Great doodading. I'm not sure about the textures thou ; I feel the map could be a lot nicer and easier to play if you used a different mix of textures for lowground, and used something else than tiles ; right now, it's very monotonous, and that makes it not as nice as it could be and not as easy to play.

HypertonicHydroponic

437 Posts

August 24 2012 14:40 GMT

#22

On August 24 2012 07:54 Timetwister22 wrote:
I know many mappers continuously hear how their maps are similar to current ladder/tournament maps such as daybreak, and I know how annoying it is considering that most of the time such is untrue. However, this map really is Cloud Kingdom, right down to the base and middle design. The natural, third, and fourth will all play out just like Cloud Kingdom, and the middle is nearly identical as well. Though, the middle here isn't executed as well as on Cloud Kingdom, so this map is essentially a weaker version of Cloud Kingdom.

However, as you have already stated this map is quite unoriginal, I'd like to point out how awesome the aesthetics are. Fascinating stuff. While unoriginal, if the map helped you learn more about mapmaking, then it was certainly worth making.

I disagree with this assessment. Cloud Kingdom had two possible expansion patterns, whereas this one much more clear expansion pattern four the first four bases. Furthermore, the most used expansion pattern on Cloud Kingdom is in the opposite direction to the one that this one has. The prominent expansion pattern on Cloud Kingdom is what I like to call the "cut back" kind (where you zig-zig back to the other side of your main), whereas this one is is "linear" (where you head straight down the side of the map. The big difference this provides in the "early" game (between 2-3 bases) is that the armies on this map are almost guaranteed to cross in the middle, whereas on Cloud Kingdom they are almost guaranteed not to. If you draw lines for the most direct attack from the nat to the third on Cloud Kingdom, you will see that the attack routes are pretty far off from each other, this makes scouting very important. On this map, the only thing separating two attacking armies is a very small gap in the middle, making it much more difficult for a surprise attack to occur. Also, the way these bases are clumped together, you are in much greater danger if your fourth is destroyed since it is that much closer to your third AND natural, whereas on CK the 4th is at least pretty far removed from your natural where you can make a stand and then expand in the opposite direction to take a recovery third/fourth while the opposing army is out of position (if it doesn't kill you). On this map, it seems like you would be hard pressed to take an "easily" defensible third in the opposite direction (which in this case is only a half base) especially since it is wide open in the area where the opposing army would be having killed your 4th. So I think this map is either going to boil down to a more turtlely, or a more rush based map (I'm not sure which) and less strategic and positional than Cloud Kingdom. It may wind up "working" but I think it will play much, much differently.

SeinGalton

South Africa387 Posts

August 24 2012 18:35 GMT

#23

I did not anticipate such insanely insightful comments, nor such incredible feedback - I've very much enjoyed reading through the comments!

Timetwister22: Yes, in fact I should probably have been even more clear in my OP: I see this map as separate from my other maps - this was just me experimenting and trying to learn more about making maps rather than me sitting down with a design and a clear plan. Strangely, a lot of the small similarities turn out to be accidental, which is okay by me because it means I'm learning. I'm not satisfied with it though, and in the interest of learning I'll be iteratively exploring large changes to the map. Thank you for the kind words sir.

Qwyn: Thank you, that's very kind. This map is still behind Cloud Kingdom: we can't really compare games on them yet, but Cloud Kingdom is certainly a much tighter, technically superior map. I do think that with successive changes though the holes in this one can be ironed out and hopefully it will turn into a much better map than it currently is.

Veloh: It's certainly a legitmate concern. I have allowed enough space behind the naturals for the overlords to hook around and see the gas, but a better alternative might be to put the geysers on the other side (I was initially afraid of abusive siege tank placements, but those no longer seem so legitimate). I shall explore.

Callyn: Yes, the base progression and posturing of the main, along with tons of airspace, was designed to enable drop play. I had hoped that this would break up any cagey play encouraged by the rush distances and easy expansions, but I'm starting to fear that one-punch timing pushes will be too strong on here.

EatThePath: Thank you for your insights, you make excellent points. The fourth base location is, as far as I can tell, the most problematic part of the map and I do intend to solve it with the next revision. Thank you for the kind words, I'll definitely be doing more maps with this theme, which I also feel can use improvement.

ArcticRaven: Good point - I'll revise the texturing for sure, there's still room for improvement here. I'm also looking into doing some very subtle asymmetry, perhaps with the new region lighting.

HypertonicHydroponic: That is an excellent post, thank you so much. Overall I feel the resource concentration around the main and the location of the fourth are the biggest problems. If I can solve those two - which might even be the same problem - it'll feel a lot better. Because comebacks will be hard to pull off, I think it will gravitate slightly more toward an all-inish timing push based map off two to three bases, and that obviously sucks. Spreading everything out a little will make dynamic expanding and comebacks easier and will promote non-committal aggression and multi-pronged aggression a lot more. I shall explore.

Thank you everyone for the feedback, you all share the spot for my second favourite person of the day. So it has been marked.

fenX

France127 Posts

August 27 2012 03:47 GMT

#24

It's more like Fantazy than Cloud Kingdom, at least for the first 4 bases (ok i guess everyone knows CK and nobody knows Fantazy XD).
Well, those 3 maps have the same diagonal highground path that cut the map in half, that's what defines the general aspect of the layout, they are in the same category, like all 4p rotationnal ends up looking the same.

I love the aesthetics, really good job there, one thing bothers me tho : you have a lot of plants on the walls and unpathable highgrounds, but nothing on the pathable grounds, you should add some bushes, small plants and foliage. It's not logical for plants to grow on those towers and walls but not on the clear ground.

SeinGalton

South Africa387 Posts

September 09 2012 14:43 GMT

#25

Hello.

Cassandra has been updated - I've made a big change to the original. It's resulted in a slightly more original and perhaps slightly less dubious map, but it's completely changed the way the map works. Learned a lot more during the changes, and whilst they're not great but I think they're a step in the right direction. Mostly I just wanted to submit something half-decent to MoTM, and I probably won't be mapping any time soon.

fenx - Thank you for the feedback. I had to go look up Fantazy (great name) and yeah, I can see the similarities. Good point on the trees - I've implemented in some areas with the update, but neglected to follow through with the idea everywhere.

Fatam

1986 Posts

September 10 2012 01:28 GMT

#26

Could you go into a little detail about what the changes are? I've checked this map a few times in the past but I can't really tell what they are. Cheers + GL with your map in the competition