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

February 21 2015 19:33 GMT

This is a fine layout, but looks weak concerning cheeses due to the short air space between allies and the small rush distance.

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 22 2015 13:55 GMT

I got some feedback on Reddit and talked to some people and watched some VODs and I'm really not sure how to proceed with this map in regards to super early 2v1 aggression. The biggest concern is TZ with T floating Barracks over to produce Reapers, but there are other 2v1 situations possible as well (e.g. involving P warping in across the middle). Unfortunately I have close to zero experience with 2v2 so this is all pure theorycrafting on my part.

Poll: What to do?

Keep everything as it is. (4)

40%

Combine the main bases. (4)

40%

Other (please specify). (2)

20%

Block off main cliffs so Reapers can't jump up. (0)

0%

10 total votes

Your vote: What to do?

(Vote): Keep everything as it is.
(Vote): Combine the main bases.
(Vote): Block off main cliffs so Reapers can't jump up.
(Vote): Other (please specify).

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

February 22 2015 13:59 GMT

Trying to get your map on the next 2v2 tournament to see how it plays out would be my vote.

NinjaDuckBob

183 Posts

February 22 2015 16:56 GMT

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.

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 23 2015 02:59 GMT

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

February 23 2015 03:20 GMT

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.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

February 23 2015 06:07 GMT

#10

On February 23 2015 11:59 And G wrote:

Show nested quote +

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 States10315 Posts

February 23 2015 07:37 GMT

#11

this seems super cool imo and i love the design of this map. please keep the rocks there. it makes maps like iron curtain also interesting.

Phaenoman

568 Posts

February 23 2015 09:05 GMT

#12

I can tell u, if this map was to be in the ladder pool for 2v2s, then u would get to see a lot of this 2v1 situation and thus would be all about destroying those natural rocks as soon as possible. And if there is a map element that u wanna get rid of asap when the game starts, then guess if it's good or not. At this point I have to say that these natural rocks are a great idea and I'd try to keep them, if u can somehow link the bases otherwise preserving ur original idea while preventing 2v1s.

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

February 24 2015 05:51 GMT

#13

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:

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

February 24 2015 06:45 GMT

#14

While people will complain about 2v1, which is the obvious imperative on this map, the correct response from the team under attack should be to counter against the aggressive player who is lending support (and is therefore scanty on defense). Obviously walloffs can make this harder but that's part of the metagame of the map, e.g. zerg should open speed & banes in all circumstances in order to punish their opponent if they go for "other side" plays, or to force them to stay home and prevent the 2v1 from occurring. Indirectly they are affecting the 2v1 even though their units can't physically interact with the "other side" opponent.

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

February 24 2015 06:52 GMT

#15

^How about a rock tower that can be destroyed from the low-ground to cover the path between the allies?

FlaShFTW

United States10315 Posts

February 24 2015 08:59 GMT

#16

maybe a set of rocks that separates the two mains? maybe that would help a lot with defense. but yes, this map is very brood war esque in super high unstable gameplay and very base tradey and understanding of how to take objectives together.

And G

Germany491 Posts

February 24 2015 09:26 GMT

#17

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.

Please or register to reply.

[M] (4) Sacrifice

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming