or

or just having more fun and be less predictable

ah no sorry, growing e-penis is more important, nvm

I think a reduce nummber of pople could test the map in 1vs1 before and do not participate to the tourney.
I can be one of them if you want

I really think should an awsome idea


edit: thanks for the links

easy enough to make a mirrored map...

that way if it's fucked, at least it'll be equal from both sides. nobody has to get shafted. i could only see problems arising if the map is not mirrored, and even then, i doubt that a well-planned map would give this kind of problem.

maybe i will make 3x 1v1 maps or something, and try to organize a tourney to play on them in the next few weeks/months if people feel its a worthwhile idea

edit : lol hobo you're such a negative nancy, lighten up!

Only in the morning.

If someone manages to find some "untested imbalances" that just means they did better map analysis than their opponent.

All these maps are functionally mirrored and everyones free to pick their side differently on each map, so there is no balance issues here... If some map plays in a manner you don't like, tough shit, many people don't like some of the old & heavily played maps either.

And yeah a tourney seems like an alright place to introduce new maps.

It's not about the map being balanced.
It's about people being unfamilair with the maps and making moves that are completely wrong for the map but are not easy apparent to be bad just by looking at the map...
What you get are shitty boring games.

well i can agree with all of this... it really depends on what the nature and quality of the created maps would be though dictating the success, rather than just the maps being new (i could take red comet, rearrange the mexes a bit, and you'd probably still be able to play in the same manner, just as an example)

i could see fails coming in the form of misleading slopes, differing metal amounts, strange tidal / wind values, or just bizarreness in general.

that been said, most "competitive" style maps seem either to favour one type of unit (vech maps or bot maps) or feature a fusion of the two with clearly defined boundaries (altair crossing is a good example of this)

all im thinking is that given simple enough concepts, normally sized and placed and distributed metal spots, and no "proof of concept" maps or maps favouring things like trans commander starts, and an "easy to read" texture, this type of "new map" competition could be successful.

certainly a different type of competition, pro players wouldnt be able to practice specific strats... so it would be more of a match of strategic improvisation and adaptation rather than purely micromanagement

I disagree. What happens is the opposite imo. If players don't know how to play a map but are half decent they realize what they do wrong and adapt. Executing the same BQ for the 100th time on a map you've played 1000 times is boring.

Amen brother.

I'm not just speculating.
Its not the first time there are unpopular maps in a tourney.
You get boring short games.
we'll see i guess.

tell that to the dirty DSD crowd

Totally depends on your definition of boring. I find watching top tier players on BA CCR incredibly zzz inducing, but that's just me.

Compare to some old popular maps then - are games on geyser very long for example? From what I've seen games played on these maps, they weren't too short or boring compared to anything else. That's why I chose them, they're solid maps that make interesting games.

Yes some past tourneys have had maps that made for a big amount of boring disappointing games. But these maps are better than that, sure someone can still make a stupid mistake and lose right away but that can happen on every map even after tons of experienc on it.

Carpenter wins! For the finals both players agreed to a best of 3 instead of 5.

ggs wp

lol apparently i was in this tourney?

and your opponent beat you a thousand times?

Tourneys have always been a good place to debut maps by skilled map developers.