Why is Sentons a bad map?

[Mel_Gibson]

Discuss.

[Blackheart]

Not a bad map, just bad players

[everywhere116]

I don't think its a bad map (aside from a few symmetrical errors that are present in all default maps) and I enjoy it every once in a while but its overplayed and some people can be unforgiving when it comes to not knowing the meta.

[Mel_Gibson]

I perhaps should have called this, why do people hate it so much?

Spoiler: show

inb4 bad players from BH

[Hawkei]

It is a very restrictive map with the combination of a high reclaim start, a large number of secured mexes, and terrain which is difficult to bypass leading to a rather static eco spam game. The range of tactical options are far too limited and it is difficult to capitalise on map control.

The momentum of a forward land assault from the front position is far to easily stopped from either side pond or air positions and the map does not have any unsecured mass points, and has limited options for a multi-lane attack. The current meta of the air position, with the combination of high mass and high reclaim leads to a tech rush for T3 air superiority. Which completely marginalises any T1 and T2 air gameplay - which IMO is where some of the more interesting game diversity is to be found.

The shear pace of economic and technological advancement means that units become obsolete too quickly and this punishes early accumulation of aggressive units. That is why it is a bad map.

[biass]

Not a bad map, just bad players

[snuffles]

I've never heard of Sentons, what's it look like?

[Hawkei]

I've never heard of Sentons, what's it look like?

... It looks like a camel's backside with a pile of shit in the middle.

[CookieNoob]

The map is missing some basic features that all maps should have. Customizability and adaptive mex positions...

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=13014

[Viba]

It is a very restrictive map with the combination of a high reclaim start, a large number of secured mexes, and terrain which is difficult to bypass leading to a rather static eco spam game. The range of tactical options are far too limited and it is difficult to capitalise on map control.

The momentum of a forward land assault from the front position is far to easily stopped from either side pond or air positions and the map does not have any unsecured mass points, and has limited options for a multi-lane attack. The current meta of the air position, with the combination of high mass and high reclaim leads to a tech rush for T3 air superiority. Which completely marginalises any T1 and T2 air gameplay - which IMO is where some of the more interesting game diversity is to be found.

The shear pace of economic and technological advancement means that units become obsolete too quickly and this punishes early accumulation of aggressive units. That is why it is a bad map.

The words of someone who is not enlightened by the setons, sure you can play it like you described it, but there is much more to the map than what you described.