| 1 |
This map has three problems, in (loosely) descending order of importance:
|
1 |
This map has three problems, in (loosely) descending order of importance:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
(1) Performance. Some people can't play on it at all, let alone as a large team game enters the midgame.
|
3 |
(1) Performance. Some people can't play on it at all, let alone as a large team game enters the midgame.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
(2) Imbalance? The conventional wisdom seems to be that East is strongly favoured due to (a) proximity to Antartica and (b) being able to expand further over land. That theory is not borne out by my games so far but I haven't played or watched that many.
|
5 |
(2) Imbalance? The conventional wisdom seems to be that East is strongly favoured due to (a) proximity to Antartica and (b) being able to expand further over land. That theory is not borne out by my games so far but I haven't played or watched that many.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
(3) The hover problem mentioned by Galamesh.
|
7 |
(3) The hover problem mentioned by Galamesh.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
Accordingly
I
am
unfeaturing,
at
least
for
the
moment.
I
am
not
sure
that
(
2)
alone
would
justify
unfeaturing
in
the
absence
of
solid
data
(
the
featured
pool
does
contain
other
asymmetrical
maps,
although
maybe
not
many
so
grossly
asymmetrical
in
the
teams
pool)
but
(
1)
seems
pretty
compelling
to
me.
|
9 |
Accordingly
I
am
unfeaturing,
at
least
for
the
moment.
I
am
not
sure
that
(
2)
alone
would
justify
unfeaturing
in
the
absence
of
solid
data
(
the
featured
pool
does
contain
other
asymmetrical
maps,
although
maybe
not
many
so
grossly
asymmetrical
in
the
teams
pool)
but
(
1)
seems
pretty
compelling
to
me.
The
map
remains
supported,
for
those
who
have
the
hardware
to
play
on
it.
|
Map World In Flames v1.8