|
Personally I've vetoed High Orbit, Magma Core and The Ruins of Tarsonis (worst of the bunch). Here are my opinions on the rest of the ladder 2v2 map pool:
+ Show Spoiler +
Discord IV is bad (despite its excellent name), because you can really only ever get to 1+2 bases. Most games seem to be 1+1base push vs 1+2base push.
Lunar Colony V is an excellent map compared to most: while you start in shared bases (boring), you expand to one side each which makes you more spread out. Defending your bases is still reasonably easy (which is to say, probably easier than on any other map in the pool) -- I've even seen half-map splits.
Scorched Haven is the other decent map in the pool. 1+1, 1+2, 2+2, 2+3 base play are all viable. It does tend to promote 2+2 vs 2+2 200/200 pushes though, and expanding past 2+3 is quite difficult even super-late-game.
Tyrador Keep is depressing, but not imbalanced or anything I guess. 2+2 base play is dominant.
On The Boneyard, 1+1 or 1+2 base play are really the only alternatives. Cross positions are OK, close positions are VERY close. SoW close. Defending rushes is really hard in close pos.
2v2 can be quite fun; I would definitely welcome a better map pool. I think it has some promise for competitive play, too.
|
On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have.
Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack.
One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though).
The 6m1rg expansions also hope to aide in this, at least, that is the philosophy behind it, there's a thread about that some-where, it explains the motivation behind that.
A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
I have not tested it in any form yet, bugs are there as is.
It's published on friend's accounts and not my own so don't try to message them with any questions.
|
On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though).
So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces.
I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell.
Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now.
|
On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls.
I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL.
|
On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL.
Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all.
But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now.
Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though.
|
On May 07 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL. Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all. But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D Read it! ":D"
A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
|
On May 07 2012 06:18 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 05:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On May 07 2012 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 01:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Don't chokes favor big pushes though? Like isn't a big push (with tanks/colossus/fungal) through the center even scarier because of the narrow ramps? Only if there aren't any counter attack paths, the mathematical philosophy behind it is that say you got an army of size x and an army of size 2x. Out in the open surely 2x would smash x completely, however the more choky it is where they engage, the least of an advantage 2x will have. Chokes coupled with a lot of different counter attack paths should in theory promote splitting up armies more because you can pretty cost efficiently hold choke points with less units, if they decide to commit their entire army through that choke no doubt they will win, but they will not be as cost efficient as they normally would be in the open, allowing you to counter attack. One of the reasons BW was more of a spread out positional game was because the bad AI and pathing amplified this. (Another reason was the inability to as easily control a large army though). So the person with 1x army is using more cost efficient, slow units with probably more splash (like a Stalker/Colossus vs Chargelot/Archon thing). Obviously the faster army would be able to counterattack and deal with big pushes that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. Typically, the way a fast army beats a slow army is with surrounds and concaves. But if there's nowhere to surround or properly concave then the slower army strictly wins (or basetrades) with 1x forces. I'd have to play the map, because maybe the counterattack paths are vicious enough to prevent that sort of problem. It just seems kind of frightening for a zerg player like myself. Would roaches ever be able to get a good engagement anywhere? It's hard to tell. Basically, I want to play the map to see for myself, because it looks really cool and interesting and way better than what we have now. Roaches are in general not a good idea in 2v2. Most 2v2 games revolve around mutalisks and speedlings for Z. It's as far as I know already commonly understood that Z is the most powerful 2v2 race especially with gas feed strategies for huge muta balls. I'm not convinced at all that chokes are bad for zerg per se apart from that, take Crossfire, when it came out a lot of people said it was bad for Zerg, indeed, Artosis went down with his ship and up to the last moment kept claiming that ZvP should be impossible on that map due to the chokes, however the many counter attack paths and spread out expansions proved to more than nullify that and the map retired honourably with about a 30% PvZ winrate in the GSL. Nah, roaches and infestors are plenty viable in 2v2. They aren't really uncommon at all. But I agree that I have to play it to make any kind of real judgement like "it's bad for Z", considering there are a lot of counterattack paths. Publish it! :D Read it! ":D" Show nested quote +A version 0.1 is published on both NA and EU as 'Kuihtuneet', the name and anything on it might change as any time, it's not locked and you're completely free to edit it and upload your own version as you desire or claim you made it yourself, but I doubt people'd believe you because there's evidence here you didn't.
Whoops.
Great Thanks!
|
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps.
The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions.
Early Rushing
This same problem existed in 1v1s before they got decent maps.
Look at 1v1 maps used in professional leagues. Every single 2v2 map is smaller and has less bases than every single 1v1 map. There are twice as many people in a 2v2 game the map should be twice as big with twice the bases, not half as big with half the bases.
To stop early rushing they made most of the 2v2 maps shared base.
Shared base maps stopped early rushes from being too hard to stop but they didn't stop 1 or 2 base all ins.
1 and 2 base all-ins
All-ins are so powerful because it is hard to hold expansions. This is because your expansions are as close to your enemies as they are your main. Or your teammates expansion is closer to the enemy's base than your own. This can be solved by making maps bigger. There is a balance to be made here, it shouldn't be a guaranteed easy expansion, but it should be easier to hold an expansion than it is to do a 1 base all in.
I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues.
|
On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself.
It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue.
The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions.
I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right?
There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger.
|
On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. Show nested quote +I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger.
Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are.
|
On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are.
The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout.
But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army.
@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on.
+ Show Spoiler +In map terms, I would blame this on 3 primary reasons. The nat2nat on that map is pretty short. The openness is ridiculous throughout each main route and at the early bases (can't hold any forward positions or use chokes at home). The route disconnectedness is also ridiculous -- it's basically Monty Hall. (Same with the lava maps.)
|
@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on.
So you can rely on your ally to defend your base, you know, especially if he is zerg because he has fast units. Like your ally can leave some forces at your base to help you secure it. There's no problem with doing things like that.
I usually put some forces in my ally's mineral line to fend off a possible ling runbys/marine drops for all his expansions because that's such a threat. With two people you have a lot more options about how to defend things.
|
On May 07 2012 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +@doublereed: I play P in PZ typically, you play Z in PZ? I think race played has a huge affect on how you view a map, especially against certain opponent races. Like Lunar... no expansion is protoss safe. I realize it's 2v2 and different dynamics apply, but that's just how it is based on protoss design. You can't expand on that map (as protoss) unless you're already ahead / winning anyway. That's the difference I am remarking on. So you can rely on your ally to defend your base, you know, especially if he is zerg because he has fast units. Like your ally can leave some forces at your base to help you secure it. There's no problem with doing things like that. I usually put some forces in my ally's mineral line to fend off a possible ling runbys/marine drops for all his expansions because that's such a threat. With two people you have a lot more options about how to defend things.
Totally agree. But you either have to overmake static defense or rely completely on your ally, because protoss's "take my first expansion" plans don't work here, at all. It's probably really fun for a zerg to have a map that skews SO heavily towards army mobility and counterattack/flanking, but it's really NOT fun for a protoss. (By the way, the air space on either side of the main, especially behind the nat and the high ground expansions in that same direction, only exacerbates this.) 2v2 maps should at least let every race get 2 bases with minimal discomfort. I realize Boneyard is probably more enjoyable for me along these same lines, and less so you.
It also pushes low mobility towards deathball play, which is ideologically yucky and also really not fun after a couple games of stalker colossus.
|
On May 07 2012 08:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are. The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout. But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army.
Yeah, basically all the things they fixed with the 1v1 maps that when resolved make the map bigger. The problem is generic. The maps are too small. The amount of adjustments you can make to existing 2v2 maps is very limited because they are too small to fit anything in them. Make them bigger then we can start adjusting the number of routes and the air distance versus ground distance, the layout of the expansions, etc.
On almost every 2v2 map your teammate's 3rd base closer to one of the enemies' main bases than it is your own main base because there is not enough room on the map to position it otherwise.
|
On May 07 2012 10:29 locopuyo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 08:03 EatThePath wrote:On May 07 2012 07:29 locopuyo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:26 SiskosGoatee wrote:On May 07 2012 07:12 locopuyo wrote:
2v2 maps have twice the number of players and should be twice as big as 1v1 maps. This is about as naïve as enlarging a plane 2 times and expecting that it'll still fly and not collapse in on itself. It doesn't work like that, maybe it would work if movement speed of all units was doubled. Twice the amount of units might need twice the amount of space or expansions but units don't suddenly become faster so distance is a major issue. The biggest problems with 2v2 maps are the same problems 1v1 maps had back when the game first came out. They aren't big enough and they don't have enough expansions. I think making better 2v2 maps is actually very simple. Make them bigger and have more bases. We already saw this make 1v1 much, much better. Just do the same for 2v2, then we can worry about the other map balancing issues. You know that maps like Cloud Kingdom actually have a rush distance smaller than Kulas Ravine right? There's far more that is done than just making maps bigger and bigger. Maybe they don't need to be twice as big but they should be at least as big. Right now they are all smaller. Fix this then we can see what issues there really are. The size of a map is the most generic figure possible, and can tell you the bounds of certain features but says nothing specifically. It will give you a very rough idea of the density of expansions (if you know how many bases there are), the rush distances (also scouting distances), the openness, tower coverage (if you know how many towers), the possible air distances, and the shape and number of routes, which can affect expansion layout. But all those things are variable based on the terrain. What you're really talking about is rush distances, nat2nat, expansion neutrality and circle syndrome, number of chokes/routes per number of bases (map control vs income level), etc. The rush distances and nat2nat should be the same as 1v1, otherwise you have problems with scouting and free expansions. The overall openness has to be increased to compensate for twice the maximum possible amount of army. Yeah, basically all the things they fixed with the 1v1 maps that when resolved make the map bigger. The problem is generic. The maps are too small. The amount of adjustments you can make to existing 2v2 maps is very limited because they are too small to fit anything in them. Make them bigger then we can start adjusting the number of routes and the air distance versus ground distance, the layout of the expansions, etc. On almost every 2v2 map your teammate's 3rd base closer to one of the enemies' main bases than it is your own main base because there is not enough room on the map to position it otherwise.
Fair enough. =)
|
Theoretical question:
I know there are issues with not having a ramp to block the main base (4gate), but what about in a shared base 2v2 map?
In other words, is it viable to have a main base entrance that does not feature a ramp in 2v2 games? I don't think I've ever seen an all protoss 2v2 game... and plus, we are already dealing with weird sized ramps.
|
On May 07 2012 05:50 Gfire wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Alright, I've updated the entire thing a bit. How does this look? There's only one watchtower now, and I added some rocks at the harder to defend natural, and widened the ramp up to the further bases. The central paths are also a bit wider now. Not sure what to name it.. I think I'm gonna go with a sort of lava/dungeon theme, though.
Hmm.. nice updates but I'm having second thoughts about the natural layout. As it stands, the attacker can rush up one of the entrances to the main, which causes the defender to scramble because the attacker has a shorter distance from the split path to the choke than the defender (somewhat circle syndromish). This is somewhat negated by good high ground positioning, although careful army movement negates this melee units don't benefit either. Could it be possible to put the two ramps to the main pointing toward each other (but separated a suitable distance) so that the defender doesn't run around like headles chickens, and leaving that to the attackers/
|
I would advise taking a second look at the season 1 map  War Zone, the size of the map is pretty perfect, only I believe players should have their own ramps.
|
Ohhh the nostalgia of War Zone. Back in my silver/gold league days the first thing I would remind myself was get that pylon built on both rocks to see if they backdooring us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LMzRU.jpg)
