1.) Anyone that's more concerned about the popularity of this map rather than the fact this map has obvious flaws automatically has no place in this discussion, and I personally don't care who it is. Popularity's a worthless argument and it doesn't have a place here.
2.) For those of you claiming that unapproving this map will kill this game, go ahead and prove it. You have no precedent to even make that claim based off of. Until that happens, this argument is useless and worthless.
DoomWrath wrote:When playing the map, most players were moving about and taking points, the players that sat and spammed got marginally better KD ratios until they were de-camped and replaced with the victor, who then advanced their KD ratio until they again were knocked out.
This is completely anecdotal. You can't pass this off as valid evidence or justification. Not to mention you were using a modified map which doesn't represent the issue entirely which just skews your own conclusion. I could play the map in the most backwards way possible just to suggest a counterpoint.
I just ran through the original realwar by myself and it doesn't take a brain to see that this map has glaring issues. Even from the preview alone you can see that the map is way too open. The OICW is barely any different from the CS-RC or whatever weapon was there before so replacing the main weapon on the map with the OICW barely solves the problem. The OICW still has a decent enough fire rate to consistently lay down crossmap firing at a good rate. The spraying is less mindless to do but anyone that knows this map's layout can simply spam in and out of the bases with ease because the OICW is way more accurate so spraying is still very well an issue.
The entire center part of the map beyond the bases is entirely open. The bases themselves have cover and are more closed. Anyone on the outside lacks protection of any kind which is what encourages the spraying issue in the first place. It's an easy killing method. The sniper rifles make it easy to track enemies so all players need to do is spray in the general direction the enemy is at. Those on the outside have no method of protection except to fire back which, if it wasn't obvious enough, makes their position known and makes the campers' work easier.
Literally no cover exists. None at all. All of the cover is compacted into the bases where people spray from. It's harder to kill someone behind cover as opposed to killing someone out in the open. With a height advantage from the bases as well, headshots are easier to land (and the OICW is deadly with headshots at 130 HP). Again, this makes things way too easy. In my screenshot, I put a box besides the character to show how the cover should be like. It should at the minimum go up to a character's waist. This provides protection for those out in the open and closes the gap between those in the base and those outside. There's equal opportunity to land a kill and it's possible to counter campers this way.
DoomWrath wrote:I don't fully understand why people get so worked up about it being noncompetitive and cheap
I don't even understand why you don't see the problem. I don't even understand your argument, period, and calling
that an argument really is a stretch. It's noncompetitive because not everyone has an equal footing, especially in DM and TDM, to get kills. The bases are a luxury that feeds the spraying problem. Anyone lucky enough to hold down the base only needs to worry about the open area and other players trying to take over the base. The latter is extremely easy to counter because the OICW's penetration is laughable most of the time and it's easy to catch sight of anyone entering from the bottom and quickly get headshots. The cover at the base also hinders mobility of anyone rushing forward from the front of the base because the cover is simply in the way, thus it's easy to spot someone attacking from the front because the design simply doesn't let you just walk right in from the front.
Personally the cover at the base needs to be extended down the lane instead of the center part being an open field. Cover at that level should be more prevalent and spread out. This makes spraying even more ineffective but still a possible strategy to fall back on (because weapon mechanics always allow this). Even an extra lane guarantees that people don't have to rush into the open areas in order to reach either end of the map. That alone will grant them more of a chance to successfully take down someone that's set up shop in one of the bases.
Even map-realwar in my opinion is also a hashed and lazy attempt to cover up the issues. While there
are platforms to protect those underwater, water itself is already a natural defense. Projectiles slow down automatically so it's easier to avoid those projectiles. Breaking sightlines to the water isn't so much a solution. Breaking sightlines
above the water is the real priority. The flow of movement is still quick above water so players that want to quickly rush from either end of the map still have to risk dying in an open area unless they go into the water which hinders their mobility somewhat. I have no idea why it's next to impossible for most people defending this map's design for whatever reason to accept that this is a problem that's encouraged to exist in greater volumes than normal. Standing
here in map-realwar isn't any different than standing in the same spot in the
original. You can't even tell the two apart. Anyone above water is still unlucky and has the same chances of dying. What this version did was include breathing room but at the wrong spot.
DoomWrath wrote:Here are your solutions to the "Realwar Problem". Pick whichever suits you best.
People who don't like the map: Don't play the map. There are many others to play.
This sort of logic can fit perfectly with the whole "unapproving this map means the game will die" argument which I think is just as weightless as the "popularity" argument. If the easiest map is unapproved, then people will just move to the second easiest map there is. This is how meta strategies work and it's natural for people to do this. People have already said that the map can still exist in custom maps if unapproving happens to be the final verdict. Unapproving won't wipe this map out of existence despite what people arguing this point frame it as.
So here are your solutions to the "unapproval problem." Pick whichever suits you best.
People who're afraid unapproving this map will kill the game: keep the map as is and let the issues stay in the air. We can have this discussion forever if you like. Or you can change the map and make a compromise that fixes the issues but still have realwar approved. After seeing this excuse of a logical discussion, I doubt the concept of a compromise exists in many of the people here (then again, I'm in this seemingly closed-minded community after all). This is not an all-or-nothing ordeal here.
People who're so concerned with how popular this map is and the approval status of this map: take a minute to think about the nonsense you just decided to say then come back with something logical to put on the table. Right now that argument is worthless and will forever be worthless. Stop pushing a logical fallacy just to try to earn some participation points or to create some backwards logic point. Yeah, the map's popular. We get it. What's your point? There's a reason this map became popular in the first place. If that reason isn't obvious to you, no one should be paying attention to anything you say afterwards.
People who don't fall in those categories: you're fine. That's all. Let's continue discussing rationally.
DoomWrath wrote:People who want the map to be different and propose adding alternative routes, tunnels, or ways around: Play Firetiger/Tehswordninja/Nexir's versions of the map instead of X Death's.
The maps you want to suggest as alternatives don't have the luxury of being approved. In fact I'd contend that this isn't helpful. You're just running away from the problem by using these alternatives as a red herring to move people away from the original realwar and try to satisfy them without putting in the effort to fix the map itself which would create the same effect and achieve better results. Believe it or not, some people do like the concept of realwar but don't like its current execution. A quick read-through along with some basic reading comprehension should be telling you that. I think even that might be expecting too much at this point judging from the posts I read in the topic.
Approved maps are meant to be competitive. It's why they're approved in the first place. The original realwar isn't as competitive as recent maps. The alternatives may be but they lack official competitive status until further notice. People who do want realwar approved but fixed have to deal with this flawed iteration in the meantime. Either replace the original realwar with one of those maps (yeah right), approve one of the alternatives as well (like that'll ever happen), fix realwar like everyone's repeatedly been trying to say (like this'll ever happen either), or unapprove realwar until it's more competitive to co-exist with other approved maps (like this too will ever happen either). Right now there's an imbalance between the competitiveness of realwar's design and the design of modern maps. To me, even map-realwar currently isn't good enough. It's lazy if anything. I could come up with a design better than whatever this sad inadequate version is supposed to be.