It has been discussed because it’s the only solution for the map pool problem so far. And it answers to the op which gives cenotes as an example to add as a standard map. That was my point: Why add “standard” maps that resemble arabia without reaching its quality?
Serengeti and Kilimanjaro are Open Maps (you can hardly wall, comitting to Feudal Age is a must) while on Arabia you can easily wall and do drush-fc as it is a Semi-Open Map where Feudal aggression is possible but not a must. Maps that stray very far away from Arabia-like maps are considered to be strange. That doesn’t has to mean these maps are bad but they are likely unbalanced because the balancing doesn’t take them in regard. Non-Arabia maps can be very good too, we have many competitive (tournament) maps that mix things up and we even go one implemented into the base game (Four Lakes) but we instead get these trash maps that fail at all requirements competitive maps have as special maps so of course people want to go back to Arabia.
They are bad, most of the maps in the basegame are. Reasons:
- Unbalanced map generation
- Civ inbalance
- Too special so they throw general balance off the window
- Uninteresting use of map control and reward ressources
- One strategy only
- bugged maps
- Narrowness, which isn’t only a balancing and strategic issue but makes it time-consuming to actually finish off a player if you are in a winning position
- The same bad ideas over and over…
1 Like