| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
What does everyone think about this layout? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2KGZZ.png) main to main is ~ 55 seconds w/ worker, about 65 seconds if you go the long way, much less if you take the rocks down you should be able to use the watch towers to spot if the rocks are going down. I might try to move the bottom left and top right most resources a bit closer to the ramps somehow. | ||
|
Toboe
United States276 Posts
On May 04 2012 11:50 TheFish7 wrote: I've been inspired by this thread. What does everyone think about this layout? That actually looks really good for a sketch! Looks like getting up to 5 bases as a team is easy and other expansions are definitely possible with some map control. I also like that the rocks that open up further paths for more countering opportunities. I personally don't like the small chokes that are relatively close to each other into the main. As nice as it is to use as defense very early on, it also means it's easy to contain a team to just their main or to snipe a natural with just 2 ff's relatively easily. The middle high grounds are worrying as far as getting siege units up there, but because that wouldn't really affect anything until the late game it would be more of a quirk than an impedance. But like you said, it's just a layout. I'd really like to see it fleshed out! | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles. | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
On May 04 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote: Wow that looks really good. Someone should make a Tyrador Keep that is a 4-spawn map and actually symmetrical. Because the way it's set up is actually pretty good. With 4 spawns both sides could actually reasonably take bases, which is the main problem with that map imo. It would be called Tyrador Castle because Keeps upgrade into Castles. What do you think of this: (aesthetics update July 22nd) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iIfna.jpg) + Show Spoiler [old version] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QuRKT.jpg) it's two teams but there are more bases. mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements" | ||
|
thezanursic
5497 Posts
On May 04 2012 03:27 Maur wrote: You may want to take a look at  Iron Curtain. Anyways, i don't think its necessary to have shared bases or the like, BW 2v2 maps didn't have sahred or near based and it as "fine".shameless selfpromotion: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=147942 (thread and pics are old) or this one with high ground: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316544 I had the idea to make a concept very similar to Iron Curtain but with neutral eggs instead of minerals. BW didnt have shared bases because the pathing was horrible and having a shared base would only get you stuck | ||
|
PowerDes
United States520 Posts
On May 04 2012 14:22 Namrufus wrote: What do you think of this: + Show Spoiler [map image] + it's two teams but there are more bases. mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep aesthetics are very WIP published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements" Only if cross spawns are forced, you don't want close range tank shots being fired on those natural expansions. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 04 2012 14:22 Namrufus wrote: What do you think of this: + Show Spoiler [map image] + it's two teams but there are more bases. mains are copied from the actual tyrador keep aesthetics are very WIP published on NA as "Tyrador Battlements" Hell yea that looks like a fun map to play. Looks like it might be a bit choke heavy but I always say that. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Namrufus, the way you used it, the main bases from Tyrador Keep do shine. The map really looks promising, I think these are the kind of maps that should be standard, very easy nat for 1 player, easy nat for the other and a pretty easy 3rd for the 1st player, and on top that of course the possibility for more bases what can lead into macro games, which is the goal here.  So, congraz you too and have fun texturing ^^ | ||
|
paddyz
Ireland628 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cgdih.jpg) What do you guys think of this design? I'm not super familiar with 2v2, is this any good? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
I think this needs a mapping contest, maybe then we might have a chance at getting noticed. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
PowerDes
United States520 Posts
On May 05 2012 01:58 Gfire wrote: + Show Spoiler + What do you guys think of this design? I'm not super familiar with 2v2, is this any good? Maybe add some mineral patches in the center, so the center becomes an important information to control. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:41 PowerDes wrote: Maybe add some mineral patches in the center, so the center becomes an important information to control. I think it'd be cool if center control would provide control of the 4th (7th and 8th) bases. Looking good so far | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
I think the boneyard is actually the best map in the pool because it's the only one tha.t lets both players get their third+ | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:50 ArcticRaven wrote: Lunar colony has ridiculous rush distance and expo openness. As zerg it is ok : as any other race it is impossible to expo. I think the boneyard is actually the best map in the pool because it's the only one tha.t lets both players get their third+ I agree. Boneyard is the only map I've ever had a real macro game on that didn't involve degenerate strategies or de facto starvation base denial because it's suicide to expand, or you've already won. Tyrador keep can sometimes produce games on a similar level but it suffers from a lack of viable expansions, but less so than the other maps. Most ladder 2v2 maps have 4-5 bases per team that aren't super circle syndrome or as close to the opponent as you. To say nothing of the short rush distances, nonexistent or over-reward for center control, and silly 4wide main ramps WITH backdoor. There is just an endless list of noncompetitive features. It's not really that hard to make a good 2v2 map either. Just make a good 1v1 map but with 25% larger proportions and a shared base. Bingo. Of course you can do more interesting things but it's sad there is no map like this basic layout in the ladder pool. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CokQy.jpg) Here, I updated it a bit. There are now watchtowers on the high ground and bases near the middle, and changed the structure and sizes of some chokes a bit. Is the center too powerful now? | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
 Can't wait till there is a full map pool of good 2v2 maps | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Personally I don't like backpaths between mains (especially such a long one). That means if its a 1-zerg team, both players essentially can't wall off. Ling/hellion can go through zerg's side and isolate the nonzerg. If you choose to get rid of the backpath, you could tuck the natural in more to have even closer ramps. Just something to think about. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
|
|
|
EPT
