what makes a good 2t map

[wwo]

Try to keep your answer either very short and concise, or long and rambling.

Address just one game type if you want. No need for everyone to be comprehensive.

Feel free to mention your own biases and preferences, but if you don't think it necessarily contributes to a "good" map, just make it clear at the start so we don't get pointless arguments over something you didn't really intend.

Here's some jumping off points:

Good game types (sort of in order, best to worst): fr, kotm, ters, ctf, lmoth

Terrain variety that can emphasize unit strengths and weaknesses

Trade options that allow for more than one or two blatantly obvious optimal trades+strats.

etc

[adrenaline]

I'm a big fan of 3 pronged maps with fairly even footed terrain that doesn't give either team overly easily defended flanks (such is the case with Dark Canyon, for example). Not a fan of shit like narrow bridges, excessive buildings, of other shit that fucks with pathfinding or visibility. Not a fan of overly bright maps that nearly blind you if you have your gamma and/or digital vibrance set high. I like Caer alot .

[switch]

Personally, I'm a big fan of large maps. I think myth is best played as a maneuver game, so having plenty of space to work with is important. I also like terrain features that uniformly divide the map (rivers, walls, hills) over tight choke points, although, I should add that choke points (such as bridges, forests, or villages), are fine so long as there are multiple avenues of crossing and approach. I'm personally not a fan of mountains and interior maps, again, with the caveat that those kind of maps do test different skills and so are still important.

Obviously, the unit trade plays into this mix in an important way, maps with plenty of variations on the mesh provide different tactical packages which is also important.

Bottom line, a well tested map and trade is hugely important versus a new map for its own sake. Also, people will naturally complain about novelties that might be very innovative but less tested in a tournament setting. Think of the general unit- a novelty, but so well established that no one complains, versus the catapults on grilling grounds or the portals on Aztec oranges- both very fun and in future maybe less resented than alreDy established units.

Basically, I feel this relates to the old question of duds and randomness and preferred tournament settings. Hardened 1v1 tournament players might prefer largely featureless maps with no randomness so their "skill" can show. But then again, the nature of the game is about adapting to changing conditions with a huge number of variables, so I think it's important that maps reflect that.

[Lord---Scary Owl]

Variety of terrian, but with plenty good flat spaces for intense BC

No unfair hills or terrain raises for each side

But most imprtantly a good fun unit mix

Favorite map is acts of cruelty