Map Imbalances...

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-02 01:06

***wow i didnt notice eggman posted something very similar up on top! sorry!***

SO while playing the tourny I have studied the maps ALOT more then I used to, and noticed alot of the maps are not balanced. and this just raises a simple question.

What kind of imbalances do people prefer? Because to be honest, sometimes i like maps that are straight up 50/50 balance, such as mashtuur 16 player zatar 16 player. but sometimes its really fun playing maps where the US has an advantage or the MEC/PLA have one and you are on the underdog team and push real hard and the victory REALLY feels worth it, one map that comes to mind is Sharqi 16, where the us can hop up on high building and surpress the MEC with great ease.

I just want this thread to discuss maps with big or small balance issues and whether or not people like these issues. And just to get peoples opinions, some people say maps favor one team while others think the map is fair.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-05-02 02:57

I always like playing the underdog. But only if this means there is no stupid *** ticket bleed. I think the ticket bleed since your not holding a flag is the stupidiest f-ing thing in the game. I think the only things that should cause ticket loss are the loss of troops or equipment.

When mec holds the first flag at the mosque on sak2 then it usually creates an awesome long match on that map. if they don't it is usually a beat down.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-05-02 03:00

Yeah, ticket bleed is lame. Especially some maps where it seems to never freakin' stop for the underdog team, no matter how many flags they cap...

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-02 04:23

yeah the ticket bleed on SaK2 is absolutly HORRIBLE it wouldnt be that bad, but that first flag is KILLER to cap, it takes SO long.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-05-02 05:03

For most maps in 0.3 ticket bleed should only start when one team is down to it's last base.

Also most maps were balanced either trhough play testing or through equal CP ownership at the start of the map. In addition all bases are captureable (again for the most part).

egg

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-05-02 07:00

Thx for the info, egg! That sounds way better.

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-05-02 15:42

Agreed, ticket bleed spoils many games. I love inbalance, it gives you something to work for. The worst thing about maps (the Karkands are a good example) is when the enemy just clings onto the first CP and it slows the whole game down. Karkand and Karkand 2 play much better when the US/MEC take the first CP, then it gives the attacking team a firebase to attack from. Battles over the bridges in Karkand 2 are awesome, especially with all the buildings to fire from and Karkand 1 is the same, when the battle goes right upto the bridge it starts getting interesting.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-02 15:53

The only maps where there should be ticket bleed are the maps where both teams control an equal amount of flags from the start. It makes players actually go and cap flags instead of both teams sitting at their bases just waiting for an enemy to attack. Bleed on maps like Karkand is jsut stupid though

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-02 18:34

ah good point about the equal amount of flags.

ETCS_keysR · Post by **ETCS_keysR** » 2006-05-03 00:31

when me and my polish mates play Karkand 2 on the USMC we always fall back with our squad behind the river and let the MEC take the Mosque - it's more fun that way, cause this flag if well defended is just impossible to cap. But bleed should stay - if not, most matches with 200 tickets would take 2 or so hours

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-05-03 00:45

What is so wrong about teams camping their bases? If it was war you would defend alot more than attack if you had too.