|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b4POY.png)
Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Description:
+ Show Spoiler +In to the Rainbow is a four-spawn reflectively symmetrical map. The map's concept is about space management and using the various paths to your advantage. The map is large and macro focused with an emphasis on using the larger armies you've gained from the easier expansions in an intelligent way by means of positioning. The map itself is named after Rainbow, one of my favourite pros and somebody known for clever positional play and making use of map features. Analysis:+ Show Spoiler +
The centre is split in to 5 sections. Each section has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The outer paths are the shortest way between close air spawns and they're out of view of the tower for the most part. However, an enterprising opponent will take advantage of the raised path to flank your army and you'll be very vulnerable to attacks from the high ground. The raised paths are therefore good for a safe play across the map. However, they're in vision of the tower and so your opponent can easily spot your army if you take that route. Finally, the lowered path in the middle is very chokey, but gives access to the tower and all the positional advantage involved. Correctly selecting which path to move your army through will be necessary to succeed on this map.
The expansions are easy to take. There's always a clear next base and they're never too close to your opponent. If players both sit back and turtle this will probably lead to deathball v deathball games, but if both players are intent on doing that it won't matter what map they're playing on, they'll just do it anyway. The base progressions here instead makes you choose tactically when to take a base because of what it'll open up for your opponent. You may want to take a fast third because you can zone of the two chokes, but you also need to be aware of your opponent knocking down the debris on the other side of the fourth and shelling you from the high-ground. There are only 14 bases, but each player has a securable 7 so actually more than most maps.
Playable Bounds: 152 x 152
Absolute Bounds: 168 x 168
Destructible Rocks: 4 (blocking the close entrance to the 3 and 9 high-ground)
Watchtowers: 1 (centre)
Bases: 12 (8m2g)
Close-by-ground spawns disabled.
Walls:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GkU2j.jpg) Standard protoss and terran wall-ins work as normal. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7zLBJ.jpg) Terran wall with depot. Can also wall with 3 rax or 4 depots. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IbC0C.jpg) 1 Tumour connects the natural and main. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ow7nm.jpg) 2 tumours connects the third. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hpoeD.jpg) Tight FFE with 3 buildings. Core back slightly for safety. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ni0PB.jpg) A second possible FFE, with a zealot and a safer core. Allows for probes to leave.
Aesthetics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyser:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ggKgF.png) Note: The mains are smallish but the nats are large enough to compensate. Discourages 1-base play, but you shouldn't be stretched for room if you are 1 basing (because you won't need many buildings to 1 base). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AsZuC.png) Cross Mains ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7xTZv.png) Cross Nats ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lavyK.png) Close Air Mains ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t6bot.png) Close Air Nats
Feedback and Replays:
+ Show Spoiler +Yonnua vs Elthiar (PvP)Elthiar (Diamond Protoss) - "I like [that it has] lots of Corridors ... Sentry Imba this map", "too small ... lots of dead space in the corners"Yonnua vs BtWNudelKopp (PvT)BtWNudelKopp (Master Terran) - "the area around the watchtower is a bit tight ... 6 or 7 out of 10", "In TvZ there would be great tank positions"Yonnua vs Ekelbock (PvZ)Ekelbock (Diamond Zerg) - "the third is a bit too easy to defend ... it's a bit narrow", "the cliff is too hard for zerg to hold"
Old Versions:
+ Show Spoiler +Overview:+ Show Spoiler +Details:+ Show Spoiler +
Playable Bounds: 152 x 152
Absolute Bounds: 168 x 168
Destructible Rocks: 4 (blocking the 3 and 9 bases)
Watchtowers: 1 (centre)
Bases: 14 (8m2g)
Close-by-ground spawns disabled.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tK5ST.png) Note: The mains are smallish but the nats are large enough to compensate. Discourages 1-base play, but you shouldn't be stretched for room if you are 1 basing (because you won't need many buildings to 1 base). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qv2yj.png) Cross Mains ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/olIPf.png) Cross Nats ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tg3E4.png) Close Air Mains ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pfK0o.png) Close Air Nats
|
|
|
Are you a Kim Sung Je fan? ^^
|
On July 03 2012 07:10 EcstatiC wrote:
"Into" is one word
I think you're missing the obvious - it's a name, as in, "In, to the Rainbow!"
(jk)
|
|
|
United States10231 Posts
suggest putting bases in the middle to make it less of a split map. this map is basically like metropolis without the islands and middle bases. are all spawns enabled right now?
|
On July 03 2012 07:13 Cokefreak wrote:
Are you a Kim Sung Je fan? ^^
Who isn't? 
On July 03 2012 07:27 FlaShFTW wrote:
suggest putting bases in the middle to make it less of a split map. this map is basically like metropolis without the islands and middle bases. are all spawns enabled right now?
It says in the description, no close by ground, only cross and close air. Base progression would be too brutal in close. I don't want to add bases in the centre because it messes with the map's central concept - the relationship between the paths in the centre and how you use them to cross the map which will probably be split. Adding bases in the middle won't make it not a split map, it'll just leave 2 unusable bases in the middle which only somebody miles ahead can take.
|
United States10231 Posts
uhm... no... have you seen the games on metro? there was one that day9 casted and it was like an hour game. really back and forth and people contested for the mids.
|
On July 03 2012 07:40 FlaShFTW wrote:
uhm... no... have you seen the games on metro? there was one that day9 casted and it was like an hour game. really back and forth and people contested for the mids.
This map doesn't play out like Metropolis... I don't know why you've decided it does other than that there are close air bases. The middle here is far more clustered and any bases there would be far too close to each other. The map really isn't at all like Metropolis.
|
United States10231 Posts
uhhhh kinda does? base layout, positioning, ton of stuff are related to metro. ok, you have an extra base in the middle between the 3rds. but overall, this map is really like metro. i mean, if you want to see two people standing on either sides of the map with 7 bases, be my guest. im just saying that once those 7 are mined out, to attempt to make the game less stalemate like, add in bases that they have to fight for.
|
On July 04 2012 05:45 FlaShFTW wrote:
uhhhh kinda does? base layout, positioning, ton of stuff are related to metro. ok, you have an extra base in the middle between the 3rds. but overall, this map is really like metro. i mean, if you want to see two people standing on either sides of the map with 7 bases, be my guest. im just saying that once those 7 are mined out, to attempt to make the game less stalemate like, add in bases that they have to fight for.
Have you played on this map? Before you write it off and foolishly decide that the map is X or Y, play on it. It doesn't play out like Metropolis. If players want to play a long turtley game without attacking they will - regardless of the map. There are ample opportunities here to not do that.
|
United States10231 Posts
dude dont get so mad. seriously. im trying to help your map not bash on it. if you simply dont want my feedback then just say so and that will be the last that you'll hear from me. im giving you a suggestion. based upon how the map looks and the middle and chokes, etc, im saying that this map would play like metro (meaning a split map turtle style). I'm SUGGESTING that you add bases to the middle to make it so that in the late game, players have to fight for more bases.
here are my observations: 2 chokes to defend all ur bases on ur side of the map. metro? yes.
closes mains to allow drop play. metro? yes.
im just saying, the way this map is shaped, and also based on forced spawns, this map goes into an immediate split.
|
On July 04 2012 07:09 FlaShFTW wrote:
dude dont get so mad. seriously. im trying to help your map not bash on it. if you simply dont want my feedback then just say so and that will be the last that you'll hear from me. im giving you a suggestion. based upon how the map looks and the middle and chokes, etc, im saying that this map would play like metro (meaning a split map turtle style). I'm SUGGESTING that you add bases to the middle to make it so that in the late game, players have to fight for more bases.
here are my observations: 2 chokes to defend all ur bases on ur side of the map. metro? yes.
closes mains to allow drop play. metro? yes.
im just saying, the way this map is shaped, and also based on forced spawns, this map goes into an immediate split.
I'm not getting mad, you're just stating the same things over and over and ignoring everything that I've said. The map is published on EU, play it. It doesn't play out like Metropolis because the centre is completely different and expanding works in a completely different way. Making silly observations like "this map has two chokes (it doesn't) and close mains therefore it's probably like Metropolis" isn't helpful.
The map doesn't play out in the same way as metropolis. It would be damaging to the concept to add bases in the centre and would also cluster up the centre and make engagements there almost impossible. Players would be forced to engage on the sides and the map would become much more of a turtle-up.
In general, having bases in the middle doesn't make people "contest them". Uncontested bases almost always mean that the attacker and defender have equal distance to the base and so the base can be attacked as easily as defended. On Metro, the distance between a lot of the bases is small and so in a few very rare situations the bases can be safely taken (such as cross pos ZvT). On this map a central base would be too far away to adequately defend without sacrificing other bases. It would be a very bad example of circle syndrome. Putting bases there is a very bad idea.
|
United States10231 Posts
did i say "this map has two chokes" ??? no i didnt. i said in order to defend your 7 bases, there are two chokes you need to defend. granted they are fairly big chokes, but nonetheless, they are chokes which are easily defendable. thus, it turns into a complete split map game.
also. look at your map. 3 areas to either side. the middle XNT path, then two chokes where the ends of the high grounds are.
and yes, having bases in the middle means that they will be contested because they are equal distance from both sides and after the map is mined out due to your map being a super easily splitable map, they will need to fight for bases. no idea where you are going with this "equal distance". if a player doesn't over expand, and expand just down the line, every base just gets closer and closer to the player. so that point is invalid.
|
Metropolis is a five base turtle map because there are five bases that are all equidistant from the opponent (and even the fifth is technically still expanding away from the opponent) and they have no vulnerabilities. Without any cliffs, harass paths, or air vulnerabilities, it is basically the worst kind of map that can exist imo, to put it bluntly.
In to the Rainbow isn't going to be quite as bad because the third does require you to push out for a bit of map control. However due to the nature of this style reflection map (yes, there are other ways to make reflection maps work), the fifth and sixth bases are going to be quite turtley. I think the biggest reason that this is going to play out like Metropolis is because there are also 2 (or 4 depending on how you count) small entrances into these 7 bases. That's even more than metro, but of course there need to be more expos and space since you've allowed all spawn positions.
So if you want to move this away from a turtling map like Metro, you should make there be more pathways into the expansions and more vulnerabilities. Adding middle expos won't help if they're hard to hold, and I don't see any good ways of making easy to hold middle expansions on this map. So I suggest doing something like this:
Basically a new structure between the thirds that increases the vertical rush distance but decreases the total number of expos and also adds a cliff for harassment, which can be reached by breaking rocks or going the long way around.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 04 2012 13:47 monitor wrote:So I suggest doing something like this: Basically a new structure between the thirds that increases the vertical rush distance but decreases the total number of expos and also adds a cliff for harassment, which can be reached by breaking rocks or going the long way around. + Show Spoiler +
Do you think it's necessary to remove the fourth? I think I could probably work in a harassment cliff and a longer rush distance but I feel like removing it would weaken the flow between bases and make it a bit tough taking a fourth in some matchups (such as against zerg). Alternatively, I could squish the map down a bit (it's already on the large side) but obviously doing so would make the middle a bit chokier. Which do you think would be preferable?
|
On July 04 2012 20:56 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 13:47 monitor wrote:So I suggest doing something like this: Basically a new structure between the thirds that increases the vertical rush distance but decreases the total number of expos and also adds a cliff for harassment, which can be reached by breaking rocks or going the long way around. + Show Spoiler + Do you think it's necessary to remove the fourth? I think I could probably work in a harassment cliff and a longer rush distance but I feel like removing it would weaken the flow between bases and make it a bit tough taking a fourth in some matchups (such as against zerg). Alternatively, I could squish the map down a bit (it's already on the large side) but obviously doing so would make the middle a bit chokier. Which do you think would be preferable?
You don't have to remove it of course, but I do think it's the best solution. In most match ups the fourth doesn't have to be THAT easy, and it certainly isn't any harder than a map like Ohana or Cloud Kingdom if you remove the highground base. I also like removing it because it will make the expansion pattern less linear, by forcing players to move around the map instead of walking in a straight line between all of the bases.
|
On July 05 2012 05:12 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 20:56 Yonnua wrote:On July 04 2012 13:47 monitor wrote:So I suggest doing something like this: Basically a new structure between the thirds that increases the vertical rush distance but decreases the total number of expos and also adds a cliff for harassment, which can be reached by breaking rocks or going the long way around. + Show Spoiler + Do you think it's necessary to remove the fourth? I think I could probably work in a harassment cliff and a longer rush distance but I feel like removing it would weaken the flow between bases and make it a bit tough taking a fourth in some matchups (such as against zerg). Alternatively, I could squish the map down a bit (it's already on the large side) but obviously doing so would make the middle a bit chokier. Which do you think would be preferable? You don't have to remove it of course, but I do think it's the best solution. In most match ups the fourth doesn't have to be THAT easy, and it certainly isn't any harder than a map like Ohana or Cloud Kingdom if you remove the highground base. I also like removing it because it will make the expansion pattern less linear, by forcing players to move around the map instead of walking in a straight line between all of the bases.
Okey doke, I'm going to toy around with removing the base and tightening that area up a bit with some abuse-able high ground. I'll post results when I'm happy with them.
Edit: Also working on the middle because it's not playing out as I'd have liked and it's a bit chokey.
|
Update:
I've updated the map in pretty much the way Monitor suggested. There's now high ground behind the third which can be reached by a pair of ramps further away or a single ramp blocked by debris. It feels really nice for abusing the third base. I also opened out the middle path because it was really choked up and now the tower can actually be used a bit more. I'm feeling a lot more comfortable about using that area now.
I also uploaded a replay of a TvP between myself and a masters Terran. It's in the feedback section, along with his comments. I'd appreciate what other people think about the changes that I've made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ua4yD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9dwaX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3STPs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eHkuN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ggEEj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sX0Qv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ql8cC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pnu53.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hl1KD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uy6ty.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/unKoX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sfhMv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/egoW2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cpsl8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aER0N.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rMuF8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nk7At.jpg)
