Aki said:
The point is that there is nothing wrong with groundpounding. The only reason to insist on MAs is practice, or else you're an elitist of the worst kind.
Aki, we call this type of assertion "poisoning the well". From the Wikipedia page: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say".
Essentially, you've presented a false dilemma by stating that people either agree with you, "or else [they're] an elitist of the worst kind". Of course, it's entirely possible that valid positions opposite yours exist, a truth that remains regardless of your false dilemma.
Now I'm aware you're arguing the virtues of one map in particular, but for my own purposes (as well as for community-education purposes), I'm going to examine your stance in detail. I'm also aware you're not advocating decreased movement re. physics changes, but your post has provided an opportunity to write this in advance.
In the gaming community, your stance is classical: "Skill is as much movement as it is shooting; poor tactical movement decisions ought be punished, so maneuverability shouldn't permit escape from such situations". I've seen this argument used in Tribes many-a-time - I've seen it used in Unreal Tournament, even. The position's flawed, of course, and for a couple reasons:
1) It's almost always self-serving. You very, very rarely see top players demanding decreased maneuverability. Instead, it's always those community members that aren't the best fighters and have trouble hitting their targets. Were movement restricted, you wouldn't suddenly see excellent players descend into mediocrity, either: they're simply better at shooting and moving. When Legions' movement was nerfed, for example, you didn't see Omnis suddenly lose their place on the pecking order.
This point treads borderline genetic fallacy, but avoids it by providing "real-world" examples. This is one occasion where an argument's origin carries weight. Just to be sure though, let's thoroughly peruse your argument and its assertions with reason #2.
2) The assertion that slowed movement increases tactical demands is simply not true, a fact made salient by extending situations to their extremes. If reducing maneuverability necessitates increased movement tactics, then increasing maneuverability must nullify movement tactics. I'm assuming a linear relationship, of course, as do advocates of this argument.
Let's look at two fast-paced games abounding in maneuverability options: Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal 2 XMP. In fact, let's look at only UT2k3, since U2XMP is simply more of the same - and then some.
In case you're unfamiliar, I'll explain UT2k3 maneuverability options:
1) You have a fast (constant) run speed.
2) You have a jump, and a double jump that sends your character into a flip.
3) You have a dodge - a rapid lunge to the sides, back, or front.
4) You have a dodge jump/double dodge, allowing a second dodge (while you're traveling on the first) in the form of a flip/boost.
5) You have a "boost dodge", providing significant distance and height gains over the dodge jump.
6) Maps are indoors, and quite cramped, dramatically increasing game pacing (by increasing relative speed and providing you less time to react).
You've a myriad of maneuverability and “escape” options, in other words. Assuming your movement stance, there ought be little in the way of tactical maneuvering. But is that the case?
No. It is not.
I'll illustrate with an example: If you were to fight me in UT, the both of us using rockets only, you would never hit me. We could play for hours, and the most you might accomplish is a slight splash. Conversely, were I attacking, you'd find the assault inescapable. Why though? Is it aim? Partially, but even accounting for disparities there wouldn't make much difference. In our example, two factors are forefront: 1) my reaction times + defensive maneuverability; and 2) my offensive positioning + tactical movement and map knowledge.
More movement options – options I can near-instantly activate – allow me to avoid rockets, even at point blank range. To counter someone whose reaction times allow such evasion, your movement must be tactically excellent. Rocket-heavy UT players are extremely aggressive, utilizing z-axis advantages, map tricks, and near prescience to gain advantage. These advantages are fleeting, transitory, providing them only brief firing opportunities; against skilled opponents, they need not only vantage, but rapidity of mind.
In Tribes, you might float toward a tower.
Ironically, Tribers often use this argument when espousing the virtues of their games: "Tribes is harder because it's so fast and tactical, with ever-shifting battlefield conditions". Then, presenting with classical confirmation bias, they argue against maneuverability increases - ostensibly to preserve dueling "tacticality".
No.
In a similar sense, Christians often argue against the validity of carbon dating and geological science. They then turn round and present carbon-dated wood as evidence of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. One or the other, guys: Logic isn't selective.
The faster a battlefield's conditions shift, and the more options there are, the faster and more adaptable must be its combatants. That applies not only as a gestalt, but to individual encounters.
Here's the difference between fast-paced games and slow-paced games: in fast-paced games, the skill ceiling for both movement and shooting is increased, preventing people from winning with simple, one-time positional advantages.
Slow games aren't inherently tactical, and neither is slowed movement.
All that aside, I'm not against a flatter map for variety's sake. Sleepwalker's current iteration, though, is cumbersome and ugly as hell. (Don't do it Ala – too mean)
Confirmation bias, btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias