Typhon2222's Maps

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by Robber

~Robber, one-linedly (and about to be Aldin chum...)

[Typhon2222]

Following excellent suggestions by Robber and Dad_Scaper , I've revised YAR'S REVENGE. Here's how it looks now:



Three changes were made:

(1) The two stalagmites in the central shadow corridor were pulled back. This provides better coverage of the starting zones. It also makes it easier for very large figures to traverse the central corridor (and harder for rats to clog it).

(2) The glyphs were moved by one hex, and the hexes around them changed.

(3) I added two hexes of extra height, one per side. You can just see them in the middle of the two rock plateaus, nestled in the crook of the tallest encircling walls. I think these will make things in each of the two 'rooms' more interesting.

Here are the new build instructions.

Let me know what you think!

[Typhon2222]

Yay, YAR'S REVENGE has been accepted for review by the Maps for Noobs.

[marroking1]

Hello Typhon2222 I just wanted to let you know that I used your map Yars Revenge in a Battle report of mine.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by marroking1

Hello Typhon2222 I just wanted to let you know that I used your map Yars Revenge in a Battle report of mine.

Oh cool marroking! I know you say that you don't encourage posts by others in that thread of yours, so I'll say it here: nice action shots! Very suspenseful.

[UtahScott]

Hey, Typhon2222. After seeing a couple of your map nominations in the Battlefields of Valhalla thread, I thought I'd come over here and explore. You have some good-looking work, I might try something for our April gameday.

I hope you'll move beyond your frequent use of paired glyphs, though. Either each team gets the same glyph, which equates to none at all, or one player would get both. Move +4, or Initative +16, seems rather unfair to me...

Keep up your efforts.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by UtahScott

Hey, Typhon2222. After seeing a couple of your map nominations in the Battlefields of Valhalla thread, I thought I'd come over here and explore. You have some good-looking work, I might try something for our April gameday.

I hope you'll move beyond your frequent use of paired glyphs, though. Either each team gets the same glyph, which equates to none at all, or one player would get both. Move +4, or Initative +16, seems rather unfair to me...

Keep up your efforts.

Heya US, thanks for posting!

So you normally prefer an odd number of glyphs? Personally I dislike having only one, since it tends to suck all action towards it (usually the center). I can see the allure of three though....

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

Pretty shore Utah meant he wishes you wouldn't double up glyphs, to be "fair." Two Initiative glyphs, or Move glyphs, one on each side of the map. If the glyphs are evenly spaced from each start zone, but vary in power, 1 move and 1 wound, then the match becomes more interesting. If both sides want the wound, then the fight will go that way. But if one side leaves the move glyph uncontested to focus on the wound glyph, will the guy who takes the move get enough of an advantage to overwhelm the other? And so on. Make sense?

Oh sure, that makes sense. And I know that seems to be the preference of many. I just have certain reservations with doing things that way.

For one thing, it constricts map design: to be fair, that system requires glyphs need to be evenly spaced from each start zone, as you say. That wouldn't be too bad, but the problem is that having them evenly spaced isn't enough. To be really fair, it requires having equivalent environments around each glyph regardless of which side they're approached from. Because if, say, the glyphs have higher ground on one side than the other, or better firing ranges when approached from one side, or whatever, then there's incentive to go that way. And if the glyphs aren't the same, then you've just introduced assymetry that helps one player.

Take your own Rising Fever, RV. Each glyph is 11 spaces from the start zone. But all other things being equal, I imagine I'd more often want to go left than right. Why? Because going left takes me past a bush, whereas going right doesn't. And if I'm a double-hex large figure, I can actually park on the hex and get the bush bonus at the same time for fewer movement. So if it turns out that the glyph to my left is a preferable one -- say Astrid or Gerda or Valda, not Dagmar or Lodin -- then I've got a slight advantage.


Your Rising Fever (which is an awesome map, btw) is actually a lousy example for me to pick, because the advantages of going left rather than right are going to be pretty minor in most cases. But you get the point.

Using two of the same glyphs allows you to place them anywhere on the board, as long as their positions mirror each other. This opens up more options for map design.

[personwholives]

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

Using two of the same glyphs allows you to place them anywhere on the board, as long as their positions mirror each other. This opens up more options for map design.

While it does give you a few more options, it also means that a match can become pretty badly unbalanced if the glyphs are both held by one side. Which is probably why people prefer using different glyphs.

Also, fair is boring (this is one of my guiding principles in gaming, honestly). If they are equivalent strength glyphs, it's more interesting having different ones then two of the same. Yes, that makes the game a bit more varied, and can make some matches feel uneven, but it also makes it a bit more fun. (Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that symetrical is boring, but that is neither here nor there)

As I recall, the biggest comment I had for you after playing on one of your other maps was "9 move ashigaru are frightening." (from the immortals tournament) While that may have been a bigger comment on my opponents army, it still said a lot about your map that they could get that overpowered.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by personwholives

While it does give you a few more options, it also means that a match can become pretty badly unbalanced if the glyphs are both held by one side. Which is probably why people prefer using different glyphs.
.
.
.
As I recall, the biggest comment I had for you after playing on one of your other maps was "9 move ashigaru are frightening." (from the immortals tournament) While that may have been a bigger comment on my opponents army, it still said a lot about your map that they could get that overpowered.

"...a match can become pretty badly unbalanced if the glyphs are both held by one side...."
Sure. But that's true of ANY map, right? Not just maps which repeat a glyph....

I mean, is getting +8 Movement on a map with two Valda any more overpowered than getting both +1 Attack and +1 Defense on a map with Astrid and Gerda, or +4 Movement and +1 Attack if it has Valda and Astrid? Do you really think that maps which double up the same glyph become more unbalanced than maps which use two different glyphs?

[Typhon2222]

<accidentally double-posted>

[personwholives]

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

"...a match can become pretty badly unbalanced if the glyphs are both held by one side...."
Sure. But that's true of ANY map, right? Not just maps which repeat a glyph....

I mean, is getting +8 Movement on a map with two Valda any more overpowered than getting both +1 Attack and +1 Defense on a map with Astrid and Gerda, or +4 Movement and +1 Attack if it has Valda and Astrid? Do you really think that maps which double up the same glyph become more unbalanced than maps which use two different glyphs?

No doubt it is still weighted in one persons favor when they hold all the glyphs, but it seems more heavily weighted when they're the same. Consider this: +1 Attack & +1 Defense is much easier to overcome then +2 defense, and much easier to resist then +2 attack. If you have +2 move, +1 defense, I stand a chance of running away from you, or getting the first shot, whereas if you have +4 move, while it may not seem like that big a change, it'll make it a lot harder to escape or approach for the first shot.

I admit, maybe that's a personal preference. But you can see where I'm coming from with that, right?

Consider the lowly venoc viper, on a map where there are two move glyphs. My vipers win initiative, and the first viper, with his frighteningly high initial move gets to the one move glyph, putting his buddies at 11 move (7 + venoc warlord bonus + move glyph). The next viper runs over, grabs the second move glyph, and they're now at 13 move. Most of the vipers, while still in their own start zone, are well poised to enter your start zone in just two moves.... Add in frenzy and there is a non-zero chance of you losing several units before you even get to move (if my d20 is truly in love with me this game, there's a non-zero chance of you losing all of your figures before you even get a turn).... on the other hand, if instead of move, one of those glyphs is defense, now the vipers, instead of moving 13, are rolling a whole 1 defense die, and may instead require 3 moves to get to your start zone, letting you live a bit longer. If by chance the move glyph is the far one, rather then the near one, there's a chance the vipers don't get to it at all, and you at least get one turn before being swarmed.

Consider the two initiative glyph case: a +16 to initiative means that there is a very small chance of you not going first. On the other hand, if we both have one, the glyph is essentially meaningless. The only reason for me to commit someone to holding it is because you have, and vice versa. If one glyph is +8 init, and one is +2 move, maybe i can let you go first, because I'm faster. Or maybe I want to use my speed to get the initiative bonus, but since you'll probably go first, you'll be able to move in defenders.


A well balanced set of glyphs is not necessarily a set of glyphs that benefits both sides the same, but a set that benefits both sides in similarly strong ways. This can be achieved by using 2 x, but sometimes it can be done by x and y instead, and in a way that will be a bit less overwhelming should both points fall to one side or the other.


In short, I would rather you have +1 x and +1 y then +2 x, no matter what x and y are, because +1 is an easier bonus to overcome, block, evade, or roll higher than.

Note also, in some ways this is less applicable to 2v2 maps then 1v1, because one side having both +2 move glyphs doesn't necessarily mean one set of figures having +4 move. It might, but it isn't necessary.


That said, I still like many of your maps, and I'll still play them, but I may not use the glyphs as written.

Sorry if that turned into a rant. I didn't mean it as such, and I mean you no ill will. Just trying to explain an opinion to someone with a question about it, and I have a tendency to ramble. A lot, apparently.