Map Making Theory: random glyph placement

I actually strongly disagree with this statement. If the glyphs are equidistant on every map, it means that the player who wins initiative in the opening round can win not one, but all of the glyphs. Making the game being partially decided by the opening d20 roll in a Deathreaver v. Deathreaver game is opening yourself to chance just as much as the chance of uneven glyphs.

I've played on Hot Heights a bunch of times in tournaments, often even in the situation you mention- they've got Astrid and I've got a dud. In one case, it helped my opponent turn around a game that he may have lost, and in another, it made a game that would have been very one-sided much more interesting, close, and fun.

On my most recent map, I purposefully made the glyphs a little asymmetric.

I understand and accept this criticism. One of the last sets of tests I made on my helix maps was a match between a stinger-horde and rats+vydar. I played it out twice, and both times the winner of the opening initiative won easily. In both cases that army was a little luckier in the mid-game as well, but there's no question that being able to claim both Astrid and Valda made a big difference.

And obviously, some top players agree with you. It's worth noting that this phenomenon was Kahrma's main substantive justification for voting against inducting "Invasion" into the BoV. (And, I'm guessing, will be the main reason he votes against Swamp Helix, if it reaches that stage.)

That said, to seems odd for you to say you strongly disagree with this statement, while at the same time you acknowledge that this is really not so different from just giving each side a "home" glyph. As you say, there's an element of randomness either way.

Of course, there is a solution here - make the glyphs difficult to access, as I noted in my second point. Sure, deathreavers may be able to claim both glphs, but if they needed three turns to do it, the other side has a head-start on offense. Furthermore, if taking 3 turns to grab the glyph was forced by the placement of a river, then opposing double-spacers or flyers (or Jandar's dispatch recipients) can beat the rats to those glyphs even if they lose initiative.

I find these sorts of mitigations far more pleasing than simply giving each side one random glyph that they can reach much more easily. I'd rather simply not have glyphs than go that route.

Another under-used approach is to put glyphs on lava fields.

To me, this reads like damning with faint praise. Sure, the unequal glyph-placement delivered an exciting game in those cases, but it did so by giving a random unearned bonus to one side. It could have just as easily given you a big edge and made the game one of those laughers where you feel like apologizing to your opponent afterward.

I've given up on looking to tournaments as a pure skill-test. There are so many random things that can happen, often outside of the map, (the matchup, how much coffee I had that morning, what kind of pants I'm wearing, whether or not I lose the first round of initiative and then win the second, hit that mindshackle, crucial defense roll, etc...) that one more small source of randomness doesn't kill it for me.

In my mind, a map feature that can sometimes turn an unwinnable match into a winnable one is a good one, even if it sometimes does the reverse. It's part of the game, and it's why you play 5 or 6 in a day.

And I'm not even more in favor of having a "home" glyph than a "symmetric" glyph access, but I'm more interested in the bigger picture- "does this map have one dominant strategy every time?" "Does this map encourage players to move frequently and take risks?" "Are the games close, interesting, and fun?" Even on the topic of glyphs, "Is it easy to attack the glyph if I don't have it? Can melee figures get height advantage against the guy on the glyph... road access to height advantage against the guy on the glyph?"

I disagree with that statement because it is stated in absolutes. I prefer a map pool with a variety of approaches to glyph placement, rather than a bunch which follow the same formula.

I'm certainly in favor of the "big picture" approach you advocate. All of those are important issues with glyphs, for sure. I sort of dislike the "glyph in a corner only bordered by two hexes" effect, in part because it often leads to difficult access for melee figures.

I also don't disagree that there are lots of elements of randomness in the game that can't be avoided, but IMO a good map can tip the scales a bit away from luck and toward strategy. Accepting that some randomness is inevitable doesn't mean that the element of chance can't be reduced.

I guess I should also note that the use of "All" in "All random glyphs" was intended to refer to all random glyphs on a given map, not every glyph at an event.

I did a bit of hunting in the BoV thread and I noticed this topic has come up before. Unsurprising, I guess.

How much diversity can we expect in the maps within a single event in the future? I may be wrong, but, with the advent of MS3, construction of a tournament army should be done with the idea of getting to whatever kind of glyph soonest and, if it is a MS3 glyph, either holding it until the Hero can arrive (if captured with a Deathreaver, for example) or capturing it with a Hero.

Treasure glyphs are tactically not so different from a temporary glyph that can only be "triggered" by a hero. If they become really popular, we might see a bit more of Cyprien, Theracus, or similar heroes that can treasure-hunt really quickly.

That said, this is more of a metagame question than a map design question. Personally, I don't even like using temporary glyphs on most maps, let alone treasure glyphs. On a lot of maps, glyphs serve to draw action to areas that would otherwise see very little action, thus keeping the map from being nothing but a race for high ground. If the glyph disappears (or is "equipped" and can be run off with) as soon as a figure lands on it, then that effect is lost.

I think I prefer the random glyphs to be equidistant if it's for a tournament.

Yeah, the rats can grab both if they win initiative, but more than likely that means there's just two rats by each glyph and that's not the end of the world.

Especially if it takes three order markers to get there.

There is a bunch of luck in tournaments.

But me drawing an initiative + 8 for my home glyph and my opponent getting defense + 2 is the kind of luck I could do without.

(Of course if it went the other way, woo hoo! Game on!)