EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/93G5dhM.png)
2v2
176 x 176
22 regular bases
2 gold bases
EU | NA | KR
+ Show Spoiler [Analyser] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2p90dno.png)
+ Show Spoiler [Pictures] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XNmktzQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GPX5tOl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MnNi8um.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hobUzrG.jpg)
glhf
[M] (4) Past Imperfect
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
2v2 176 x 176 22 regular bases 2 gold bases EU | NA | KR + Show Spoiler [Analyser] + + Show Spoiler [Pictures] + glhf | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Ehm, to be honest, I think this approach is way to extreme, there is no actual need for safe 6 bases in 2v2, no matter how safe-3-bases oriented is the 1v1 game now. In 2v2, one player does not need to take care of everything and thus the 1v1 logic does not apply. Don't get me wrong, I don't propose that all 2v2 maps are rushfests, but they should be at least spreading the teams more thin, otherwise it just collapses to a weird and laggy 1v1. The potential for small skirmishes around the map, complex tactial decisions about how to split armies etc. is realy big in 2v2 and this layout does everything possible to hinder it. edit: also as a question of convenience I like more to have maps that have "my part and her part" as I play in a ZvT team and the interfrence of my creep with my terran's buildings is annoying. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
2. I don't think it's "free 6 bases" at all, there is highground cliffing and lowground cliffing at one base, and 5 entrances into the nat/3rd area removing all rocks. imo this looks incredibly fun and interesting, and is a nice change from bliz style maps | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
The worker rush joke is apparently a silly one if the only response it got is that you don't get it, it makes fun of the fact that nowhere it is said that it is a 2v2 map (while it is clearly obvious of course) and thus one (a very silly one indeed) could see the map as 4-spawns 1v1 map and consider that in close spawns, the rush distance is mere 3 seconds. | ||
|
And G
Germany491 Posts
Six bases aren't easy here since control of the middle high ground is necessary to secure the base below it. And maybe you missed the rocks? As a side note, this map was partially designed to be good for ZZ teams which seems the weakest combination in macro games. And unlike most other Blue Storm remakes this one is actually quite faithful in terms of proportions. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 10 2015 06:29 opisska wrote: It's not "free", but they are definitely much easier 6 bases than you would ever see in a 1v1 map, do you at least agree on that? They are easy almost to the level 3 bases are now usually easy in 1v1. Not quite, but you are going to have twice the army to defend. It's not "forbidden", but I think there is a reason that extremely turtly maps are not universally loved. The worker rush joke is apparently a silly one if the only response it got is that you don't get it, it makes fun of the fact that nowhere it is said that it is a 2v2 map (while it is clearly obvious of course) and thus one (a very silly one indeed) could see the map as 4-spawns 1v1 map and consider that in close spawns, the rush distance is mere 3 seconds. Haha yes that was confusing given it does say 2v2, but I see how you got there now. I thought you were talking about rush distance which is actually quite long despite the conceptual predecessor. It's definitely much easier 3 base per player than most 2v2 maps, indeed on par with 1v1 "standard". I don't think this is a bad thing though. Most of the "macro" 2v2 maps that provide really easy 3base-each have very turtley design on top of easy bases which means aggression is pointless and you just 400/400 fight after waiting 15 minutes. This is distinct from the 1v1-type style you see here where there are aggressive options that 2base players can use to punish greedy 3rds. Additionally, harassment options combined with relatively safe nat and close 3rd allow players to apply pressure while expanding, which can result in very action intensive early games that pivot directly into fierce fighting to defend the 3rds. The routes and chokepoints here will let good positioning win but also gives attackers lots of options. In short I think it provides a great mix of options for all kinds of players. Dedicated 2base all in is probably not as strong here but that's not so bad is it? | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
| ||
| ||
