Good player, really annoying though.

The fixes are fine. If you already haven't please make red yard flat.

I wouldn't actually change anything about the map. It's kind of perfect.

EDIT: oh, you already fixed red yard, good job.

Why does it matter how anyone thinks they'll play? If they perform well at i49 then they're pretty fucking good. If they go to i49 and don't do so well then they're not that good.

Why is it so important to figure out how they should place beforehand?

I honestly don't know why NA players get so damn defensive about these kinds of things.

The whip breaks the original ultiduo map almost as much as kritz does. It definitely doesn't belong in ultiduo.

Sorry, you and slipz were destroyed long ago.

http://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=1358311

Jack Frost, the greatest man alive (<3 Jack).

Also, stalin is a pretty cool guy, and I imagine he's stayed the same. Sorry for screwing you over 2 years ago buddy :c.

It's just a blue name nobody should care.

Panda is a really cool guy and he's definitely a lot better than low Open. GL buddy.

To be honest, I'm not really on the whole TF2 growth bandwagon. I won't try to stop it and if it's not an inconvenience to me I'll help it for sure, but I don't see why I should have to pay money to play a map that is basically a coin flip regardless of how much preparation you put in. A best of 3 isn't good enough to determine a consistent outcome but we all know nobody wants to play that map for more than 3 rounds.

And I still fail to see this wealth of strategy variations. When it comes down to it everyone does the same thing with a couple minor changes. At this point everything is pretty common on Gravelpit.

Let's be honest if Gravelpit was such a good map with varying strategies, people would probably play it outside of Gravelpit week.

Even Viaduct is played outside of it's week and there's really only 4 real variations.

No it's not because there's only a total of 3 rounds.

EDIT: Misread a bit. The fact that there is only three rounds makes it so that, in a similar situation to rolling mid, if the enemy team wins that round because of a chance play you can no longer afford to make any more "mistakes".

Based off of the response from some people that Gravelpit should stay in, still a little confused as to why, I think it would be much more fair if the following were implemented.

Teams should be forced to play out every offence, so the second team on offence has to finish even if the first teams offence beats theirs, and, instead of deciding individual rounds, tally offence times up to determine the winner.

As it stands a team could have a 10 minute defence and 3 minute cap the first round, a 4 minute offence and a 3 minute defence, and another 4 minute offence and 3 minute defence would lose. But, if the teams offences were tallied the losing team in this case would win.

The reason I suggest this is because it feels very terrible to play a very strong defence, and then cap extremely quickly and have that round be worth less than the following two rounds where someone rolls the die and snipes my Medic and wins by a difference of like 30 seconds.

because it's not a good map.

Please get rid of Gravelpit. I'm tired of coin flipping rounds away.

Also, everyone has pretty much figured Gravelpit out at this point so you don't see teams doing many different things, maybe some slight variations but the overall feel is the same.

I don't really know why people like watching Gravelpit but that doesn't really matter. People shouldn't be forced to play a bad map because it's entertaining to watch.

The worst part about Gravelpit is that the low success strategies, like Spy or Sniper, have really no consequence in the long run in certain situations. Say someone has around a 10% chance of killing the Medic holding on B as a Spy. Assume that this player was dedicated to getting the Medic as Spy. If he happens to kill the Medic the first time he tries, then that entire round will likely go the Spy's team, but remember that same Spy could have taken around ten tries to actually kill the Medic.

And what's effective about those kind of plays is that a player could just "roll the die" like that and cost his team a terrible offence one round because of it generally being a really luck reliant strategy (at least reliant on the enemy team) but make up for it the next two rounds by scoring a couple fast offences, or even mediocre times, and his team could potentially win because of his actions even though they had one terrible round. It's not just Spy, there are a lot of plays that rarely work or have a delicate timing window that makes it easy for the offesne to essentially "roll the die".

He can definitely play IM. I think he has pretty good aim and he's decently smart.

I mean... I guess he's not THAT bad.

Please no more clowns.

Ummm.........