1) Entire center was re-designed (more open - shattered temple feel). There is also less clutter of doodads around the center, which should reduce FPS a little bit as well.
2) Bridges added between each high ground pod. This allows opportunity for flanking, scouting, runbys, and offensive/defensive capabilities. The bridges are 1x FF wide, and still emphasize the importance of high ground control. Too often, players had no choice but to clash into a high ground fortified base, or use a substantial amount of time breaking down rocks which are easily scouted ahead of time. The bridges now offer a more dynamic way of defending or engaging your opponent. The other drastic change that comes with the addition of these bridges is that rush distances are a little shorter.
3) 3rds opened up more around the clump of doodads (was too chokey). This helps in the ZvP matchup.
4) Neutral depots were re-positioned by 1 hex. Previously it was still possible to wall off with double bunkers (it was my mistake). The neutral depots are now in the correct spot.
5) Various doodad bugs and glitches were found around the high ground pods and have been fixed.
6) Lighting changed from Agria to Bel'shir. It is a little more brighter.
7) Textures and foliage polished in various places.
The name Khaydarin is in reference to the starcraft lore in which the Xel'Naga were chased off Aiur by the Protoss and left Khaydarin Crystals behind. Thus, the name Khaydaria expresses a large area full of these crystals, and I found it to be an appropriate name.
This is my first 4-player map ever in my history of map-making. Yes, all spawns are enabled. It can always change but based on the number of masters games I've watched, it hasn't been an issue at all. I know it's probably not the best in terms of symmetry or what major imbalances this might impose, but i felt like I could take Antiga Shipyard and somehow make it better. On this map, there is a viable 4th base, and the bridges allow for an easier 5th without the immediate need to destroy the destructible rocks.
For my first 4-player rotational map, I tried to implement and cater as many play styles as possible without making this positionally imbalanced in any way. Hopefully I did alright
I love the idea of the pseudo symmetry and I think that was executed well but this map has a pretty heavy balance towards the CCW spawning player in close spawns. The third is so much easier.
But in cross-spawns you get a really nice positional dynamic over the central high ground. It's a great map, I just don't like the close spawn positional imbalance.
On May 24 2012 13:35 WniO wrote: its a pretty standard, but at the same time innovative layout. id be interested to seeing how games pan out. good job on the visuals as well.
Might just be me, but I find this to be a very 'safe' attempt at this type of dual symmetry. The only thing I find that separates the high ground half-bases from their low-ground counterparts is the overall openness, of which some is lost in exchange for the favorable high ground position. Overall, and especially looking at the analyzer summary, it looks pretty much like a normal rotational map. Not to dis the layout or anything, since the different spawn setups will still most likely play differently, despite their similarities. However, the general consensus seems to be that it still has, to some degree, the original problem with Antiga Shipyard, I happen to agree.
As for the aesthetics though, they're my favorite from you so far, IronMan! I love the combination of the crystals and the lush scenery with the whole temple scheme, but with Aiur as opposed to Bel'Shir. No faults to find there.
Considering that in this map you need to have 5 bases to have 4 bases I dont think its any better than antiga in that regard.
Also with the possible expection of zerg, having thst high ground 4th near seems like a very notable imbalance.
Ps. why are those bases half bases anyway? they are relativly hard to take and are really in no kind of strong strategic position to hold. just cause barrin would strangle you for having 16 full bases? imo if u made them full bases the map would be better.
On May 24 2012 13:49 Sea_Food wrote: Considering that in this map you need to have 5 bases to have 4 bases I dont think its any better than antiga in that regard.
I disagree. The problem with Shipyard(well, one of two) was that you got three bases, but then what? If you were Terran then you could take the center base, but overall it's not a very well considered design. Here there is a very clear, gradual progression of bases, that is nowhere near as difficult to establish. This map does an excellent job of eliminating that problem, it's just that the other big problem with Shipyard seems to remain.
Still, I love the attempt at a 4 player map, I hope we see more from you!
really cool map, ironman! I feel like the highground 4ths will always be preferable to the lowground ones, in cross spawns. Perhaps a happy medium would be making only the lowground 4ths full bases and keeping the highground ones as-is?
On May 24 2012 14:33 TheFish7 wrote: really cool map, ironman! I feel like the highground 4ths will always be preferable to the lowground ones, in cross spawns. Perhaps a happy medium would be making only the lowground 4ths full bases and keeping the highground ones as-is?
I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote: I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote: I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
At the same time, I think it's wrong to coddle every single player on every single map in every single starting position in every single game. Should it be as bad as TvZ in close positions on Metalopolis (ie instant-win for Terran)? No, never. But does that make it okay to say "you need to know three strategies, one against each race, that will work on literally every map, every single time"?
Situations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself "could I play a 50 minute game of terror and doom if I spawned here?" and if the answer to that is "no" that doesn't mean the map is bad. Your play style, your strategy, your everything should be based upon the map that you're playing on, the position you spawned in, and the position your opponent spawned in. If that means the game comes down to 2 base vs 2 base, or it all comes down to the struggle for the rotationally disadvantaged third base, that's not a bad thing.
Again, the ridiculous auto-lose situations are terrible, and by extension any map which enforces those situations is terrible. But that's not what's happening here. It's just taking the point of contention and moving it from the center, and bringing it closer to a player's base (by which I understand the main and the natural). It's not a horrible thing to do. As a matter of fact, defending drops on the third would be quite easy for someone who is expecting drops on his third (as any good player should when he spawns at a rotationally disadvantaged starting point), while the guy who is dropping thinks that this will be an easy win for him.
I would argue that there is some advantage to having disadvantages. A good player can turn cliff stairs or rotational disadvantages into a trap for oncoming cliffwalkers or drops, which if it fails to entrap and kill any units, is still a well defended disadvantage.
As much as I like the way the map looks, I just feel like this map runs into the same problems that antiga shipyard has when it comes to the third base and certain spawn locations. I also am concerned with where you take your 4th as zerg vs terran or protoss who spawn in the main close to your third. Neither of the 'natural' options for your 4th seem very safe to me.
On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote: I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
At the same time, I think it's wrong to coddle every single player on every single map in every single starting position in every single game. Should it be as bad as TvZ in close positions on Metalopolis (ie instant-win for Terran)? No, never. But does that make it okay to say "you need to know three strategies, one against each race, that will work on literally every map, every single time"?
Situations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself "could I play a 50 minute game of terror and doom if I spawned here?" and if the answer to that is "no" that doesn't mean the map is bad. Your play style, your strategy, your everything should be based upon the map that you're playing on, the position you spawned in, and the position your opponent spawned in. If that means the game comes down to 2 base vs 2 base, or it all comes down to the struggle for the rotationally disadvantaged third base, that's not a bad thing.
Again, the ridiculous auto-lose situations are terrible, and by extension any map which enforces those situations is terrible. But that's not what's happening here. It's just taking the point of contention and moving it from the center, and bringing it closer to a player's base (by which I understand the main and the natural). It's not a horrible thing to do. As a matter of fact, defending drops on the third would be quite easy for someone who is expecting drops on his third (as any good player should when he spawns at a rotationally disadvantaged starting point), while the guy who is dropping thinks that this will be an easy win for him.
I would argue that there is some advantage to having disadvantages. A good player can turn cliff stairs or rotational disadvantages into a trap for oncoming cliffwalkers or drops, which if it fails to entrap and kill any units, is still a well defended disadvantage.
Firmly stand with chargelot here. Moreover, I would add that the environment of random spawns gives players similar chances to end up fighting "uphill" if you can even call it that, so over a series or a tournament run players face comparable adversity, if you can even call it that.
Logically, the only way a map can be a priori imbalanced is if it's a mirror match on an asymmetrical map. Any non-mirror match is already asymmetrical, and I don't understand why people fixate on symmetry in the terrain (especially approximate symmetry in 4player maps). You could easily take the top half of XNC and the bottom half of shattered temple, put them together, and play non-mirror games on cross spawns and it'd be totally fine as a map. It'd also be way more interesting than some "balanced" maps I've seen.
Asymmetric maps are somewhat okay, but I think this one has something that should be adjusted. The highground middle extends north and south, but not east and west. It is easier for a player to siege/elevator the 5/11 mains from that strip of land than it is to siege the 2/8 mains. My reason is that the direct access path to this high ground area is limited to a ramp, while the chokes are wider on the low grounds.I would suggest either extending the elevated areas in the mid to form a + shape, or to cut down the two extensions, limiting the elevated area to a central pod.
On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote: I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
At the same time, I think it's wrong to coddle every single player on every single map in every single starting position in every single game. Should it be as bad as TvZ in close positions on Metalopolis (ie instant-win for Terran)? No, never. But does that make it okay to say "you need to know three strategies, one against each race, that will work on literally every map, every single time"?
Situations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself "could I play a 50 minute game of terror and doom if I spawned here?" and if the answer to that is "no" that doesn't mean the map is bad. Your play style, your strategy, your everything should be based upon the map that you're playing on, the position you spawned in, and the position your opponent spawned in. If that means the game comes down to 2 base vs 2 base, or it all comes down to the struggle for the rotationally disadvantaged third base, that's not a bad thing.
Again, the ridiculous auto-lose situations are terrible, and by extension any map which enforces those situations is terrible. But that's not what's happening here. It's just taking the point of contention and moving it from the center, and bringing it closer to a player's base (by which I understand the main and the natural). It's not a horrible thing to do. As a matter of fact, defending drops on the third would be quite easy for someone who is expecting drops on his third (as any good player should when he spawns at a rotationally disadvantaged starting point), while the guy who is dropping thinks that this will be an easy win for him.
I would argue that there is some advantage to having disadvantages. A good player can turn cliff stairs or rotational disadvantages into a trap for oncoming cliffwalkers or drops, which if it fails to entrap and kill any units, is still a well defended disadvantage.
I understand what you meaned at first, and think that was smart. Then i red the last part and laughed.
Love the changes, they address the only concerns I had, and not only that, but the different spawn positions will feel much more differentiated, which is sweet.
On May 24 2012 21:29 Ragoo wrote: I enjoy the asymmetry of the different starting positions. I hate it when people want to achieve 100% same advantages/disadvantages with that all the time. I mean one map like that (Whirlwind) is okay, but I prefer it if it's asymmetric and you have different advantages/disadvantages you have to plan around depending on where you and your opponent spawn.
Too bad the different races get advantages from different map features. You cannot make asymmetric maps so that Player 1 gets advantage A, and Player 2 gets advantage B, because player 1 can play a race that gains nothing from that advantage. Then its unfair that Player 2 has stronger spawn.
Yeah well but every 4p (or 3p) rotational map is asymmetric in close positions so...
I am aware that different races gain different (dis)advantages from certain position, I'm just saying that it's cool to balance the different (dis)advantages you have in certain positions instead of trying to make it as symmetric as possible. Cos that will inevitably just result in the same boring maps all the time.
On May 25 2012 08:29 Ragoo wrote: Yeah well but every 4p (or 3p) rotational map is asymmetric in close positions so...
I am aware that different races gain different (dis)advantages from certain position, I'm just saying that it's cool to balance the different (dis)advantages you have in certain positions instead of trying to make it as symmetric as possible. Cos that will inevitably just result in the same boring maps all the time.
This is actually a really good point. The game itself isn't balanced symmetrically, because different races have different strengths at different times, for example TvP. During the time window of about 10-13 minutes, T has the advantage generally, since stim and medivacs are both out and terran can apply a lot more pressure, however after that time the Protoss will usually have 3 bases, and colossi or high templar, and can start pushing back, leading up to Protoss's strong late game. It makes sense that maps can also be balanced asymetrically, as a sort of analog to this game balance.
Hope you wanted some drama in yo map thread, IronMan :D
On May 25 2012 08:29 Ragoo wrote: [...]. It makes sense that maps can also be balanced asymetrically, as a sort of analog to this game balance.
Just to make it clear I'm not encouraging this in 2p or normal 4p mirrored maps at all :D I'm just saying it's fine in 3p/4p rotational or a mixed map like this where it's inevitable.
2p doesn't actually need it to spice it up either, 2p rotational has the biggest amount of possible layouts anyway.
On May 25 2012 09:21 Diamond wrote: Guys, the rocks, that was my idea, tell me what you think ㅋㅋㅋㅋ!!!!!
Sorry it's not often my ideas come into the actual maps so I am curious :D!
lol diamond.
I like it, it includes the XWT in close positions, and the really long scout distance will make games more interesting (imo). They don't add much to the defense of the 3rd base though, because a 2 base timing vs rocks is pretty quick gg, and swiftly on to the 3rd of the enemy. But it'll help a little which is fine, especially vs zerg in horizontal positions, where a delay of 10-30 seconds can make the difference between a dead hatchery and a comfortable hold.
On May 25 2012 09:03 Ragoo wrote: Just to make it clear I'm not encouraging this in 2p or normal 4p mirrored maps at all :D I'm just saying it's fine in 3p/4p rotational or a mixed map like this where it's inevitable.
2p doesn't actually need it to spice it up either, 2p rotational has the biggest amount of possible layouts anyway.
I'm aware, don't worry, I'm just sayin'. I think it's time we start thinking about this type of map more seriously, and start exploring more possibilities.
So far in all the recent test games (with masters and coaches etc), the map looks to play out just fine. No major concerns. Once I explained the center bases and the destructible rocks they were more understandable of the scenarios. Thanks to diamond for that idea =)
I do not understand the rocks. Isn't it imbalanced if someone is spawning 11 o'clock and his opponent is spawning 8 o'clock? Then one player has to destroy rocks to get a highground 4th, the other player does not need to destroy rocks to take a highground 4th.
On June 06 2012 16:12 Apoo wrote: I do not understand the rocks. Isn't it imbalanced if someone is spawning 11 o'clock and his opponent is spawning 8 o'clock? Then one player has to destroy rocks to get a highground 4th, the other player does not need to destroy rocks to take a highground 4th.
You have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each spawn point overall. The 11 o'clock player in this scenario does not need to take down rocks to hold the high ground base, but in return their 3rd base is close to the 8 o'clock player and is susceptible to air harass. The matchups aren't going to be perfectly symmetrical, and that's fine, because it usually balances out overall. Also, asymmetric spawns are much more interesting than forced cross spawns, and that fun interesting-ness is the whole reason to take on this type of mixed symmetry.
These are really interesting concepts except that with 11 and 2 spawn locations there is an imbalance, the 2 spawn player has his 3rd closer to the main of is opponent, while having no advantage, in fact the advantage is for his opponent, since controlling the high ground for him is more easily doable.
My eyes don't like textured images, and without an analyzer I can only guess, but it appears to me that it's now perfectly rotationally symmetric, am I right?
On June 07 2012 08:17 Chargelot wrote: My eyes don't like textured images, and without an analyzer I can only guess, but it appears to me that it's now perfectly rotationally symmetric, am I right?
It is rotationally symmetric. The previous version proved to show that the center high ground bases were very important to control at some point in the game, and with two center bases on low ground, it becomes a setback to the player who has that base. All in all, the center bases are an important area of contention on this map, and therefore they must be equal - thus making them all highground pods.
If all 4 positions are activated, did you already think to put destructible rocks there (red lines)? it might help when players spawn in close position.
Wouldn't decreasing the deadspace between the middle ramp and the rock ramp also help alleviate that weakness (power of middle bases)? I really like the current OP version. The current 'working on' version could possibly have mains retracted a little from the lowground below the thirds?
Also, aren't pylons above the rocks very safe, considering the very long distance to run around. I'm thinking mainly about WG at 7:30-or so PvZ builds.
On June 07 2012 11:22 PandaZerg wrote: love it! Your best one imo!
If all 4 positions are activated, did you already think to put destructible rocks there (red lines)? it might help when players spawn in close position.
I love it. The architecture is original and intricate. The naturals are fine, the choice between two thirds is nice, hence the forth is quite easy to take. I imagine myself in fights not in the center of the map but rather along the "sides" that seem to be more moutainous and that interests me.
1) Main bases slightly trimmed off near the naturals.
2) Main base ramps now moved 1x closer to the natural ramp to avoid the long distance to wall off your natural.
3) All center bases are now on high ground pods, and feature 6m1hyg.
4) All center bases contain destructible rocks to disable close spawn dirtiness. For one, they force players (in close spawn) to use the center of the map for traveling, rushing, etc. Secondly, the rocks can be broken down to open up additional safe passage to a new cluster of bases on your half of the map.
*Overview, screenshots, analyzer, and description are updated in the OP.
On June 09 2012 01:47 a176 wrote: I have to say I liked the original way more. It was a truly unique design.
Me too. The original had something similar to Scars of Aiur, in that it was just a really cool design, now I feel it's slightly less so. It's still a good map, but I feel that original uniqueness is gone.
Hmm... I rally love the aesthetics of this map, in fact I'll go ahead and say that it's one of the nicest-looking SC2 maps I've seen in a really long time.
My only concern with this map is that in the late game, you can hold a lot of bases easily. Perhaps for the rocks at the logical fourth, have them only 80% blocking the path, kind of like on Daybreak of Cloud. As for the radial symmetry, it isn't perfect but it is definitely a huge improvement from Antiga. I can see multiple logical bases that one can take as a nice third.
Overall, I have to say that I really like this map.
On June 09 2012 01:47 a176 wrote: I have to say I liked the original way more. It was a truly unique design.
Me too. The original had something similar to Scars of Aiur, in that it was just a really cool design, now I feel it's slightly less so. It's still a good map, but I feel that original uniqueness is gone.
I have to agree. Infact the ESV chat got in an argument over whether or not we need to push innovation (and in what way) over this map. Even though it pissed some people off, it needed to be brought up :p
Personally I think the new version of this map isn't as interesting as the previous versions. It kinda loses my interest because I just don't see it being very fun to play. It doesn't really do anythign in the way of making sc2 better or more fun to watch imo- I advocate for trying new things. For the sake of giving examples, I think we can experiment with eggs, islands, mineral blocks, backdoors, asymmetry (or new symmetry), dark templars blocking pathways, XelNaga Towers inaccessible by ground, cliffs at expansions, etc.
I really love the changes ! Great job ! I hope you will stream soon , I'm always looking for your stream but never find it live What are your streaming schedule ?
Looks amazing and well balanced for a rotationally symmetric map. Attack paths early game feel a bit constricted, but you can't change any of it without really overthrowing the map design (imo) and I guess you might as well make a whole different map then ^^;
Map was played on for the first time in the ESV Korean Weekly last night! It was a ZvZ between Freaky and Life. It was fantastic =) Hope to see more! Thanks so much for all the testing and feedback given guys. So far so good.
EDIT- Can a mod/admin change the title to the following:
On June 13 2012 08:17 IronManSC wrote: Map was played on for the first time in the ESV Korean Weekly last night! It was a ZvZ between Freaky and Life. It was fantastic =) Hope to see more! Thanks so much for all the testing and feedback given guys. So far so good.
EDIT- Can a mod/admin change the title to the following:
[M] (4) ESV Khaydaria by IronManSC
Don't you have to PM the admins? That's what I did - it's way quicker.
On June 23 2012 02:58 IronManSC wrote: Khaydaria 1.2 uploaded to all servers, also with a custom loading screen! Once again thank you all for the support!
On June 23 2012 04:11 NewSunshine wrote: Not necessary, Khaydaria looks great as is. Plus, I'd prefer your next map is an entirely new project, not just an aesthetic tweak of an old one.
Agreed. Move on- new map, new features, challenge yourself!
On June 23 2012 04:11 NewSunshine wrote: Not necessary, Khaydaria looks great as is. Plus, I'd prefer your next map is an entirely new project, not just an aesthetic tweak of an old one.
Agreed. Move on- new map, new features, challenge yourself!
agreed, I want to see how the stream map turns out ^^
I really think this map needs to be cross position only; for a lot of the same reasons of Antiga Shipyard and Metalopolis
On Counter-Clockwise Spawn
Zerg very had to take 3rd base, it is on the same screen as opponents natural main. Drops/Air play hit the third extremely fast. It's close enough where you could use a banshee, kill the queen -- Go home, repair and go back with 2 full hp banshee's. Also 2 Void Rays hit the third base ridiculously fast.
Terran can take their fourth base, defend it with tanks from the main highground are are very close to opponents third base
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
On the Clockwise Spawn Location
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
I swear I knew of more nuances before I began writing this post, I'll edit if I remember them. The map is really great on cross spawns and promotes a lot of different play styles and is a great replacement to Antiga Shipyard.
Ipp as always ur awesome, I have to ask this question to your feedback however. In an era of the most dominant Zerg play ever seen where tournament Top 8's are very heavily Zerg stacked, is a map that allows for air punishment of a fast third a bad thing?
I didn't get your first point as the nat's are far away at any spawn, but just my personal thought is that much like BW sometimes map need to balance things out, and ur feedback is mainly anti Zerg stuff.
All valid points though and I will make sure the team sees it !
On June 26 2012 10:47 Ipp wrote: I really think this map needs to be cross position only; for a lot of the same reasons of Antiga Shipyard and Metalopolis
On Counter-Clockwise Spawn
Zerg very had to take 3rd base, it is on the same screen as opponents natural. Drops/Air play hit the third extremely fast. It's close enough where you could use a banshee, kill the queen -- Go home, repair and go back with 2 full hp banshee's. Also 2 Void Rays hit the third base ridiculously fast.
Terran can take their fourth base, defend it with tanks from the main highground are are very close to opponents third base
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
On the Clockwise Spawn Location
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
I swear I knew of more nuances before I began writing this post, I'll edit if I remember them. The map is really great on cross spawns and promotes a lot of different play styles and is a great replacement to Antiga Shipyard.
Just going to reply to these individually since it could get really confusing-
Zerg very had to take 3rd base, it is on the same screen as opponents natural. Drops/Air play hit the third extremely fast. It's close enough where you could use a banshee, kill the queen -- Go home, repair and go back with 2 full hp banshee's. Also 2 Void Rays hit the third base ridiculously fast.
Not sure which third is on the same screen as the opponent's natural, but the CW spawning player does have a third that is close to the opponent's main. However things tend to balance out- in this case, the fourth expansion is easier than the opponents and is protected by the main.
Additionally, this same problem occurs on Antiga Shipyard, and the main reason that map sucks is because taking a fourth is so limited without controlling the center or making it a ninja expo and relying on it not being scouted.
Terran can take their fourth base, defend it with tanks from the main highground are are very close to opponents third base
I don't think that fourth base was intended to be taken in TvZ (or any MU for that matter), because the distance between players would be so short that if you can expand there, you should have already won. But in the off chance that it is possible, I suppose it could be an issue.
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
Indeed, unfortunately this kind of positional imbalance is just something that happens in most rotational maps (in happened in Brood War too). Luckily it tends to balance out, like mutas will be slightly more effective and scouting with overlords/overseers is also a bit easier. Counter-attack drops are a bit different than mutas/scouting, but I don't think it will be a very big issue- no more than Antiga or Shakuras horizontal spawns.
Btw I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing or trying to discredit your feedback, and if so, sorry. Just trying to explain some of it from a mapmakers perspective and why it worked in BW.
On June 26 2012 10:47 Ipp wrote: I really think this map needs to be cross position only; for a lot of the same reasons of Antiga Shipyard and Metalopolis
On Counter-Clockwise Spawn
Zerg very had to take 3rd base, it is on the same screen as opponents natural. Drops/Air play hit the third extremely fast. It's close enough where you could use a banshee, kill the queen -- Go home, repair and go back with 2 full hp banshee's. Also 2 Void Rays hit the third base ridiculously fast.
Terran can take their fourth base, defend it with tanks from the main highground are are very close to opponents third base
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
On the Clockwise Spawn Location
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
I swear I knew of more nuances before I began writing this post, I'll edit if I remember them. The map is really great on cross spawns and promotes a lot of different play styles and is a great replacement to Antiga Shipyard.
Deal with it. Adapt to the different positions and don't be a brainless machine.
On June 26 2012 10:47 Ipp wrote: I really think this map needs to be cross position only; for a lot of the same reasons of Antiga Shipyard and Metalopolis
On Counter-Clockwise Spawn
Zerg very had to take 3rd base, it is on the same screen as opponents natural. Drops/Air play hit the third extremely fast. It's close enough where you could use a banshee, kill the queen -- Go home, repair and go back with 2 full hp banshee's. Also 2 Void Rays hit the third base ridiculously fast.
Terran can take their fourth base, defend it with tanks from the main highground are are very close to opponents third base
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
On the Clockwise Spawn Location
Counter-Attack Drops are nearly instant at the third base and can generally get home in time to defend.
I swear I knew of more nuances before I began writing this post, I'll edit if I remember them. The map is really great on cross spawns and promotes a lot of different play styles and is a great replacement to Antiga Shipyard.
Deal with it. Adapt to the different positions and don't be a brainless machine.
It's not that you cannot adapt. It is the fact that there isn't going to be a dynamic playstyle on those positions for a very very long time. From what I have casted on that map it is always all in's on those positions compared to when it is on cross positions it actually promotes dynamic play. A lot of tournaments have a loser pick format, as of right now I feel that picking the map would be like playing Russian Roulette (much like early day Metalopolis) -- Which means any large tournament would be criticized for having a map like this in their map pool.
Where is a Zerg suppose to take a third? If you take the mini-base and Rocks go down, you suddenly will have a terrible time defending. If you take the normal third base you will have to defend against drop and air play. If you play it "Tal'darim Style" and go two base, the clockwise spawn will have a very easy third base especially if they aren't Zerg.
Putting responsibility on the players and saying adapt to it like people did in BW is not going to work, players are spoiled. If you want your map to make it into competitive play, you have to make it appealing to players. There are a lot more tournaments than there use to be and a lot of them use a "Loser Pick / VETO" system. If a player doesn't want to play on a map, they doesn't have -- Therefore the map doesn't get played enough for it to be figured out.
-----------------
Thanks for the response Monitor, hopefully this clears some things up:
On June 26 2012 14:17 monitor wrote: Not sure which third is on the same screen as the opponent's natural, but the CW spawning player does have a third that is close to the opponent's main. However things tend to balance out- in this case, the fourth expansion is easier than the opponents and is protected by the main.
Sorry, I meant main not natural. If you take the Fourth base and the Rocks go down; you will come across different issues. Additionally, the fourth has less economy so you would be taking a relatively big disadvantage for being on that spawn position. Harder to defend + Less Economy, the clockwise person has a relatively big advantage.
On June 26 2012 14:17 monitor wrote: I don't think that fourth base was intended to be taken in TvZ (or any MU for that matter), because the distance between players would be so short that if you can expand there, you should have already won. But in the off chance that it is possible, I suppose it could be an issue.
What is there stopping a Terran from taking the fourth base and then just getting the third base due to having his fourth? This fourth base can be worse than Antiga if Terran spawns in the Counter-Clockwise position.
On June 26 2012 14:17 monitor wrote: Indeed, unfortunately this kind of positional imbalance is just something that happens in most rotational maps (in happened in Brood War too). Luckily it tends to balance out, like mutas will be slightly more effective and scouting with overlords/overseers is also a bit easier. Counter-attack drops are a bit different than mutas/scouting, but I don't think it will be a very big issue- no more than Antiga or Shakuras horizontal spawns.
Antiga is cross only and Shakuras is cross only depending on the version. Additionally, on Shakuras plateu the air and ground distance between bases is equidistant. That is not the case for this map. If you have a drop ship the counter-clockwise person can either deal instant damage or have instant reinforcements to the 3rd base.
On June 26 2012 13:14 Diamond wrote: Ipp as always ur awesome, I have to ask this question to your feedback however. In an era of the most dominant Zerg play ever seen where tournament Top 8's are very heavily Zerg stacked, is a map that allows for air punishment of a fast third a bad thing?
One of the overlooked things about this patch is that it makes it possible for map makers to create smaller maps, or maps with more varied features as Zerg is a more capable race early game against Terran now and less prone to the variety of un-scouted cheese and all ins that can come.
I'd like to see map makers be able to have a little more flexibility over what they can design without it always being incredibly good for Terran and incredibly bad for Zerg, with Protoss being generally ok as long as they have the right size choke point outside their natural.
Hopefully the patch stays and the quality of maps continues to grow.
I am discussing with the team about the following possible changes to Khaydaria:
1) Changing the center bases from 6m1hyg to 5m2g or 6m2g.
2) Shaving off part of the main bases (behind the gas geysers) to make it not feel so close to the low-ground 3rd. This would also help players spot drops more, since they are dropped in this area of the main and are hidden in the fog of war because of the excess room behind the gas geysers.
• Also, we are discussing the topic of "cross spawn" but we feel the map needs to be played more to come to a better conclusion. The hot topic in this regard was about the third being easily abused by void rays and drops.
From Skype Chat:
"like they won't get a spore crawler or an extra queen at the third to defend drops/voidrays"
On June 27 2012 02:42 IronManSC wrote: I am discussing with the team about the following possible changes to Khaydaria:
1) Changing the center bases from 6m1hyg to 5m2g or 6m2g.
2) Shaving off part of the main bases (behind the gas geysers) to make it not feel so close to the low-ground 3rd. This would also help players spot drops more, since they are dropped in this area of the main and are hidden in the fog of war because of the excess room behind the gas geysers.
• Also, we are discussing the topic of "cross spawn" but we feel the map needs to be played more to come to a better conclusion. The hot topic in this regard was about the third being easily abused by void rays and drops.
"like they won't get a spore crawler or an extra queen at the third to defend drops/voidrays"
very good point to the quote. if they don't defend it, but at least put up defenses to stop it, then that's their own fault. every map has their own imbalance for spawn, its the players job to defend it.
I spent a lot of time thinking about this and every argument for cross comes down to "Zergs has to defend their third!" I'm ok with this, I don't see any reason a 3rd base should be free.
On June 27 2012 04:41 Diamond wrote: I spent a lot of time thinking about this and every argument for cross comes down to "Zergs has to defend their third!" I'm ok with this, I don't see any reason a 3rd base should be free.
I agree, and I'm sort of hoping this becomes the general consensus, because the status quo(and its perpetuation) only inhibits map design. It's easy to come up with a cool design where it's put down immediately, because it has features that make players play differently. Having to defend against drops is not an excuse to force cross spawns, as has been said before, the real reason Antiga Shipyard gets so much stink is because of the 4th base options, of which there are almost none. The 3rd base dynamic has little to do with it. I've said it before, I'll say it again: forced cross-spawns is a practice in stagnation, and should not be done, save for maps which are specifically designed for it(2-in-1 maps). I've found no exception to this notion among those maps used in any tournament pools.
The players need to understand what they really want from new maps. Any time innovation is attempted, it's seen as too outlandish, and must be made more standard. Any time someone adheres to convention, the resulting map is a boring one we've all seen a thousand times. Figure out what you want.
I don't think you need the D-rocks on the ramps at the fourth. Looks really similar to Prodder's new map XD. Maybe open up new paths to the middle as well.
On June 27 2012 14:03 neobowman wrote: I don't think you need the D-rocks on the ramps at the fourth. Looks really similar to Prodder's new map XD. Maybe open up new paths to the middle as well.
So prodig can use it but i can't?
The rocks are there because in close spawns, it prevents quick rush distances. The rocks make it so wherever you spawn, you have to go through the center temporarily. They're kind of needed.
Also I have been thinking about opening up additional paths to the center but I'm not sure how I would do that. Having low ground open space between each high ground pod would look very awkward and easily containable.
I didn‘t see rocks blocking ramps on prodig‘s map. If that‘s the case, I‘d ask him to remove it too.
What‘s the rush distance with and without the rocks? Since the naturals are at the corners of the map instead of the mains, I think it‘d be fine. Compare with Antiga Shipyard. If you really need the rocks then put them on both sides to maintain positional balance.
I think low ground paths would be fine since they‘re just additional paths. You‘re not hurting how open it is by opening it up.
On June 27 2012 15:04 neobowman wrote: If you really need the rocks then put them on both sides to maintain positional balance.
If I put rocks on the other ramp then players are completely sealed off on 3 bases until rocks are broken down, which negates all scouting and the entire early game. I don't see how that's even manageable.
1) Main bases were downsized a little bit, primarily behind the gas geysers, as well as between the natural and high ground pod.
2) 3rd low-ground base resources moved 1 hex closer to the naturals
3) The chokes between each high ground pod (where all the doodads are) is every so slightly wider. There were small pockets of water there - they were removed.
On June 28 2012 06:37 Ritos753 wrote: What was the point of shrinking the main????
There was too much space behind the gas geysers in particular, which allowed for hidden drops and warp-ins to be a little too successful too often. Plus, the air space for overlords needed to be bigger because previously overlords couldn't watch over their low-ground 3rds without an overlord literally being in range of enemy units from the mains.
This has been played on the korean weekly right? I think it looks great, one of the best rotational maps I have seen. What's the HP like on those rocks? I feel like how easy those rocks are to break down greatly changes how this map plays out. Are there any VoDs of good games on it?
On June 28 2012 21:32 OxyGenesis wrote: This has been played on the korean weekly right? I think it looks great, one of the best rotational maps I have seen. What's the HP like on those rocks? I feel like how easy those rocks are to break down greatly changes how this map plays out. Are there any VoDs of good games on it?
The rocks are standard HP, and they are used to open up additional paths as well as quicker rush paths depending on where your opponent spawns. But until the rocks are broken down, every player, regardless of spawn, has to go through the center of the map which is nice because it makes use of the watch tower in close spawns.
The map has been used so far in the ESV Korean Weekly, as well as the recent Team Dignitas Reverse Race Tournament, which can be found here. Near the bottom of that tournament page post you'll find several stream links. Visit each one, click on 'videos' near the bottom, then click on 'more videos' at the very bottom. From there you can watch the recent tournament broadcast where Khaydaria is featured several times throughout each stream.
The first thing I thought was that Tal'Darim Altar should be replaced by this - or at least something like it. Very well thought-out and awesome execution, this map has a really cool flow to it. The proportions not only in the mains but right out to the center of the map is really strikingly good...
I mean you lose the obligatory five points for using protoss decals but that's it. I haven't been playing much but I want to get a few games in on this one. Really, really good stuff.
Really like it... I hope it makes it into tournament or even better yet ladder play! I only have one small complaint. I wish there was a little bit more space around the map for air movement.
What is the purpose of the 1 gas 4th base? I'd actually be interested in seeing an SC2 map with a mineral only 3rd as I feel a big part of the problem with zerg/protoss getting a fast third base against terran is that 6 geysers is really strong - so make them earn it. Anyway, I hope this one gets used in tournaments, I'll be playing some games on it soon and report back my opinions.
On July 04 2012 09:19 oOOoOphidian wrote: What is the purpose of the 1 gas 4th base?
The 6m1hyg bases are to encourage players to keep expanding instead of locking themselves in on 4 bases. The other reason why they're limited resources is because they are all very close to the center of the map, which means they will be contested bases, and assuming they are full bases, those are huge losses for every one that is destroyed. I didn't want to reward players by having a dominant position, but I also didn't want to punish them if they were to lose that base relatively easily because of how close it is to the center of the map.
On July 04 2012 09:19 oOOoOphidian wrote: What is the purpose of the 1 gas 4th base?
The 6m1hyg bases are to encourage players to keep expanding instead of locking themselves in on 4 bases. The other reason why they're limited resources is because they are all very close to the center of the map, which means they will be contested bases, and assuming they are full bases, those are huge losses for every one that is destroyed. I didn't want to reward players by having a dominant position, but I also didn't want to punish them if they were to lose that base relatively easily because of how close it is to the center of the map.
Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining. I like it so far.
My idea of a mineral only third is probably good for ladder (where terrans struggle), but bad for professional play. I'd still like to see it at some point just for variety, I think it wouldn't change things too much.
Anyway, sorry to stray from the topic. I enjoy the layout of the bases and the progression into the late game for expansions. I am worried about Blink/Obs being too strong here, though. It's a lot like Shakuras Plateau or Antiga in that way, but possibly even stronger.
On July 05 2012 12:30 Vindicare605 wrote: My first game on it was a TvT and I really liked how it flowed. It was a mech vs marine tank in vertical spawns if you'd like to see it.
Just an update: Zerg has been having a pretty rough time as of lately on Khaydaria with a record total of 1-5. Please note that I will be watching Zerg games closely to see if any changes are needed in the near future =)
I can happily conclude that the bridges made this map 10x more fun :D After a few games in the korean weekly, those bridges are not only useful, but they create such a good dynamic to the overall flow of the game and it was really enjoyable to see them utilized
Since Khaydaria was used in the ESV Korean Weekly and Grand Prix, the records accumulated are as followed:
TvZ: 5-6 (45.5%) ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%) PvT: 3-9 (25%)
T > Z > P
I will be paying close attention to further testing to define what may be causing protoss players to lose an edge on this map. Although the stats are incredibly young and can change at any time, further changes can be issued if they are really needed.
*Please note that the third is not too open for protoss, and thus is not the prime issue because that only applies to ZvP and Protoss is in favor of that matchup. They are losing to terrans. A lot. This is what I am going to look for, so please keep "the thirds are too open" comments out.
On July 27 2012 02:34 IronManSC wrote: Since Khaydaria was used in the ESV Korean Weekly and Grand Prix, the records accumulated are as followed:
TvZ: 5-6 (45.5%) ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%) PvT: 3-9 (25%)
T > Z > P
I will be paying close attention to further testing to define what may be causing protoss players to lose an edge on this map. Although the stats are incredibly young and can change at any time, further changes can be issued if they are really needed.
*Please note that the third is not too open for protoss, and thus is not the prime issue because that only applies to ZvP and Protoss is in favor of that matchup. They are losing to terrans. A lot. This is what I am going to look for, so please keep "the thirds are too open" comments out.
Are those stats including the weekly and gp, or are they 9-3 for TvP in 12 solely korean pro matches?
For PvT this is basically antiga but worse for the first 3 bases, from the protoss perspective. Reason being, a distraction in the main with pressure at the 3rd is a lot easier to maneuver for the terran because they can come and go so freely outside all angles at the 3rd. Do you know if most of these games have been colossus, or twilight?
I think the stats would even out quite a bit once protoss got some experience. They have to learn the exploits terran can use on the map and prepare against them properly once they are established. The open ground beyond the natural really looks like charge archon storm upgrades is much better than colossus unless you are doing the 2base timing, but it is somewhat less comfortable for most protoss in an unfamiliar environment. (A hypothesis.)
On September 12 2012 08:16 InsidiA wrote: Incontrol: Bad map Ret: yea Sheth: I agree.
seem to be saying its impossible for zerg. :|
People don't seem to like maps where it isn't get 3 bases and rush to hive maps.
That's why I really like the idea of mineral onlys. It forces a longer midgame and zerg/protoss benefit from mineral onlys as thirds just as much as Terrans do as lings/hatcheries and gateways/zealots are all mineral base.
These stats say the opposite to what they think:
TvZ: 5-6 (45.5%) ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%)
It's pretty balanced from the stats he gave a few months back. ^^
On September 12 2012 08:16 InsidiA wrote: Incontrol: Bad map Ret: yea Sheth: I agree.
seem to be saying its impossible for zerg. :|
Zergs were saying the same exact thing about Ohana when it first debuted. *takes one look* "Map sucks!"
3 months later.
The map is a staple of tournament play.
I don't take any of those first hand impressions too seriously. If the map is bad, we'll know after games have been played on it.
So is Tal'Darim, it's still a bad map.
Why? looking at this map makes it look very interesting. The third isn't super easy to hold, it's defendable but it isn't safe straight away and the fourth depends on which way you push rather than it being right next to your third. I can't wait to see this map in some big tournaments <3
I know it is not much, but a few of weeks ago I added this map to my weekly cup (no prize money and only Israeli players), and while at first people didn't want to play on an unknown map, after a couple of weeks while the map being on the cup people seem to really like the map and I have seen and casted some great games on it So just wanted to say good work
On September 13 2012 09:40 moskonia wrote: I know it is not much, but a few of weeks ago I added this map to my weekly cup (no prize money and only Israeli players), and while at first people didn't want to play on an unknown map, after a couple of weeks while the map being on the cup people seem to really like the map and I have seen and casted some great games on it So just wanted to say good work
On September 13 2012 09:40 moskonia wrote: I know it is not much, but a few of weeks ago I added this map to my weekly cup (no prize money and only Israeli players), and while at first people didn't want to play on an unknown map, after a couple of weeks while the map being on the cup people seem to really like the map and I have seen and casted some great games on it So just wanted to say good work
Awesome! That's much appreciated. Do you have any vods/videos I can check out some of the games?
On September 13 2012 09:40 moskonia wrote: I know it is not much, but a few of weeks ago I added this map to my weekly cup (no prize money and only Israeli players), and while at first people didn't want to play on an unknown map, after a couple of weeks while the map being on the cup people seem to really like the map and I have seen and casted some great games on it So just wanted to say good work
Awesome! That's much appreciated. Do you have any vods/videos I can check out some of the games?
I have, but they are in a rather low quality (damn you bad computer / internet connection) and in Hebrew so you wont understand anything :/
On September 13 2012 09:40 moskonia wrote: I know it is not much, but a few of weeks ago I added this map to my weekly cup (no prize money and only Israeli players), and while at first people didn't want to play on an unknown map, after a couple of weeks while the map being on the cup people seem to really like the map and I have seen and casted some great games on it So just wanted to say good work
Awesome! That's much appreciated. Do you have any vods/videos I can check out some of the games?
I have, but they are in a rather low quality (damn you bad computer / internet connection) and in Hebrew so you wont understand anything :/
Okay okay, don't hate me but man, I freaking hate Khaydaria. I think it's a complete rip off of Antiga and it plays almost the exact same as it. Getting main/nat is fairly easy. Grabbing the 3rd is a little more difficult but overall it's not the hardest 3rd to take in the world. Problem is, the 4ths are just at bad if not worse then antiga. Sure, they are a little more far apart from each other but seriously they are half bases that have an extremely close rush distance to each other, even in cross positions there is no way a zerg is going to hold it unless they are that far ahead.
I also think the whole elevator strat from the 1/2 base 4th into the main is pretty much bullshit for TvX. The fact that you can put tanks/hellions/whatever on the low ground and fairy up marines and pretty much pressure 1/3 of the main base plus the main base ramp is ridiculous. I know I bitched to you about this on Skype before and you shrugged it off saying it doesn't matter.
The little bridges you added in between the 4th bases doesn't make any sense because it only gives a way for terran and protoss to be more aggressive when they are attacking into you, yet the 4th bases are already so close as they are why do you need to give benefits to protoss/terran even more. Flanking doesn't matter on those because tanks/ff/collosus/marines will just own just about anything that tries to squeeze thru those small bridges.
Sorry for the hate but man, I just dislike this map and I don't see why so many people think it's another amazing map made by Ironman. ESV has many other better 4player maps and it's crazy that IPL picked up this.
ps. I don't play zerg so this isn't zerg QQ. I also think Ohana is a great map, so it's nothing against you, Ironman.
I know IronMan said he had quit, but in case he still checks up the forum, or to simply let the map making community that some of the maps not on the GSL or ladder don't die out, I wanna say that a few weeks ago an Israeli online tournement with pretty decent prizes (700$ total prize pool) picked up Khaydaria as one of the maps in its map pool and is used regularly
I hope to try and help get more maps from this forum to get playtime, but even one or two non-ladder maps are cool to see become a standard in Israeli tournaments, hopefully other local tournaments use new maps, since as a small tournament you can take risks more easily.
Well it is also one of the random intro maps for the Ritmix RSL tournement. So certain a map that gets attention beyond the average non-ladder map that is for sure. Well deserved because it is quite an impressive one too.
I have been putting some recent thought into revamping the layout of this map in terms of cliff usage. I know I have been gone for a handful of months, but lately i've thought about returning to map-making, and even if I don't, I still may possess the availability to re-work only Khaydaria to a more playable stance; for the sake of SC2. I don't know when i'll be done with this project, but I may also go live when I work on it (I may be rusty with the tools though)... just wanted to let everyone know.
On February 13 2013 15:53 IronManSC wrote: I have been putting some recent thought into revamping the layout of this map in terms of cliff usage. I know I have been gone for a handful of months, but lately i've thought about returning to map-making, and even if I don't, I still may possess the availability to re-work only Khaydaria to a more playable stance; for the sake of SC2. I don't know when i'll be done with this project, but I may also go live when I work on it (I may be rusty with the tools though)... just wanted to let everyone know.
That's great to hear! Cant wait to see the update.
Any chance you could switch the resource values of the 3rds and 4ths? Right now the 3rds are kind of boring, they're very close and once you secure it, defending your 3 bases requires basically no army movement or map awareness. With the 3rds as a 6m1hyg base players will be encouraged to take a faster 4th, which spreads them out and also emphasizes the importance of the high ground pods.
On February 13 2013 17:32 -NegativeZero- wrote: Any chance you could switch the resource values of the 3rds and 4ths? Right now the 3rds are kind of boring, they're very close and once you secure it, defending your 3 bases requires basically no army movement or map awareness. With the 3rds as a 6m1hyg base players will be encouraged to take a faster 4th, which spreads them out and also emphasizes the importance of the high ground pods.
If we look at map history through having reduced expansions as the only avaliable thirds give nothing but trouple. How many versions of terminus existed again? I agree that the thirds might be a little too safe, but there are other ways to handle that.
On February 13 2013 17:32 -NegativeZero- wrote: Any chance you could switch the resource values of the 3rds and 4ths? Right now the 3rds are kind of boring, they're very close and once you secure it, defending your 3 bases requires basically no army movement or map awareness. With the 3rds as a 6m1hyg base players will be encouraged to take a faster 4th, which spreads them out and also emphasizes the importance of the high ground pods.
If we look at map history through having reduced expansions as the only avaliable thirds give nothing but trouple. How many versions of terminus existed again? I agree that the thirds might be a little too safe, but there are other ways to handle that.
The problem isn't that the thirds are safe - if anything they're quite open and easy to attack. It is the aforementioned lack of army movement - it's impossible to catch a player out of position by ground. These two factors combined will make attacks at the 3rd come down to just mashing armies into each other, without any element of positioning, map awareness, etc. The best solution would probably be to move the 3rd farther but make it easier to hold (reduce the openness), but there isn't really any room to do that on this map, so in my opinion the 6m1hyg 3rd would be the next best option.
And I thought there were only 2 tournament versions of Terminus, the first was changed only because the 3rd was literally free with no extra attack paths. I'm not sure if a more typically positioned 6m1hyg 3rd has ever been tested in any high-level tournament.
On February 13 2013 15:53 IronManSC wrote: I have been putting some recent thought into revamping the layout of this map in terms of cliff usage. I know I have been gone for a handful of months, but lately i've thought about returning to map-making, and even if I don't, I still may possess the availability to re-work only Khaydaria to a more playable stance; for the sake of SC2. I don't know when i'll be done with this project, but I may also go live when I work on it (I may be rusty with the tools though)... just wanted to let everyone know.
YES come back ! I love your stream and your maps are awesome !
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7Zuy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qZLPX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wT23D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7L7pF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XX0V2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UWMLK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Upv22.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FwSFj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zgenT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ismqD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wKIri.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sys31.jpg)
