possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

[Golol]

So why are big maps basically never played except in a few cases?
I think its because they are all naval based.
All of the big maps are basically islands spread over a huge ocean.
those maps dont have interesting gameplay and the most important part: they are not appealing to non pro players.
If i see one of those maps i am like "wtf am i supposed to do?"
go naval? or full air? there are so many ways to kill me. mabye i should bunker in on my island and build gameenders.
So what i think we need are some 40x40 or even 80x80 LAND BASED maps.
With land based i mean like canis, isis or for/six leave clover.
these maps would be easier to play and more interesting.
It would add a new type of maps to the game where commander rush is not important.
propably everyone will go full air and then drops will be prepared. yes, unit drops will propably become common in big sizes.
so thats why i think some mappers shoould sit down and create something like this.
sincerely

[Hascins]

How do you know that they are never played?

Greetz Knorpsel

[Ze_PilOt]

They don't have an interesting gameplay because you have so many possibilites to play them ? Weird.

[Softly]

I have lots of replays of playing big maps 1v1, they're like any other map in that the player with the bigger eco has the advantage, and to get eco you need mass, and to get mass you need map control.

I don't think people play them because they are afraid of trying new stuff and losing. Also big maps are much harder to manage.

When I say big map I mean 20x20 mostly, generally speaking 40x40 and 80x80 turn into a rush t3 air and snipe. Its just too hard to get enough intel to effectively shut in your opponent. On 20x20 maps omni range is enough to just about manage this lategame.

[Tango_X]

People don't play on the large maps because there is always someone who will slow the game way down. I have played on very large maps in the past, and it has been great, but I would never do it without confidence in the other participant's computers.

[ColonelSheppard]

That is wrong, people dont play the maps because they take ages and this is why they tend to feel boring, undepending from the possible amount of tactical options. Saying that this is becaused they are naval based is ofc you are wellcome to create some big land maps, but i doubt they would be played much more than the regular big maps

Ah and, the big mqps are not naval based, but air based
If you lose air, lose
If you lose navy, air

PS
Saying
The mappers should sit down, never comes good

PS2
Never seen any 2k guy playing world domination, so i really think your logic is heavily flawed

[Valki]

I think the biggest problem with large maps (for new players) is the number of mass points.
There are so many important locations that you have to capture and deal with that it's overwhelming. You must send engineers and escortes to all mass on your side, you must harass all mass on the other side. There is just too much going on.
Note, I say this now with a rank of around 850, I don't expect Lu_Xun to say the same thing

The great thing about the large naval maps is that their mass points are much more concentrated, on the islands. I think large maps with fewer mass clusters, and maybe also fewer mass points, might be more popular at least among lower tier players.


(I'm going to test this theory once I manage to master the map editor.)

[Softly]

You're essentially describing emerald crater, and I'm really not a fan of that one.

The best 1v1s I've had are on Setons and Burial Mounds.

[Veta]

it'd be interesting to see some huge land maps with very few spread out mass points, maybe 1-2 at your main base. ferrying, proxy bases, acu transporting, large airforces would all be musts then IMO.

[Golol]

so first i wrote wrong when i said mappers should sit down.
i just ask some mappers to do it if they agre on me :3
and maybe the reasons i wrote are not right but you have to agree that 40x40 or bigger are barely played.