EPT[Map] Black Rainbow - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
EiNiS
Sweden72 Posts
 saw an interview with you and HayprO, who comes from the same town as me | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
I'm not sure if this was intended. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On July 03 2010 20:33 Numy wrote: I've been staring at the 3 mains for awhile now. It appears to me that the map isn't quite "symmetrical". Looking at the main ramp of 12' to the nat ramp vs the other two appears that this positions ramp leads straight to the nats ramp while the others are behind the nat ramp. Looks to be the easiest position to grab your nat due to the ability to hold both ramps easier than the other positions. I'm not sure if this was intended. definetly not intended i will look into it and my goal is to create as much symmetry as possible but i hope you ppl can cut me some slack because 3 player map symmetry is impossible at a square map. if u take a close look at the promaps in sc1 they werent 100% symmetric neither. ill try my best tho and i will look into what u said edit: ye i found the issue now, ill fix it later On July 03 2010 20:22 EiNiS wrote: Hey morrow, weren't you one of the top SCBW players in DH one year? saw an interview with you and HayprO, who comes from the same town as meye thats me, came second and haypro came first :d obviously i had heard alot of feedback about the natural situation but almost nobody has given me a reason behind their statements, and those who did this have disagreed with others in the thread. so im just gonna leave it as it is right now until i get some better reasoning to change it | ||
|
Odies
Denmark275 Posts
Off topic of the map though, I believe you're going about this the wrong way. Sure, you're probably a better rts player than most of the people posting here but that doesn't necessarily translate to mapmaking. The status quo is the status quo for a reason, it's long been an essential part of the game to have an easy to defend natural. Experimentation is great, but the burden of proof is on your head. Doing something new in itself isn't universally positive, when you break traditional design values it's up to you to explain why you did it and why it's an improvement, not the other way around. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On July 03 2010 21:19 Odies wrote: I'm just an average scrub zerg player (plat/diamond) but I'd imagine zvt to be very hard on that map, it looks fairly small, few expos and hard to defend natural forcing the z to go a low eco opening and get rolled mid/late-game. Off topic of the map though, I believe you're going about this the wrong way. Sure, you're probably a better rts player than most of the people posting here but that doesn't necessarily translate to mapmaking. The status quo is the status quo for a reason, it's long been an essential part of the game to have an easy to defend natural. Experimentation is great, but the burden of proof is on your head. Doing something new in itself isn't universally positive, when you break traditional design values it's up to you to explain why you did it and why it's an improvement, not the other way around. breaking the tradition because its new, and new is fun and interesting and we see new plays keeping the same for what? balance? how do u know its balanced in a new game in beta phase? i could potentially create great gameplay at this map and if it doesnt work out i can edit it to make it easier to defend. just as ill add a 4th base if necessary i dont wanna go the other way around to start out with a safe expo then make it harder, that takes so long time. just like i create new bos i start out with as economical and little units as possible and as i lose i get safer and safer and once u reach the very details of a bo u go riskier and riskier again. so i start out with a concept that i want regardless if its balanced or not then i get convinced by arguments, statistics and replays and high level player opinions to make it safer and safer just like i get convinced by losing in ladder to be more safe skills in the game obviously translates over to making maps just as getting good at the game makes u a better commentator, i wouldnt have doubt in my level if i were u and if i wanted to i could create simple and standard maps but its hard to do so without ppl saying its a sc1 map clone because they have almost made everything possible when it comes to standard. and the tournament administrations that ive talked to want new and fresh concepts, but yet simple and easy on the eye, they dont want sc1 remakes the blizzard maps are insanely imbalanced but most of you just assume they are more balanced than the homemade maps because blizzard created it, but from what ive learned through my years is that blizzard is very horrible at making maps | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
You can pose theories but cannot say that one thing aspect will cause something to happen as there is too big a realm of uncertainty surrounding the game to claim this. @Morrow - Sorry if I appeared to be nitpicking, I merely thought if it wasn't intended you would want to know about it. I don't believe perfect symmetry is needed for a map to be both dynamic and balanced at the same time. | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
On July 03 2010 16:45 iEchoic wrote: Map looks really awesome, nice work. First lava map that doesn't make my eyes cry. Did I miss something? :D Looks good in general, just don't like the natural (like any other Zerg^^). | ||
|
Nyx
Rwanda460 Posts
I like the concept of moving naturals around, but morrow, this map doesn't do it right. | ||
|
MonkeyKungFu
Norway154 Posts
Have you considered making the maps bigger than the maps we have been introduced to so far? If not, any particular reason? Mabye this map is a lot larger than steppes and Im fooled by the picture, but I really hope we get to see more maps with greater rush distances. | ||
|
EiNiS
Sweden72 Posts
ps. why were you playing BW on those old computers? you said in the interview that starcraft 2 was out, that means that it must have been this year, and you sat playing on these enormous monitors  | ||
|
Jovian
United States39 Posts
What if you were to have a small 2 space width bridge or canal of sorts that would span between the two? That way the zerg could move troops between the 2 faster than the opponent could bounce between the ramps? IDK how this would effect the rest of the balance - or if it would even really work for Zerg as I play Protoss. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
Edit: Jovian, this is why Zerg has Nydus Worms. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On July 03 2010 12:39 kraemahz wrote: With all due respect to the previous poster, he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is a very Zerg favored map. Since there is no central choke to the main and natural it is impossible for protoss to 2gate FE, likely course of action will be to 1base tech so that they can gain some semblance of map control to protect their expo since there is no clean follow up to a 2gate outside of a 4gate allin. This leaves the Zerg player relatively safe to expand early and guard with speedlings. Terran mech could potentially hold the main and expo by tanking up in the expo to protect it and the choke to the main, but they get stuck in this position and are completely vulnerable to mutalisk harassment. The openess of the map means a meching terran cannot leave his base ever because there are no chokes to control. Edit: Edited to add that Terran bio would be my second favorite for winning this map because of the mobility medivacs provide the Terran army. However, there is a long period of vulnerability here before you get enough medivacs where harassment would be very strong. Haha "no disrespect but"... love that phrase. 2 gate FE? That's not even the standard strat of protoss vs Terran or Zerg really. You don't give any reason how Zerg can possibly expand easily. The ONLY way to defend is mass speedlings, and when you KNOW your opponent is going mass speedlings you're in a good situation. Toss can easily forward gateway on this map, securing the area of both ramps, and forge/cannon an easy wall. Zerg is the ONLY race that can't build static defense to protect their natural, so why in the world is it Zerg favored? It makes no sense. Also, vs a 4gate all in you NEED static defense, you can't defend a 4gate all in with pure speedling... I really don't see mutalisk harass on this map that powerful either... but I honestly never find it that powerful so it could just be me, I find turrets insanely strong vs them until you mass them up. Just my opinions, I think you're 100% wrong about Protoss vs Zerg, and I don't feel like you really gave any logical reasoning why you have to 4gate all-in or how Zerg can defend without static D, not to mention a 2gate in the first place would be really strong against a zerg trying to expand. PS. MorroW please don't listen to the previous poster and add any unnecessary clutter in the middle that mapmakers seem to be fans of doing. It makes the center a more dangerous place, where flanks can be set up, etc. finally moving away from ball vs ball playstyle. | ||
|
Skee
Canada702 Posts
This map looks very interesting. Can't wait to play it!! | ||
|
gdroxor
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
DarKFoRcE
Germany1215 Posts
i can see this being an interesting map for ZvT though. | ||
|
CagedMind
United States506 Posts
Move main ramp behind the nat ramp? That way you can kinda defend main ramp from natural. It feels wrong having to defend two spots at once. | ||
|
Rkie
United States1278 Posts
| ||
| ||
