Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[BiggaBullfrog]

Originally Posted by Shurrig

Just wanted to say, this is a dope project and I’m glad you all are doing this. I love map making, and after a short hiatus from this forum up until recently (coinciding with the *hopeful* return of scape) I have gotten back into making my own maps again. I’ve been doing my best to learn from all the judges reviews and my own play experience on these maps (turmoil and origin most recently) and hopefully incorporate y’all’s wisdom into my own design philosophy! So thank you all, I’m looking forward to eventually playing on all these maps (now if I could only get my hands on some jungle terrain…)

I'm super glad to see you back! Looking forward to trying out more of your maps!

[OEAO]

Congratulations to Origin and @Flash_19 , the first mapmaker to have 3 maps inducted!

[Dignan]

PERCOLATOR by Ulysses

This is a cool little map that I quite like the look of. We are actually using it for NHSD down here in Dallas. I think it is nice and simple and has a nice table presence. I really like how thought out the start zones are and I think breaking up the start zones a bit works well on this map.

We've previously touched on the use of the dual small ruins. After getting better acquainted with the map, I think I understand the reasoning behind it. It seems to be stemmed from a strict adherence to symmetry and equal access to the highest levels from both side (though I could be wrong). As I mentioned in my previous post, I would have preferred an alternate solution to this "issue". I think that a little bit of asymmetry can be introduced into the map that will still keep access fair and will have minimal impact on balance from either start zone. I personally like to see mapmakers find creative solutions to these sorts of issues rather than just slapping a band aid on it or fudging the limits you are working within. That said, it sounds like the group here doesn't take an issue with this, so I won't consider this a mark against the map. I only bring it up here as general feedback for this map and mapmakers in general.

There is the general concern with this map and the snowball effect. This is an issue for all maps that feature a central hill. An army winning the initial skirmish can roll that early one or two figure kills into a powerful position and very much an uphill battle for their opponent. Overall, I think the designer here does a good job trying to prevent this. The ruins are well placed to give units a chance to approach high ground without getting shot down. Additionally, most of the jungle terrain is well placed giving cover to the lower ground spots as they approach the hill. There are only two issues I have with the jungle terrain placement: both the central bush and tree provide cover to the level three rock hexes in the center. I don't have a huge issue with the tree placement. The hex it covers is very close to the one start zone and should be difficult for the opponent to control in most cases. However, I don't love the position of the central bush. The rock hexes it provides cover to are much closer to the center. These hexes are much easier for an opponent to take control over after an initial successful volley. Rolling into these protected high ground locations and firing down into the start zone really makes a recovery difficult. I think refining the construction of this map to prevent this would be ideal.

One random thing I noticed building this, is that the map actually has a central pool and an overhang feature. It's virtually impossible to notice this in the image and in real life, which is a real shame, as I think this is pretty cool. I would have loved to have seen the adjacent water hexes dropped down to show off this little detail. I think it would have brought more visual interest to the map. Again, this is just a little thing. Nothing I would hold against the map. Just thought I would share it here, again, as feedback and food for thought for other designers.

As I mentioned above, I think the map overall looks good. The one complaint I would have aesthetically would be concerning the overall blockyness of its terrain. Virtually all the terrain forms large homogenous blobs of color. Not only does this make variations in elevations sometimes difficult to see, I also think it doesn't look great. I realize this is a personal preference, but I think giving the map a little visual variation would take this map up a notch. This is also a great opportunity to introduce what a call "fake asymmetry". Essentially you can mix up a few grass and rock hexes, but don't mirror the same pattern on each side. This will still keep the gameplay exactly mirrored, but the map will appear visually asymmetrical and increase immersion. Additionally, considering the height involved in this map, you can swap around the tree placement and bush placement to break things up. Again, this doesn't impact the balance of the map, but gives it a more "natural" look. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here is a side by side of the submitted map and one adjusted based on my comments above.



Thematically, it still reads with the rocky portion of the map at the central hill, but the adjusted version breaks up the blobs and gives the map a little overgrown feel to it. I think it compliments the use of jungle terrain and gives the map a little extra polish. All that said, this is another item that I wouldn't hold against a map. While I would give bonus points to a map that does things like this, I wouldn't mark a map down for this. This is very subjective and not everyone cares about these minor appearance issues.

The last item I wanted to bring up was the balance on approach to each glyph. The glyph to a player's left has considerable jungle cover as you approach the glyph while the one on the right has earlier access to high ground and a little bit of ruin cover. I think for a ranged v ranged game, the balance is pretty close. The earlier access to level 3 is a great advantage on that side, so not having bush cover is pretty well balanced out.

However, with a melee army, I don't think it's as easy a call. While getting to level three is nice for the melee units, they can't capitalize on it the same why the ranged units can. Additionally, getting to high ground takes significant movement and might not bring them into threat range of the glyph. To better illustrate this, I put together a little diagram.



Hopefully I didn't screw up the numbers on this, though I'm sure I did. Fingers crossed, that the point is still valid if I did.

The dots on the map represent the hexes that are both within 5 move of the hex and/or a space adjacent to the hex and within 5 move from a start zone space. Additionally, the numbers on the dots indicate the number of start zone spaces that can reach these spaces. Lastly, the yellow spots have cover (or are level 3) and the red are exposed. The one dot of orange is questionable. Depending on the figure and where the shot is coming from, the ruin might be providing protection.

The reason why I picked these numbers and hexes is they represent important spaces for melee armies to both move into to threaten the glyph and how easy it is to reinforce or replace units as the battle progresses. While general access to these hexes from both sides is comparable (a weighted value of 34 versus 30), it seems pretty clear that the red start zone has a much safer road to this hex than the blue start zone. Personally, if I brought a melee army to this map, I would greatly prefer to have the better glyph on my left as opposed to my right. Even completely balanced glyphs would put me at a disadvantage trying to hold the right glyph.

This seems to be a pretty significant imbalance, though not entirely broken. It does seam like an easy thing to fix. The furthest bush back on the left could be moved over to the spot marked 7 or 4 on level 1 and that would even things out. There is give and take with this. It might not be a perfect solution, but I find the current arrangement lacking.

Anyway, I've talked here long enough and probably bored people to tears going on at length on mundane details of the map. I don't consider this map to be a top tier map. I think it is solid and can serve a tournament fine. I can't say that it is a standout map, but it's "ok". Based on dok's review of Origin, it sounds like maps that are "good enough" are getting a pass here, so YES to induct, I guess. Whatever.

[Dignan]

On a different topic, I'm going to go ahead and step away from this project. While I do love reviewing maps and being part of the community here, I take issue with some of the processes here at the WoS and it isn't a great fit for me. I appreciate that these guys reached out to me and allowed me to dip my toe in and I'm glad that people are putting forth the energy to do something like this.

Good luck moving forward.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Dignan

On a different topic, I'm going to go ahead and step away from this project. While I do love reviewing maps and being part of the community here, I take issue with some of the processes here at the WoS and it isn't a great fit for me. I appreciate that these guys reached out to me and allowed me to dip my toe in and I'm glad that people are putting forth the energy to do something like this.

Good luck moving forward.

Thank you for your work over this past year and a half! I appreciate your contributions and reviews.

[Flash_19]

Originally Posted by OEAO

Thank you for your work over this past year and a half! I appreciate your contributions and reviews.

Amen to this! Thanks, @Dignan for your efforts in testing maps. Sorry to see you go.

[superfrog]

Sorry it didn’t work out on your end, I was always glad to read your reviews.

[Typhon2222]

I really enjoyed the in-depth review of Percolator, @Dignan .

[caps]

I know the reviews are listed in the first few posts of the thread, but it seems like it would be handy for them to also be in the display thread.

[OEAO]

Quick Update:

We've decided to add a recommendation (not a requirement) that a mapmaker solicits feedback on their map before submitting it to the WoS:

4. Mapmakers are strongly encouraged to solicit feedback from events where their map was used before nominating their map. A great place to do so is the Tournament Map Feedback Thread.

It is in line with our view that a map should be somewhat well-established, and should have had feedback from players from events. Indeed, this is really the whole point of Nomination Rule 2(B) (requiring usage at 2 tournaments).

Again, this is a (strong) recommendation, not a requirement. However, we (once again) encourage people to not view WoS as the SoV of the map world. The main benefit maps have is how easy it is to get maps played at competitive events. The same is not true of community customs that aren't already part of C3V/SoV. Please utilize this great advantage that maps have over personal customs!

[superfrog]

Note also that if you want to nominate someone else's map, that's pretty much built-in evidence that the map has some broader support (since the designer and the submitter and the TD/TDs all presumably like the map).

[Rÿchean]

So 4 only applies if the map maker is nominating their own map. Gotcha.

On another note, sitting judges are nominating maps frequently.

Outside of the initial shotgun blast of BOV maps, I doubt a judge is going to nominate a map that they don't think is worthy.

IMO, if a judge feels so strongly about a map that they must nominate it, they should remove themselves from the review process for that map.

If the aspiration is to build something better than what came before, some additional checks and balances can help elevate the integrity of the effort.