Recommended Players

I think those recommended numbers are sort of a guide, so people get an idea of the map. I tried 4v4 Crucible once, and it wasn't good.

Mandala and Brothers definitely need 5v5 since they're so big. Zikurat is ok with 4. Leviathan 3v3 is played occasionally, but is noticeably a lot better with 4v4.

Why? If your not into epic games then fair enough, but 2v2 on either of those maps is a fantastic battle, provided you have the time for it.

I guess it is down to personal preference, but i dont mind playing any map with any number of players.

I have done 4v4 on crucible...it was a bloodbath. Very hard to level up on, but a fun game nontheless.

I enjoyed a 5 v 5 prison with all Regules once

And it did not go as i asspected. I thought it would be a snipe fest, and it started as such. However people started stacking hp allot and snipe lost its value. So it became a mine fest.

i did a 5v5 crucible... highly entertaining and low leveling.

Id like to try something similiar to that. Might be fun. Add in high towers and fast flags to spice it up.

What is epic about 2v2 on Mandala? I've actually had this before in either a Skirmish or Pantheon a long while ago, and your definition of epic is seriously messed up. The map was so empty, I spent almost all the time capping flags, killing random grunts, or contesting the middle flag, occasionally going 1v1 against the enemy Oak. Running back to base to get items took forever too, and the entire game was so slow and boring, took way longer than it should have. I think it was also a conquest game too, so you can't blame it on being a crappy game mode like Fortress or something. And no it wasn't bad because it was pugs facing each other. I've had 3v3 on Mandala too and that was bad, map was way too big for it, so I have no idea how anyone could think 2v2 on the big maps is decent, much less fantastic.

2v2 on Brothers would probably result in either each person going on one side and 1v1 against one of their opponents and of course everything would depend on what Demigod they took. Running back to base on that map takes a long time too.

i'd like to have a 5v5 without someone dropping, or the game lagging from someone's slow sim speed or horrible connection

I'm new, and I already know that's rare, though. I just my sim speed up by turning off reverb. Jumped from -1 to 6-7.

Having more people on a smaller map like Crucible just means leveling will go slower, as there are limited flags and all of 1 creep wave.  Doesnt mean it isnt fun.   The flip side of that, having only a few players on a large 5v5 map just means you'll most likely level faster, as there are more creep waves and unguarded flags everywhere.  I'm sure Neilo meant "epic" in that you're more likely to be duking it out when you're level 17 to 20, as opposed to struggling to get level 6 on the smaller map.  Also, when you're playing on a large map with small numbers, you KNOW you cant defend all your lanes, etc.  so there is a different mindset to your strategy.  It's entertaining in it's own right, I've had fun playing both of the above examples

Different strokes for different folks my friend...

I personally, think the reccomended # of players per map is pretty good. I've played them in different ways and had them work and work well, but I think their reccomendations are pretty much right, too few on a large map can be far too long a game (though not always) and too many on a small map can be sort of spammy (though a good laugh sometimes). The point is that I tend to (when I host) set it up for the number of players the map reccomends.

The recommended number is probably best, but it seems to me a bit too rigid if you really don't wanna try anything different than that.

hopefully when we get a map editor all these problems will be solved. Due to the rarity of maps (made even worse due to the strictness of the recommended player numbers, by both the community and the fact that the maps just aren't so fun with too many or too liuttle), I can see community maps really becoming popularised.