Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (88 users) | |
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 27 2012 20:39. Posts 14 | Profile # |
because you aren't forced to spread, or fight over long distances.
I think you might want to go into game and look at the map for clarification here. The thirds have a much bigger gap than daybreak does. So it is not as easy as defending it in 1v1. Furthermore, the distance from the main to the third is much longer than on daybreak. Lastly, the 4ths 5ths and 6th base all either have wider ramps or are in a more open spot. The only thing that is the same gap size is the choke at the naturals in order to promote more than one base play.
The distance from 1 ramp to another is about 55 seconds with a probe. 48 seconds on daybreak. So I made it longer. 6 pool should not work if you scout it and defend it right. JUST like in 1v1.
I'm really not trying to come off as a jerk here. I don't mean to sound like I'm hell bent on proving you wrong or attacking you. I just don't think it accomplishes everything that it should
Please do not think that you are coming off like that at all ^^ Discussion, reasoning, and the sharing of ideas is a means of progression with regard to human interactions. That is, only if at least one of the people taking part in the discussion actually has sound knowledge. Knowledge being that which is True. |
|
|
| Chargelot May 27 2012 20:52. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
There are no 2v2 maps in GSL. My comparison and my complaint are not one in the same. 2v2 isn't 1v1. Expanding beyond the natural in 2v2 has been purposefully made more difficult than it has been in 1v1. Have you ever considered why Blizzard didn't essentially just double base every 1v1 map, and call them 2v2 maps? Or why 1v1 does not have a 400 supply limit with current maps? These were actually carefully made decisions.
This map is nothing like daybreak, because you can't defend your daybreak natural/third with 400/400 food. If you could, you'd need a much larger area to defend it with. The map would need to be a lot larger, more spaced out, as is seen on current ladder 2v2 maps.
It becomes thoughtless when I can stick 280 army supply into the same area I would 140 army supply, and just declare "you can't touch any of my bases", and it literally becomes true. It becomes effortless when I can stick 280 army supply in one spot and bank an expansion's worth of minerals. But this isn't only about end game armies.
My entire point was that the area you must occupy to defend your bases must increase geometrically with the number of bases you have (except in some cases, like on Metalopolis you could wall off the third and defend from the natural opening). If you double the bases per area, and give them the same access points you would single bases, you've essentially made defense twice as easy.
In essence my point is:
200% units.
200% money.
200% players.
100% difficulty of defense.
I understand your point is to aid macro, but I don't think such a drastic step is necessary. It accomplishes your task, but perhaps too much. It goes above and beyond what is necessary.
My official recommendations would be to widen the back entrance to the third bases (I know it's really wide already, maybe only by a couple squares), and bring the 12:30/6:30 bases down to a single base, which means when you get that far (which on a map like this you definitely will edit: probably could), one player must take the center base.
Also, I didn't mention this earlier because it wasn't as big as my other point, but the center isn't extremely exciting. As a player I would avoid that area as much as possible. it's too big I think, even with the rocks. You could try putting in chasms east/west of the XNT, between it and the bases.
Is this on EU? I would love to try it. I'm leaving for a while right now, but I'll check it out when I get back if it is.Last edit: 2012-05-27 20:59:49 |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
| CrAyZeD United States. May 28 2012 04:59. Posts 36 | Profile # |
| This is one of the better threads ive seen i do like the idea for your map you have presented i also liked the scorched haven analysis TL community is awesome! |
| |
|
| iGrok United States. May 28 2012 05:05. Posts 4221 | Profile Blog # |
All I ask is that you please remove LE from the name (PM Barrin). Things are confusing enough without a tacked on, incorrect acronym. You even said that you were just copying daybreak, so that shouldn`t be a big thing to ask.
re: play, I`ll have to test it when i get home. |
| | MOTM | Stim.tv | TL Mafia | Fantasy Fighting! | Samurai Champloo | Maker's Mark | Gangnam Style! | Nunu |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 28 2012 06:40. Posts 14 | Profile # |
In essence my point is:
200% units.
200% money.
200% players.
100% difficulty of defense.
You are making things too simple. Double the unit supply and amount of players per team does not require a doubled map size or doubled gap sizes. That is the reason why the map pool is so trash and macro games hardly ever occur on the ladder right now. You keep bringing back this argument but I am saying to you that it is the prime reason why the maps are so bad. The ling unit, the helion unit, etc., become too hard to deal with when you make everything twice as long or twice as big. Also, as I said earlier, the third DOES have a wider entrance, that is to say it is not as narrow as the 1v1 map.
It becomes thoughtless when I can stick 280 army supply into the same area I would 140 army supply, and just declare "you can't touch any of my bases"
This just is not true. When drops, army splits, and multipronged attacks occur there is going to be the need to think.
Have you ever considered why Blizzard didn't essentially just double base every 1v1 map, and call them 2v2 maps? Or why 1v1 does not have a 400 supply limit with current maps? These were actually carefully made decisions.
Where is your proof that Blizzard, "carefully" thought about 2v2 maps? Every single map in the 2v2 map pool is a steppes of war. Every map in the map pool is complete trash. I wont make such an absolute statement as you have and say that Blizzard did not but ANY thought into the 2v2 maps but I will say that I highly doubt Blizzard put a 10th as much thought into it as the solo map pool. Because if they had we would not be stuck with such terrible maps.
Point in summary, 1v1 is amazing. Why? The ability for players to take multiple bases and show audiences unique stratagems that involve most, sometimes ALL, of the units that the Blizzard has provided each race with. 2v2... meh, 1 base all ins 85% of my games and each player usually goes a total of 1 or 2 units. (Usually tier 1 i.e., marine marauder, stalker zealot, ling roach) In order to change this, just as 1v1 changed when steppes of war maps were removed, one must have the naturals and thirds more easily obtainable. This was done only by making the naturals and thirds closer to the main bases and have the chokes to each of them much smaller. Why on earth would it be a bad idea to have the same logic be applied to 2v2?
It is on the NA server. I am sorry! I am also new to map making so I am not sure as to how one goes about publishing maps on other servers. I do not have a EU account either.
|
|
|
| ArcticRaven France. May 28 2012 19:43. Posts 1165 | Profile # |
This just is not true. When drops, army splits, and multipronged attacks occur there is going to be the need to think.
Actually no. The point he's trying to make is that it's so easy to cover your ground that you won't ever need to think about defending because you have two minds and two armies. I think Chargelot is very right here. Reading your replies, have you actually considered he could be right ? You seem to be rejecting his arguments categorically without any of your own. Also stop trying to diabolize him as a Blizz map pool lover or some other heresy - he cares as much as you do, or he wouldn't be here. |
| | [EatThePath] I call assassins as my faction. Please tell me we can all agree that in the version of history, Steppes of War will be Jerusalem. |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 29 2012 08:28. Posts 14 | Profile # |
The point he's trying to make is that it's so easy to cover your ground that you won't ever need to think about defending because you have two minds and two armies.
The ground is not the same as in a solo. Like I said the map size is bigger, and the gap sizes are wider. The only gap size that has remained the same is the gap for defending the natural. Thus, the ground is not "so easy to cover". If you want to prove otherwise get 3 other master 2's players and try the map out. I have done so and it is not "easy" to cover your main natural and thirds.
Reading your replies, have you actually considered he could be right ? You seem to be rejecting his arguments categorically without any of your own.
Are you implying that I have not put forth any argument of "[my] own"? Perhaps you have not read my replies. And I have considered his argument. I just think that it is not sound. Why else would I be arguing against his point?
Also stop trying to diabolize him as a Blizz map pool lover or some other heresy - he cares as much as you do, or he wouldn't be here.
I have not tried to "diabolize him as a Blizz map pool lover". Please provide an unambiguous quote from my previous posts where I have tried to do this. Furthermore, I recognize his "care" and I do not doubt his caring as much as I do. Again, provide your proof that I ever said he did not care as much as I do.
I could be wrong but I don't think your read the full page of posts carefully enough. Otherwise your assessment of our argument would have been more accurate than it was. |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
