Thoughts on the Current Ranked Map Pool?

[FunkOff]

I'll be brief: It sucks. Too many large maps with too much reclaim. We need smaller maps with less reclaim. Finn's revenge is a great one.

[biass]

A bunch of potentially better maps have been created, but are unable to be selected due to not being uploaded to the vaults

playtest them here!: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12345

[Hawkei]

I don't think there is an issue with the larger maps being in the 1v1 Ladder pool. The issue is that most of the 20 km and 40 km maps are not optimised for 1v1. They are designed for 3v3 and 4v4.

I actually enjoy long distance gameplay. Especially on land maps. Because it provides a rare opportunity for transport mechanics and drops. It introduces a logistical element which is actually a lot of fun. Producing a much more strategic, and macro oriented gameplay. I don't mind big maps in 1v1 as long as they are sparsely resourced. Emerald Crater is a rare example of this game type.

[biass]

Also, when you're playing maps with 20 mexes in your base and 50k reclaim on each side, issues such as fast t3 become incredibly easy and common, maps with sparse reclaim and far flung singular mexes (icestars/erridani!) do not have this problem, in fact early t2 was one of the main phases

tl;dr fuk vya

[Plasma_Wolf]

The current pool is fine. There's something for everyone.

Oh: and I HATE Finns Revenge. Also, I hate Williamson's bridge and I hate enemies with early bombers that still survive my two early mobile AA. But that's personal.

[Mad`Mozart]

Ok my thought is:
All oldschool or returning players that were most active in GPG have a brain cancer that prohibits them to play anything larger than 5km in a 1v1 game

[biass]

Everyone on faf has a brain cancer

[prodromos]

There are 2 major currents of preference, in game.

Those that enjoy big maps and those that do not.
Those that like reclaim and those that do not.

I could offer a lot of arguments for and against each preference.

As long as there's a map rotation, that changes the variables
every once in a while, so that all kinds of gameplay can be tested
I am fine with it.

With the possible exception of some maps that are not really
made for one vs one( Thermo anyone? Betrayal Ocean, frostmill ruins, world map? ),
it's ok having the 2 schools of thought challenged periodically on their preconceptions.


FYI and to be truthful , I like small fast maps, but this doesn't mean only this kind of gameplay
should be tested. Large amounts of reclaim can also confound the situation, very fast and are not
so simple as many want them to be portrayed. Plus, in large maps, scant reclaim would slow escalation
and fast confrontations by a large margin; not really agreeable to my tastes.

[Sovietpride]

Plz no.
The likes of williamsons bridge, Finns revenge can stay where they are.

Whilst perhaps a shorter rotation may be preferable, I prefer larger maps where one can do more things.
Rather rhan say, walk to enemy base.

[Morax]

Ok my thought is:
All oldschool or returning players that were most active in GPG have a brain cancer that prohibits them to play anything larger than 5km in a 1v1 game

I'm a GPG dog and I have hated 5x5s since they existed in '07.... Open Palms, Roanoake, etc were always my favorites

FunkOff, learn to adapt and eco or please quiet.