Hanamura in HotS: An Experiment Gone Awry Text by TL.net ESPORTS Graphics by BlizzHeroes





Hanamura in HotS An Experiment Gone Awry Written By: inimical





Blizzard has re-energized Heroes of the Storm and brought in more people than ever with their recent marketing campaigns and









It’s possible I’m an old curmudgeon who is afraid of change, but in its current state, Hanamura isn't for me. I've been playing the game since 2014, and with the exception of the (second) rework of Haunted Mines, I haven't ever felt this critical about a battleground. Heroes is a team brawler, but the constant brawling caused by Hanamura’s payload mechanic doesn’t feel like Heroes of the Storm and presents a worrying case for the direction of the game.





Go to the Payload, Go Directly to the Payload

Hanamura is a departure from the excellent macro and rotational play we've seen on previous battlegrounds. It puts the player in a position where, instead of having multiple options regarding the map objective, there is only one: push the payload and ignore everything else. In many ways Hanamura captures the meat-grinder experience you would get from playing a game of Overwatch, but this isn't Overwatch. Constantly brawling is neither fun nor does it mesh with the rotational and macro play which contribute to the depth of Heroes of the Storm.



To some degree, the constant brawling on Hanamura is a symptom of an overly convoluted objective. The map objective is similar to Towers of Doom where each escorted payload deals one damage to the Core and players cannot attack the Core directly. Like Towers of Doom, Hanamura comes with its own unique set of rules which can be confusing for new players.









At any given time there can be two to four payloads on the map. While two payloads are manageable, when three or four are on the field, the game quickly devolves into chaos. Added to the complexity of how destroyed forts interact with the payloads, and it can become overwhelming for someone just learning the basics of the game.



In addition, the games are really short. The Core health is set to 7 compared to the 40 on Towers of Doom, so the map plays out quickly compared to other maps and misses out on the late game complexity that HotS has to offer. If you’re making it to level 20 on Hanamura, you’re doing something wrong.



The fact the late game is rarely experienced contributes to Hanamura’s problems. Late game Heroes of the Storm is very much a nail-biting edge-of-your-seat experience since one mistake can cost your team the game. However, with a few payloads secured and a structure taken out early, you can easily snowball the game while your opponents are virtually powerless to stop it. Even if your opponents win a teamfight, the two lanes and short death timers don’t ensure enough xp to negate a talent advantage or xp lead. Hanamura comeback mechanics: 6.5/10.





Back in my Day, Mercenary Camps Used to Push



Another contributor to this constant brawling is the lack of map pressure exacerbated by mercenary camps that don’t push and a strong defenders advantage that makes it easy to stall out payloads for excessive periods of time.



When you capture a merc camp on Hanamura, the camp drops one of three power-ups—the healing pulse being far and away the best of the three—but unlike other battlegrounds, the mercs do not push. The lack of lane pressure hampers your ability to press your advantage elsewhere on the map and devalues waveclear. Again, this is a huge departure from the macro play we've seen on virtually every other battleground.



The boss doesn’t push either and feels even more useless than the mercenary camps. While the boss does grant a single shot, right now it feels like a glorified paperweight that sits in the middle of the map and functions as a nuisance when an ability accidentally triggers it. It’s far easier to push a fort down when death timers are high than take on the boss, especially since he can gorge someone and even the scales during an enemy invade. There’s less risk to your team pushing, and your opponents can't steal it. Why boss?





What a lazy mercenary, refusing to push lanes....



No map pressure also makes having a numbers advantage in the early/mid game fairly meaningless. On other maps, especially before level 10, you can press a minimal advantage after you secure a takedown, but having a numbers advantage doesn’t become punishing until later in the game on Hanamura. If you lose a member during a payload fight before level 16, you can easily delay 4v5 until your teammate respawns.



If your opponents happen to have a global hero, takedowns—excluding the xp gained—do not provide the same advantage they would on a map like Battlefield of Eternity. The ease of stalling out the objective means that players can back or even die without a substantial shift in either team’s favor, and the constant reinforcement forces both teams to continue to sit on the payload and avoid any other objectives on the map.



The map objective is also guarded by a strong defenders advantage which allows teams to free push the payload to the center of the map before facing any real opposition. Once there, it stalls indefinitely until one team can secure a significant lead or the other team messes up.





Time to Break Out the Toolbox



Ultimately, Hanamura attempts to do far too much, and this is its greatest flaw. Every other map in Heroes has a charming simplicity, yet the matches on those maps tend to take on a wonderful complexity of macro, rotational play, and a variety of other strategic choices. Hanamura, with all of its complexity, feels incredibly one-dimensional with players mindlessly hunting down opponents to create a numbers advantage. While some strategies have developed (most notably The Lost Vikings split), these strategies are not enough to circumvent the map’s flaws. I applaud Blizzard for trying new ideas, but Hanamura desperately needs to go back to the drawing board.



With that in mind, here are a few ideas that could potentially improve the map for future iterations.





Start the payload on the opposing side of the map





The map should force teams to enter enemy territory to begin pushing their payload. This forced aggression does two things: It draws the players out of the lanes and creates real map pressure

It rewards decisive play when a team has the numbers advantage

If the defending team wins fights over the payload, they become the aggressors. Objectives on Battlefield of Eternity and Cursed Hollow spawn in enemy territory too, so this is by no means an unusual suggestion.





Reduce the max number of active payloads to two

Minimizing the amount of active payloads to two could simplify the complexity of multiple payloads going at once. Blizzard could go so far as to create a single payload which can be both pushed and denied by teams. Both ideas seem to make more sense and would act as a preventative measure against Hanamura’s current trend to descend into chaos.





Increase the Core HP to 10 or 12

Right now, games end too quickly even if teams manage to stall out the payloads for a lengthy amount of time. Increasing the Core HP would create a real late game where death timers are more impactful and options like pushing down a fort or taking the boss are realistic.





Make the boss count for more





The boss is mostly useless, but allowing it to shoot two or even three shots at the Core would make it substantially more important, especially in the later stages of the game.



Teams that are behind could take the boss to catch up in shots, and teams that are ahead could weigh the risk vs reward factor of sacrificing a payload to finish off the boss. Overall, it would give the map a lot more strategic complexity.









Blizzard has re-energizedand brought in more people than ever with their recent marketing campaigns and HGC 2017 . Along with the latest major changes , the introduction of Hanamura has breathed some life into a rather stale map pool. With Japanese aesthetics and a unique payload objective borrowed from Overwatch, the new map is consistent with Blizzard’s high quality standards. However, the map mechanics of Hanamura generally work against it.It’s possible I’m an old curmudgeon who is afraid of change, but in its current state, Hanamura isn't for me. I've been playing the game since 2014, and with the exception of the (second) rework of Haunted Mines, I haven't ever felt this critical about a battleground.is a team brawler, but the constant brawling caused by Hanamura’s payload mechanic doesn’t feel likeand presents a worrying case for the direction of the game.Hanamura is a departure from the excellent macro and rotational play we've seen on previous battlegrounds. It puts the player in a position where, instead of having multiple options regarding the map objective, there is only one: push the payload and ignore everything else. In many ways Hanamura captures the meat-grinder experience you would get from playing a game of Overwatch, but. Constantly brawling is neither fun nor does it mesh with the rotational and macro play which contribute to the depth ofTo some degree, the constant brawling on Hanamura is a symptom of an overly convoluted objective. The map objective is similar to Towers of Doom where each escorted payload deals one damage to the Core and players cannot attack the Core directly. Like Towers of Doom, Hanamura comes with its own unique set of rules which can be confusing for new players.At any given time there can be two to four payloads on the map. While two payloads are manageable, when three or four are on the field, the game quickly devolves into chaos. Added to the complexity of how destroyed forts interact with the payloads, and it can become overwhelming for someone just learning the basics of the game.In addition, the games are really short. The Core health is set to 7 compared to the 40 on Towers of Doom, so the map plays out quickly compared to other maps and misses out on the late game complexity thathas to offer. If you’re making it to level 20 on Hanamura, you’re doing something wrong.The fact the late game is rarely experienced contributes to Hanamura’s problems. Late gameis very much a nail-biting edge-of-your-seat experience since one mistake can cost your team the game. However, with a few payloads secured and a structure taken out early, you can easily snowball the game while your opponents are virtually powerless to stop it. Even if your opponents win a teamfight, the two lanes and short death timers don’t ensure enough xp to negate a talent advantage or xp lead. Hanamura comeback mechanics: 6.5/10.Another contributor to this constant brawling is the lack of map pressure exacerbated by mercenary camps that don’t push and a strong defenders advantage that makes it easy to stall out payloads for excessive periods of time.When you capture a merc camp on Hanamura, the camp drops one of three power-ups—the healing pulse being far and away the best of the three—but unlike other battlegrounds, the mercs. The lack of lane pressure hampers your ability to press your advantage elsewhere on the map and devalues waveclear. Again, this is a huge departure from the macro play we've seen on virtually every other battleground.The boss doesn’t push either and feels even more useless than the mercenary camps. While the boss does grant a single shot, right now it feels like a glorified paperweight that sits in the middle of the map and functions as a nuisance when an ability accidentally triggers it. It’s far easier to push a fort down when death timers are high than take on the boss, especially since he can gorge someone and even the scales during an enemy invade. There’s less risk to your team pushing, and your opponents can't steal it. Why boss?No map pressure also makes having a numbers advantage in the early/mid game fairly meaningless. On other maps, especially before level 10, you can press a minimal advantage after you secure a takedown, but having a numbers advantage doesn’t become punishing until later in the game on Hanamura. If you lose a member during a payload fight before level 16, you can easily delay 4v5 until your teammate respawns.If your opponents happen to have a global hero, takedowns—excluding the xp gained—do not provide the same advantage they would on a map like Battlefield of Eternity. The ease of stalling out the objective means that players can back or even die without a substantial shift in either team’s favor, and the constant reinforcement forces both teams to continue to sit on the payload and avoid any other objectives on the map.The map objective is also guarded by a strong defenders advantage which allows teams to free push the payload to the center of the map before facing any real opposition. Once there, it stalls indefinitely until one team can secure a significant lead or the other team messes up.Ultimately, Hanamura attempts to do far too much, and this is its greatest flaw. Every other map in Heroes has a charming simplicity, yet the matches on those maps tend to take on a wonderful complexity of macro, rotational play, and a variety of other strategic choices. Hanamura, with all of its complexity, feels incredibly one-dimensional with players mindlessly hunting down opponents to create a numbers advantage. While some strategies have developed (most notably The Lost Vikings split), these strategies are not enough to circumvent the map’s flaws. I applaud Blizzard for trying new ideas, but Hanamura desperately needs to go back to the drawing board.With that in mind, here are a few ideas that could potentially improve the map for future iterations.The map should force teams to enter enemy territory to begin pushing their payload. This forced aggression does two things:If the defending team wins fights over the payload, they become the aggressors. Objectives on Battlefield of Eternity and Cursed Hollow spawn in enemy territory too, so this is by no means an unusual suggestion.Minimizing the amount of active payloads to two could simplify the complexity of multiple payloads going at once. Blizzard could go so far as to create a single payload which can be both pushed and denied by teams. Both ideas seem to make more sense and would act as a preventative measure against Hanamura’s current trend to descend into chaos.Right now, games end too quickly even if teams manage to stall out the payloads for a lengthy amount of time. Increasing the Core HP would create a real late game where death timers are more impactful and options like pushing down a fort or taking the boss are realistic.The boss is mostly useless, but allowing it to shoot two or even three shots at the Core would make it substantially more important, especially in the later stages of the game.Teams that are behind could take the boss to catch up in shots, and teams that are ahead could weigh the risk vs reward factor of sacrificing a payload to finish off the boss. Overall, it would give the map a lot more strategic complexity.

thePunGun Profile Blog Joined January 2016 539 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-17 01:24:15 #2 The 4 syllables "Ha-na-mu-ra!" can be directly translated into 4 words: "I-hate-this-map!"

Don't get me wrong, I've approached it (like anything else in life) with an open mind and really wanted to like Hanamura.

This article sums up its chaotic nature pretty well. It's a very flawed map trying to turn hots into something it is not and I hate it with a passion! "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible, is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." Arthur C. Clarke's 2nd law

Ej_ Profile Blog Joined January 2013 47288 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-15 15:41:28 #3 It's just an awful map, starting from objective, continuing to layout (lane length, bush placement, the entire middle area with the big "DON'T HIT ME" sign disguised as a boss) and ending with glorious RNG in merc camps. "Technically the dictionary has zero authority on the meaning or words" - Rodya

EsportsJohn Profile Blog Joined June 2012 United States 4831 Posts #4 Did you know: when you destroy a keep on Hanamura, it spawns sappers instead of catapults? Strategy

karazax Profile Joined May 2010 United States 3730 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-15 16:23:05 #5 Here are Bakery's thoughts and suggestions for tweaking Hanamura:



Games on Hanamura often feel too fast, and most games focus more heavily on splitpushing Heroes than on intelligent macro play and teamfighting. With these changes I want to accomplish three main goals:



Slightly increase average game time.



Give more comeback opportunities to a heavily behind team.



Refocus the map from splitpushing and PvE to Teamfighting and intelligent macro play.



To work towards those goals, the changes will be trying to:

Reduce rewards from taking forts.



More Heavily reward risky plays when ahead



Changes:

Core HP increased from 7 to 14.



Payload base shots increased from 1 to 2.



Boss shots increased from 1 to 3.



Bonus shots from taking down Forts still at 1.



Bonus shots from taking down Keeps increased to 2.



Intended affects of Changes:

Core HP increased from 7 to 14.

This gives the map designer a finer way to tune rewards from map objectives, and is the crux of how I want to change the map.





This gives the map designer a finer way to tune rewards from map objectives, and is the crux of how I want to change the map. Payload base shots increased from 1 to 2.

This is to compensate for the doubling of the core HP, as I think the base tuning of the map is solid.





This is to compensate for the doubling of the core HP, as I think the base tuning of the map is solid. Boss shots increased from 1 to 3.

This is how you make comeback mechanics. 3 shots is a huge amount of core damage, so the team that's losing can start the boss to force the winning team to respond. In the same vein, a winning team will always want to make the risky call of taking the boss, but the huge risk that comes with it gives a great chance for the losing team to make that their comeback fight.





This is how you make comeback mechanics. 3 shots is a huge amount of core damage, so the team that's losing can start the boss to force the winning team to respond. In the same vein, a winning team will always want to make the risky call of taking the boss, but the huge risk that comes with it gives a great chance for the losing team to make that their comeback fight. Bonus shots from taking down Forts still at 1.

This is a change that hits 2 birds with one stone. The first effect is obviously to slightly increase the average game time by slowing down the rate of core damage, but the arguably more important change is that this takes value away from the boring splitpushing meta. Forts are still enough of a boost that you will want to take them, but hopefully picking Azmodan or Zagara will now be a difficult decision.





This is a change that hits 2 birds with one stone. The first effect is obviously to slightly increase the average game time by slowing down the rate of core damage, but the arguably more important change is that this takes value away from the boring splitpushing meta. Forts are still enough of a boost that you will want to take them, but hopefully picking Azmodan or Zagara will now be a difficult decision. Bonus shots from taking down Keeps increased to 2.

This is another comeback mechanic, similar to the boss change. I don't remember the last time I saw a keep taken in a close to even game, and the reason is that its often not worth the risk to the winning team. The losing team is most likely only on 1 or 2 core health at that point anyway - playing it safe and maximising XP gain is almost always the better choice than taking that risk. By reducing the shots that forts give, when the time comes where Keeps are a possibility, the extra shots will probably still be worth getting. The winning team trying to force a Keep will give a favourable fight to the losing team, which could be their comeback opportunity.

Games on Hanamura often feel too fast, and most games focus more heavily on splitpushing Heroes than on intelligent macro play and teamfighting. With these changes I want to accomplish three main goals:To work towards those goals, the changes will be trying to:Changes:Intended affects of Changes:

[Phantom] Profile Blog Joined August 2013 Mexico 1637 Posts #6 I don't think having a map that favors Split pushing is bad.



While I do think that the map has problems, mainly it feels like a brawl instead of a estándar map, I think the hate hanamura gets is mostly undeserved, it's a different kind of map and that's not a bad thing. Some small improvements could be made to increase the lenght of the match but it's not as terrible as Haunted Mines was (and is).



I do agree with a couple of things though. The boss feels out of place, and the mercenaries are either must have or meh (the vision one). One thing that i've noticed is that the distance between the enemy forts and your own is bigger on this map tan on the others, I'm guessing they did that to make pushing more risky so people focused on the payloads, but maybe that wasn't the best decistion.



Writer TeamLiquid Staff writer since 2014 @Mortal_Phantom

Pyrrhuloxia Profile Blog Joined May 2008 United States 6697 Posts #7 I think I like Bakery's ideas more. Max 2 payloads? So one team could have both of theirs up and the other would never get theirs to spawn?



The biggest problem is with QM because comps are even more important than ever on Hanamura and if one team has way more seige they are tough to stop. Since QM can end up pairing seige against assassins it can get pretty frustrating that way, too.

MotherFox Profile Blog Joined March 2013 United States 1529 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-15 21:35:36 #8 The mercenaries are worth a lot of xp. Especially considering the support one can be taken with 1 bribe stack.



I am a little surprised the forts aren't in the towers of doom style, allowing teams to re-take them. It feels a lot like taking a fort or keep is a guaranteed point.





....





It would be helpful if the article pointed out that other maps which have been released were reviled at first before bliz re-tuned them. Infernal shrines comes to mind, as does haunted mines now. Don't Panic

EsportsJohn Profile Blog Joined June 2012 United States 4831 Posts #9 Haunted Mines is still really bad, in my opinion. It's just mindlessly mercing and hoping you don't get caught out. Occasionally teams go into mines, but you can win almost purely off of sappers/ogres.



Hanamura has the same kind of feel where the key objective is pretty simple, but there are so many variables going on at once and so many options that it typically just feels like a guessing game of what you're supposed to do next. I very very rarely find time to take even a single merc camp when playing because it's all about just staying on top of the payload. Bribe does make a huge difference though, but then that just feels a bit gimmicky to me. Strategy

Ghostcom Profile Joined March 2010 Denmark 4501 Posts #10 I hate this map more than I ever hated haunted mines. This map is the precise reason why I hope we get a map-veto so I never have to see this crap again. It feels much more like Lost Caverns than any real map should.

Fanatic-Templar Profile Joined February 2010 Canada 4327 Posts #11 I like the suggested ideas from Bakery to alter the damage values a bit. Otherwise my biggest issue with the map is how the payloads often stall in the lanes. Not only do the two teams' payloads cross there, but it means you can still soak while contesting both objectives. At least when the payloads stall near the middle of the map, you're actually losing something from the fight, like on Battlefield of Eternity. I bear this sig to commemorate the loss of the team icon that commemorated Oversky's 2008-2009 Proleague Round 1 performance.

Creager Profile Joined February 2011 Germany 1570 Posts #12 Really awful map, don't like to play it, at all, it really just feels like a brawl map. Also, I tend to prefer late game oriented heroes, but I don't really get their approach, anyway. Games in HotS play out relatively fast, 15-20 mins on average, with the occasional 30+ mins game (which are often highly entertaining, at least for me). This map really brings nothing to the table. ... einmal mit Profis spielen!

[Phantom] Profile Blog Joined August 2013 Mexico 1637 Posts #13 After thinking about it for some time today, I think I actually like Hanamuras mercs more than the normal ones. While on first sight the others may seem more useful, most of the time they are cleared right away without much consecuence. They can be used in good times (for example, top camp on sky temple when bottom temple activates) but a lot of the time people just capture them whenever and they end up being not very useful.



Here you get different abilities and it's pretty straightforward when they are useful, so that's a pro for the map. Shathe rest of it does feel like a brawl. Writer TeamLiquid Staff writer since 2014 @Mortal_Phantom

Waxangel Profile Blog Joined September 2002 United States 29090 Posts #14 As someone who plays the game at very low level, I actually like the general chaos and flow of Hanamura a lot.



TAKE THAT FOR PERSPECTIVE Administrator Hey HP can you redo everything youve ever done because i have a small complaint?

Thezzy Profile Joined October 2010 Netherlands 2112 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-16 16:03:58 #15 I'd change the following:



Core Health from 7 to 20

Payload base damage from 1 to 2

This increases the length of the game so that reaching 20 is expected and lessens the hard impact of losing a Fort.



Mercs replaced with regular mercs (they can still help push sappers to the core if Keep is gone)

Boss replaced with regular boss mechanics (but it is still the Hanamura boss) with the change that it will take off 3 core points if it makes to the core. It will clear out waves like a Punisher to ensure enemy team has enough time to deal with it.



Payload no longer stops when contested by less enemy heroes than friendly heroes.

Payload speed is now defined as: Nearby Friendly Hero Count - Nearby Enemy Hero Count.

If the result of that is 0 or less, the payload stops. If you are pushing the payload with 3 heroes and 1 enemy hero is harassing, the payload will slow down as if only 2 friendly heroes were pushing it but it will keep moving. This makes it a lot harder to stall out the payload with just one hero.



Payload max speed increased, time between payloads increased. This makes for more time between payloads where you can push lanes and do camps and less constant focus on the payloads.



Payload maximum to 2, but they will switch between various locations.

Having 4 payloads on the map is just silly and chaotic. I got a very weird victory as Morales solo pushing a payload that the enemy just forgot about because they were busy with the other three.



With these changes the game isn't over as fast, payloads aren't instantly halted and there is more time spent on not just doing the payloads. Playing Terran is like flying down a MULE drop in a marine suit, firing a Gauss Rifle

jpg06051992 Profile Joined July 2015 United States 466 Posts #16 On May 16 2017 07:08 EsportsJohn wrote:

Haunted Mines is still really bad, in my opinion. It's just mindlessly mercing and hoping you don't get caught out. Occasionally teams go into mines, but you can win almost purely off of sappers/ogres.



Hanamura has the same kind of feel where the key objective is pretty simple, but there are so many variables going on at once and so many options that it typically just feels like a guessing game of what you're supposed to do next. I very very rarely find time to take even a single merc camp when playing because it's all about just staying on top of the payload. Bribe does make a huge difference though, but then that just feels a bit gimmicky to me.



This is why Mines are better then Hana, because you have one obvious way to win (going and getting skulls) vs a soft way of winning by taking map control completely and farming the camps, which forces the enemy team to make a decision, do I go get skull or defend?



Hana currently is just a chaotic mess that quickly spirals out of control, he who takes the early lead on this map almost always wins, between that, multiple payloads, terrible design and placement of bushes, useless mercs with the one super OP vision merc and boss that is incredibly risky but gives very little reward.



This map is heavily flawed, I despise the Towers of Doom approach with the objectives immediately going after the core, no clue why they made another map based on that logic, except Towers of Doom (which is my least favorite map) at least has good design (like bushes and geography) and slight comeback mechanics with the boss attacking the core directly. Blizzard needs to roll out changes on Hana without a doubt or at the very least let us have a veto option which is already very very long overdue. This is why Mines are better then Hana, because you have one obvious way to win (going and getting skulls) vs a soft way of winning by taking map control completely and farming the camps, which forces the enemy team to make a decision, do I go get skull or defend?Hana currently is just a chaotic mess that quickly spirals out of control, he who takes the early lead on this map almost always wins, between that, multiple payloads, terrible design and placement of bushes, useless mercs with the one super OP vision merc and boss that is incredibly risky but gives very little reward.This map is heavily flawed, I despise the Towers of Doom approach with the objectives immediately going after the core, no clue why they made another map based on that logic, except Towers of Doom (which is my least favorite map) at least has good design (like bushes and geography) and slight comeback mechanics with the boss attacking the core directly. Blizzard needs to roll out changes on Hana without a doubt or at the very least let us have a veto option which is already very very long overdue. "SO MANY BANELINGS TASTELESS!"

Qikz Profile Blog Joined November 2009 United Kingdom 11679 Posts #17 I actually really enjoy playing Hanamura. Then again I'm no pro level player. FanTaSy's #1 Fan | STPL Caster/Organiser | SKT BEST KT | https://twitch.tv/stpl

Fanatic-Templar Profile Joined February 2010 Canada 4327 Posts Last Edited: 2017-05-16 21:21:17 #18 Yeah, I enjoy it too, but I do think it could use some improvements. Though I definitely understand Blizzard wanting to wait a bit to see how things actually pan out. People were complaining like hell when Towers of Doom came out too, and that's probably the best map in the pool as far as I'm concerned. I bear this sig to commemorate the loss of the team icon that commemorated Oversky's 2008-2009 Proleague Round 1 performance.

RaiKageRyu Profile Joined August 2009 Canada 4726 Posts #19 Glad to see I'm not the only one that hates playing on this map and thinks the design is flawed. I was so excited to play this map when it was previewed because it looked beautiful and the new style of camp rewards sounded revolutionary. Someone call down the Thunder?

Inimical85 Profile Joined July 2013 United States 7 Posts #20 Yeah the aesthetic is easily the best part of the map Writer

1 2 Next All