|
Map preview: (690x660)
![[image loading]](http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1701/blackrainbowsmall.png)
High quality image (1360x1360)
Players: 3 (designed for 1x1)
Size: 128x128
Money
Main: 8 mineral, 2 gas
Natural: 8 mineral, 2gas
3rd: 7 mineral, 2 gas
Gold: 5 rich, 1 gas
Concept
main base is on high ground, then a ramp which sticks quite a bit aggressively out on the map. if u walk backwards u reach high grass and behind that is a ramp which leads up to the natural base.
the natural base got a pretty wide second ramp which reaches out for the middle. so in other words, taking the natural should be pretty difficult in some situations. the distances to each others main bases is quite long which could potentially make up for the distant natural.
outside the natural ramp and ahead comes a xel naga tower that sits on high ground with a wide ramp.
the other way leads to the 3rd base which is on high ground aswell and also with a wide ramp.
behind the watch towers is a pathway from ur mainramp to the counter-clockwise position 3rd base.
on the sides of the watch tower cliffs is gold expo with 5 patches and 1 normal geyser, very low resource place but will probably come into good play later stages of the game
Personal notes
making 3 player maps is hard :d
Image Links
Xel tower
Path behind watch tower cliffs
From 3rd base out to middle
3rd base and rich base
Main and natural layout
Line of sight blocker (los): between main ramp and natural ramp
Watch Tower: 3 in the middle each one places on a high ground with a wide ramp
Destructible debris/rocks: in natural wide ramp
Version 1.1
- Made the natural ramp that looks out to middle a little smaller
- Added a destructible debris (2k hp) on the large natural ramp
- Made the watch tower areas longer but tighter.
- Ramp to watch towers are smaller
- Added a gold expansion on the side of the watch tower cliff
Version 1.0
Old Version
Download Map: Published to Europe server.
Read more about how to download the map.
Other maps:
Argutaris
Othello
Byzantium
City of Mengsk
Torrasque
Landscape
Black Rainbow
Gaia
Medusa
|
I am failing to see a reason for the title other than the fact that it is "black". The natural seems pretty hard to keep with the 2 ramps one being uber large, unless the ramp from main to natural is a small easy wall off i think that the 2nd large entrance to nat is a problem
|
I really like it. And I don't give a shit about reasoning behind a name. This is really well done imo.
I can't wait to test it out. Is there a way to play vs cpu when testing a map via editor?
|
On July 03 2010 10:12 Indignation wrote:
I am failing to see a reason for the title other than the fact that it is "black". The natural seems pretty hard to keep with the 2 ramps one being uber large, unless the ramp from main to natural is a small easy wall off i think that the 2nd large entrance to nat is a problem
for which race and why?
if this turns out to be the case then ill definitely make it easier to defend. just wanted to hear the general opinion about it because my goal is to stay on the very edge to put pressure on the defensive player 
On July 03 2010 10:14 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I really like it. And I don't give a shit about reasoning behind a name. This is really well done imo.
I can't wait to test it out. Is there a way to play vs cpu when testing a map via editor?
i dont think so, or maybe u can just change in the properties to ai instead of user or unused. if you really wanna play it vs the ai i could upload a "vs-ai ver" so u could have acloser look, altough im not sure if it works
|
I like how it looks, but I think you need to make the natural easier to defend. I don't understand why everyone wants to make maps with hard or impossible to defend naturals.
|
On July 03 2010 10:16 Whiplash wrote:
I like how it looks, but I think you need to make the natural easier to defend. I don't understand why everyone wants to make maps with hard or impossible to defend naturals.
again i ask - for which race will it be troubling and why?
just because its hard to defend and sticks out of the ordinary doesnt mean its not suitable, if u wanna say what u think i wanna hear a reason why other than "other maps dont look like that". in sc1 they couldnt be designed like this but who says sc2 is anything the same
i look at scrap station, blistering sands, kulas ravine, do u consider these maps to be suitable for high level play? because i dont see them being any different from this
|
This is a good looking map, but i think it need a little more going on in the center. We need more good 3 player maps being made. Good work, a couple of things though:
- Maps with naturals that aren't really naturals are hard to play as most people are used to playing with natural naturals, you know what i mean? Could you find a way to make one of the bases more standout as a 3rd and the other as a natural?
|
It looks really good. It's hard to tell by the image, but it seems like the two expansions on the left side of the map have larger front ramps than the other expos. The top positions natural also looks smaller than the other two starting positions.
I think a couple tweaks though and this would be a great 1v1v1 map. I really like it. They are hard to make and you are doing a great job with it.
|
On July 03 2010 10:18 konicki wrote:
- Maps with naturals that aren't really naturals are hard to play as most people are used to playing with natural naturals, you know what i mean? Could you find a way to make one of the bases more standout as a 3rd and the other as a natural?
I agree with this. Interesting map, but at this point the third with only one ramp looks a little more attractive as a natural than the actual natural and it has more synergy with the watchtower.
|
I think you should 100% NOT change the terrain of this map. The natural positioning looks fine to me, it's an aggressive map economically, but it should still work out similar to the maps we currently have. If you need to make any changes to the map's flow then all you need is destructible rocks on the forward facing ramp. I know this is probably not what you want to go for, but if there is an issue (a big if) then I think that's the solution. With rocks there you'd have a very Scrap Station like map where there's a nasty divide between your main and natural along with a tricky wall that can open up further entrances.
|
Hmmm, natural with a high ground advantage. This could be interesting.
|
On July 03 2010 10:17 MorroW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 10:16 Whiplash wrote:
I like how it looks, but I think you need to make the natural easier to defend. I don't understand why everyone wants to make maps with hard or impossible to defend naturals. again i ask - for which race will it be troubling and why? just because its hard to defend and sticks out of the ordinary doesnt mean its not suitable, if u wanna say what u think i wanna hear a reason why other than "other maps dont look like that". in sc1 they couldnt be designed like this but who says sc2 is anything the same i look at scrap station, blistering sands, kulas ravine, do u consider these maps to be suitable for high level play? because i dont see them being any different from this
Zerg.
Toss can build a fast gateway on the low ground followed by cannons blocking both ramps. Terran can build bunkers there. Zerg can not easily place static defense to hold off 1 base aggression and thus the natural will be much much harder to secure.
|
On July 03 2010 10:17 MorroW wrote:
again i ask - for which race will it be troubling and why?
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.
|
|
|
This map isn't named after a song, is it?
As for the nat, I really like the idea of walling off the choke between main and nat and then using the nat's big ramp as the entrance, blistering sands-style; that leaves zerg in a bad spot without a walling tool, and also the potential wall spots are different sizes for each base.
|
Nat ramp is too far from main ramp.
|
On July 03 2010 16:26 jasp wrote:
This map isn't named after a song, is it?
Ronnie James Dio?
|
Map looks really awesome, nice work. First lava map that doesn't make my eyes cry.
|
really nice. 3 player maps are hard to make without mirror tools. gj!
|
|
|
OP what would you think of putting a gold mineral field in such a way that would make it a bit easier to defend the natural and your main, but would put you in some interesting possible skirmishes. would also make the map kind of like either rush 3 base or stay one and rush the enemy
|
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 me
|
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.
|
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 me
ye 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
|
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.
|
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
|
I think applying current game dynamics to a map isn't really the way to discuss it. Only real way to balance a map is to actually play it as the game evolves and what might be taken as absolute now might not be absolute months down the line.
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.
|
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^^).
|
I like mixing it up, and I think this nat is cool, but it's way unfair to zerg/toss and way nice for terran, terran can 1raxfact, put single tank on that zel naga and fast expand. He covers all entrances to all of his bases (including 3rd) and has no need for air power to control vision.
I like the concept of moving naturals around, but morrow, this map doesn't do it right.
|
The map looks great, cant say anything on balance except that early air would be a pain in the ass when you have to move queens between main and expo, and I also think hellions would be a bit strong with 3 possible ways into your drone line, assuming you expo relatively fast.
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.
|
I like the map btw, how to publishing with normal maps work? can you get your own map recognized by blizzard?
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 
|
My feelings are that you are almost forcing Zerg to play a 1-Base style - because if they defend one base the other is wide open. that would be the largest problem that I would see...
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.
|
Reminds me of Incineration Zone without the positional imbalance. Fix the naturals to make them proper naturals and you'll have yourself a pretty good map. Also the center looks really barren, need some Xel'Naga towers or a Gold center expansion, or something there to fill in the void.
Edit: Jovian, this is why Zerg has Nydus Worms.
|
On July 03 2010 12:39 kraemahz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 10:17 MorroW wrote:
again i ask - for which race will it be troubling and why?
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.
|
Morrow, wait for testing before you change anything O_o.
This map looks very interesting. Can't wait to play it!!
|
I like the map concept - there are plenty of maps with 2 or 4 possible spawn locations, one with 3 gives an interesting dynamic.
|
Natural seems to hard to defend. But I like the rest of the map.
|
lol ZvP on this map must be horror, you cant defend against a timingpush with crawlers. also, the protoss can easily cut off reinforcements from the natural when attacking the main etc.
i can see this being an interesting map for ZvT though.
|
Even if things don't work out and most maps don't, it's still something to applaud trying to do something very different with serious effort. All maps need to do something a little different at the very least.
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.
|
this map seems fine, just if you are going to create an elevated natural, have the ramp inside the main like Colosseum II, or fast expanding wont be possible at all. (i think this is the "why" that you want)
|
On July 04 2010 08:31 Rkie wrote:this map seems fine, just if you are going to create an elevated natural, have the ramp inside the main like Colosseum II, or fast expanding wont be possible at all. (i think this is the "why" that you want)
I don't think he was trying to go for a Colo2 map style at all really with the natural...
|
Umm... Theres no natural...
(jk read your post)
Bad idea to make the natural not cover the main. It's too hard to take. Revert back to original naturals!
|
On July 04 2010 02:35 SichuanPanda wrote:
Edit: Jovian, this is why Zerg has Nydus Worms.
Uh - You dont have access to Nydus when you do a 14/15 hatch expand... I am saying in the early game it would be damn near impossible to defend the 'natural' expo because of the distance.
|
I like the natural idea. Its somthing different atleast.
|
On July 03 2010 10:17 MorroW wrote:
just because its hard to defend and sticks out of the ordinary doesnt mean its not suitable, if u wanna say what u think i wanna hear a reason why other than "other maps dont look like that". in sc1 they couldnt be designed like this but who says sc2 is anything the same
i look at scrap station, blistering sands, kulas ravine, do u consider these maps to be suitable for high level play? because i dont see them being any different from this
I agree with you 100% and thats why i think you should keep the natural as is. There needs to be a variety of styles of maps to help tailor new strategies. Different maps call for different strategies, dont just do the same strat on every map and if a certain strat doesnt work on a specific map, that doesnt make it an imbalanced map. You just need to play it out and find out what works best in what circumstances. Use the terrain to your advantage! It would be boring and redundant to remake the same map over and over again. +1 for creativity
|
perhaps you could make the entrances to both the main and natural closer (angled) to each other, that way all races can defend both bases while maintaining the uniqueness of the outside natural.
the natural is clever as it can produce creative gameplay. tanks are always a problem anywhere, but a shared entry point will give PZ chance to close up both bases well. interested to see 2 or 3 queens and creep expand. or Colo defense of high ground.
i agree, let the map play out first, do make changes after credible amount of games has aready been played and fix imbas.
|
I really like it. Kind of reminds me of Outsider, without the minerals around the edge
|
Version 1.1
- Made the natural ramp that looks out to middle a little smaller
- Added a destructible debris (2k hp) on the large natural ramp
- Made the watch tower areas longer but tighter.
- Ramp to watch towers are smaller
- Added a gold expansion on the side of the watch tower cliff
will add some images links within shortly let me know what u think, natural should be alot easier to defend now but still hard enough to be a cool part of the early stages
edit: added some image links
|
|
|
I like the separation on the "natural". I think semi-homogenous design was good for the beta, but it will be really nice to have maps that foster creativity by introducing new limitations when the real meta game starts to take shape.
Sure it might start out with some imbalanced match-ups, but I'd rather see the specifics of that imbalance play out and get addressed than say "its too different to be worth trying".
[Edited for spellink]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
