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 Blue means the map is live in the region but on an outdated version.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.
On December 19 2013 04:25 SidianTheBard wrote: 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.
Yeah, I didn't want to get too crazy with things since after three bases most of the difficulty comes with controlling space in general. Having to deal with crazy terrain design on top of that just makes things excessively hard. Brood War maps were generally also simple in their design, focusing on only one or two key design ideas; in my case here, it'd be the third base + mid ridges. If you start adding too much, the design just becomes a mess (probably the #1 mistake I see out of newer mappers).
EDIT: Also, apologies on the name ninja. I've had it happen to me a couple of times.
On December 20 2013 05:22 EatThePath wrote: I'm totally stealing that idea with the half base and little LosB hole.
Whenever I make a map and want to do that idea I think it always turns out like crap. I think it would fit in quite nicely here though as well as give Terran a forward third if they wanted. Either way, just ideas. Can always experiment with it in the editor and see how it turns out.
On December 20 2013 05:22 EatThePath wrote: I'm totally stealing that idea with the half base and little LosB hole.
Whenever I make a map and want to do that idea I think it always turns out like crap. I think it would fit in quite nicely here though as well as give Terran a forward third if they wanted. Either way, just ideas. Can always experiment with it in the editor and see how it turns out.
Yeah, I like how it provides a little access point but for any large army movements you still need to bounce all the way around to the two main routes on either side. I think more maps should have little 1-2 square routes like this.
Blue = Basees Green = LoSB Brown = Rocks Red = 1/2 base (maybe gold?)
Basically corners won't have the little high ground base.
Was also tempted to see how strong Watchtowers would be right next to the triple line of LoSB.
Either way, just ideas, take them how you will.
Before I get into stuff, I just wanna say thanks for the time and effort you put into this Sidian. That said, I have a few key concerns with your suggestions:
1.) The half base. Aside from adding unnecessary resources (and ignoring the broken cliff logic around mid), it's situated in an awkward position and hinders the flow of the map, particularly with that blocked off ramp.
2.) The 4th and 5th designs. They perpetrate the "have more stuff than your opponent or die" syndrome that makes it so difficult -- and detrimental -- to split your forces on maps that suffer from this design philosophy. It also means you'll need to keep your army on the far side of the map to defend your expansions, which breaks the third base design (or rather, the design is undesirable for traversing an entire army back and forth through it constantly). This is exacerbated by the stifled map flow in mid thanks to that half base/rocked ramp.
3.) Speaking of the 5th, its new placement transforms it from a 5th base for player A into an alternative 3rd for player B, at the expense of two important areas:
Base proximity gets awkward at the 4th base, instead of the 5th base as originally designed (huge impact on the mid/late game, instead of its intended target of end game and its diminishing economy)
Destroys the key feature of the map: the unique third base design
4.) Loss of key open areas of the map for Zerg. With the shifted terrain, there is no longer a clear open/choke design to the map. Instead everything gets muddled, with no clear benefits: Zergs lose clarity on where their desired engagement locations are, while Terran and Protoss suffer from the same but in the opposite effect (chokes @ 4th, high-ground pods). Keep in mind the map size is 132x132; the suggested terrain removes a number of possible flank/surround opportunities for Zerg, leaving the only semi-desirable engagement points right in the middle of resource locations -- the opposite of what a good map would want.
For these reasons and numerous knock-on issues caused by the combination of them, I'll have to pass on the suggestions. I really do appreciate that you invested your time for me, though.
Fair enough, I'm just throwing ideas out after looking at the map.
Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway, which is why I suggested moving them closer to the main base because then they will play out like they did on Ohana, a possible 3rd for terran (as well as zerg), which means then players have a choice for a 3rd and can change up their gameplan depending on what they do.
I also suggested the half base because of my previous thought, I don't think the 5th will ever get taken so adding a forward 1/2 base (think daybreak) that would most likely be another possible 3rd for terran (or a late 4th/5th for zerg/protoss) would just add more deviation on the map.
Either way, I appreciate that you are taking a stand and not just changing your map because of random suggestions. It's one of the harder things to do because you see suggestions and immediately change it without thinking. (At least sometimes I've done that.) Props bud.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
Not necessarily.
Blue Storm, the 12 and 6 bases were common to take in split map scenarios. Also, in ZvT, it was common for Zerg to take it early on as a third to deplete the resources later for Terran.
Destination, the side bases were taken almost always in late-game scenarios. They'd usually be the fourth base.
Third map is a bad example. Really old map. Not considered balanced by modern BW standards.
Again, fourth base for Carthage.
Asgard never got past testing stages. Unfortunate because I really liked that map. It used a concept I had played around with in the past (low-high ground). However, it's really experimental and you can't really take that as a standard.
I'd say in your map, the side bases seem awkwardly placed in a neutral location. It seems difficult to take for either player.
On December 20 2013 11:20 SidianTheBard wrote: Just remember though with the size of the map and the placement of the 5ths they will most likely never get taken anyway...
They're mostly designed for end game, diminishing economy situations -- or, in lesser use cases, as a way to get even further ahead when you have a dominant position in the game. Many Brood War 2-spawn maps had this concept:
Et cetera. Basically, bases you likely wouldn't want to take for one reason or another until you've exhausted other options. It helps to keep the end game entertaining.
Not necessarily.
Blue Storm, the 12 and 6 bases were common to take in split map scenarios. Also, in ZvT, it was common for Zerg to take it early on as a third to deplete the resources later for Terran.
Split map is late game. Even then, those last bases were very exploitable. No map concept is going to have a perfect 1:1 comparison unless you're doing some uninspired cookie-cutter stuff, but the concept is still there.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Destination, the side bases were taken almost always in late-game scenarios. They'd usually be the fourth base.
There are 4 high-ground bases to be considered in this example, depending on the expansion flow of the game. Again, no perfect 1:1 comparison, but it's there.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Third map is a bad example. Really old map. Not considered balanced by modern BW standards.
Meta shifts as the years go by don't disqualify a professional map from demonstrating a concept that can be -- and has been -- re-used.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Again, fourth base for Carthage.
I think you're looking at the wrong bases. I'm talking about the 3/9 high-ground bases. Either that, or you've never actually watched a game on Carthage, but I don't think that's actually the case.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: Asgard never got past testing stages. Unfortunate because I really liked that map. It used a concept I had played around with in the past (low-high ground). However, it's really experimental and you can't really take that as a standard.
Does the fact that a map was only used in pre-season disqualify that it was used professionally and featured the concept I was demonstrating? I can tell you now that a map doesn't get cut in pre-season due to late game balance issues. Those things only appear after many, many games played.
On December 20 2013 13:29 neobowman wrote: I'd say in your map, the side bases seem awkwardly placed in a neutral location. It seems difficult to take for either player.
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).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/shkde2v.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/159_Blue%20Storm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/188_Destination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/54_Into%20the%20Darkness%202.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/206_Carthage%203.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/233_Asgard.jpg)
