Half-Pint wrote..I've seen games on aztec and assault where the apparently ``easy'' team gets raped 99% of the time. Assault is an extreme example of bias, but it still relies on a skill set to win. A strong CT team and a Weak T side will give the T's a hard time regardless of the balance of the map.
narby wrote..
Maps are only biased to those teams who have a skill bias. If the T side is stronger, chances are they will win more.
``Aztec may bias the CT's, but the T's have the Ak-47''
It's just about the skill of the team
Considering you make maps for a living I'm surprise to hear you say that. Maps are biased, one only has to look at Assault, the CT have to be good players otherwise it's no contest. Aztec is a bad example as it is relatively even and for the record most of Narbys maps have been fairly even.
Skill has a lot to do with it but when I look at biased design I say "Given 2 teams of equal skill and co-ordination, who generally wins more often" Every map is biased its the nature of the design of real world maps.
Now I'm not saying bias is neccesarily bad. I really enjoy the challenge of being CT on assault or 747.
Theres also a factor people often enjoy in a map which may lean towards on particular team, challenege.
People like stacked odd's sometimes (it's rare but does happen) It can be fun to play against a harder team because it really requires you to think and work as a team, obviously this isn't so true in real life but it does happen occasionally.
I'm not saying maps SHOULD be bias towards a team, map timings and tactics vary so much things are bound to get tough on one team at times but thats just part of the game.
I learnt a lot from the CPL maps, they were designed to be perfect for both teams, clan fire for example was loosely based on dust because it had such incredible balance but people still manage to out do the opposition not necessarily because the map is biased, but because they're just better.
Comment