bas_ekkelenkamp wrote:
It's more that you are only wanting to play on the same style of maps, which are to me mostly ugly, un-intresting maps which bring very little to no depth to the game. This really needs to change.
Thanks for reading to everyone who did, I really hope things are going to change drastically in the future.
Cheers, basbaas
Whenever a new map is attempted to be introduced into a competitive scene it will be met with resistance to change, no matter what the map. The next common theme is when a map maker is bashed, or the maps are criticised, the makers tend to feel overly obligated to be offended or are simply sensitive. It's human, I 100% understand this is a normal reaction. But this is the internet and you will always be out numbered by trolls and harsh criticism will always out number constructive criticism, in any field of what you do (be it music, video, blogs, articles, maps, casting, etc.). You have to take the trolls as they are and learn to deal with it: but always pay attention because posts like Luxxiz etc will be there to offer sensible criticism which you can take on board. The last thing we need is Pappychamp & you going into hiding because of the first wall of criticism.
The topic of changing the style of how a map is played out is a highly contentious topic. Which is exactly what these maps are designed to do: by incorporating minimal static defencive spots and bringing in new power blocks.
I am all for the latter: having new tools to work with in a map is a good thing - I love grapples and the last map lists have sorely missed them (bring back Breach!). The new maps tend to have gone over board on this regard. Just because it's a new block it doesn't mean you have to have it all over the map - A map should have a theme and a power block could play it's part in that theme. You could have the arrow platform as a theme for a map and do without the other 1000 redblocks which are there to complicate the map unnecessarily. It could simply be 'The Arrow Map' and it would be nice, if executed well. Imagine it's a map where 1 defender will take up the role 'the Arrow player', much like on maps you may have 'The railpad player'. I am all for future development of the maps in this direction, we need more depth as you say. But it goes wrong the moment you lose sight of balance.
Balance, efficiency, size. When Tazzmajazz orders that maps must have no static defencive spots, he's basically said that he wants the balance of maps to swing in favour of the attacker. But I don't understand this: the objective of elite is for the defence to defend, and the attacker to kill everyone or capture the pole. If he wants the game to be more open and people free roam around, then why are we playing Elite? Have ESWC be Siege or Royal or something, because you can't change the style of a game mode just simply because he doesn't like the way it's played.
We need balance more than anything - nothing is worse than a map which doesn't give you the opportunity to defend with skill & team play. The very best attackers who will hit nearly anything presented in front of them will have no problem in moving around the map and constantly picking players off. Combined with a faster reload, they have the potential to run a map at 100% attacking success rate. You may say this is fair reward, but consider that perhaps he is playing against highly skilled defenders who have nothing in their disposal, thanks to the maps, to survive the round. Is that balanced?
So when you present to us the new Collided & CC, you've completely contradicted your purpose in having the maps. By removing forward static spots you force the teams to play as hidden defencive as possible: You will see 3 people in the back of collided for 99% of ESWC as static as possible. On CC, a map that originally had static spots forward which allowed for aggressive play, a middle line for rail / medium aggression and a back line for the really defencive teams, you removed the forward static spots, removed a lot of the ledges around the middle and subsequently we may see an evolution of ultra defencive style on the map. And it's not our fault for this style : we are playing to win no matter what. We can't make use of 90% of the map due to it not being safe to do so, we can't make use of any developed strategies to cover each other or play aggressive because we face near aimbot style attackers at high level and dying a single time as a defender could be ALL the difference between a win or a loss. $$$.
Finally: not all cages bad: Take Breach for example: it had the 'annoying' cages, but only 2 to work with. The 3rd defender has to play a rotational game, aggressive or hide & seek style. The cages were far enough from the pole that the attacker can always assume positional advantage from it, so it wasn't without depth. Take Paladin forward cage: aAa & Dignitas make good use for it by covering it well from team work, otherwise it would be a tough position to hold solo. But it doesn't center around the pole so as soon as an attacker rotates, they assume their 2ndary positions. So there is a little bit of depth with that as well.
tl;dr = I don't want imbalanced maps against defence. You NEED some static spots, if you want depth then add them smartly in relation to distance to the pole, have power blocks (like rail pad, arrow pad, red blocks) sparingly used to great effect to give the players an additional option to defend effectively. Oh and don't take offence so easily to criticism, it's the internet.
again is 100% right 
