DM13 is not really good enough with time limit 10. DM6 is even worse, though. You could end up being screwed for the entire game after one failed 50-50 move.

I wonder the ra tele was changed back to its original place , could it make it more playable?
in dm13 that is

It has more to do with the time limit and the number of windows of opportunity that you can get against a very turtled up player. One or maximum two 50-50 chances after you got control is not enough to show who the better player is imo.

Fair point!

You are very wrong about dm13. Like noctis said, the down player has a lot of options and items to choose from. The up player can't just turtle because he'll be faced with a ~200/200 opponent very quickly. dm13 is awesome if you really know it. Lots of strategy and in close fighting.

We need hub ( I can't believe id hasn't made it yet) and perhaps a new 1v1 map contract from ztn.

I agree the map is great. But how long does it take you to safely travel from an item like MH / RA to one of the YAs?

It's hard to really quickly and safely get to places on DM13 (so hard to be offensive). It's much easier to run around quickly while searching for an opponent and much harder to stop a charging player who's stacked on all other maps: DM6, ZTN, T4, T7 (won't talk T9 because I haven't played it enough).

On DM13 the player "out of control" still has a lot of items to play with and has some really nasty locations to defend from. One mistake while attacking and you either have to leave your prey or really risk losing RA / MH... and control.

With more time that problem is fixed because you can afford to be more patient and put the opponent on the move before you decide to beat the crap out of him.

3 seconds? rocketjump is your friend :)

The tele exit is fine, it needs to be there to stop people just standing in the tele entrance until they are dropped on and then moving through and gaining the positional advantage.

Maybe if they removed the tele entrance room and put the tele in the doorway and the 50 below the RA you could move it back into the old position.

or some lava close to the teleporters

just random thought I just had (might be extremely stupid):

How about making it a 2-way-teleporter?

Could work.

Hmm personnaly I think that tele is in better place now, it get's a bit harder to take
that ra, and you have to learn to time perfectly to get out of the tell( if his spaming
rockets) if plasma, well i just wait till it ends or just go trough it and take 40-60 dmg.

Oh and btw, is it worth to spam granades instead of rockets or plasma? Cuz i just
rembered how i owned tox1c with 2 air granades in warm up mode when his oponent
has left, so when i totaly owned him, he left like in 2 sec XD, (I know he would have
been left soon anyway)

I don't really think the timelimit is really a big issue on dm13, at least i didn't experience it as one in any of my games till now. (im obviously open to try 15 tho ^^)

And dm6 really needs some item changes to be playable again.

If the guy is turtled stermy-style, then you really need a lot of time to make sure your all in attack is a guaranteed kill, or at least to get him on the move so he makes mistakes. Otherwise you end up attacking in a situation which is not fully prepared, no?

Im having some trouble getting my thoughts into proper english sentences right now, but tbh, i don't really care if its 10 or 15, i don't have any problems with either.

Get rid of dm6 in its current form tho, thats smth im more annoyed about :P

Yeah dm6 doesn't work at all in its current form. Change to 15 min matches or replace/rework that map.

I can't remember the current dm13 item layout but if there is an issue then tweaks could surely help. The map needs more risk and possibly more items for the down player? This would increase the chances to retake control.

it seems more like the down player has too many items, and its a problem for the in control guy to kill him

Yeah, the Q3 layout was never a problem in this regard.

I like the PG though, so keep that.

Too many items AND very difficult spots to attack (also because a very minor slip of the attacker gives away RA / MH or control of upper areas for free).

Those entrances should be wider aswell,now its too difficult to attack mega through there and it makes it easier for opponent to camp those corners.I miss nodm9 it was perfect!! :(

the epitome of turtle is watching b100.death on q3dm13
omfg, i had a hard time paying attention during those demos

<3

<33

Bearing in mind each map can be quite different in play dynamics from the other why not have different timelimits for those which don't work with 10?

That's really an id Software issue. They believe 10 minutes is the best for public play (and I agree with them) and I think they don't want to split the community into 10 and 15 minuters.

Ye, when I play some soccer/football/whatever with friends we play straight 90 min, so we don't split its community.

The problem with dm13 is the YA/LG/25/25/25 all being stuck together with only two entrances both of which are difficult to attack from.

don't go for 50-50 moves :>

Then you may end up waiting to get control for too long to have a chance to get back, no?

hmmm only if you're behind, but you don't get behind if you don't go for fights where you are down... but ye in some situations you're forced to get into 50 - 50... or even worse fights.
But that usualy happens on the somewhat faster maps.
But dm13 for example, is a map where you should never go for 50 - 50 fights (well... unless you know no item at all will be up for a while)

If you've been forced into a 50-50 fight then that's due to bad play by both players.

well some players really like 50 - 50 choices, because they believe that they are better overall players than all the opponents possible.

That doesn't prevent the situation being bad decisions from both parties.

Not that it matters as there is rarely a true 50-50 event.

well there are a lot of situations where one player is a bit lower in armor, but is in a good to defend possition... you could label quite a lot of those 50 - 50 situations. (especialy if both have fairly long reload time weapons).
But pretty much all good players tend to not go in for those :>

then it wouldn't be a 50 50 situation now would it?

no.

*edit*

err, i mean it's still a 50/50, even if the guy thinks he's cooller.

well if a 'better player' makes a 50 - 50 choice, he thinks that if he gets out on top in that fight, he will have a bigger advantage then when the opponent gets out on top (because he can exploit him winning it better).
So the situation itself is 50 - 50, but rest of the game is then in favour of the better player. (sometimes it's even really good to die in a 50 - 50 fight and regain control from that)

admit you had to think a while befor coming up with that :D

not really :>

Easy solution, give us back 15mins matches.
10mins are way to short for good comebacks :/

Let us compromise and make the timelimit 12 minutes, 30 seconds.

and aircontrol only to the left

sounds perfect.

also, LG should do 7 - 0 - 7 damage.

and only half of the sg pellets on the outer ring should do damage. 110 each.

why not 0 - 0 - 7? it looks more beautiful to me..

cos then it would have to be golden.

:D

i disagree, yes its the type of map you can stay hidden for long enough to hold out your lead but i think it suits 10 minute time limit tbh.

Maybe right, but the same thing can be said about a lot of maps. Ten minutes just isnt enough for a strategic match up in any map. Like if you get control early on and manage to hang on to it for maybe five minutes, ( Which wasnt that unusual in a 15min match up ) then you should have established a lead of a couple of frags. By the time your opponent manages to get him self in the game you are already in a great position since he will have to "force" himself on you, there wont be enough time for him to wear you down and establish total map control. Ten minutes is just not enough time for a proper duel in any map. It seems to me rather that the time limit now forces duels into being a sort of CPMA like back and forth duel where players need to be on the top of their game aim wise if they want to stand a chance.

i changed my mind

tl 15 pls

Voted ztn first, because the brain! : )

the +back brain sounds more appropriate :p

get yourself a teeshirt : /

only if michael jackson dies once again :D

Be nice with Strenx please.

oh fuck and lol, I thought from 1 to 5 is the score on the 5 maps you chose
jeeez =))

fixed

voted 1st for t4 because it's the classical without RA no crucial MH and insane RG+RL action map and I wanna see more fazz in action =((
second - t6 because it's a new map 'qlive only' and action there is kinda crazy, even if it can be pretty much RG based -a smart RL user can turn this to his advantage, so on this map matches can be really interesting, the winner will usually be the guy able to adapt to his opponents style faster -it was one of the best maps @ qcon 2008, imo
classical dm6, the map of the champions
classical dm13, because it requires different approach compared to all other maps -this is the most 'mathematics required' map imo
and last hardcore t7 action reminds me of q4 matches and this map carry the ql signature on it, so it has to be in
-removed ztn because its infinite +back possibilities -yet most players did not realise this on ql
-removed t9 because players can look at each other from the sides of the map and say "hi"

haven't played ca2 and t6 but talking about other maps - dm6 is the worst, that's for sure :D

I think that most players are a bit biased toward ca2. I mean when I heard it will be played in tournament I was like "are they out of their mind?", but after watching some matches on it I wanted to try it out myself. After few games I still dont like the ca style oversized rooms, but the gameplay is fine. I would definietly pick it over t4, t6 and t9.

t7

with 10 minute time limit dm6 and dm13 are really bad. DM13 gameplay is way worse in QL than in cpma imo too. CA2 is meh, i haven't really played it enough to decide if I like it. T9 is meh too, but its new and decent...its just very easy to +back once you really learn the map. (im not great at it but i've seen good players do it with ease, ie rapha v spartie qcon final map)

what we REALLLLLLLYYYYYYY need is 2 new maps, so we can see something like ztn, t7, t4, new map, new map IMO. Then replace t4 with a new map. At least one of the new maps needs to not have a rail. Although realistically I know t9 won't leave the map poll now, so i'd say ztn, t7, t9, new map, new map

t6 would be much better without the rail.

Hum but how you catch the opponent lol, this map is big.

t6 would still be terrible without the rail, the architecture and layout just make it too hard to push imo

i dont see why people rag on t6 so hard, asides from it being rail heavy.
it has decent flow, item arrangement is quite nice, the spawns are a bit harder to force and run them over and over, on top of the sound bugs being fixed(ie, can't hear YA @ rl pick up from GL/YA area through walls)
id have to say i like it a lot more than t4, being that there's more emphasis on control as opposed to just position and rail, and there being only one item really being timed heavily, that being mega

dm13
t6
t7
ztn
ca2

But to be honest QL needs new duel maps, I would have said t9 just because it's new; only problem is it's horrid. And if there was another new to QL 1v1 map I would have picked that as well over dm13 or ztn.

I WANT A MAP WITHOUT LG AND RG

play dm2 in quakeworld then :<

Not in ql yet, tho. 8<

ztn
t7
dm6
t6
t4

:D!

get rid of dm6

jesus, why is it up there?

at least t4 has had a breath of fresh air due to the altered weapons

dm6 is fucking WANK still :(

(unless cooller is playing)

dm13 t7 t9 <shit> <shit>

Get DM6 the FUCK OUT OF TOURNAMENTS

fu :|

yes please, it´s about time

T9 - bad map for Quake Live!

voted

1) ZTN: +back is not a lot of fun but I don't know of any other map that so consistently produces good games, that's what matters. Compare this and dm6, would you rather a map with usually 9+ minutes of amazing play at the price of an occasional "you can't catch me" end game, or one where half the time only two minutes actually matter.
2) T7: People have come around to this one, it's just really good
3) T4: Probably the most 'intelligent' map despite the high aim requirements, because if you make a mistake you don't get the chance to aim your way out of it. On other maps you can sometimes get away with bad execution of a good plan or perfect execution of an inferior plan, on t4 either is a gg. The weapon rebalance made it a lot more interesting and opened up many options as well, the map has more to give us now
4) T9: Only on the list with the assumption that at some point it will receive item rebalancing, there need to be fast paced maps and with some tweaks this could be a good one
5) DM13: Fine map, but tbh could use replacing with a really good new one, it's not actually that deep and it's getting a little stale

dm6 is unplayable, would rather have ca2

They should add in hub for QL, and switch out dm6.

If only the competitions would go back to 5 maps, cba to prac 7 maps.

do u rly think u can win smthng lol

do u rly think smthng lol

i like when boys whine

We do five, sir. With a map dropping system, so you can only practice four if you like!

i really don't like that you can just throw out people's home maps with that system. i don't think maps should be removed until choosing the tiebreaker.

It has it's merits, forces one-mappers to practice other stuff as well. Take away the advantage of a secure environment, and you can see how good a player really is.

you've gotta practice other shit anyway because most tournaments are bo3. also, if the map elimination is for the tiebreaker, then theres always a chance you can play any of the 5 maps in the first 2 games, meaning you should practice all 5 maps.

seeing matches where there's the possibility that neither player is strong on one or the other map makes for less interesting matches(as a whole) to watch, imo

That argument is void. Look at the ESWC Masters of Athens event.

CZM didn't win, your argument is invalid

czm wasn't there

you're just giving me ammo, dude
btw, im growing my hair back out!

what good is ammo to you if you miss everything anyway :p

im spammy anyways ;]

Really? Huh, i always found those situations to amplify the quality of the match. It's not rare to know the result of a particular match-up simply based on what maps the participants picked. Of course, there are surprises, but isn't it more exciting to go into the game blind?

That being said, i have no personal bias towards either system, they both have their ups and downs.

im just here for the chicks

Makes the match outcome less random.

how so?

In a "pick map" system you choose a map based on where you're strong and where the opponent's weak. You will always want to screw the opponent as much as you possibly can to get as easy a match as possible.

On many occasions you actually WILL get that easy match. And your opponent may also get it against you. So you play two maps where you rape each other on your best maps and in reality the match is a "best of one", not best of 3.

It is FAIR but more random. Do you know what I mean?

Naturally, it will not always be the case, but with map dropping this is NEVER the case.

Also, the map pick system does not help to determine who the overall better player is.

imagine a situation where Kevin beats John 8 times out of 10 on DM6, but John beats Kevin 6 times out of 10 on all other maps:

Kevin 8:2 John on DM6
Kevin 4:6 John on ZTN
Kevin 4:6 John on T7
Kevin 4:6 John on T9
Kevin 4:6 John on DM13

Math questions for you:

- What odds does Kevin have to beat John in two maps with a map pick system?
- What odds does Kevin have to beat John in two maps with a map drop system?

Guess which system favours the all-round weaker player?

Kevin 8:2 John on DM6
Kevin 4:6 John on ZTN
Kevin 4:6 John on T7
Kevin 4:6 John on T9
Kevin 4:6 John on DM13

What odds does Kevin have to beat John in two maps with a map pick system?

32% chance that kevin wins 2-0
22.4% chance that kevin wins 2-1
33.6% chance that john wins 2-1
12% chance that john wins 2-0

kevin has a 54.4% chance of winning.

What odds does Kevin have to beat John in two maps with a map drop system?

16% chance that kevin wins 2-0
19.2% chance that kevin wins 2-1
28.8% chance that john wins 2-1
36% chance that john wins 2-0

kevin has a 35.2% chance of winning.

Guess which system favours the all-round weaker player?

the pick system gives kevin an additional 19.2% chance of winning. however, i think the map win ratios you presented don't accurately represent what things are like in reality. if john was BETTER on w/e map than kevin, then he wouldn't be losing 40% of the time on that map. they are essentially at the same skill level on ztn, t7, t9 and 13. if kevin has put in the effort to increase his strength on 6, then he should be able to use it to his advantage. john shouldn't be able to use it against kevin.

a more accurate representation would be:

Kevin 8:2 John on DM6
Kevin 2:8 John on ZTN
Kevin 2:8 John on T7
Kevin 2:8 John on T9
Kevin 2:8 John on DM13

or something around these statistical ranges.

"i think the map win ratios you presented don't accurately represent what things are like in reality"

It's not common but it CAN be like that on occasion (happened to me, actually). Every system where things CAN go wrong is worse than one where it simply does not happen. That's besides the point.

In my opinion a tournament should be designed to find who the best player in the competition is on a given day. To me that would be the player with the most all-round skill set, able to apply different styles of play and adapt to different opponents, show different skills to achieve victory.

Allowing map picking will always promote one trick ponies (the math proves that). And it can make the matches more random in some cases (two one-sided "foregone conclusion" home map picks + a third even map). That goes against what I think is the main idea behind having a tournament.

i can totally see the point that you're making, but i don't think that if a player IS BETTER than another on a map then he will only win ~60% of the time. you know what i mean? also, i think home maps are a part of a players style, but this isn't really an argument.

CZM on hub and Cooller on Ztn eswc 2005? Hardly got beaten on their respective maps iirc....much better win rate than 60% i think.

Agree

thinking up random combinations of numbers without any basis in reality isnt "math".

Are you disagreeing with my thesis or how I tried to prove it? Feel free to disprove it by correctly applying math. I'm curious.

no. im not commenting on ur original statement one way or the other. im just saying thinking up a specific combination of numbers and trying to prove a thesis by using that example, which btw uve made no attempt to say is a typical one in the first place, is not only not math, it isnt even logical.

but as to your original thesis, yes the drop pick system possibly does overcome the whole one map horses winning games problem but thats not really the only problem with a bo3 system is it. when it comes down to it the system is just bo3 and no matter which way u implement it there will always be specific types of players who give the system issues.

I know I've given one specific example. When we're talking about tournament rules, one example when shit goes bad is enough because sooner or later it WILL happen. So when you have an alternative with no such downsides, then you go for it.

As for one-trick-ponies, you don't need math and numbers - it's pure logic that if you drop a guy's best map and he only has one, then your chances to win have just gone up sky high.

Kevin 8:2 John on DM6
Kevin 4:6 John on ZTN
Kevin 4:6 John on T7
Kevin 4:6 John on T9
Kevin 4:6 John on DM13

=

Kevin 10:0 John on DM6
Kevin 5:5 John on ZTN
Kevin 5:5 John on T7
Kevin 5:5 John on T9
Kevin 5:5 John on DM13

when i put on my irl goggles.

what has that to do with irl?

I mean assuming one guy always wins on one single map, which also has the biggest spawn luck factor, while they are dead even on all other maps is as unrealistic as it gets.

doesn't have anything to do with the maps. it's about the ratios he concocted.

even if you ignore the maps (and I only mentioned dm6 because it made it even more unlikely), those ratios are highly unlikely in reality.

In fact, I would say you couldn't find a single matchup with those ratios if you looked.

you don't get it. 8:2 means one guy dominates the other on the map and it might as well be 10:0 and 4:6 means it might as well be a cointoss.

no, it's not.
e.g. a baseball team that wins 60% has a good chance of going to the playoffs. No such luck with 50%.

and even if it were as you say, the 'irl' still doesn't make any sense.

ok, so say 2 guys have 10 practice sessions. each session they play each map once. they have stats like carmac described. afterward they have a showmatch. one guy will probably win 6 no doubt and the other 4 maps are cointosses. now you understand?

I don't understand how one guy wins six and the other maps will be random (con tosses). That phrase does not describe a 60-40% win likelihood ratio, or I'm completely mis-reading it.

If on average they play 6:4 on a distance of 10 maps, then the bookies will predict a 60% - 40% win probability ratio. How does 60-40 equal a coin toss?

i think Lo is right

if you say he wins 6 out of 10 games, or 600 out of 1000. sure its 60%.
same as 8 out of ten is 80%.

and what Lo means, is that for statistical reasons only, you might aswell say one player 100% on one map, the other 50% on all the others. its just better numbers, be it realistic or not.

and those numbers have a better result, when trying to figure out what kind of tourney format is best, which was your original question.

edit: oh and what Lo meant by that sentence, is that one player wins 'DM6', not 'six', and the other maps are coin tosses, due to the 0.5ratio

heh thx for saving me time

no, it actually fucks the example up completely.

in the first scenario one player is better on one map, the other on four. (yes I think 60-40 is considered better by more people).
in the second scenario, the second player is better nowhere.

And if you really want to talk about statisticsyou should be aware that the seconds if called a "stochastic dominance", which is very different from scenario one, where no dominance exists.

I did see what he was trying. However, he was doing it wrong and using the term "irl" makes no sense.

Somewhat beside the point but...
is the the difference between 5:5 and 4:6 really that obvious to a player? They would have to play a lot to discern the difference and account for the variance.

Most would probably put a matchup on a specifc map in three categories, even(5:5), dominant(7:3) or blowout(10:0).

good question actually, I guess it really depends on the gametype, maybe even the maps.

See, for example in tdm a 3:2 ration in frags, would lead to a 150 - 100 game, which is quite decisive. On the other hand a 9-6 victory in duel can often be quite close.
So I guess asking people who play a lot is the only way to go.


But mathematically, I think it's important to see this:

In 5:5, the chances of each player to win 2 out of two matches is 25%.
In 6:4 the chances are 36% vs. 16%

Which is a big difference, imo.

no, I don't

it's not a cointoss.

keke

Error: Missing vote for position 1
Error: Missing vote for position 2
Error: Missing vote for position 3
Error: Missing vote for position 4
Error: Missing vote for position 5

Oh dear, just get rid of all the maps and give us new ones...

sure, the day football ain't played on a footballfield anymore.

Arent you gonna start playing again soon? :)

I pretty much only like dm13, but its still flawed. Like others said, the entrances are too small and theres too much hp/armor@lg. If either of those things were fixed I think it would be a really great map, dont think both should be altered.

T7 is pretty good, but a bit too unbalanced spawn wise, both starting spawns and the fact that if you lose the mega fight you often spawn with RA/YA/RG.

T6 is just terrible terrible terrible.

Im no fan of ztn, it can be very fun though.

dm6 zzz.

T4 is good, new weapon balance makes it much more fun than cpma T4 - maybe the best suited map for QL, I voted dm13, t7, t4 cause thats how I like them though ;)

t9/ca2 I dont really know, didnt look so good @ qcon though. The rail heavyness of ca2 was pretty neat to spec but it would be beyond god awful to play.

Anyway, I think that the only thing that would make me care about 1on1 would be if they started useing that round based mode, honey mode or something.

on dm13, can't forget the RA tele exit

more cpm1a, cpm22, cpm24 please. not biased.

agree with 1a and 22 \o/

cpm3a idiot face

i'd call you a cunt, but you lack both the depth and the warmth

cpm1a, originally q3jdm8a, a good map.

.

I hear you lost a map to daryl :(

but you're still my hero <3 and t9/ca2 do suck indeed

So since T9 and DM6 are so close in the votes, can we just keep the top 4, kill off DM6, and put in T9?

hub is the only map that deserves the honor of relieving dm6.

we could always pull an ESL. Remove t4 and replace it with t9.
Fuck, even I have started to accept t4 as a map. It's better in QL than it ever was in Vq3 :)

"Pick your top 5 best maps for competitive QuakeLive duel"

Cheater

DM6 is now #4, so I guess that's a no now =(

Where is the "none" option? :/

I would also like to know.

I dont know about you, but i feel that fucked up spawnsystem makes every map almost unplayable vs higher tier players...

Possible ways to fix this:
1. Add possiblity to delay spawn for longer
2. Add possiblity to spawn instantly after death
3. Change the way spawnsystem works, make it completely random or even so that fresh player will spawn close to some important unpicked item.
4. Alter health / armor when spawning
5. Add more spawn points to each map

[edit] and all of these fix suggestions are only for duel gametype.

I don't really like how Quake Live is dropping all the cool stuff from Quake 4, like the possibility to play several duels on the same server, the movements and also Quake 4 had good maps.

Galang and Placebo Effect would really play well on Quake Live. And maybe Lost Fleet too.

T7, ZTN, DM13 T4 and T9.

CA2: Hellz no, are you insane?
DM6: Peace out fossil.

2002 called and wants it's most played maps back

warms my chest to see t6 as the big loser.

get rid of ztn jesus ;E

like thats gonna happen :p

should be possible to see what maps are played most in duel, in quakelive, with all the logging they have.
Do that every few months, the top5 played maps are the winners.

Jesus can do anything. I believe in Him. get rid of ztn jesus ;E

jesus just CBA to

aBx|CRACK voted: [1] DM6, [2] ZTN, [3] T7, [4] T9, [5] T4

i really liked T6 but long time ago since i played it :)
DM13 i to small imo, i cant get speed if im going fast i always run into a wall or something :) (im low skilled)

LOL at the DM6 whining, thats what a poll is for, seeing the big picture, not little haters and their poor intention of rejecting what IS. I mean *600 Votes \o/ noisy whiners /o\ DM6 stays, stop the whining bout it now and forever, youre doing no good to something you are supposed to like. Play more, incentive new players, do some guide, raise servers, help the cause, dont hate!

600 votes

true true, still a lot! : )

dm6 is a good map and has delivered fantastic matches in the past, but it suffers horrible from QL's weaponrespawn 5 and ammosystem (and tl 15 maybe too). So for QL, it could as well be left out, if there were decent replacements.
Look at t4 and how changing (only) the RG respawn to 15 worked wonders.

I agree abou the weaponrespawn time, but its no dm6 fault. id should fix it.

If anybody put CA2 in the top 3, please explain yourself :)

because its the better dm6 :D

Whats the problem with dm6? I guess I don't duel enough to know how to exploit the map.

t4 is piece of crap

t7&t9 ftw, and plx more new maps like this!

i have more fun losing on T9 than on dm6, so scrap dm6 :D

T7 should be at the top of that list tbh.

-Its a new map
-Its a quality map
-Its the map that suffers the least from QLs fucked spawn system

-Its a new map
agree
-Its a quality map
partly agree
-Its the map that suffers the least from QLs fucked spawn system
disagree

I've only played it once but during that one game I came to the conclusion that if I got a kill my opponent would probably get the RA+YA+RG before I could do anything.

yep

It would be at the top of the list if people liked it more than ztn, but they don't.

Only if you get RA/YA/RG spawn - getting MH spawn fucking sucks. :D

I like all maps, and enjoy watching all maps.

Although. T4 is a very good map and my favourite to play, I don't know why though.

I just hope that in time it returns because it just doesn't deserve to be left out.

Hopefully they do hub/aero for QLive :)

big willy map with willies in it

T7 best map, then DM13 and ZTN.

What are these situations 50-50? Give me an example summarized in ztn? Sorry, but I'm still trying to understand their slang.

ZTN:

T7:

these are the only two maps in the whole game where the 2 players get fair initial spawns.

those are the only 2 maps that have a neutral game, rest is played in control or out of control

ztn