This map is an outpost style map [see my post on new map styles]. The intent is to split up the teams in the early game, forcing 1v1 style early game and allowing a transition to 2v2s in the mid and late game. The map uses standard Agria textures and has lots of asteroid, Xel'Naga rubble stuff.
Each Main is located in one of the corners of the map. Players are located closer to their enemy than their ally. The teams are always north vs south,
20 bases, 5 per player. All bases have a standard mineral/gas count
There is one set of towers that can see most of the rush attack path between players. There is another set of towers to get information about allied aggression in the mid game.
There are line of sight blockers in the middle that are intended to make the towers on either side a little harder to take.
There are destructible rocks between each player's 2nd and 3rd bases. These rocks are both to protect the player from early joint attacks, and to limit access to the 3rd base.
On August 10 2011 23:14 TehTemplar wrote: It's a good map, but you should make it east versus west.
agreed. its gonna be so hard to help out your ally if he gets attacked, because by the time you are half way there, you'll probs get counter attacked and then you guys lose. east vs west is better, because you can help out, but still be close enough to defend a counter attack.
On August 10 2011 22:44 darien_jarkeld wrote: Players are located closer to their enemy than their ally. The teams are always north vs south.
This just makes it a 2x 1v1 map = no team play. Also, with so close rush distances and super wide ramp in natural, this seems like a rather bad 1v1 (x2) map. Since I dont see how getting a second base is possible, I feel like it would almost never transition into 2v2 like you say.
What you should do: If you want to stick to your 1v1 into 2v2 desing, make the natural more defendable or increase the rush distance.
To all of you complaining that you can't help your ally, Outpost-style maps are perfectly fine. Read the link he posted. Also, there were outpost maps in BW.
The problem with an outpost style map is that it will reward a X + P team disproportionately. the P fourgates and attacks alongside his teammate to destroy one side. the teammate opens with an economy build and adds a few units to the attack. Even the opponent of the P counterattacks and kills him, they will have a pooled army to attack with and contain the remaining player while they rebuild.
On August 11 2011 00:40 iGrok wrote: To all of you complaining that you can't help your ally, Outpost-style maps are perfectly fine. Read the link he posted. Also, there were outpost maps in BW.
On August 11 2011 00:40 iGrok wrote: To all of you complaining that you can't help your ally, Outpost-style maps are perfectly fine. Read the link he posted. Also, there were outpost maps in BW.
yeah if you like 2v1s
If you can't help your ally, stands to reason they can't. If they can, then you can.
This just makes it a 2x 1v1 map = no team play. Also, with so close rush distances and super wide ramp in natural, this seems like a rather bad 1v1 (x2) map. Since I dont see how getting a second base is possible, I feel like it would almost never transition into 2v2 like you say.
I agree that the rush distances are a little too close, but even Metalopolis with close air spawns is only 133. At one point the natural had a tighter choke close to the main's ramp, but it just felt like it was a little too easy to defend. I am not trying to force it into the late game, but I don't want to discourage that style of play either. Of the few games I have played, we have all managed to expand to our naturals. Expanding to the third base seemed a little harder, but I think that was mostly because we weren't used to the map.
The problem with an outpost style map is that it will reward a X + P team disproportionately. the P fourgates and attacks alongside his teammate to destroy one side. the teammate opens with an economy build and adds a few units to the attack. Even the opponent of the P counterattacks and kills him, they will have a pooled army to attack with and contain the remaining player while they rebuild.
Yeah, building a pylon in your ally's base seems like a pretty strong tactic for Protoss. This is actually my least favorite part about the destructible rocks by your base. When the pressure comes, you end up feeling really trapped unless you have destroyed those rocks. If you can get away with your workers and/or units when you see that you are completely outnumbered, you could regroup with your ally after he destroys the Protoss base. That should more or less even out the rest of the match. I have thought about adding a path that goes straight from your base to your allies with no way to get from there to the middle of the map. That kind of path just felt kind of contrived though so I didn't end up adding it.
If you can't help your ally, stands to reason they can't. If they can, then you can.
iGrok nailed the intent of the map. It is supposed to be difficult to help your ally (either for attacking or defending) early on in the match.
wait what lmao if you dont help your ally and you go counter they will win the basetrade EVERY TIME. 2v1 shit breaks 2v2 games that are outpost style maps. and its incredibly imbalanced for certain matchups as well. ZZ v PP for instance is so hard early on for the protoss. and igrok didnt nail it on the head, he just stated the obvious.
theres a fine line in 2v2 maps and its how far away your ally is.
wait what lmao if you dont help your ally and you go counter they will win the basetrade EVERY TIME. 2v1 shit breaks 2v2 games that are outpost style maps. and its incredibly imbalanced for certain matchups as well. ZZ v PP for instance is so hard early on for the protoss. and igrok didnt nail it on the head, he just stated the obvious.
theres a fine line in 2v2 maps and its how far away your ally is.
I agree that distance from your ally is a very significant element of 2v2 maps. In most 2v2 maps where you do not share a base, your opponents can easily combine their army and then control both you and your ally by sitting outside your ramps. This is because they are able to control your ability to move out with an army and your ability to combine armies. In addition static defenses aren't as good because they can just ignore them and attack your ally.
This map is different than those because it is very costly for your opponents to combine their armies. The cost is this: by controlling one opponent with both armies, they give the other opponent the freedom to do whatever he likes. They can't control both of you because the time cost is way to high. This also improves the value of static defenses. If you are able to scout that your ally is getting double rushed, he can throw down some towers/bunkers/crawlers and the will be up by the time the opponents are able to combine their armies. This can make it that much harder to team up against a player in the early game. The longer that player is able to last the better off his team will be. If you are able to spot the rush, I think that you will have a huge advantage in a map like this, and that is why I placed the Xel'Naga towers where I did. Even if you don't spot the rush, I believe that you will have a decent chance, assuming your ally responds appropriately. Besides as a protoss player you should probably just always build a pylon in your ally’s base.
The whole point of this map is to experiment with distances between you and your enemies that are non-standard and see how it plays out. It might be that it is completely imbalanced toward certain races, but I don't think that it will have the same imbalances that we see now on 2v2 maps where bases are not shared.
On August 11 2011 03:13 Barrin wrote: IMO, "Outpost" style maps have the potential to be just fine.
Not enough people understand that in a 2v2 when you're getting "2v1'd", your ally is essentially untouched (at least and especially in the Outpost style). He can do a mix of counter attacking the enemy's undefended bases and/or macroing up a storm. All of that should be done while you are dying as slowly as possible (which can be done very effectively, I will not describe it here). The less forces they send at you, the higher their economy but the slower you will die (you might not even die if you went army heavy and they just played standard putting their forces together).
Yes, the person who get's 2v1'd feels like he is losing, and he sort-of is because he is now the weakest player, but if you play it properly most people would be surprised how balanced it actually is because the 2v1'd player's ally is generally significantly stronger than either of the enemies.
Well, this is kind-of hard to explain, and it took day[9] about an hour in Day[9] Daily #210... he probably explained it better than me.
edit: oh yeah, Protoss do have more flexibility in this map. But still, wherever he warps in units is units he's not warping in in other places.
I play 2s at a pretty high level and I can tell you unequivocally that what you are saying about tech strength only works in rare situations. most of the time you lose the game if you lose your ally, unless he dies very very slowly, which is hard, if not impossible to do. This would be a great map for 4 t's or t+z v. t+z but the addition of protoss makes it a very dangerous map.
In general map design has an incredibly profound effect on balance in 2v2s. this map would favor p+x. it's just a fact. the same way a map like gutterhulk (which was terribad in imho) favors Z heavily because of the distance between bases.
EPT![[image loading]](http://nimbletech.net/starcraft2/Xel'Naga Valley_top-down.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://nimbletech.net/starcraft2/Xel'NagaValley-shortestPaths-10-4.png)
![[image loading]](http://nimbletech.net/starcraft2/Xel'NagaValley-shortestPaths-10-8.png)
![[image loading]](http://nimbletech.net/starcraft2/Xel'NagaValley-summary.png)
