Green means the map is live and up-to-date in the region. Blue means the map is live in the region but on an outdated version. Red means the map is not published to the region.
Updated battle.net info to better reflect the current version of the app
v1.2
General
Minor aesthetic updates
v1.1
General
Low-ground aesthetics adjusted to provide greater contrast
Adjusted low-ground map pathing
Balance
Added a Xel'Naga Tower to the middle of the map
v1.0
General
Initial release
Introduction / Map Concept:
I wanted another 2-player map in my arsenal, so I went ahead and did one. I've been wanting to do Kaldir for a while now, but never ended up doing it because it was the hot commodity for mapmakers during and even a while after HotS' release. With the large slow-down of the foreign mapmaking community, I don't feel like as much of a bandwagon junkie.
If you've been keeping up with my maps to this point, you know I take a lot of inspiration from Brood War map design. Not just in appearance, but also a lot of side-by-side comparison data to make sure my map proportions are up to snuff. This time was no different, as I was playing in the editor researching unit movement speeds and how they affect rush distances. Basically it seems like SC2 units move about 20% faster than their BW counter-parts -- before you factor in the better pathing of SC2. Feel free to read the math behind this in the Additional Details section.
This helps explain why I find it easier to design in 132x132 than in pure 128x128; the extra bit of space lets me squeeze out slightly longer rush distances through terrain alteration to help compensate for the disparity without negatively impacting the map's overall design.
Back to map design, I wanted to keep the concept simple while feeling unique. The 12/6 o'clock bases feature a layout that greatly favours the player with better positioning and map awareness, whether you're attacking or defending. I also brought back the main-base perch concept from early-WoL with a vengeance. I feel a bit justified doing so since the map is smaller than a lot of Zergs are used to playing these days (cough Alterzim cough). Scouting info helps.
Natural-to-natural choke rush distances ranged anywhere from 21 to 25 worker-seconds (approx. 30 to 35 SC2 in-game seconds) in Brood War KeSPA maps*. Main-to-main choke rush distances ranged anywhere from 28 to 32 worker-seconds (approx. 40 to 45 SC2 in-game seconds) for those same KeSPA BW maps.
Brood War map unit sizes are a necessary part of comparing speeds, since SC2's unit speed metrics appear to be based on the number of map units per second a unit traverses. To find this information for BW, I looked to the BWAI project. Basically, the metrics are as follows:
Walking unit = 8x8 pixels Building unit = 4x4 walking units = 32x32 pixels
Next, we need the unit speeds from BW (we already know SC2 unit speeds just from the editor). For this one, I relied on Liquipedia BW. In order to keep things simple, I decided to compare the workers of both games.
Worker Speed (BW) = 5 pixels per frame
BW runs at 15 frames per second on normal (100% speed), so to get the pixels per second:
5 * 15 = 75 pixels per second
Now, since we already know a building unit is 32x32 pixels, it's pretty simple to figure out the number of building units per second a worker moves:
75/32 = 2.34375 building units per second BW to SC2 speed conversion ratio = 0.46875 (e.g. 5 * 0.46875 = 2.34375)
Currently, SC2 worker speeds are 2.8125 building units per second. If we were to use that number in place of the one above, we'd have a speed conversion ratio of 0.5625. After cross comparing all of the other BW units that are also in SC2, they all use this same ratio. Here's the difference between my discovered ratio vs. what's currently used by Blizzard:
0.5625 / 0.46875 = 1.2
Therefore, assuming the information I'm using in my research is correct, SC2 movement speeds are 20% faster than Brood War.
Warning: The rest of this section goes even deeper into the rabbit hole of nerdy stats and data comparisons unrelated to the map. Traverse at your own peril.
UPDATE: So, more in-game testing and discussion with decemberscalm of the Starbow team revealed that in practical application, SC2 units only moved 5% faster than their BW counterparts. Mathematically, this didn't make any sense to me, but the results don't lie.
Since it was obvious I would have to dig deeper to find out the reason for the discrepancy, I continued my research into not just unit speeds, but game engine speeds as well. I came to remember that Brood War had 2 additional speed settings compared to SC2: slowest and fastest.
I retrieved the speed scale specifics of BW from the BWAPI folks and again used Liquipedia as my initial source for my SC2 data. In a nutshell, the fastest BW speed is 60% faster than its normal (100%) speed, while SC2's fastest speed is 40% faster. This means our in-game testing wasn't a 1:1 comparison, which is why my fancy charts weren't lining up like they should.
TL;DR -- SC2 units move 20% faster than in BW, but the BW fastest speed was ~14.3% faster than SC2's fastest speed. The result is SC2 units moving across a map ~5% faster than they did in BW, before pathing differences are taken into consideration.
About Galaxy eSports: We're an organization focused on helping build the SC2 mapmaking and North American competitive scenes. Follow us and keep up with our progress!
Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
On December 02 2013 17:33 Broodie wrote: This map needs Xel naga I feel, sorry if I just dont see them
Hm, my play testing of the map didn't feel this way. Do you have some replays of the games you played that you can share either in the thread or PM? Would really help me out to see the flow of those games so that I could know where watchtowers would be needed, if any.
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
Nevertheless there is a sort of ohana syndrome here where the game could be more or less at parity and players have to take a 5th because they must at some point, and then you're left with unstable distances and rally timings. Not that it's nearly at the level of ohana.
You should adjust the lighting so it's more winky-crystally. I think more specular and a slightly more oblique angle. But I'm not a lighting expert.
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
Nevertheless there is a sort of ohana syndrome here where the game could be more or less at parity and players have to take a 5th because they must at some point, and then you're left with unstable distances and rally timings. Not that it's nearly at the level of ohana.
You should adjust the lighting so it's more winky-crystally. I think more specular and a slightly more oblique angle. But I'm not a lighting expert.
Yep, but that's deliberate. I made the map to have a stable early/mid/late game, but getting into that supreme late game becomes more of a scrap session instead of simply extending the late game for longer -- I personally find it more interesting than simply seeing more of the same for an additional 10-15 minutes before someone taps out. That, or as I said before, the bases are used to help solidify an already dominant lead.
As for lighting, one of the problems with the Kaldir tileset is it's very white-dominant. This means eye fatigue has to be considered for the map to be comfortable when playing on it. I switched the default lighting from Kaldir Day to Kaldir Night to dim the brightness and give more of a blue hue to the ambiance. I feel like doing a bunch of specular adjustments would be detrimental to my lighting efforts and therefore detrimental to player comfort.
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
Nevertheless there is a sort of ohana syndrome here where the game could be more or less at parity and players have to take a 5th because they must at some point, and then you're left with unstable distances and rally timings. Not that it's nearly at the level of ohana.
You should adjust the lighting so it's more winky-crystally. I think more specular and a slightly more oblique angle. But I'm not a lighting expert.
Yep, but that's deliberate. I made the map to have a stable early/mid/late game, but getting into that supreme late game becomes more of a scrap session instead of simply extending the late game for longer -- I personally find it more interesting than simply seeing more of the same for an additional 10-15 minutes before someone taps out. That, or as I said before, the bases are used to help solidify an already dominant lead.
As for lighting, one of the problems with the Kaldir tileset is it's very white-dominant. This means eye fatigue has to be considered for the map to be comfortable when playing on it. I switched the default lighting from Kaldir Day to Kaldir Night to dim the brightness and give more of a blue hue to the ambiance. I feel like doing a bunch of specular adjustments would be detrimental to my lighting efforts and therefore detrimental to player comfort.
You can turn the overall brightness down and change the hue while increase the spectral lighting very slightly. I think the map is fine except for the aesthetics. I don't like the third super well, but it is doable.
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
Nevertheless there is a sort of ohana syndrome here where the game could be more or less at parity and players have to take a 5th because they must at some point, and then you're left with unstable distances and rally timings. Not that it's nearly at the level of ohana.
You should adjust the lighting so it's more winky-crystally. I think more specular and a slightly more oblique angle. But I'm not a lighting expert.
Yep, but that's deliberate. I made the map to have a stable early/mid/late game, but getting into that supreme late game becomes more of a scrap session instead of simply extending the late game for longer -- I personally find it more interesting than simply seeing more of the same for an additional 10-15 minutes before someone taps out. That, or as I said before, the bases are used to help solidify an already dominant lead.
As for lighting, one of the problems with the Kaldir tileset is it's very white-dominant. This means eye fatigue has to be considered for the map to be comfortable when playing on it. I switched the default lighting from Kaldir Day to Kaldir Night to dim the brightness and give more of a blue hue to the ambiance. I feel like doing a bunch of specular adjustments would be detrimental to my lighting efforts and therefore detrimental to player comfort.
You can turn the overall brightness down and change the hue while increase the spectral lighting very slightly. I think the map is fine except for the aesthetics. I don't like the third super well, but it is doable.
Kaldir Night already has a low brightness and hue due to its night ambiance. Mucking with the specular made it harsh on the eyes for medium+ settings, while low settings really shows that dark, blue hue. Going any lower would start to make it difficult to see anything on low settings (which I personally play on for regular ladder play).
On December 02 2013 15:12 -NegativeZero- wrote: Looks good! I especially like the center design - you clearly took some inspiration from Heartbreak Ridge lol. Real high ground advantage would make it so much better though.
One minor issue I see is that 5 bases really aren't much more difficult to hold than 4. Once you move your army into the area between the 3 ramps in front of the 3rd/4th, it's just as easy to move up the large ramp into the 5th as it is to move downward into the 4th to defend. (Of course, coming from someone who is currently trying to make a BW style 12 base 4p map with a resulting shared 4th/5th choke I'm being a bit hypocritical lol...)
One thing that needs to be considered is to hold that base with the opponent's better rush distance compared to the 4th, you'd have to commit more of your army on that side of the map, especially given the 5th's more open design. This opens up the other side of the map for more backstabs and harassment.
Saying it more simply, changes in rally timings and terrain are what makes the 5th hard to take. I expect them to be taken when:
a.) Resources become scarce and the pace of the game slows down; or b.) When one player has a clear game advantage and can take it anyway
Nevertheless there is a sort of ohana syndrome here where the game could be more or less at parity and players have to take a 5th because they must at some point, and then you're left with unstable distances and rally timings. Not that it's nearly at the level of ohana.
You should adjust the lighting so it's more winky-crystally. I think more specular and a slightly more oblique angle. But I'm not a lighting expert.
Yep, but that's deliberate. I made the map to have a stable early/mid/late game, but getting into that supreme late game becomes more of a scrap session instead of simply extending the late game for longer -- I personally find it more interesting than simply seeing more of the same for an additional 10-15 minutes before someone taps out. That, or as I said before, the bases are used to help solidify an already dominant lead.
As for lighting, one of the problems with the Kaldir tileset is it's very white-dominant. This means eye fatigue has to be considered for the map to be comfortable when playing on it. I switched the default lighting from Kaldir Day to Kaldir Night to dim the brightness and give more of a blue hue to the ambiance. I feel like doing a bunch of specular adjustments would be detrimental to my lighting efforts and therefore detrimental to player comfort.
You can turn the overall brightness down and change the hue while increase the spectral lighting very slightly. I think the map is fine except for the aesthetics. I don't like the third super well, but it is doable.
Kaldir Night already has a low brightness and hue due to its night ambiance. Mucking with the specular made it harsh on the eyes for medium+ settings, while low settings really shows that dark, blue hue. Going any lower would start to make it difficult to see anything on low settings (which I personally play on for regular ladder play).
Yeah I see now that wouldn't work well because of the low / medium disparity. Maybe when it's in GSL they'll use a sexy graphics version.
the third seems awkwardly far and your army positioning is awkward. either protect a very open choke to the natural, or be forced to have a weird positioning between third and natural.
On December 05 2013 12:25 FlaShFTW wrote: the third seems awkwardly far and your army positioning is awkward. either protect a very open choke to the natural, or be forced to have a weird positioning between third and natural.
Scouting and map awareness were two of the listed good skills to have on this map. For those that want to play blind/lazy while keeping their army in a ball, it's supposed to feel awkward.
I updated my additional details section with more nerdy math, if you're into that kind of thing! Thanks a lot to decemberscalm (of Starbow fame) for playing around in the two games' respective editors with me and discussing these kind of technical details.
People should check out the mod if they haven't already -- or check it out anyway even if you have.
On December 05 2013 12:25 FlaShFTW wrote: the third seems awkwardly far and your army positioning is awkward. either protect a very open choke to the natural, or be forced to have a weird positioning between third and natural.
Scouting and map awareness were two of the listed good skills to have on this map. For those that want to play blind/lazy while keeping their army in a ball, it's supposed to feel awkward.
im just saying, your map is really prone to the split engagements of doing something like a hellion runby into the main, forcing the enemy to deal with that while you smash the third with your main army. at least, my opinion and standard for a third is one that is close enough to the natural where you can swiftly deal with any attack at the third while ur army is in between, but far enough where you don't only have to defend one choke point. just my view.
On December 05 2013 12:25 FlaShFTW wrote: the third seems awkwardly far and your army positioning is awkward. either protect a very open choke to the natural, or be forced to have a weird positioning between third and natural.
Scouting and map awareness were two of the listed good skills to have on this map. For those that want to play blind/lazy while keeping their army in a ball, it's supposed to feel awkward.
im just saying, your map is really prone to the split engagements of doing something like a hellion runby into the main, forcing the enemy to deal with that while you smash the third with your main army. at least, my opinion and standard for a third is one that is close enough to the natural where you can swiftly deal with any attack at the third while ur army is in between, but far enough where you don't only have to defend one choke point. just my view.
Yes, multi-pronged aggression is a thing, and yes, good map awareness to know where your opponent's army is located is also a thing. Your idea of how to hold a third is exactly the kind of blind/lazy play I was talking about -- sit your army in a comfortable position so you can defend everything, even when you don't see it coming despite plenty of tools such as observers, sensor towers, scans, burrow, overlord perches, and so on.
That's all without getting into the third base's terrain design and the dynamics around its chokes.
I meant to post this right when you posted this map thread but I forgot. But I had a WIP map named Crystal Cavern that I might go back and end up releasing sometime. Now I have to think of a new name, damn you. Maybe I'll just make it "Krystal Kavern" lol.
I'm a little worried because it seems like after the 3rd it gets a little boring. High ground > Low Ground > High Ground > Low Ground. The 4th/5th just seem so bunched up and close together that I'd like to see something changed with them. Possibly later tonight I'll open this up in photoshop and post an image with my ideas.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5lj7Jut.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WGtfnJMl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MoSVGLZl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ay5aBail.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/otVc6S6l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6POYALDl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Lk9hAdfl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6B2N7twl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6427We0l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M7024tWl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bn7ywUAl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AGqjpa6l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rmZhMBSl.jpg)
Fighting Spirit, 
Mucking with the specular made it harsh on the eyes for medium+ settings, while low settings really shows that dark, blue hue. Going any lower would start to make it difficult to see anything on low settings (which I personally play on for regular ladder play).
