Water is nice to look at, but annoying for game play. (if its just small bodies, thats one thing, but if it's large bodies, it ruins the flow of the game) unless, there's some 'benefit' to counter the downsides, i'd say just use it as 'visuals' not really having any real value.
While labeling water gameplay as "annoying" is probably a matter of opinion between folks (though personally, I'm inclined to agree), a body of water's effect on a map can vary drastically based on
- how it is distributed by the mapmaker, and
- how it is utilized, tactically, by a given player.
For example, an island map (either many small islands, or one big one) has the effect of creating dead "zones" around the map that serve as non-lethal obstacles that must be avoided. Thus, it could take the place of voids in other games (think space maps in classic shooters like Quake and Unreal), but allow players to recover -- unlike voids, water is just an impediment, not a death sentence. Likewise, rivers and streams in maps could provide stealth routes into bases, allowing, say, a heavy offense to make use of it as camouflage.
It feels like there's a tendency amongst the community to support concepts that buttress LO players, as though every component of a map has to contribute to a cap route. God forbid we force players to fight indoors, or turn a couple corners before reaching the flag. I know I'm generalizing here, but I think it's important to remember that cappers aren't the only contributors to a successful game. Obstacles like water might make their jobs a little harder, sure -- the number of viable cap routes would certainly go down -- but it also opens up the opportunity for varied gameplay. And that, in my humble opinion, is not at all a bad thing.
Twin pennies, etc. etc.,
- Daph
[Edited; I said HOF, when I meant Heavy Offense, which is obviously not HoF. Ahem.]
