Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[superfrog]

Congrats to Typhon on WoS map #22, Odin Wept!

I believe the beginning of this thread and the post in the display thread are correctly updated. Let me know if I missed anything.

[superfrog]

Spaced my mind for a second, but I have added Pigeonhole to the timer.

[Sheep]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

Pigeonhole

I would like to nominate Pigeonhole by @Sheep to Wargrounds of Scape. Specifically, the Treasure variant used at HexiCon II. The placement of the Treasure glyphs was chosen by Sheep.

All the events the Treasure variant was played at are shown below:

https://heroscape.org/map/view/?HeroscapeMap=225

Build Instructions: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iyw...riAwMxD7B/view

I'm honored, Tommy! Thank you!

[Flash_19]

Fulcrum by Dignan

Originally Posted by Flash_19

Fulcrum is a great map, but I don’t consider it as being among the best of the best. The level three height just to the front right of the start zone is the most problematic part of the design, closely followed by the placement of the water (even considering how sometimes you don’t sacrifice any movement when splashing your figures in water). I have seen so many games on this map turn into a game of “come at me, bro” due to range setting up on the level three height by the start zone. And with no glyphs, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive to move from that position if you’re running range into melee. The jungle placement is well done and helps approaching melee forces, as do a couple height positions, but I just don’t feel like it’s enough. A well-placed screen can be rough to punch through on this map as well.

My thoughts on Fulcrum have developed a bit over time. After reading other positive reviews by WoS judges and some additional comments by others sharing their feelings on the map, I have tried to reconsider my position and determine if it truly was justified. As I have tried to make sense of my experience and the experiences of others, I have kept coming back to the types of armies that are being used as the basis for positive feedback on the map. While not always the case, it seems that a significant portion of the positive feedback is established on the foundation of bonding melee.

I believe that the difference in power level between bonding melee and non-bonding melee is exacerbated by Fulcrum (if you care, see spoiler at the end for some of my thoughts on map design accommodating melee). As one specific example – it doesn’t seem fair to say that Fulcrum is balanced for melee if that opinion is based on playing Knights with Gilbert strictly because of how powerful an ability dispatch is on a map like Fulcrum. Spashing units into water is so much more viable when you can do it with a dispatch roll, and then move units onto high ground immediately after. Units like Heavies, and Grimnak particularly, are well equipped to punch through screens a player may lay through the middle of the map. As an important side note, I am NOT saying these units are easy to play on fulcrum, just that they by nature open up more possibilities than are available for other melee units – making them more viable to play on the map. From my experience and seemingly from the experiences of others, non-bonding melee just struggles too much to compete even against mid-tier ranged units due to the level three 3-hex piece, center design, and water placement (this of course depends on army composition, etc.).

Overall, I find myself disagreeing with the sentiment that Fulcrum promotes the use of diverse armies. I do agree strongly, however, with the argument that Fulcrum demands that players approach the game in a different way than they would on most other maps. It accomplishes that purpose very well, and therefore deserves continued recognition and use by the community. Yet, unfortunately, I do not believe that recognition should be in WoS.

I support the nomination to remove Fulcrum from the WoS.

Spoiler Alert!

One of my most basic philosophies as a map maker has always been to design maps in such a way that non-bonding melee units specifically always have a chance to compete with ranged armies, considering how ranged units have an inherent advantage in potentially getting more attacks off. Considering how the number of attacks is one of the largest predictors of success in the game, I tried to design maps that would allow melee to potentially get the first attacks on range if those ranged units are in a strong position or at least limit situations where range could kite effectively and get multiple attacks uncontested. This is why I have used road so often, why I dumped so many line of sight blockers on my early maps (and maybe still do at times), and why I like runs of level 2 height throughout maps. These efforts are more successful on some of my maps than on others.

[BiggaBullfrog]

Fulcrum by @Dignan


A lot has already been said about Fulcrum's gameplay on both sides of the discussion, so I won't beat that horse any further. But I enjoyed having the chance to take a close look at it with the standards of WoS in mind. I did go into my recent games on it expecting to find that it had fallen out of favor with me as I played matchups into dragons and Raelin/range. Instead, I found that I really enjoyed those games and the strategies that I used to approach them.

I don't think Fulcrum is a perfect map. I also don't know that a "perfect" map exists, because people can always argue for one more slight change to improve it. (OEAO probably disagrees but I haven't played Odin Wept yet.) I think, when evaluating maps to be the best-of-the-best maps for WoS, there is a definite balance to finding maps that, despite any flaws they might have, are exemplary in the gameplay they provide.

I do think that Fulcrum is one of those exemplary maps. I could see an updated version replacing it, but I think it reaches the level that WoS maps should hold as the best-of-the-best. If I said no to keeping it, I feel like I would have a hard time saying yes to a host of other deserving maps.

I vote YES to keep Fulcrum.

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by BiggaBullfrog

I do think that Fulcrum is one of those exemplary maps. I could see an updated version replacing it, but I think it reaches the level that WoS maps should hold as the best-of-the-best. If I said no to keeping it, I feel like I would have a hard time saying yes to a host of other deserving maps.

Could you elaborate on why you think Fulcrum is "exemplary" (also bear with me but I don't really understand what that means) and "hold as best-of-the-best"? Or is it just a "gut feeling"? (Which is completely fine).

[superfrog]

Man, so it does come down to me. Our first map to pass 6 votes cast, and it is going to go all the way to 8.

I'll start by quoting myself from 2.5 years ago:

Originally Posted by superfrog

Fulcrum
Good map. I've found that as the quality of play increases, the map utilization increases as well. Rushing up the middle is obvious but good players can also exploit the water-dunk-onto-the-hill strategy to great effect. My biggest nitpick is the 3-hex height on the right side of the SZ, but maybe that's just from playing Tiamat's Incendiborgs there.

I think the content of this review mostly rings true to me today. I still don't like the 3-hex height, but I do think this map can see intriguing, unique, spread-across-the-map play in the right circumstances.

I was actually reflecting on that Tiamat Incendiborgs game recently (what I didn't mention in my earlier review is that I was playing Cathar Spearmen). Just last week I was playing Cathars again on Fulcrum (this time into Q10 and dividers) and it really was a similarly frustrating experience - more on that later.

Similarly to how Flash approached his review, I wanted to understand the gulf of opinion on Fulcrum. Obviously as a panel of judges we don't all see things eye to eye, from our individual evaluations of a map to our boundaries of what exactly a WoS map is. As an example, I personally prefer Nightfall to a few maps we have in WoS, even maps I think are well-deserving of their WoS status!

This excerpt from dok's most recent review struck me as the most in-depth defense of the gameplay of Fulcrum.

Originally Posted by dok

To me, though, the biggest and most salient knock on Fulcrum is that games on Fulcrum tend to play out pretty similarly to other games on Fulcrum. You see a lot of “army with range advantage shifts right; army with range disadvantage assaults the position”. This is certainly not every game on Fulcrum, but it’s a fair number of them.

Broadly speaking, I think the map is pretty fair, even in that matchup. I’ve won plenty of games assaulting the right corner turtle, and I’ve seen others do it plenty as well. And as stated above and by others, I really enjoy how this map encourages some tactics and play patterns you rarely see on other maps.

And, broadly speaking, I agree with this analysis of the map. In general, a generic melee army has the tools to beat a generic ranged army on Fulcrum in an interesting and tactical game.

But I think the map suffers (and leads to major negative play experiences) in one specific (but by no means rare) subset of this melee/range matchup category. I find taking non-knights melee into podded range/screen armies (add Raelin to taste) to be a matchup that is slanted significantly towards the range player. To quote dok again, this time from a Codex article:

If you are sitting back on the right side, then two figures (or one double-spacer) in covering the 2-space gap between the ruin and the water can screen off that side of the map; I’ve won several games on this map by controlling that real estate.

Now all matchups have good and bad maps, so a single bad matchup isn't going to sink a map. But I find the matchup to also be frustrating for the melee player and boring for both players. There's really not much you can do other than funnel figures into the screen. I've seen people suggest that melee stays strictly adjacent to jungle, or that they stay out of range until they can close in all at once. Neither of these really work into Q10 (as one example, but this could also be Q9, Incendiborgs, Nilf, or Quahon) with a screen: engaging the screen requires leaving jungle, and staying out of range is impossible when you can get pinged at 7 range or shot with a normal at 8.

Even bringing a ranged component to your melee army (say, MBS with your Romans) isn't necessarily a big help: The jungle helps Q10 weather the few 4v8s while he throws however many 2v5s it takes to punch through MBS' 3 life (or, if you anticipate it, you shift Q10 forward by 1 space so he can throw 4v5s or 2v4s). Then it's back to worry-free pod play while your opponent has no recourse but to single-file into their pointless screen attacks. Or if your "ranged" component is Cathar then it's really game over, the best you can do is low ground 3v9s (or 3v8s into the aforementioned Incendiborgs).

I do think I'd feel differently if the melee player had more options into a pod: a wider approach path, an alternate approach route that required more careful screening by the range player, or a glyph spot where a TD could put Wannok to provide some external pressure. But as-is, the frustration factor of the one-dimensional games of playing melee into podded range lead me to vote NO on Fulcrum this time around.

[ThrasherDarkrai]

So with 5 "Yes" votes and 2 "No" votes, Superfrog's vote will determine whether Fulcrum stays in or not, correct?

Edit: Posted this like seconds after Superfrog's deciding vote. I suppose Fulcrum's out, then. Kind of a shame, personally speaking, since I really liked the map, but I understand why it's controversial.

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by ThrasherDarkrai

So with 5 "Yes" votes and 2 "No" votes, Superfrog's vote will determine whether Fulcrum stays in or not, correct?

Edit: Posted this like seconds after Superfrog's deciding vote. I suppose Fulcrum's out, then. Kind of a shame, personally speaking, since I really liked the map, but I understand why it's controversial (so to speak).

Yeah, that was the decider. I agree that it's kind of a shame. Definitely a map I enjoy playing in a bunch of different circumstances.

[1Mmirg]

It's a dark day for map-making everywhere...

Seriously, I'm glad to see the close attention paid to these votes and for the honest willingness among judges to vote carefully and without following trends or the opinions of others. I'm sad to see Fulcrum fall out of the WoS, but I'm encouraged by the care and honesty that is clearly taken by the WoS judges.

No one can say that this set of maps it not carefully judged and curated for the benefit of all Scapers.

This group makes tough calls. Clearly.

[Myriadite]

This was very interesting to observe. Thank you to everyone who put in the time to write a review.

[Sir Heroscape]

I'm glad Fulcrum was removed. Imo it hasn't aged well as our scene has continued to become more and more competitive and find more and more ways to abuse map features to their fullest.