IronManSC Profile Blog Joined November 2010 United States 2119 Posts Last Edited: 2012-07-26 17:26:19 #1 ESV Khaydaria by IronManSC

Follow me on Twitter

Published to [NA] [EU] [KR] [SEA]





TvZ: 5-6 (45.5%) | ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%) | PvT: 3-9 (25%)







Changelog:

+ Show Spoiler +

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.





Screenshots:

+ Show Spoiler +





















Introduction

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 The nameis in reference to the starcraft lore in which the Xel'Naga were chased off Aiur by the Protoss and leftbehind. 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



As always, leave comments and feedback ^^





Map Details:

Players: 4

Playable Size: 152x152

XWT: 1

Bases: 16



Tileset:





Analyzer:

Nat to Nat Close Spawns:

Nat to Nat Cross Spawns:

Summary: 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 thisimpose, 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 alrightAs always, leave comments and feedback ^^152x15216Nat to Nat Close Spawns: + Show Spoiler + Nat to Nat Cross Spawns: + Show Spoiler + Summary: + Show Spoiler + SC2 Mapmaker || twitter: @ironmansc || Ohana & Mech Depot || 3x TLMC finalist || www.twitch.tv/sc2mapstream

Blackrobe Profile Joined August 2010 United States 758 Posts #2 Will try it out!



Thanks for the hard work! :D "To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future."

Dexington Profile Blog Joined January 2011 Canada 6519 Posts #3 Looks like it will play almost exactly like Antiga Shipyard until the 4th base. "Man you guys are missing out waving your stats dicks about instead of watching this pvp" - bbm

Praetorial Profile Blog Joined May 2011 United States 3631 Posts #4 This looks a lot like the new League of Legends map retexture. FOR GREAT JUSTICE! Bans for the ban gods!

LunaSaint Profile Blog Joined April 2011 United Kingdom 619 Posts Last Edited: 2012-05-24 00:53:50 #5 Mmmm, love the loads of different potential spawns.



Edit: Also I like the tiny templar statues on the pillars.

FlaShFTW Profile Blog Joined February 2010 United States 8464 Posts #6 looks amazing :D



though there might be some imbalances like closer drop on the third for some spawns. Writer #1 KT and FlaSh Fanboy || Woo Jung Ho Never Forget

-rndmMusliM- Profile Joined April 2012 14 Posts #7 though there might be some imbalances like closer drop on the third for some spawns.



I second this, good spot flash! Cross spawns just seems the most logical thing to force for a competitive map. I second this, good spot flash! Cross spawns just seems the most logical thing to force for a competitive map.

Psilo Profile Joined December 2011 United States 115 Posts #8 Looks nice! will try

RumbleBadger Profile Joined July 2011 322 Posts #9 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. Games before dames.

WniO Profile Blog Joined April 2010 United States 2704 Posts #10 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.

NewSunshine Profile Joined July 2011 United States 4458 Posts #11 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. 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. "If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale

Sea_Food Profile Blog Joined May 2011 Finland 1612 Posts Last Edited: 2012-05-24 05:00:36 #12 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.

NewSunshine Profile Joined July 2011 United States 4458 Posts Last Edited: 2012-05-24 04:54:45 #13 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! 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! "If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale

TheFish7 Profile Blog Joined February 2012 United States 2814 Posts Last Edited: 2012-05-24 05:34:05 #14 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? ~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~

IronManSC Profile Blog Joined November 2010 United States 2119 Posts #15 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?



That might be interesting ^^ Will look into it That might be interesting ^^ Will look into it SC2 Mapmaker || twitter: @ironmansc || Ohana & Mech Depot || 3x TLMC finalist || www.twitch.tv/sc2mapstream

Aunvilgod Profile Joined December 2011 2649 Posts #16 I don´t know about the close spawns but I guess you have the data. :p



You should really make the lighting more colorful, everything is so... grey. ilovegroov | Blizzards mapmaker(s?) suck ass | #1 Protoss hater

Ragoo Profile Joined March 2010 Germany 2423 Posts #17 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. Member of TPW mapmaking team/// twitter.com/Ragoo_ /// "goody represents border between explainable reason and supernatural" Cloud

Sea_Food Profile Blog Joined May 2011 Finland 1612 Posts #18 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. 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.

Chargelot Profile Blog Joined December 2010 2274 Posts Last Edited: 2012-05-24 16:31:08 #19 On May 25 2012 00:59 Sea_Food wrote:

Show nested quote +

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. 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. 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 saySituations like these are perfectly okay. It's only a disadvantage because you think to yourself "" and if the answer to that is "" 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 (). 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 (), 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. if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; }

kappadevin Profile Joined February 2011 United States 269 Posts #20 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. Little Tortilla Boy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All