What size of a map do you prefer?

[Myll Erik]

In your typically RTS, what size of map do you prefer? Lets assume this isn't anything other than an ordinary conquest/death-match mode.

[Cyber]

Personally I like team battles and the thrill of coordinating a successful team tactical maneuver.

5v5 or higher for me.

[Eraven]

Huge Shattered Galaxy fan and I really liked the big epic battles, mostly because with the units you have deployed then there's always an 'easy target' for you. In smaller battles you have to choose carefully which units to use (almost as if it was SC2) while I just want to have fun with the units I enjoy playing

[Aciddarkness]

Personally my range for map is going to be 5v5 10v10 and the 26v26, Anything else may be too much or too little..
1v1 will be interesting but no fun for me, I hate soloing PvP..
I suck under pressure.
But then with this game, it may be a whole different ball game for me..
Have to wait till release to debate which style map, i like or dislike.

[Zhenya]

Since you specifically stipulated in a "typical" RTS, I choose 1v1, I think its is far and away the most consistently balanced game mode across most RTS games.

[Obliterati]

ya 1v1 is where all the balancing is really around. 1v1 is usally looked at with a microscope for that reason. But in most games 1v1's when your going off against another player they become too much like a click fest where the first person to mess up then has a major disadvantage.

But Im getting old now, and when i have to go that fast without missing for so long i can litterally feel my heart begin to flutter and my blood turns to slush (oh and i sweat now too lol). Its physically uncomfortable now to play against anyone decent for any length of time.

I always seem to love the 3v3's and 4v4's tbh. When theres more going on people seem to have a much harder time seeing things both offensively or defensively, and it opens up a whole new set of tactics and skills (like flanking becomes alot more important, and feints are more effective etc). As long as lags not a factor i guess id say bigger is better imo.

[Leo Ryell]

If you're going to go big, I want to go real BIG. That way if someone on your team isn't pulling their weight, the effects aren't as noticeable.

[pramit]

depends on the number of players? but i prefer small-medium sized maps

[Myll Erik]

Traditionally I prefer 1v1's, but I do tend to have more fun when playing with a team.

[Aciddarkness]

depends on the number of players? but i prefer small-medium sized maps

I agree, I like small-medium sized maps only because, I dont want to be stuck in a game for 45-60 minutes because maybe its locked down and not going anywhere, and the only way you maybe winning is if the opposing team quits on you because they got fed up with how long the game is going

So i believe that smaller maps will open a chance of changing the course quickly, because a small mistake is a big mistake with smaller groups, as apposed to bigger games where you have alot more people who have to make the mistake to make a difference.
See where im going with this?

I like smaller games IMO