I appreciate you are beeing direct Monitor. The best feedback doesnt contain any praise. However it is advisable to keep a friendly tone. The way you look into a mirror, the same way it will look at you.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The expansion layout needs work... Where can each player be on 5bases? Either way you divide the map, the player is too close to an enemy expansion.
The first four bases are obvious I think. The 'fifths' are pretty much neutral. You can take them as your third, fourth or fifth.
Expanding in the opposite of your opponent is technique I hve been using in Emerald Plateau too and it makes for some really cool games. When you expand the rush distance is not drastically reduced, but as (regular) expanding continues both player find themselves in front the opponents natural. Players are left with an insane decision and the results are really nice to watch.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
Another big problem is your playable size. 2 player maps really need to be around or a bit larger than 128x96 to make sure races are balanced. Right now, everything has gigantic distances here.
The distances are below Shakuras, LT cross and Meta cross. As far as I know 142 game units is a good distance main to main. But I might prove wrong.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
I think you should probably ditch the map instead of remaking it.
I appreciate you leave some feedback for me, but I must ask you to stop insulting me.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
Aesthetics are rather dull, seems like a lot of blue... could just be me though.
True art lies within the viewers eye. I personally have spent about 14 hours on it and I like it pretty much 
Wich is by the way the reason I called it 'Dreamsape'.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The back door into the natural is very easy to go into (short distance to it), yet it is very hard to wall off. Right now it is just too hard for a P to FE on this map. Considering there is also a back door into the main, and your third is relatively hard to take, something needs to be changed.
Ah now we are talking about some of the very layout fundamentals
With the choice of the low or high ground natural there isnt always a backdoor. For zergs there probably is one, but its quite some distance to attack the backdoor and zerg can spot the path pretty easily with ovies.
You can FE to the low ground, pretty similar to XN and Meta. Nexus before gate is probably not the best choice though 
The popular 2gate (robo) should suffice however.
Terran can 1rax expand to the high ground and wall it with 1 or 2 bunkers and be safe.
The third (be it low or high ground) is pretty close and pretty easy to hold actually due to both of them having one medium (10/11squares) and one small (8 squares) sized chokes. Are we talking about the same base? Because I cant understand your concern.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The high ground in the corners is really not going to be used much, if only for a little harass.
As you say, harass and backstabs are the sole purpose. But why would that be bad? Afaik its common practise amongst mappers to make various pathes and cliffs just for that.
On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
You should really define your concept and capitalize on whatever it is.
Thats a great advise for all mappers!
I think I did well doing so on this map. The concept is a very dynamic map, that leaves you with a lot of choices and possibilities. You can not only choose paths to attack, but also the entire expansion pattern is variable. Your choices have an impact on the whole flow of the map and create a very special dynamic and feeling. The tension is incredible when you consider that both players make these decisions and influence each other with it.
I have put my heart and soul into creating this and keeping all the choices equally viable and to be honest Im really happy how it turned out
Of course my maps never reach a truly final version and will stay WIP as long as I live
cheers,
madsquare.
edit:
On January 10 2011 01:50 Antares777 wrote:I like the location of the thirds, but overall, defending expansions on this map is difficult. I'd make the map more linear by moving the fifths in front of the thirds on the same ground as the middle. This would require the map to be stretched out vertically to give that expansion adequate room. Then, I'd remove everything to the left of the fourths, decreasing it's width.
Sketch
+ Show Spoiler +
That sketch looks certainly interesting but it would stray too much from the concept :/
Perhaps you can use some ideas of in your next map?
@ Samro225am
I think you understood the concept of the map very well. Yes the amount of positions, expansion pattern and movement options, and no real 'lead' in gameplay is the goal of this map.
I am with the opinion that this is a good way to go, but I might prove completly wrong in the future.
For now I believe in myself and wait for certain things to progress.
The Idea you posted is actually something I find interesting. Im likely doing something in that direction when I feel the current layout is outdated.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oZ5yz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oiPGf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/faTLc.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pbOGk.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Mxiyg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o1XLc.png)
