new account
list users
Map DB
Map Access
New map
Edit map

Back to "final" maps.   Show all maps.
Last update for (4)Crown And Sceptre1p1 : 2018, 07, 20 14:17
mapIDMapname (comments)map sizeAuthorRatingTypeplay type
4849 (4)Crown And Sceptre1p1 128*128Jukado2.2finalground

The map has been rated 12 times and got a total of 26 points


You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
Comments:   GMCS (0 elements)


20th July 2018
Version 1.1 Crown And Sceptre
-Resources increased to standard amounts (1500 minerals, 5000 gas) at all bases, except centre base.
-Centre base resources = 12 x 1200 minerals, 2 x 4000 gas.


21st April 2017
Version 1.0
-No changes


15th December 2016
Version 0.95 Crown And Sceptre

Changing name to Jukado.

Get a head, get a hat
Wand in hand, on thrones they sat

Above is actually slightly outdated 0.94 but looks very similar.

From rags to riches (development gif up to 0.94):

Static overview (0.95):

teamliquid summer update release thread

teamliquid (outdated) release thread

teamliquid development thread

Ramp palette
modified by Jukado
Ive tested nat to nat times and pathing.
Between top spawns is currently 20 secs.
Between left spawns is 27.
The other 2 are around 24.

Pathing between left spawns uses the outer bridge at the top spawn.
Pathing between the bottom spawns uses the outerbridge at the right spawn.

Overlord spots are not too bad already (tested ingame).

All the ramps are placeholders.
*cough* FS clone *cough*
c.ircuit a.nd s.pirit?
@Crimson)S(hadow: Nope

27th September 2016
Updated map file to 0p1wip037
-added water to gap at bottom
-shifted 4 bridges
29th September 2016
Updated map file to 0p1wip040
-moved bridges at bottom left
-added rocky ground on the Path To 3rd
-first pass at mud in nats
7th October 2016
Version 0p1wip043
-Added 2 mineral onlies
-Placed resources at the high ground 3rds and centre base
-Terrain at 3 and 6 o clock
-Added rock and tree doodads in centre
finally realized that it's the autosave function that keeps crashing my scmdraft. program still crashes whenever i save manually but at least i can use it properly now. maybe i'll finally finish another bw map...
That'd be awesome. Have you tried just deleting the backup file yet? Usually its that growing too large which crashes SCMDraft. The other usual reason is, unfortunately, the text trigger editor...
rofl that file was 2gb, didn't even notice it before... seems to have fixed everything, thanks
Yeah, that's exactly the size where it gets too big...
Super cool map. Think more maps should play around with symmetry like this.
Looking forward to it NegativeZero.

Thanks neobowman, good to see you (on this site), been a while. I used to play your maps Calamitrous and Reclaimer, good times.

18th November 2016
Ive finished the map. See some teaser shots in the tl thread if you wish.
CardinalAllin's Asymmetrical Symmetry?
Thats what c3rberUs said in the tl thread haha.
And nope.
30th November
Version 0.94 Crown And Sceptre
Changing name to Jukado...
15th December 2016
Version 0.95 Crown And Sceptre

-Water cliff snip at TL nat.
-3 o clock ramp tile changed back.
-Grass BR main SL.
-Water at 3 o clock.
-Grass centre mirrored.
-Water cliff at bottom left nat entrance.
-Tank hole at 6 o clock (mirrored tile).
-Grass tile and dirt tile at top right nat entrance.
-Improved ramps (and ramp palette).
-Asphalt at 3 o clock water cliff
-Retesting mining at TR main and its fast. (worker wobble for zerg but its fast).
-Testing trying to ramp stack bug at TR main but couldn’t.
-Cliff at TL nat entrance.
-Changed author name to Jukado
-Improved water clutter at 6 and 12 o clock (switched out vision tiles).
-Mud behind 12 o clock.
Oh why are you changing your name to Jukado? What does it mean?
and yeah I like it a bit better than CardinallAllin :)
Why the change of pseudonym?
Interesting that you write a change log about every little detail you changed. I tend to obsess about things like repeating cliff tiles quite a bit, but in the changelog it will all just fall into "refined deco" or "some doodling around" for me...
About the map:

Can't believe I haven't said anything about this map :O

This is going to look like a nmjoo post lol

I saw your thread on TL (I'd rather post here since it's more appropriate talking about gameplay and balance).

LML (same as the one from here, I'm guessing) brought up concerns about positional balance.

The point of the map is to break with normal rotational symmetry with the top left quadrant being flipped (rotational symmetry wise). This is naturally going to cause different positional imbalances than normal rotational symmetry maps. Rotational symmetry in general has its own problem of positional imbalance: that (like in FS), if players spawn adjacent to each other, one player usually has his "natural flow" of expansions towards the other player, while the other player has his expos trending away from his enemy.

They are different imbalances and affect gameplay differently, as I see it. I think rotational symmetry positional imbalance for adjacent spawns affects midgame more than lategame, taking my countless games on FS as experience.
I say this because it really affects where players take their third base. Generally, players choose to expand away from their enemy (this is not always the case, such as on FS where players use a combination of the ramp choke/elevation advantage/simcity to secure their third even if it is towards their enemy).

However, this type of symmetry will always have a problem with split-map scenarios because wherever you draw a line dividing the map in half, it won't be the same on one side as the other. This will affect lategame a lot, especially in TvT, where games go to lategame and the map is split very often since it is so difficult to break siege tank lines and the defender has such an advantage.

I think this map has a lot of great positional variety, although at the cost of imbalances in some matchups and spawns. The nats at the top are very close nat-to-nat distancewise, and the path is very linear (although pretty wide, which helps). This affects tvz and tvp a lot. Tvz because MnM push reaches the zerg natural so fast, so the zerg has less time to build sunks/retreat/react to the push.
TvP because 2 base midgame mech pushes are going to be really strong here, since the terran just has to get to the other player's bridge (which is close) and they'll get a contain. Not to mention the middle is even more buildable than FS. However I think the 2nd bridge would help a protoss defend (more angles of attack than on FS if the terran sets up on your bridge).
ZvP, early pool builds will put a lot of pressure on P on top adjacent spawns, more than on any spawn scenario on FS. Same with ZvT.

All in all, this asymmetry has its pros and cons, as does any form of symmetry. Asymmetry on 2 player maps is generally a no-no, but on 4 player maps like this one, the imbalances are generally hidden until mid-late game. But this isn't total asymmetry, it's not like (4)Fantasy or anything like that. It just has the top left quadrant flipped from clockwise to counterclockwise, so it will play generally like FS in some scenarios, and not like FS whenever a player spawns in the top left (I'm not ignoring the 2nd bridge, which makes the map play slightly different than FS, obviously).

What I think bothers players is that if you lose in the midgame influenced by disadvantages as a result of positional imbalances from rotational symmetry, and the player expanded TOWARDS his enemy, there's usually a feeling of "I should have expanded the other direction, away from the enemy." So basically the player feels like they had an option (or options), even if it's disadvantageous compared to the other player. But if you lose in the lategame, and the other player is on the side of the map with the safer/richer expos (like here LEFT vs RIGHT), the player will naturally feel cheated and will blame positional imbalance. I mean its only natural, it comes down to choices. Most players won't look at their replays and see what they could have done differently in the early or midgame, but will instead see the end scenario and see that one side of the map has more expos than the other. This is not entirely the player's fault, but certainly the mapmaker's, I think. At the outset of the match, one player has better or more options than the other.

Also, care for details does not necessarily equal better map, gameplay, or balance.
The map is very detailed, but the gameplay and balance of a map come from the design/concept and execution.
I can't find a scenario where asymmetry inherently does not create positional imbalances, it's practically in the definition. Some positional imbalances can definitely be amended or curbed with tile editing, details, etc. but that can only do so much, especially in asymmetrical maps.

This is unique because this map has a sort of "asymmetrical symmetry", as much as that does not make sense, and at the same time, it does lol.
Mapmakers and definitely players are not familiar with this type of "symmetry", so it takes time to get used to. I do think this map is sort of experimental though, I don't see this type of map really catching on (at least personally, I could be wrong). If anything, i think it's really interesting to see how changing the symmetry affects gameplay at different stages of the game... Here it is lategame that is affected more than anything else. It's actually funny to think that TvT, a mirror match-up, would be the most imbalanced on a map, too lol.

Map definitely has positional imbalances in the mid-lategame. TvT will be affected the most I think. This is the price for the positional variety it creates. I don't really see a way around this. Other than that, I think the map is really well-made. I think you should move on to different maps (I think 3 player symmetry is really rewarding but difficult, unless you are Testbug).
Changed name because Im starting to release a new project called Star Tale. CardinalAllin was just made to release a few 3v3 mess around maps originally. I never intended to make 1v1 maps at the time.

Jukado is meant to sound culturally neutral.

Normally I simplify the changelog from my own notes but more recently Ive just pasted it.

Thankyou JungleTerrain for the big comment.
I could delete the min onlies but Id kind of like them to be kept in at the moment. I feel they make the map more interesting currently. Yes they make split maps less balanced but the map creates other variations that will have affected things earlier on in the game too. The player that doesnt get the mineral only as easily will get a different advantage earlier on in some other way.
Map splits mostly affect TvT as you mentioned.

Overall, its really not that bad. My opinion is this map has very good balance.

If you measure the time between the nats at the top, you will see its actually only 1 second faster than on fs. In the mid between the 2 top nats are some big rocks and trees to micro around. When you reach the bridge, you still have to travel quite far to actually get to the nat entrance (significantly more than on fs). And as you said, the 2nd bridge gives options to defeat contain strategies, as does the large air gap at 12 o clock (drop harass etc).
There is time to build sunkens in ZvT and you can overlord scout very effectively (between the top 2 nats).
The time between the top nats is the same as on Circuit Breaker vertical spawns.

I agree that decoration doesnt equal a better map. I was just trying to show people how much love has gone into it and attempt to break the perception that kespa mappers are infallible. If you are spending that much time on deco, chances are you spent quite a bit of time on all the other aspects too. In my opinion the execution here is high but maybe you disagree. I think it will give very good gameplay though, and I personally find the concept really exciting. Actually, thinking about it, its pretty unique (in brood war). Ofcourse there is lost temple but that map is from a different era. It would be a bit unfair to hold LT up to CAS critically.

Hey CrystalDrag where is my comment saying nice water cliff editing like you did on Demian SE 2.0 for a tiny little piece :)
modified by Jukado
Yeah I think my point with the top nats being close is a bit exaggerated. However I was not talking necessarily about the time units take to get from one nat to the other, but the distances themselves, if that makes sense. Like siege tank range, here tanks cover more area towards the enemy nat since the nats are close (not talking about ground walking distance here).

The top adjacent spawns just seem to be the most unfair of the scenarios in the map, it doesn't just affect TvT though.

In PvZ, if protoss spawns top left and zerg top right, both only have the option of expanding downwards (nobody will take the top mineral only unless super late game). The left side is just better.

In TvP, all you need to setup a small contain is to get to the enemy bridge, tank range will reach the nat entrance. But here the top path through the 12 is not there so there are less options to flank. Terran will stick against the top of the path.

TvZ, mutas reach Terran's nat really fast (they are more vulnerable than in Circuit Breakers).

I think there's a reason why this layout isn't seen often though, and thats because in certain spawns, one player has clearly better options to expand than the other.

And the execution is good. That's not the issue with the map at all. I think it's a design issue.
It's basically FS but with these weird scenarios. Maybe try a different map with this type of symmetry (I don't even know what to call it because its asymmetrical and symmetrical at the same time lol)?
I think using FS as a template actually restricts this concept, if you tried it on an original concept it could work better, idk.

And I'm not a downer or anything, it's actually pretty interesting, but these are some of the issues I see.
I told you from the start that basically copying FS is not a good basis for this kind of map and that a gas expansion at top would be required. A good basis to make this kind of, let's call it "broken symmetry", would be to have four neutral gas expansions at around the 3/6/9/12 o'clock positions. These should probably each only have either one ramp (maybe a widened one) or be something like the neutral expansions on Andromeda/Beltway/Wind & Cloud, i.e. an easily walled choke. Actually, having two of each type, paired opposite of each other, that would probably still be alright with this kind of symmetry. If you want double-ramped neutral gas exansions, you could use a pair of these and a pair of the others. Something like Dies Irae 3(9 o'clock would also be a possibility.
As for mineral onlies, a pair of them, equidistant between two naturals, cross-map-diagonal from each other would be a good setup (look at Lilac Unicorns central expansions for an example of this kind of setup).
@JungleTerrain, in your example of Protoss spawns at top left and Zerg spawns at top right you say the left is better.
Would you agree that the left side has a closer 4th gas (for Protoss or for zerg if using a close 3rd base style and depending on where he wants his 4th to be).
But the right hand side potentially has an easier time going up to 7 bases in the very late stages (map split). Because 6 o clock is slightly more owned by the player on the right hand side of the map, and the mineral only at 12 o clock is neutral, while the mineral only at 4 o clock is ofcourse on the right hand side.
Also, the player on the right hand side could possibly take the mineral only at 4 o clock as his 4th, reasoning that it is quite close to his 3rd, he can park his army there and simultaneously defend both bases without having to worry about getting up and down the thin ramps like on the left hand side of the map. Can counter attack faster from that position, and can reinforce quicker from the natural too.

I dont necessarily believe that is how things would play out, especially in PvZ, and I dont necessarily believe the scenarios are equal, but I just wanted to check that you had taken those things into account. So while you may still think that "the left side is just better", it can atleast be argued that both spawns have positives and negatives, agreed?

"Like siege tank range, here tanks cover more area towards the enemy nat since the nats are close"
I didnt understand this statement.

"In TvP, all you need to setup a small contain is to get to the enemy bridge, tank range will reach the nat entrance. But here the top path through the 12 is not there so there are less options to flank. Terran will stick against the top of the path."

The space between the nat entrance and the bridge is quite large, bigger than on FS. And the space next to that, on the path to the 3rd is also large (again bigger than FS). And you have the 2nd bridge for flanking (and the route through the 3rd if you wanted just like the path through 12 o clock on FS).
I think that terran contains vs protoss will be powerful but I also think that protoss has good options to combat them and that games will be exciting and that gameplay in this situation will feel fair and satisfying for both sides.

"TvZ, mutas reach Terran's nat really fast (they are more vulnerable than in Circuit Breakers)."
Fine by me, a nice bit of spice. Terran can prepare and can reach the lategame with a good shot at winning still.

"I think there's a reason why this layout isn't seen often though, and thats because in certain spawns, one player has clearly better options to expand than the other."
Ill make 2 points on this. First Id argue that its not 100% certain as I explained earlier.
Second, Id argue it is true on for example New Sniper Ridge in for example TvT, and left vs right spawns on Circuit Breaker in PvT to a significant extent. Much worse than on here, yet those maps are popular.
On this map, every spawn allows a player to go up to 3 base and continue from there into the late game with viable options and acceptable chance to win (in my opinion).

"It's basically FS but with these weird scenarios."
PERFECT! Thats exactly what I was going for. FS with some spice injected.

btw I call it Black Sheep symmetry.

I agree that using FS made it more tricky and leads to the result we have. I actually really like how it turned out (could delete the 2 mineral onlies too and Id still like it). I agree that more positionally balanced maps using this symmetry can be made by using a different layout. Id love to see some, personally I probably wont be making another map for a while.
If perfect symmetry is so vital, we have to ask ourselves why we play 4 player maps at all, hell why do we even play a game with asymmetric races lol. But dont get me wrong, I strongly believe that maps should try to be as positionally balanced as possible for all matchups etc. Personally I think this map is very acceptable in that regard.
The map isnt perfectly symmetric (by the nature of the layout) but in my opinion there are always viable options for all spawns. What is lost is gained elsewhere; the large amount of variety, complexity and nuance to learn the ins and outs of. My hope is that this variety helps the map to not get stale and boring (as quickly, if this is something that applies to you).

I think its time for play testing to do the talking now.
@Freakling, I dont think a gas expansion at 12 o clock is required.
A Protoss spawning at one of the top locations can choose to expand towards a terran safely if he wants to. So this would be taking the highground gas expo at 3 or 9 o clock. This is totally a viable choice, especially as you only need 2 pylons so protoss can do it very quickly and get a lot of value out of the base even if he were to lose it later. But you should be able to hold on to it decently.
Alternatively, if he wants to expand away from the terran he can take the mineral only at 12 o clock, and some players choose to take the empty natural as their 3rd.

I agree that your layout suggestion would make for a good way to do this style of map.
21st April 2017
Version 1.0 Crown And Sceptre
-No changes

20th July 2018
Version 1.1 Crown And Sceptre
-Resources increased to standard amounts (1500 minerals, 5000 gas) at all bases, except centre base.
-Centre base resources = 12 x 1200 minerals, 2 x 4000 gas.
modified by Jukado

Upload replay for this map
Add your comment:

Because of heavy spam on the map comments, it is needed to be logged in to post. We are sorry that this has to be done because nothing else stops spam bots
random map
  (2)Sand Kiss
Newest updates:
  (2)Phaethon 1.0.2
  (3)Neo Transistor1
  (2)Autobahn 0.
  (4)Crown And Scep..
  • month 9:
      (2)Neo_Noahs Ark_..
  • MOTW
  • week 2015.36:
  • Main Forum
  • Is th..(Starparty)
  • I nee..(triller1)
  • Which..(Freakling)
  • Map M..(Freakling)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(JungleTerr)
  • Rotati..(
  • Off Topic
  • Questi..(SpoRe)
  • What a..(SpoRe)
  • Vetera..(SpoRe)
  • Starcraft 2
  • STARCR..(
  • announ..(Taranok)
  • Search Forum
  • How to make larvae spawn at the bottom right corner  
  • Worker pathing guide - How to debug and balance resour  
  • An elegant way of dealing with cliff asymmetry
  • Competition:
  • Innovative Naturals Competition  
  • Tourney Map Pack Aspirant Suggestions  
  • Maps That Need A Remake