|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SlhdG.jpg) Abaddon Blaze(by Travis "Caustic" Willis)Tileset: Char Map Size: 128x128 Published on: [NA] [EU] [SEA] [KR]+ Show Spoiler [Publishing Legend] +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Blue means the map is live in the region but on an outdated version.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. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uQMHv6D.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LCWduxc.jpg)
Changelog:
+ Show Spoiler +v1.4General- Added new Battle.net custom game description features to the map, including patch notes and screenshots
- Replaced neutral lowered supply depots with new neutral unit: unbuildable rocks (destructible)
v1.3Balance- Increased close-position rush distance marginally to fit better with additional research performed while developing Gemini Heights -- minimum main-to-main rush distance should be 40 SC2 worker-seconds, but rush distance was 38 before the change.
- Adjusted terrain to make it slightly easier to reach the third when expanding counter-clockwise.
Terrain- Adjusted map size from 132x132 to 128x128 by shaving off excess space along the outer edges of the map.
- Slight adjustments to outer edges of the main and natural bases to accommodate the altered dimensions.
- Updated centre of the map, slightly widening the outer paths and shrinking the very centre.
General- Updated map name from "Abaddon Blaze" to "Galaxy - Abaddon Blaze" to make it easier for people to find and play Galaxy-developed maps on Battle.net.
- Updated map description to something better.
v1.2Balance- Xel'Naga Watchtower has been removed
- Line of sight blockers have been adjusted in the centre of the map
General- Minor updates to map textures and doodads
v1.1Bug Fixes- Fixed minor pathing issues that would cause certain main base ramps to have non-standard pathing, requiring a non-standard wall. This bug did not affect the ability to form a tight wall, making it more annoying than game breaking.
v1.0General
Introduction / Map Concept:
Continuing to make 4-player maps after Boondock Wastes and Khalani Sanctuary, I ventured down the path of closely studying Brood War maps. I've looked at tonnes of Brood War maps before, but mostly for design inspiration rather than mechanical details like size, rush distance, base distance, etc.
I made a large number of WIPs attempting to replicate these aspects in SC2 (in fact I have another map in this bunch that I'm likely going to release sometime in the near future). However, as I was doing so I remembered that I had a map, Quarantine Zone, that was essentially a port of the Brood War map Fighting Spirit. I decided to completely rework Quarantine Zone to more closely reflect the proper proportions of Fighting Spirit while keeping some adjustments more beneficial to SC2 (e.g. double-width ramp into the third from the centre and a rock-choked triple-width from the natural, rather than a single-width on both sides). I also gave it an aesthetic upgrade from Quarantine Zone.
Additional Details:
Regarding rush distances
I've long since continued to do additional research about the details of Brood War maps and their comparison in SC2 after the release of this map. While developing Gemini Heights, I greatly increased the amount of time I spent having Brood War loaded up and marking down rush distances on different KeSPA maps. Thanks to all that, I've created a simple formula when it comes to managing SC2 rush distances:
Main-to-main choke = 40 to 45 worker-seconds
Nat-to-nat choke = 30 to 35 worker-seconds
Those values are, of course, in SC2 game time, not real time. People might note that the numbers are a slight increase from my earlier thoughts on nat-to-nat rush distance (I pinned it at 28 to 32 before). The additional time playing on actual Brood War maps, rather than relying mostly on VODs as I did before, helped me polish those values to what they are now.
Version 1.3 of Abaddon Blaze as seen its rush distances adjusted to these new values.
+ Show Spoiler [details prior to v1.3] +
Rush distance comparison
All rush distances are calculated based on the distance between natural base chokes, using the built-in editor path measuring tool.
Close Position:
Abaddon Blaze: 93 units
Antiga Shipyard (ignoring imba exploitable main): 92 units
Entombed Valley (vertical non-imba spawn): 95 units
Cross Position:
Abaddon Blaze: 118 units
Antiga Shipyard: 112 units
Entombed Valley: 103 units
Brood War stats and conclusions
Based on the data I've collected (lots of time spent watching BW VODs with a timer in hand), rush distances between close position natural chokes on KeSPA professional BW maps ranged from 20 to 23 worker-seconds (i.e. the time it takes for a worker to travel from point A to point B). With a speed of 140% compared to real-time, that translates to an SC2 nat choke rush distance of 28 to 32 in-game worker-seconds. Co-incidentally, that matches exactly with Blizzard ladder maps like Antiga Shipyard and Entombed Valley.
I also found it interesting to note that map dimensions in SC2 are in fact on a 1:1 scale with BW dimensions. It's also noteworthy that Antiga Shipyard, if you ignore the excess air space around the terrain (it's 132x136 with the air space), is 128x128 in size -- exactly the same dimensions as KeSPA professional 4-player maps. It's just a shame Antiga suffers from a very poor terrain design.
Some of the most popular maps out there, such as Cloud Kingdom, are of similarly "small" dimensions. CK is 126x132. I think all of this information combined shows that dimensions exceeding 148x148 are not necessary, given a well-designed map. Even then, 148x148 should be reserved for large, 16-base macro maps, such as I published before with Boondock Wastes and Khalani Sanctuary.
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!
Twitter: @galaxyesports
Facebook: http://facebook.com/galaxyesports
Website: http://galaxyesports.com
Contact the mapmaker by email at caustic [at] galaxyesports [dot] com
|
I sense a new team coming up
|
On December 02 2012 21:07 ScorpSCII wrote:
I sense a new team coming up
 Spidey senses are tingling.
|
I like this a lot better than Quarantine Zone, nice proportions and definitely an aesthetics upgrade. The main problem with 12 base 4p maps however is that it's really hard to balance close spawns and I think this map suffers from that a little bit, if you spawn clockwise from your opponent you have a much easier time of taking a 3rd. If you spawn counter-clockwise you either have to expand towards your opponent or take the base that is quite far away and is tricky to defend. I also think that the gasses on the 3rd should both be on the side next to the main, right now one of them is awkwardly next to the ramp. Overall a really cool map though
|
United States9936 Posts
fighting spiriit?! :D :D :D :D :D
its a bit chokey everywhere imo. gonna be a lot of side engagements and flanks.
|
3rd and drop defense seem hard on this one.
|
Hi
Overall I like the attack paths and expo positions for a 4p map.
The corridors are too narrow .. zerg is forced to favour certian units (brood lords, swarm hosts) and have problems engaging. I think the map could be 20% bigger. Keep the layout, but scale up the proportions of the corridors (dont scale the nat or mains or the expo plateaus - needless to say). I also want to see some height level difference apart form the bases... some ramps. Scaling it will also allow you to add another tower ... not a big fan of towers in the middle. Rather put them on the side corridors where they do not spot a nat or third directly.
|
9/10 on looks, im not gonna call it the hottest chick in the party but i cant see a thing wrong.
10/10 on initial balance inspection, I love the 3rd and the ways to attack/defend it. all the ramps and such are nicely done, and the middle looks nice, not like a wasteland where you can never engage a zerg (Disagreeing with meltage here who said make it 20% bigger, obvious zerg lover)
I agree with Oxygenisis about close spawns being imba, but I think you should embrace restricted spawns only, as it would make this map very balanced.
|
Woo, bunch of responses as I slept. Let me get to them.
On December 02 2012 22:48 OxyGenesis wrote:I like this a lot better than Quarantine Zone, nice proportions and definitely an aesthetics upgrade. The main problem with 12 base 4p maps however is that it's really hard to balance close spawns and I think this map suffers from that a little bit, if you spawn clockwise from your opponent you have a much easier time of taking a 3rd. If you spawn counter-clockwise you either have to expand towards your opponent or take the base that is quite far away and is tricky to defend. I also think that the gasses on the 3rd should both be on the side next to the main, right now one of them is awkwardly next to the ramp. Overall a really cool map though
I would have assumed people would worry about spawning counter-clockwise (e.g. top-right vs. an opponent bottom-right), as in order to take your third you have to control a more open space never mind I misread what you were saying, but we had the same conclusions anyway. Even though it's no different in nature from the original Fighting Spirit, it's not something people have really had to consider much in SC2. Allow me to demonstrate with an image the slightly different dynamic:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s5iNp.jpg)
Do note that I didn't change the size of those red circles; the amount of area is the same. Only thing is spawning counter-clockwise means you're defending two angles instead of one, allowing the opponent more surface area. This wasn't uncommon in Brood War, and the answer was to utilize different strategies depending on your spawning location. For example, bottom-right would likely be better off utilizing a more defensive strategy, while top right would likely be better off utilizing a more aggressive one.
I'm not sure about the gasses at the third, however; one also has to consider that all spawn locations are possible, so having both gas on the side closer to the natural would make it much more awkward taking that base in a cross position game. It is kind of awkward in its current state though, isn't it? Hm.. I'll take a look at it. The answer might be to just make the resources angled, like in the mains.
---------------------------------------------------
On December 03 2012 02:13 FlaShFTW wrote:
fighting spiriit?! :D :D :D :D :D
its a bit chokey everywhere imo. gonna be a lot of side engagements and flanks.
:D :D :D
The centre is actually a deceiving little bugger. You can look at it as either very chokey or very big and open with a few small breaks, depending on your perception. Either way, I wanted to encourage army splitting and flanking with the mid design, as well as allow exploitation of chokes against players who fail to do so. If it ends up being too much I can increase the openness a bit, but in my play testing it felt all right.
---------------------------------------------------
On December 03 2012 02:22 lorestarcraft wrote:
3rd and drop defense seem hard on this one.
This is a matter where proportions are very important. Taking the third in your own quadrant is of similar distance as maps like Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, to give a comparison -- about 13 in-game worker-seconds from natural choke to third. Not sure what you mean regarding drop defence. Hard as in too difficult? I'd disagree with that. Hard as in dropping is a viable tactic? I'd consider that a success.
---------------------------------------------------
On December 03 2012 04:21 Meltage wrote:
Hi
Overall I like the attack paths and expo positions for a 4p map.
The corridors are too narrow .. zerg is forced to favour certian units (brood lords, swarm hosts) and have problems engaging. I think the map could be 20% bigger. Keep the layout, but scale up the proportions of the corridors (dont scale the nat or mains or the expo plateaus - needless to say). I also want to see some height level difference apart form the bases... some ramps. Scaling it will also allow you to add another tower ... not a big fan of towers in the middle. Rather put them on the side corridors where they do not spot a nat or third directly.
Thank you for the feedback, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject all of it.  This map actually started as a larger version: Quarantine Zone. I already know the result of trying to implement a 12-base map design into larger dimensions -- the proportions are simply wrong. I did a lot of work (some details in the OP) figuring it out.
As for the centre map and its deceptive corridor-like appearance, see my earlier response in this post to FlaShFTW.
Finally, about height levels. Seeing as this is a Fighting Spirit tribute/port, I don't want to alter the general layout/feel of the map too excessively (just minor liberties to make the map work better in SC2). That's just a personal choice. However, I did mention another 12-base map design in the works in my OP; it makes more use of different terrain levels, so maybe that will be more appealing to you when it's released.
---------------------------------------------------
On December 03 2012 04:33 Carmine wrote:
9/10 on looks, im not gonna call it the hottest chick in the party but i cant see a thing wrong.
10/10 on initial balance inspection, I love the 3rd and the ways to attack/defend it. all the ramps and such are nicely done, and the middle looks nice, not like a wasteland where you can never engage a zerg (Disagreeing with meltage here who said make it 20% bigger, obvious zerg lover)
I agree with Oxygenisis about close spawns being imba, but I think you should embrace restricted spawns only, as it would make this map very balanced.
Thank you for the scores! The only thing is that I do not like restricted spawns for a 4p map, unless it's a conscious design decision (like Crux Metropolis, for example). Anything else feels like a band-aid solution, and I'd rather look into making slight adjustments to the layout to fix any major positional balance issues. However, I don't think positional asymmetry on this map is necessarily imba in the sense of "one position is better than the other". Different, as demonstrated in the little image earlier in this post, but not broken. If additional play data proves otherwise, then I'll re-look at the issue.
|
Dem fighting spirit ports. 4th base looks to be a pain to secure, but once you can secure it you pretty much get a free 5th base along with it, so that helps a little.
The "3rd is easier to drop for one player on close positions" thing was mentioned in the other fighting spirit port thread (and probably in the quarantine zone thread too, I imagine), but you have to consider that the player who has the safer 3rd has the more vulnerable natural..
|
On December 03 2012 07:40 Fatam wrote:
Dem fighting spirit ports. 4th base looks to be a pain to secure, but once you can secure it you pretty much get a free 5th base along with it, so that helps a little.
The "3rd is easier to drop for one player on close positions" thing was mentioned in the other fighting spirit port thread (and probably in the quarantine zone thread too, I imagine), but you have to consider that the player who has the safer 3rd has the more vulnerable natural..
I'm becoming more and more of the opinion, as I continue to watch professional SC2, that 4th bases should be a pain to secure. Once you trigger 8 gas geysers and beyond, that's when we start to enter silly town with the amount of vespene-heavy units. For example, a Zerg accumulating BL/Infestor, and being able to instantly re-make it after the opponent engages in what is usually a very inefficient trade.
Newer Korean maps being introduced are also featuring more difficult 4th bases, such as Abyssal City and Bel'Shir Vestige. The quality of games hasn't been negatively impacted as a result, so I think it's a safe thing to do.
|
Yeah, I didn't really mean it as a negative or positive thing, just a major feature of the map that I noticed.
|
On December 03 2012 08:06 Fatam wrote:
Yeah, I didn't really mean it as a negative or positive thing, just a major feature of the map that I noticed.
Ah, sorry! Please don't misunderstand, I was just being philosophical about 4th bases since you brought up the topic. T_T I didn't mean to come off as defensive.
|
tis ok, I didn't word it very well at all, It did sorta look like I was saying it was a bad thing.
Grats on getting another team underway. I think with most of the older mapmaking teams being dormant or practically dormant that new ones are a good idea.
|
On December 03 2012 13:01 Fatam wrote:
tis ok, I didn't word it very well at all, It did sorta look like I was saying it was a bad thing.
Grats on getting another team underway. I think with most of the older mapmaking teams being dormant or practically dormant that new ones are a good idea.
Yeah, the Western mapmaking scene could use some additional blood. Lots of stuff is underway with Galaxy, so expect more than just the occasional TL map thread with our logo on it.
|
If you try to snug rax up against the top right mains ramp as your second building you become unable to wall with 3 buildings until you move the rax. Not really a problem, it's just people are going to mess it up their first couple times since the wall off is slightly different.
|
We've been playing some matches of starbow on the map.
Apparently the wall offs are weird at the main? So said my opponent.
Xel Naga's still feel like legit map hax. I removed it on Sacred Sands, makes there a point to positioning your army in the middle of the map and poking around with scouts. I don't think I've liked Xel Naga's since trying that, but its such an ingrained feature for SC2 maps now.
Lovely map!!! Thanks again
|
Amazing map! Only played it once, so I'll have to try it out more, but it was weird to FFE. I will try FFEing using the Nexus as part of my wall, though.
|
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll take a look at what's going on with the main ramp wall-off. As for FFE, my current standard with natural chokes is 4 barracks width. FFE simcity is similar to something like at the natural ramp on Antiga, for example. Of course, doing the nexus FFE style is also viable.
EDIT: Figured out what was going on with main base ramps. Somehow the pathing whacked out ever so slightly, but the ability to form a tight (albeit non-standard) wall was not affected. This has been fixed and the new map version has been published to the NA server. I'll also be sending the updated map file to the Starbow team.
Not sure how that got past QA, but rest assured I'll be reviewing and improving my QA testing procedures for the future. Much appreciated guys!
|
Map has been updated to v1.2 and published to NA.
Changelog
Balance
- Xel'Naga Watchtower has been removed
- Line of sight blockers have been adjusted in the centre of the map
General
- Minor updates to map textures and doodads
Thoughts on 1.2 changes
There has been a lot of discussion lately about Xel'Naga Watchtowers and their impact on the game, following the introduction of KeSPA Proleague maps which feature a lack of any towers. One of the things I was most uncomfortable with on Abaddon Blaze was the relative strength of the tower in the centre of the map, as it provided vision to basically everything in the middle.
Given that the Proleague maps have seen relative success without the need for towers, I've come of the opinion that some maps may not require them. Given this, I've relegated the use of towers to that of optional enhancement, rather than necessity, depending on the map. Due to the general design and size of Abaddon Blaze, I do not feel that a tower is needed for this map to perform well, much like some of the Proleague maps. For this reason, it's been removed.
With the loss of the tower, I've adjusted the LOS blockers slightly in the centre of the map so they make more sense given their new context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
