2v2v2v2

[Alderon]

I haven't really seen any maps tailored to this and the option is there in-game. I think it would be great fun, hectic and yet tactical. Since I don't have the map pack (yet) I was messing about in the editor and came up with this:



I have no idea whether it would work or not and I know a well timed gateway would really throw the boat out, but let me know what you guys think.  

[Ross Przybylski]

I like this and would love to try it!  My one thought was it is possible for an enemy team to send their mage into attack right away, but since they'd need to use their sprint to do it, they would be at the mercy of the guardians next turn.  Great design!

I would switch the start zones of 5 and 6, this way, you could play this map as a 4 player FFA as well and maintain the symmertical balance.

[diesbudt]

Well I know from testing with some people running a few 2v2v2s, the game is wayyyy better than a 3v3. (i don't like 3v3 or 4v4, too many people on 1 team)  But also it adds in the social politics that makes FFA fun.

The few times we have done a 2v2v2, the games always had unexpecting turns.

Like the first one, on a map I just threw together (my map sucked btw), my mage was repositioned into an army of 6 units and was killed first turn.  Yet with a 3 team on the field and some sly political talking my team came out the victors (couldnt have done it without Amorphis's help).

Only problem I see with that map posted, is a barbarian can reach a hero on an adjacent team unhindered by a charge.  (Bard buffed bard + hero sprint equals dead hero, early in the game)


 i have already built a few 2v2v2   and 2v2v2v2  maps and can say I love this playstyle... though balancing a 2v2v2 map has been hell.

[FrontaLobotomy]

I have to agree about the 3 and 4 player teams. Just too many for my taste. The 3 or 4 teams of 2 sound right up my ally, tho. Alliances made and broken add an element that can totally change the game.

my .02