|
Maps & Scenarios Battlegrounds and scenarios |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Even when hosting a tourney in your area, it can be rough getting 20 master sets together and prebuilt especially with the expansion sets. I only own 3, so I have to do a lot of legwork to get up to 20.
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorry I've been absent a few days. I was moving all my possessions 425 miles away and closing on a house. BTW, I've got a kid and Halloween was in there. Needless to say I've been busy. Glyphs: I can't believe there was a 2 page debate on this. Thought it was settled. Maps will be accepted regardless of whether someone puts glyphs on it or not. Maps will be accpeted for nomination whether glyphs are revealed or not. We decided that before we started. Go look at the bylaws. Now, when we get to voting ... I suggest we vote for how the map is set up considering glyphs and vote yes or no. If we can offer suggestions that the glyphs are the only problem with balance we can say so as we decline it. Then they can resubmitt it with new glyphs. Whether we as judges of maps like exposed glyphs, hidden glyphs, no glyphs. Doesn't really matter. Play the map as designed. Does it meet the criteria for acceptence in your opinon? If so, vote yes. End of story. Is Forsaken Waters balanced? Yes. My vote is yes exactly as its written in the scenerio book by Hasbro. Now the only problem I see is starting spaces. Looks like the solution to that was decided by adding additional spot spaces already on the board. Good enough. My vote for Forsaken Waters is yes. I've played it dozens of times. Its balanced. Don't have a problem with the glyphs. In case its a week or so before you hear from me again. That's my vote. DUND is underestimated and under-rated. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ok ok, Indicate suggested glyph locations on the map, etc. All future use of the word "mark" shall be replaced by "egoist" Seriously though, thanks to everyone putting time into this project, it is a huge venture. |
#54
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
From now on, I say we don't change a thing on any submitted map. This has been a nightmare. Quote:
Argh, I just can't let a start zone post slip by Quote:
I think this is a core issue. It's why I wanted multiple "start zone and glyph" layers. It's why I don't like random glyphs, or if they are random, to specify the glyph pool that is used to populate the random glyphs. I want to provide event organizers with specific play experiences. R˙chean, it seems you want to provide event organizers with a map prototype, something they can change and mod for their event. I'm not comfortable judging map prototypes. I want to help tournament participants directly by judging maps they will use. I thought I had a good idea by eventually creating a directory of good tournament maps that event organizers can pick from and provide as is to the participants. Of course they have the final say, but we could make it so easy that they would have no reason to muck around with glyphs or start zones. We would do that for them. There are a lot of event organizers out there, and if they feel they have to change the maps we judge to enhance their ease of setup or player's enjoyment then we fail. The participants are playing versions of maps that we didn't approve so why did we bother approving them in the first place. There are a lot of versions of maps that suck, and a lot of versions that suck subtly. Event organizers can't always detect maps the suck subtly, especially when they are modifications of good maps. We need to provide event organizers enough good maps that they will not go around changing the ones we've approved. Quote:
Quote:
I don't regret going through this process with FW. It helped flesh out a lot of different aspects of this project. I do think we need to move on, as trying to collectively design this map is killing us. Quote:
This thread will stay focused on good map design, as stated in our bylaws because that is the HOW. We will also focus on event hosting, because that is the WHY. These maps are judged specifically so that people will have even more fun at tournaments. These maps are judged to increase the Tournament Participant's experience. To be a resource to event coordinators, we have to talk about event hosting. In order to be of ANY value we need to encourage event coordinators to use the maps we judge. If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging. Sudema is top notch in Heroscape: Legacy. Try out this alternative unit cost system at your next game day or tournament. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
“Heroscapers is too old for that crap.” ~IamBatman "Hahahah! You losers! I told you so!!" ~Clancampbell |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Also on a side note I don't think any of these maps should include more than one copy of any given expansion. If a person is hosting an event the supplies to reproduce the maps needs to be kept to a bare minimum.
“Heroscapers is too old for that crap.” ~IamBatman "Hahahah! You losers! I told you so!!" ~Clancampbell |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
The others judges need to chime in on FW as I don't see any further value in debating it's worthiness. We do need to move on. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
I thought the discussion about whether we are going to be map editors or map judges had already been decided. I thought we decided we were going to be map judges, and NOT map editors.
It was understood the first map we would review was the Forsaken Water with the Winter Holdout setup. It was a trial run. From the looks of it, we are no longer looking to review this particular map and setup. We are now, it appears, looking at a modified version of this map. If so, it looks to me like its a modification. And this may not be needed, but should be pointed out for future reference. Ordinarily, if the required number of us don't agree that the submitted map passes our scrutiny, then we would vote to reject. If that map was modified by somone in the community and resubmitted, it would then have to get a vote for nomination (WHICH, does NOT require it to have been played by judges). For a map to be voted on by the judges, it is, by our bylaws, to have been played by the judges. I have yet to play the modified FW map presented above and so am not ready to vote on that version until I do. The way I understand it the follow votes were cast for FW: Winter Holdout, unmodified: Me-- For Cornpuff -- Against Eclipse -- Against Rychan -- Against I don't have time to see if Rev and UPC chimmed in above. But that pretty much seems to settle it if I understand correctly how these judges have voted on the published version of this map. So, I do think it would be appropriate to ask for a vote of judges on a NOMINATION of the modified FW map posted by R˙chean if that's what judges want to consider. It says nothing in our bylaws about editing a map (there was a discussion about this). If this is the route we want to take, then I would vote yes on its nomination. On a personal note to Cornpuff, I see evertime someone chimes in with "I don't agree with 24 start spaces" that you chime in with basically , "Yeah, I told that. I think one day they'll listen." At least that's how it comes across to me. We all know your position on this. It doesn't really help anything to revisit it and it only serves to frustrate me (maybe others). Its not like this is the ONLY thing you've chimed in about .. such as multiple layers of maps. All I'm trying to say is if you get outvoted, let it go. Accept the decision and move on like its your own. I got outvoted on the unmodified version of FW: Winter Holdout. Ok, cool. Let's move on and decide what we do next and how we do it. No problem. I guess, I'm just saying, be cool man. DUND is underestimated and under-rated. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Hey, if you all are waiting on nominations I would like to nominate this one:
Mole Hill (Jonathan map) link. I played on this map at our last tourney. I was decimated by an army I thought would never have a chance against my army. The map had nothing to do with it. I actually think my army might have had an acheles heel or maybe I was too confident in DED. “Heroscapers is too old for that crap.” ~IamBatman "Hahahah! You losers! I told you so!!" ~Clancampbell |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
I have played this map (Jonathan's Mole Hill) well over 10 times but I will wait for others to have a chance to review before I post my opinions and vote.
Judges, please use this link. The map was modified for tourney play with Glyphs and Ruins added; start zones are the 24 hex rock tiles on each end. |