C3G Mapmaking - "Competitive" Discussion

[EternalThanos86]

I'd also like to talk about what standards we're applying to competitive maps and what that looks like for comic customs - I'll defer to some of you guys on that point because you've got more experience than me in that arena but I really wasn't thinking that this needed to be balanced for vanilla, hence the design.

I have had the same feeling since the project began. So, it is time to define what competitive means, how it is different from casual, and how it relates to Classic Heroscape standards of competitive.

Ready! Go!

[Cavalier]

I posted this in the Fast Lane thread:

To chim in, I do not think that Supers competitive maps need worry about the same issues that classic maps do to be competitive. As the wookie said, if you can't handle ranged fliers, and all they entail, in a supers match up, you've already lost.

I think these maps should focus on being played in a supers mindset and not a classic.

[IAmBatman]

I'm glad you guys are starting this discussion. I'm not much of a competitive map mind, so I'll have to stay out of it other than cheering you guys on to have this discussion and really figure out your standards as a group. :-)

[EternalThanos86]

To chim in, I do not think that Supers competitive maps need worry about the same issues that classic maps do to be competitive. As the wookie said, if you can't handle ranged fliers, and all they entail, in a supers match up, you've already lost.

I think these maps should focus on being played in a supers mindset and not a classic.

True, but then what do we do about the non-flying, weak Supers like Red Skull, Toad, Poision Ivy? Are we going to say that drafting such heroes on the maps we make is useless? I know the extreme challenge that ranged fliers presents to competitive mapmaking in general, and I also understand that in SuperHeroscape it is not as important, but to dismiss it completely from the competitive arena of judging seems to undermine the reasons for creating No-No's to begin with. I say let the point cost of the customs be the determining factor in the effectiveness of the Super, not the map.

As I understanding, it is not about "handling the ranged fliers," but making certain that the map affords each player an equal opportunity to handle them, not emphasizing the already understood fact that ranged fliers are awesome.

Keep in mind, I am NOT the authority on competitive mapmaking in any arena. I am picky and anal about certain things when I see maps, namely that the map is not antidouble-spaced figure and pro-ranged flier.

[quozl]

I think the answers to these two questions are essential:

What issues do maps for Superscape need to deal with?

What issues that classic maps needed to deal with are no longer an issue for Superscape maps?

I'm going to think about them for a while before giving my answers.

[Griffin]

Equal terrain opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield that one unit can get to on its own, but another cannot
Equal attack opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield where a unit can be in a position to attack, but never be attacked back by certain figures (like a high poll that melee attackers cannot attack a figure if that figure is on top)
Equal start zone opportunity for each opposing army, meaning each start zone has the same amount of spaces as its opposing army
Standardized start zone numbers, meaning 24 hexes (the most common standard) for each start zone
Standardized start zone spacing, meaning that opposing start zones will always be at least 13 spaces away from each otherI am sure there are more that need to be mentioned, and there are many that need not be mentioned, like banning a board that is entirely Molten Lava, duh, that would be stupid and we don't need a rule about it. :)

[A3n]

Equal terrain opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield that one unit can get to on its own, but another cannot
Equal attack opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield where a unit can be in a position to attack, but never be attacked back by certain figures (like a high poll that melee attackers cannot attack a figure if that figure is on top)
Equal start zone opportunity for each opposing army, meaning each start zone has the same amount of spaces as its opposing army
Standardized start zone numbers, meaning 24 hexes (the most common standard) for each start zone
Standardized start zone spacing, meaning that opposing start zones will always be at least 13 spaces away from each otherI am sure there are more that need to be mentioned, and there are many that need not be mentioned, like banning a board that is entirely Molten Lava, duh, that would be stupid and we don't need a rule about it. :)

Yep I like all of that.

[mad_wookiee]

Equal terrain opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield that one unit can get to on its own, but another cannot
Equal attack opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield where a unit can be in a position to attack, but never be attacked back by certain figures (like a high poll that melee attackers cannot attack a figure if that figure is on top)
Equal start zone opportunity for each opposing army, meaning each start zone has the same amount of spaces as its opposing armyAgree with all of these.


Standardized start zone numbers, meaning 24 hexes (the most common standard) for each start zone
Standardized start zone spacing, meaning that opposing start zones will always be at least 13 spaces away from each otherI don't necessarily disagree with the first, but are we sure that 24 hexes is optimal? If we went with something smaller, like 16, it would reduce the likelihood of things like ratspam. You're dealing with higher point totals in the supers area anyway.

The second I dislike. There are a lot of reasons why a mapmaker might want to have start zones that don't fit this criteria. For example, my map Failed Negotiations allows several units to start engaged:
http://www.heroscapers.com/downloads//failed1_AZ7.jpg

I think we should allow for that flexibility in a competitive map - it keeps things from getting stale.

[Cavalier]

I agree with the Wookie.

[quozl]

What issues do maps for Superscape need to deal with?

Superscape maps have to deal with VERY mobile units. High Move numbers are common along with flying figures, teleportation and telekinesis.

What issues that classic maps needed to deal with are no longer an issue for Superscape maps?

I can't think of any. It seems to me that Superscape maps have more issues, not less.

[IAmBatman]

Not just high move numbers - high threat ranges coming from a combination of high move numbers, flying, and high ranges.
I like, as a standard, having a certain distance between start zones to prevent first turn startzone assaults.
Obviously there will be some exceptions granted in special situations, like the example above, but the standard makes a lot of sense overall, in my opinion.

[Cavalier]

Not just high move numbers - high threat ranges coming from a combination of high move numbers, flying, and high ranges.
I like, as a standard, having a certain distance between start zones to prevent first turn startzone assaults.
Obviously there will be some exceptions granted in special situations, like the example above, but the standard makes a lot of sense overall, in my opinion.
But if it is set as a rule, then it would eliminate those creative possibilities. If it is a suggestion, then it might not hamper creativity. I agree that, in general, especially with supers, start zones need to be wide spread, but I can't agree to making it a hard, fast rule because there are reasons to use exceptions.

[IAmBatman]

A suggestion makes sense to me. :-)

[Griffin]

Not just high move numbers - high threat ranges coming from a combination of high move numbers, flying, and high ranges.
I like, as a standard, having a certain distance between start zones to prevent first turn startzone assaults.
Obviously there will be some exceptions granted in special situations, like the example above, but the standard makes a lot of sense overall, in my opinion.
But if it is set as a rule, then it would eliminate those creative possibilities. If it is a suggestion, then it might not hamper creativity. I agree that, in general, especially with supers, start zones need to be wide spread, but I can't agree to making it a hard, fast rule because there are reasons to use exceptions.I think I see your point. And that is why I have tried to avoid having this conversation about setting parameters for Competitive maps.

[Cavalier]

I think I see your point. And that is why I have tried to avoid having this conversation about setting parameters for Competitive maps.
I think most of us involved can agree on many of the points. And by setting 'guidelines' rather than 'rules' on some aspects, that as long as the creative/group can justify them are acceptable deviations from the norm, that we should, indeed, be able to define more succinctly what a competitive Supers map is.

• Equal terrain opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield that one unit can get to on its own, but another cannot
• Equal attack opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield where a unit can be in a position to attack, but never be attacked back by certain figures (like a high poll that melee attackers cannot attack a figure if that figure is on top)
• Equal start zone opportunity for each opposing army, meaning each start zone has the same amount of spaces as its opposing army
• Standardized start zone numbers, meaning 24 hexes (the most common standard) for each start zone
• Standardized start zone spacing, meaning that opposing start zones will always generally be at least 13 spaces away from each other unless theme/mechanics of the map dictate otherwise.

[Griffin]

Good stuff Cav. And I do like the use of the term "guide lines" as opposed to rules. I think one of my selling points to get you in this group initially was to keep things loose and free for artistic exploration, and I don't want to make this project too confining for our members (like you) to the point of not wanting to participate. Your too valuable IMO. :D

[Cavalier]

After all, if you get too restictive, you can't do crazy things, like this:
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/8/8/8/battle_royale_original.jpg (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/showimage.php?i=6238&c=7)

;)

[Griffin]

:drool: Must... go.... play .... now.

[Cavalier]

:drool: Must... go.... play .... now.
More photos here: http://heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1096944&postcount=138

Hoping to try again tonight with more reasonable armies (see the link for the why on that):D

[A3n]

After all, if you get too restictive, you can't do crazy things, like this:
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/8/8/8/battle_royale_original.jpg (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/showimage.php?i=6238&c=7)

;)

What??

You think that's something special or something? Huh, well do ya?

Well let me tell you,

It darn well is, but I can't rep you damn it! I gotta find out who I can rep, this is getting crazy. Maybe I need to keep a list of people I have repped so I know what order I have repped them in & who to hit again to get up to you.

Great work as always Cav.

Cheers

[IAmBatman]

You're always welcome to try me again, A3n. :-D

[Griffin]

Oooh Ooooh I'm open! :wave:

[A3n]

You're always welcome to try me again, A3n. :-D
Yep tried that.
Oooh Ooooh I'm open! :wave:
And that.
:D

[EternalThanos86]

Like what we have so far, but I see something missing. I think we need some sort of clause that talks about competitive maps not giving an overt advantage to one specific power or ability, for example ranged/flying. Thoughts?


A C3G Competitive Map will include:
• Equal terrain opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield that one unit can get to on its own, but another cannot.
• Equal attack opportunity for all types of figures, meaning there is no place on the Battlefield where a unit can be in a position to attack, but never be attacked back by certain figures (like a high poll that melee attackers cannot attack a figure if that figure is on top).
• Equal start zone opportunity for each opposing army, meaning each start zone has the same amount of spaces as its opposing army.
• Standardized start zone spacing, meaning that opposing start zones will generally be at least 13 spaces away from each other unless theme/mechanics of the map dictate otherwise.