Which Maps to Retire?

[CombatEX]

(02-05-2013 08:01 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  I see that side of the argument. But the other side is more play variety. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was most excited for the two new maps to be in league cirulation with the veggienaut update. I guess 50 is too much, you're right. But I also think we could have more than 8. I'd love 16!

But you're definitely right about not feeling like you know what you're doing on a new map. I may be ST, but I only started to feel like I "understood" this game relatively recently.

I agree that only 6 maps was too few and I was excited for the two new Veggienauts 1v1 maps. So yes, you weren't the only one. ^^ But as you concede, 50 is excessive. I would be fine with a compromise like 16, though really I'd prefer fewer (12?). I suppose I would be fine with just keeping all the maps this time (and perhaps modifying Peekaboo). My initial enthusiasm for removing maps was more to set a good precedent with limiting the number of league maps than a strong desire to remove them. I just want to be clear that if we do keep them all this time, it is only because we do not yet have too many.

Like you, I have only recently felt that I've started understanding some of the finer points of the game. I only have ~70 league wins in 1v1 (though admittedly I have some friendly wins). I'd say I've probably played ~100 games against Super-Titans and top 200 masters players including friendlies. This means that even ignoring the two most recent maps and Veggienauts, I've averaged around 5 games on each map for each match-up. As a result, on maps where special usage is common I'm sorely lacking in experience. Fortunately that doesn't seem to sway my win/loss very much so far, but that means that we have yet to reach the skill ceiling for these maps let alone the ones coming in the next update. If I can get to the top 50 without having a good understanding of match-ups on most of the maps, then there must be a lot more for us to learn even at the highest level with just these current 8.

Long story short, I don't mind what we choose this time, but looking forward let us make sure not to overdo the number of concurrent league maps.

(02-05-2013 09:15 AM)RandyDogz Wrote:  As a more casual player, I don't like to see maps pigeonholed with set strong strategies - I like a more free for all approach and the mystery of wondering how each game will develop. Just my 2 cents.

I don't know if that is in response to me, but when I say I want players to acquire a deeper understanding of match-ups on particular maps, I don't find that mutually exclusive with set strategies that you cannot deviate from (which is what you seem to be concerned about). Rather, I expect more interesting tactics to evolve and the development of an actual meta-game. By this I mean where people become aware of potential powerful strategies that their opponent may employ on particular maps in particular match-ups and play to counter those strategies. Only, their opponent may then anticipate that counter-strategy and then do something entirely different. Only with a deep understanding will we move from simple turn by turn tactics to the next level, mind-games/meta-gaming/bluffing. Of course, this is a reason to keep the present maps so we have more time to develop these strategies. Perhaps we shouldn't remove any this time. As stated above though, I'd rather not go over 12 maps total.

EDIT: Ah k, I just saw your new post. Looks like we agree. Cheers. ^^