r34ch wrote: ↑zinc wrote: ↑Does anyone want to argue that the new version is a better map to play??
If anyone is curious as to
why the map was changed.
When playing (original) doubles, I'm not in practice worried about which side I'm on. I'm quite confident that if I have the better team players then very likely I will win and the different geography will likely make little difference. So firstly, I suspect what you are talking about are hypothetical advantages which may only come into play in certain games or only occasionally make a difference to the outcome. I'm not sure we should worry about that too much, if it's a fun map that's providing some nice games. Aren't you always/often going to risk balance doubts with non-symmetrical maps? When it does become an issue, is when repeatedly you could see one side use the geography in certain ways to normally win the game (assuming teams of equal-ish skill); but if that isn't happening I'm not so sure it's worth worrying about.
Also, it's always possible you may have overlooked certain advantages that the left-spawn side has. For example, let me suggest that the left-spawn has the best position to defend a naval base in the top sea. The left corner of it can be defended with tesla/aa/artie etc. That means that maybe the left-spawn side can rush tech and worry about naval later, knowing that they can "force it" if they have to. Another advantage is that the left-spawn side can move one MCV forward to middle and block off all entry to that side of the map by land. The right-spawn side appears to be more open if you just move one MCV forward, which may create opportunities for attack.
I would suggest that it may often be very difficult to calculate how important these differences are--what they all add up to--in terms of map balance.
And yeah, as I say, the original doubles is just a fun map to play. That's enough for me...
