by Krutz » 31 March 2017, 20:16
a "drawback of the combat map"? im not really exactly sure what the question is because its evident that that one is not the one which you mean
im assuming that youre claiming that symmetrical maps are generally worse than asymmetrical maps, which i dont agree with
objectively, symmetrical maps 100% guarantee "fairness" between the teams in terms of map opportunities. asymmetrical maps can theoretically approach the same feature, but "fairness" is not guaranteed and the distance from that "fairness" is entirely in the map maker's hands—which sometimes is not a good thing, because, i.e., the map maker isnt experienced
i think that asymmetrical maps are capable of thematically achieving more (i.e., simulating a real-life place) and thus can be more interesting, but symmetrical maps dont suffer much in that sense nonetheless and the sense of "fairness" is absolute, adamantine, and incontestable by asymmetrical maps
edit:
i think it may be important to tag on that not all asymmetrical maps are destined to be balanced horizontally because of the concern for team-team fairness. it may instead be balanced with deathmatch in mind—and the map then may be "unbalanced" or rather more "concentrated" (in terms of regional influence) through other means
consider eric gurt-level1_mp (the old version). the fortress atop the hill near the center of the map clearly causes balance problems between zeta and the usurpation forces, but less so in deathmatch and not coop