Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[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…)

[Typhon2222]

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…)

Welcome back, @Shurrig !

It sure is a great project.

[Foudzing]

Hi just to tell you I had some games on Turnmoil and it's obviously a great map.

[OEAO]

The Borogoves: (Shameless plug: HoundsRule and I played 4 games on The Borogoves over on his YouTube channel. You can check those out here.)

Up until a few years ago, this was the best 2x BftU 1x TJ map (not that there was a lot of competition in that space; I think this map is quite a bit better than Sirocco). However, I don't think the current version holds up in 2022.

Make no mistake: this is a 2 hills map. That in and of itself is not a death blow to a map, although it is a flag (not necessarily a red flag, but a flag nonetheless). 2 hill maps can work when the hills are balanced, interesting, challengeable, and navigable (although I'm not quite ready to write a treatise on 2 hill maps). Regardless, I don't think they quite work on this map.

My main issue is the three-hex wide chokepoint caused by the glyphs: rock outcrop, glyph, tree. And on the outside of the outcrop is the one level 4 hex, which functions as a speed bump. This makes it very difficult for someone to engage the opponent from even ground; rather, you often have to attack up the hill. And some games you have to attack up one hill, then attack up the other.

It's not a bad map, but it's definitely not the best map with this terrain combination, and it's not one that I have much desire to play again in its current version. NO to induct.



Percolator: I've already given many of my thoughts elsewhere in this thread, so I'll quote those here first:

"Percolator was my second favorite of the non-WoS maps in the ScapeCon II pool (only behind Desolation). Approaching the middle of the board is very balanced- you almost always develop partially to the center, and partially to one of the sides. I've had success going both directions, in large part thanks to the nice balance Ulysses has struck with jungle to the lower ground on the left, and the ruin and higher ground to the right.

This is also one of the first maps (the first?) to use 1x RotV, but doubling up on one of the ruins (in this case, the small). I'm a fan of this practice when it improves a map- especially when one of our maps, Battlefield 23, doesn't use any ruins."

"I think the most telling thing is how many people will confidently tell you left or right is better- it's a pretty even split. Personally, I prefer going right. But again, you never go just right or left- you're always going middle too. The ruin and quick access to level 3 (and better access to level 4) makes going right very good. But left is also good, with the jungle cover really balancing things out.

I also didn't mention it, but it obviously uses the same sets as your map Fulcrum. I think there's room in WoS for both. They're very different maps, and I don't have a strong preference either way- I like both quite a bit."

I'm not sure how much more I can say beyond this. This map is very balanced. The use of two small ruins here is great to prevent the chokepoint that the large ruin created. I don't dislike the water- it causes some interesting decisions, and it's been a while since the last time I've willingly moved into water to get another engagement (something I've done several times on this map). I also love the easy terrain requirements of this map- 1x RotV 1x TJ is very easy considering all the ways someone can acquire TJ (or one of the proxy versions) in the current market. YES to induct.



Desolation: I'm going to copy Dysole's nomination thoughts here:

"I played a fair chunk on this map at Scapecon and it was my favorite map in the pool. Lots of interesting choices in the center and sides. Hives make for cool decor. The split start zone can lead to some interesting choices with your army. There's a bit of an obvi Raelin perch but I didn't think it was that bad of a placement. Just lots of interesting things you can do on this map. I'm not great at saying what makes a map good but I thoroughly enjoyed playing this."

I couldn't agree more with her. I liked the original version of this map, but the changes Flash made to it in the months leading up to ScapeCon II really took it to the next level. He addressed my concerns (the old version allowed for turtling based on the previous placement of the Hives), made the middle more interesting, and tightened up the sides.

The level 3 sand Raelin perch is solid, but it's fairly far forward and exposed. It is not a safe guarantee, and I actually very rarely placed her there. She can't cover either glyph from there, which is often something I want my Raelin to do, and she is less than two moves away from your opponent's starting zone with just 5-move melee figures.

This map plays well. There are a decent number of landings (spaces that don't give up height to an adjacent space), creating lots of room for development. The heights are well-placed and interesting. I've enjoyed every game on this map, and I expect to see it at many ScapeCons in the future (in part thanks to its easy terrain requirements- how else am I going to use 18 SotM sets...). YES to induct.

[Vydar_XLIII]

Good Reviews!

Originally Posted by OEAO

This is also one of the first maps (the first?) to use 1x RotV, but doubling up on one of the ruins (in this case, the small). I'm a fan of this practice when it improves a map- especially when one of our maps, Battlefield_23, doesn't use any ruins."

What are your thoughts on taking this concept one step further?

There is a subtle difference between Percolator's requirements being "1x RotV, 1x TJ, and 1x Small Ruin" and "1x RotV with 2 small ruins, and 1x TJ".

If one sees it as the first, then the logic follows that one could use extra terrain pieces that are frequently left off of maps. The Hive (missing from Turmoil), the 3rd Jungle Tree (missing from Fulcrum), and the Fortress Door Archway (missing from Remains) all could be added to other maps that could use them for better symmetry. Opening up more design space for mapmakers while better maximizing a terrain collection.

If you see it as the second, I can see how the line gets drawn in the sand between "swapping ruins" and "adding a Hive".

How do you guys see this?

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Vydar_XLIII

Good Reviews!

What are your thoughts on taking this concept one step further?

There is a subtle difference between Percolator's requirements being "1x RotV, 1x TJ, and 1x Small Ruin" and 1x RotV with 2 small ruins, and 1x TJ".

If one sees it as the first, then the logic follows that one could use extra terrain pieces that are frequently left off of maps. The Hive (missing from Turmoil), the 3rd Jungle Tree (missing from Fulcrum), and the Fortress Door Archway (missing from Remains) all could be added to other maps that could use them for better symmetry. Opening up more design space for mapmakers while better maximizing a terrain collection.

If you see it as the second, I can see how the line gets drawn in the sand between "swapping ruins" and "adding a Hive".

How do you guys see this?

Great question!

That's actually a very similar premise to the last ScapeCon map contest, where we allowed the use of battlements and ladders (but prohibited the use of the castle set as a whole). Set requirements in general are a very good thing, but at least when it comes to building a map pool, I am very ok with certain logical rule fudging. I don't have a line set yet, and I don't want to get locked into a certain position on anything you mentioned at this time, but I think the three you've proposed are certainly logical expansions of that rule.

One of my favorite things about WoS is the lack of strict terrain limitations. If the swap is logical, I probably would not hold it against the map.

Edit: One other consideration is how widespread the omission is, rather than just whether a current WoS map omits it. Many maps don't use the castle door, the Hive, or one of the jungle trees.

Edit 2: Also, it's worth noting that a small one-piece swap is much easier on a tournament organizer than a map set, as a 2 or 3 map set that essentially needs to be built together is contingent on the organizer building both or each of those maps.

[superfrog]

For me it's also a question of "could you still play this map if you only had the base sets listed, and not the extra piece?"

If I wanted to build Percolator but only had 1x RotV, I totally still would. I might even fudge the rules and allow figures to move through the last bit of the large ruin.

By contrast, adding a 4th tree puts a map that's otherwise 1x TJ out of reach for anybody with a single jungle set.

Again, WoS has no terrain requirements so you can do what you want in submissions, but that's just my initial thought process.

[Dignan]

On the dual small ruin question, personally I'm against it. Firstly, I think working within at least some restrictions and finding a solution for the ruins is the sign of a good map maker. Yes, it is fun to just grab everything in the closet and build a huge map with whatever I have, but working within restrictions brings out some really creative solutions.

Secondly, I've grown to really dislike fully absolute symmetry in maps. One of my biggest pet peeves is seeing someone use the three and one hex glacier in the mirrored location of the four hex glacier. I've done it on some of my maps and I just think it looks bad. I think slightly asymmetrical maps are superior as long as the differences don't have a significant impact on the game.

Dual small ruins is a "break the 4th wall" moment in map making for me. I realize many won't have the same opinion, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

[Dignan]

Origin by Flash_19

I'll keep my review brief as my complaint largely focuses on one issue. The map isn't laid out well for effective LOS blocking. Getting LOS on a target is a trivial issue on this map and a range versus melee battle is a total bloodbath almost not even worth rolling the dice for. I realize this is a very difficult issue to overcome given the terrain restrictions, but there is at least one other map that more effectively gives melee a chance (Common Ground).

This issue could be at least somewhat avoided if the highest ground couldn't blast away at the glyphs, but sadly its a clear shot. I just don't find matches involving ranged units interesting on this map. Considering their prominence I vote NO.

[OEAO]

I'm not sure this is the best thread for this discussion, but I do think it's worth noting that Percolator was very much a balance adjustment after testing. I think that's pretty distinct from a map that sets out to specifically bend set limitations, and I do look more favorably upon that.

Like my colleagues, I don't want it to become the norm. However, I am open to the idea of bending it when it is the right decision.

[dok]

Origin by Flash_19

The last of the RotVx1 trio that was nominated was the only one I didn't have a ton of history on beforehand, but over the months I've gotten enough games in, and reviewed enough others, to have a vote ready.

Initially I was worried that I would find the middle of this map too lumpy and unfriendly to advancing across, but in practice I haven't found that to be a problem. In general, if it's a battle over the middle, melee has more than a fair chance against range, because most melee can win the race for those spots.

The recent discussion of double short ruins is funny because here is a map that could definitely benefit from double long ruins. Dignan isn't wrong that the LoS blockers are scant. However I've found the advanced placement of the ruin to be pretty solid for hiding figures before committing to an advance.

The biggest issue I have with this map is the isolated 7-hexer on each player's right. While these are not a dominant high ground position, they give very good ground with height against any approaching melee and control of the glyph. If one glyph is more important and a ranged army can get established in that spot, it can get ugly. That said, that position is pretty far advanced up the map, so in most cases the position can be contested.

I admit I'm a bit ambivalent about this map. It's definitely good. To be honest I still probably think Dry Season is a touch more reliable as a 1xRotV map that is harder to break in a wider range of matchups. However, I think having a 1xRotV map in WoS is important, and on the balance, I think this map is good enough to warrant that place. YES to induct.

[BiggaBullfrog]

Now that I've put a rough month behind me, let's review maps from Utah's two best map-makers!

(Yes, I'm claiming tannergx even though he doesn't live in Utah anymore because he was here during the height of his map-making days.)

Origin by @Flash_19


This map is very good, and the games I have either played or watched on it have generally gone smoothly. There are a lot of options for how to approach the battle on this map, and all of them have seemed viable.

My biggest concern on the map has been the islands of height on the edges, especially the 7-hex by the glyph. I have had games of melee attacking ranged groups on those spots, which has the potential to turn into a real grinder. However, the map does also support melee in that situation by giving units easy access to staging ground matching or higher than those islands, which means that, while they're attacking up when committing forces, they aren't losing as many figures while they're reinforcing.

Ultimately the map rewards a lot of different playstyles and game types, which is a big bonus for me. There are a lot of features to take advantage of (islands, center power spots, hidey holes behind ruins), and those features combine to make a top tier map. I vote YES to induct.

Trouble Once Lurked Beneath... by @tannergx


I am a big big fan of this map. It does a lot of things well: strong movement/development options despite its large size, dynamic height, and two very different but almost even sides of the board when looking at right vs left.

That said, the map is not without its flaws. For starters, the right- and left-side development options are indeed almost even, but I've always noticed a tendency towards the left since it is definitely safer. Going right gives you one of the strongest points on the board faster, but it always feels like more of a gamble since you'll be exposed while you're climbing, and it's harder to move a mass of figures that way in my experience. It's been the norm in most games for both players to favor the left side for safety.

The road is well-used on the map, but I feel that it is just barely short of being excellent, especially with lateral movement. As a two-hills map, you need any help you can get when moving side to side, and the speed dumps between those sides has made that journey feel just barely too long and too difficult. It is not by much, but enough to be noticeable when planning moves.

Also, I think gimme treasure glyphs are bad. While they're generally not as influential as power glyphs (if you have a good treasure glyph pool), having a freebie to grab with no contesting is, at best, just very uninteresting and, at worst, a roulette that feels unfair with certain hero/glyph combinations. (Side note that treasure glyphs are in a weird spot since they're less used and easy for tournament organizers to ignore (I ignore them on this map), but since they're in the build instructions I'm keeping this concern in. If it was the only concern it might not change my vote, but it does stack with the other flaws.)

Again, I do think this map is very good. (I'll almost definitely use it at more local events in the future.) That said, I do think it suffers from a few too many flaws that are just big enough to take it out from the best of the best. It's super close, and I'd love to see it tinkered with, but ultimately I vote NO to induct.