To me, it still seems there are basic elements to map design for which I may draw out on paper but lack the time/pc processing power to physically create. (Thankfully, others design along these seemingly obvious paths, already.)
'Sooner' would appeal to furballers that rely on constant return/re-entry to an ongoing fight. Non-perk planes are essentially free and the basic 'tactic' of flinging one's self into the fray and wringing out the plane - rinse/repeat applies in this case.
However, 'sooner' would also appeal to those that want to roll a map during low numbers without all that much opposition. This would appeal to flyers and rollers alike.
'Longer' appeals to strat bombers that want to climb to higher altitudes where fighter interceptors struggle more to set up for effective passes at them. That also lends itself to strat targets being placed well to the rear lines. It also gives players that want to intercept said strat bombers time to climb and meet them. Strategic bombing doesn't have as great an impact on map winning as it appears to have had in real life (even with dropping opposing HQs) and seems as much a matter of individual point collecting/experience as furballing does for furballers - only not as rapid a launch/die/relaunch factor.
Two types of players preferring two elements in maps (in spite of the current numbers populating the arena).
For me, as long as the bases are laid out to promote constant action then it doesn't matter a whit how big the maps is. Unless you are a strat bomber type, that is. Then you may as well make them big and just make sure that the moving fronts on all sides will still provide action.
