How do you test a map?

[rouby44]

Originally Posted by Warlord Alpha

First off, sorry if this has been posted somewhere. I did try searching but couldn't find anything. Perhaps it is buried away in a thread?

______________________________________________________________

Anyways, this has been something that I have been trying to figure out for quite a while now, especially after reading some of the stuff that goes on in the BoV thread. For some reason, I can't seem to figure out...

How do you test a map?

Take a look at the BoV thread if you haven't. I am always so impressed by the reviews the judges give the maps. Looking at the review and then at the map I always think to myself "Wow, I never would have thought that that map had X flaw or Y problem or really favored Q unit or P army." And it really makes me doubt the maps that I have made thus far (which is why I haven't made a map/scenario thread yet).

So, how do you test a map in such detail? This question is directed mainly towards the BoV judges, although anyone who has experience testing maps can chime in (which is why I felt this topic warranted its own thread). Do you use certain cookie-cutter army builds, such as a melee build, the vydar range pod, a fast moving army, a hero based army, a swarm-type army, etc? In my mind it might make sense to use certain armies, armies with a defining characteristic that might be more or less effective given a certain map, over and over again to ensure consistence. Is this usually how maps are tested?

One thing I saw a long time ago is somebody had like extra plastic left over from something and used it to mark where units had died, so I tried doing it with pieces of paper one time just for fun. I realized that that might be one of the things you do when you test a map, to ensure that all parts of the map are used. I see that comment a lot in the BoV map thread - either the entire map is used or some parts never see any action.

Also, is there certain things you look for before you even play a game? I know now, after reading somebody's review of Common Ground (I believe it was Nyys that did the review), that when I make a map I should look to see how many places a single spaced figure can stand in or move to in one turn that a double spaced figure cannot (luckily after giving all the maps I have converted to VS thus far a look-over all of them seem to be pretty double-spaced friendly). Are there any other things you look for before you even play a game besides aesthetics? Better yet, are there things that make you want to click that download link the second you see the picture?

______________________________________________________________

In summary, How do you test a map? Bottom line is, I don't know for sure, but what I do know is that a lot of you guys sure do know how to. Any insight would be great.

Thanks.

Great question to bring up, and one that ProtoFury might consider addressing in his Designing Valhalla thread.

The "play a lot of games on it" approach can work if you have infinite time and a vast assortment of figures, but there's certainly more efficient and informed ways of analyzing a map for balance. I could probably wind up writing a 10-page manual of specific things to consider, but for now I'll stick to the most basic principles.

In my mind, the main principles to consider boil down to these:
1. Is the map symmetrical (asymmetric maps can be balanced, but it is much harder to balance them, and it definitely requires more of the play-test-till-you're-sick-of-it approach)?
2. Where are the high points?
2. Who can reach the high points and how quickly and efficiently can they do so?
3. Who can't reach the high points (e.g., Do some places require flying or other special powers to reach? Do some map features prevent two-hexed figures from reach a point?)
4. How close are the start zones to one another, and can any units unleash devastating attacks on the first turn or two?
5. Have sufficient considerations been made for melee figures? Are there points on the map that are advantageous to ranged figures that will require an inordinate amount of turns for melee figures to reach?
6. Do any specific units "break" the map?
7. Glyphs...

Now I will briefly elaborate on some of these basic principles:

1. Symmetrical maps at least offer the same terrain to deal with to each player. For a more thorough discussion on this issue, see the Asymmetric Map Workshop.

4. A threat to balance comes with the ability to launch powerful attacks on the first few turns of the game into the enemy's start zone. The main unit to watch out for here is Zelrig - Mimring and the AE to a much lesser extent.

5. I always ask myself, "Does this map give an army composed of 50% or more melee units any realistic chance of winning?". Everyone understands that ranged units have a major edge over non-ranged units in the metagame, but ranged units can gain an even greater edge on maps designed by someone who has ignored this fact.

Many amateur mapmakers exacerbate the power discrepancy between range and melee by designing valleys that melee figures are forced into, while ranged figures may sit back comfortably on their little hills blasting anything that dares approach. Don't make maps like this! Unfortunately, the best (worst?) example of this that I can think of is a map that won a contest, Knophree Pass, based on a popularity vote, because it looks pretty and players can easily imagine themselves turtling on a hill next to their start zone making mincemeat of any figure that comes near (for some reason, they like that). Again, this is an example of a horribly imbalanced map.

Most maps should also have intentionally and strategically placed line-of-sight blockers such as trees, ruins, glaciers, jungle terrain, and the like to give melee figures a fighting chance. Wide-open maps might be balanced for a shoot-out between ranged figures, but they certainly aren't balanced for the majority of units available.

6. Do any units break the map? A unit that "breaks the map" would be one that possesses abilities that could confer competitiveness beyond a reasonable level. Units to especially watch out for include:

Airborne Elite (the drop + range)
Mimring (flight + range)
Nilfheim (flight + range)
Protectors of Ullar (flight + range)
Theracus (flight plus carrying a ranged figure)
Saylind (flight plus summoning a ranged figure)
Zelrig (flight + range)

As you can easily notice, the way by which the above units could break a map is through reaching a spot that is invulnerable to melee and then attacking without possibility of retaliation. This is especially important to watch out for on maps that utilize a lot of fortress terrain or simply have extreme variations in height.

7. Many of the official glyphs are extremely powerful. I won't get into a deep discussion of specific ones here, because I'm sure a search could turn up good information, but suffice it to say that I really only utilize a few of the glyphs in my maps.

Glyphs that are valuable without being game-breaking, in my opinion, are: move, initiative, luck, wound, unique attack, and intercept order.

Ones that I avoid due to being overly powerful include: attack, common attack, and defense +2.

All the others lie somewhere in between or are very situational, such as Rannveig (anti-flight). For instance, see my map Cold Mountain for an example of a map where Rannveig is not only reasonable, but almost necessary.
______________________________________________

I definitely have a lot more to say on the matter, but alas, I grow weary of typing. You can find a brief sketch of general map considerations that I began putting together here. They are not thoroughly discussed though, because I was writing for a different audience there, namely for ProtoFury, who is preparing to write a manifesto on map design principles called "Designing Valhalla", so look forward to that and take a look at his map thread to join the discussion.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by rouby44

Great question to bring up, and one that ProtoFury might consider addressing in his Designing Valhalla thread.


I definiltely have a lot more to say on the matter, but alas, I grow weary of typing. You can find a brief sketch of general map considerations that I began putting together here. They are not thoroughly discussed though, because I was writing for a different audience there, namely for ProtoFury, who is preparing to write a manifesto on map design principles called "Designing Valhalla", so look forward to that and take a look at his map thread to join the discussion.

Thank you for the promotion, rouby! Heh and I agree, this is a thread I had been reading through earlier, and is stuff that I can really include on Designing Valhalla. I will include this at least for your consideration, Warlord, which expands on a point rouby made about height and who can get where in a map.

When I design a map, especially a map that takes into account a lot of height (i.e. Gransoth Falls, Ecdinox Pass, and the like), one of the key thing I focus on is how my tiles are stacked. I usually offer many ways to get to the top of something, whether it be a small embankment allowing a little height advantage over a specific high-risk, high-reward area, or whether it be a large mountain that is the central focus of the map. First, I offer players what my look like the easiest route up. A small staircase usually does the trick, and looks nice and sleek too. Ocasionally, I use ladders for things other than walls, but I never put them right at the key point of a high-ground. You still have to work for it. And finally, I most often include the steep route, which looks like the most inconvenient way to get up.

In fact, the steep routes up to the high areas, in my maps, are the best ways to get up. I NEVER create a "step" that is more than three levels high, because the lowest move is 4, and anyone with a move of 7 and under can only get up one "stair" per turn, sans Flying. Usually, this requires at least 2 turns to get up the side of something if I make it really steep, but for the effort put in, I place it closer to the key point. When I use easier-looking "stairways," with a series of level increases going up 1-hex each turn--it is the least favorably option. Ging up a step that takes you up three levels, eats up one turn of move, but going up a stairway that takes you up just as much height usues much more move. For instance:



It takes the Tarn Viking Warrior on the left 4 turns to get to the (extremely) high gound, using a steep acess route. For the Viking on the right, it takes 6 turns, although the passage up the mountain looks less steep. The passage on the right also takes a lot more terrain to make. This also plays into piece conservation, key to making a good map.

Now this is an extreme example, and I know that very few people would make a passageway that long to get up to the mountain, but I do see small variants of it here and there. Making a small road like that as the only way to get up somewhere is costly as far as terrain, and it also makes the battle drag on. As long as something like this is kept to a minimum, your battlefield won't run into too many of these kinds of problems.

And, my advice to you would be, go ahead and post your maps! They're not going to be perfect at first, but no one's are! Part of the whole posting your maps process is allowing other people to look at your maps, playtest them, and offer suggestions you may not have ever thoght of. It's all a learning experience.

[dok]

Great stuff rouby44. Next time, wait until I've spread the rep around.

Originally Posted by rouby44

6. Do any units break the map? A unit that "breaks the map" would be one that possesses abilities that could confer competitiveness beyond a reasonable level. Units to especially watch out for include:

Airborne Elite (the drop + range)
Mimring (flight + range)
Nilfheim (flight + range)
Protectors of Ullar (flight + range)
Theracus (flight plus carrying a ranged figure)
Saylind (flight plus summoning a ranged figure)
Zelrig (flight + range)

As you can easily notice, the way by which the above units could break a map is through reaching a spot that is invulnerable to melee and then attacking without possibility of retaliation. This is especially important to watch out for on maps that utilize a lot of fortress terrain or simply have extreme variations in height.

To take that in a slightly different direction - another figure I would consider is rats. If the map has a narrow choke point that must be navigated, then rats can block that spot and be pretty dominant in a lot of matchups.

Originally Posted by rouby44

Glyphs that are valuable without being game-breaking, in my opinion, are: move, initiative, luck, wound, unique attack, and intercept order.

Good list. Healer can also work well on the right maps, as can wind. Including wind can balance a map that is otherwise really strong for fliers, as you note later.

Originally Posted by rouby44

Ones that I avoid due to being overly powerful include: attack, common attack, and defense +2.

The attack glyphs can occasionally be used to draw figures to a part of the map that would otherwise not see action. Turret Rocks is a great example of using the Astrid glyph to keep the game from being simply a race for the height.

I don't like Gerda (def +1) as much because it slows the game down, but if you don't mind that then it works the same way. Jalgard (def +2) is just crazy, though.

[Warlord Alpha]

Exellent posts guys. This is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

______________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by rouby44

a gigantic post

Excellent points Rouby. So, how would you go about looking for those things? For example, would you make an army of fliers, or a dragon army, and see if it consistently beats other armies? Some of those things seem to be easier than others to look for.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Spoiler Alert!

When I design a map, especially a map that takes into account a lot of height (i.e. Gransoth Falls, Ecdinox Pass, and the like), one of the key thing I focus on is how my tiles are stacked. I usually offer many ways to get to the top of something, whether it be a small embankment allowing a little height advantage over a specific high-risk, high-reward area, or whether it be a large mountain that is the central focus of the map. First, I offer players what my look like the easiest route up. A small staircase usually does the trick, and looks nice and sleek too. Ocasionally, I use ladders for things other than walls, but I never put them right at the key point of a high-ground. You still have to work for it. And finally, I most often include the steep route, which looks like the most inconvenient way to get up.

In fact, the steep routes up to the high areas, in my maps, are the best ways to get up. I NEVER create a "step" that is more than three levels high, because the lowest move is 4, and anyone with a move of 7 and under can only get up one "stair" per turn, sans Flying. Usually, this requires at least 2 turns to get up the side of something if I make it really steep, but for the effort put in, I place it closer to the key point. When I use easier-looking "stairways," with a series of level increases going up 1-hex each turn--it is the least favorably option. Ging up a step that takes you up three levels, eats up one turn of move, but going up a stairway that takes you up just as much height usues much more move. For instance:



It takes the Tarn Viking Warrior on the left 4 turns to get to the (extremely) high gound, using a steep acess route. For the Viking on the right, it takes 6 turns, although the passage up the mountain looks less steep. The passage on the right also takes a lot more terrain to make. This also plays into piece conservation, key to making a good map.

Now this is an extreme example, and I know that very few people would make a passageway that long to get up to the mountain, but I do see small variants of it here and there. Making a small road like that as the only way to get up somewhere is costly as far as terrain, and it also makes the battle drag on. As long as something like this is kept to a minimum, your battlefield won't run into too many of these kinds of problems.

Interesting. So, to make a long story short, keeping all parts of the map fairly easily accessible to ALL figures is something to consider?

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

And, my advice to you would be, go ahead and post your maps! They're not going to be perfect at first, but no one's are! Part of the whole posting your maps process is allowing other people to look at your maps, playtest them, and offer suggestions you may not have ever thoght of. It's all a learning experience.

Ehhh, that doesn't sound like a very good idea. I'm quite honestly terrified of posting my maps now. Before, it was like "Hmm, maybe it isn't perfect but this looks pretty good." Now, its "Oh dammit, I have no idea if this is the ****tiest piece of crap ever made or if it is good." I don't want to embarrass myself.

Originally Posted by dok

To take that in a slightly different direction - another figure I would consider is rats. If the map has a narrow choke point that must be navigated, then rats can block that spot and be pretty dominant in a lot of matchups.

Oh god. See, I don't own rats, so it is something I never take into consideration. I think one of my maps might have a giant problem with them...

Originally Posted by dok

The attack glyphs can occasionally be used to draw figures to a part of the map that would otherwise not see action. Turret Rocks is a great example of using the Astrid glyph to keep the game from being simply a race for the height.

I don't like Gerda (def +1) as much because it slows the game down, but if you don't mind that then it works the same way. Jalgard (def +2) is just crazy, though.

Yeah, Jalgard is ridiculous. What about Dagmar and the others though? What glyphs are good no matter what?

[ProtoFury]

Heh well like rouby posted once about Ecdinox Pass, he said how he could break my map with a few figures. It showed me I forgot to put a Glyph of Rannveig in there. It was extremely helpful.

That kind of input is essential. And I don't have rats either, heck, I don't even know why people hate them so much, I have no idea what they do. But what I try to do is keep all of my maps balanced, so that any army has a shot. (Ignore my lastest map, Skorlian Trench, here. That's mostly for ranged figures.)

I've said before, that the key thing to building a map is originality. As long as your map is original, it can be the biggest crap-map in the world--but at least it was yours. Right under originality comes the custom-mapmaking trifecta--Playabilty, Believability, and Aesthetics. These are all extremely important in their own right, and you want to go for an excellent balance between the three. There's plenty of maps that look amazing--but they aren't believable or playable. You can make the most competetive map ever--but people may not like it if it doesn't look good or doesn't make sense (having hot lava tiles running through a smap would be a great example of both of these problems). And You can have the most believable map ever created, and it can have terribly playability and bad aesthetics. Something like: "I made a large, flat lowlands map with a stream and one small hill!" would be a perfect example. Are there actually places like that? Of course. Would we want to fight there? Not at all. Not unless there was something special about it.

Basically, as long as your map is original, balanced (it doesn't have to be symmetrical--a lot of my maps are asymmetrical but work well--i.e., The Ruins of Castle Stejos and The City of Minos Tauer, both on my thread), makes sense, and is pleasing to the eye, you've hit all four of the main designing principles. Then you can post it up here, for us to oment on and give advice. My maps aren't anywhere near perfect--no one's are--everyone will have their own likes and dislikes. As long as you like it, post it! If you have to go through multiple phases to get o where you like it, so be it. I had to rebuild Skorlian Trench a few times to get it to where I liked it--same basic idea, three totally different builds. Gransoth Falls is one that I remade like 11 times to get it to finally come together with all the pieces I had at the time! I guess what I'm saying is, don't be ashamed of your work. You put good effort into it, so don't be afraid to post them--we're not going to eat you alive, we just want to offer advice and assistance where necessary!

As far as Glypphs go, I enjoy using them and using a plentiful amount of them, but only on my bigger maps. On my smaller maps, I use less and allow the players to rely on their own strategies, strengths, and weaknesses. It's a matter of personal choice.


And sorry that I only use my maps as examples--I do so because I know exactly what was going through my mind at the time I was building it, why I built it, and so on. It's not some kind of blatant self-promotion or anything.

[Warlord Alpha]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

And sorry that I only use my maps as examples--I do so because I know exactly what was going through my mind at the time I was building it, why I built it, and so on. It's not some kind of blatant self-promotion or anything.

But blatant self-promotion is fun!

______________________________________________________________


Anyways, I guess I will post something then. Just for you Proto, just for you. I don't have a name for it or anything yet but I played a couple games on it.

Spoiler Alert!

It is probably the most simple map I will ever make in my entire life. It also uses a really small amount of terrain and no water, which makes me think I was possessed while building it.

So, aside from the map probably having tons of issues I am unaware of, how would you go about testing it to make sure it isn't terrible?

[ProtoFury]

Heh I guess blatant self-promotion can be fun... I'll have to look into it!

And actually, that map isn't bad at all to me! I like the simplicity of it, and the very limited amount of cover makes the central area a key spot for melee, while also making it a risky venture to stay there for long due to the hills on the side. I would say you may run up against a turting situation with start zones being so close to the hills, but not that bad of one, I don't think. Overall, I like the map! I need to get better at making simple maps... :P

[Lamaclown]

Excellent posts, gentlemen!

I fit in the camp that doesn't have oodles and oodles of time to playtest so I make good use of what the veteran mapmakers have to say. This cuts down the trial-and-error playtesting time (although nothing can replace physically playtesting a map).

Here are some of the resources I continually refer back to:

HS Codex

Issue #2
38 Building a Better Map

39 Cartography with Oogie

Issue #3

58 Cartography with Oogie - Hot Lava Anyone?

Issue #5

48 Velenne on Map Construction

Issue #9

52 Map Building Tips

Issue #10

45 Advanced Map Building Techiques

Issue #11
51 Basic Map Features

You can download the Codex here.

[rednax]

Originally Posted by Warlord Alpha

But blatant self-promotion is fun!

______________________________________________________________


Anyways, I guess I will post something then. Just for you Proto, just for you. I don't have a name for it or anything yet but I played a couple games on it.

Spoiler Alert!

It is probably the most simple map I will ever make in my entire life. It also uses a really small amount of terrain and no water, which makes me think I was possessed while building it.

So, aside from the map probably having tons of issues I am unaware of, how would you go about testing it to make sure it isn't terrible?

I'll start off with the positives of the map.

1. Symmetrical. I love symmetrical. You even managed to use the big fat tree, while keeping it symmetrical. And you know, you can use two more trees. No one really cares about the 2 height difference.

2. Good line of sight blockers.

3. I like the shape of the map a lot, and really like how rock is on top of rock, and how grass is on top of grass.

Here's the one thing I don't like about the map: The height.

Generally, a good map has multiple "hills" which you do, although the grassy ones aren't very high, and give you no motivation to claim them, even though they are closer to your start zone. Most players wouldn't go there, when higher height is so close by. And, if you change your mind, and want to go from the grassy hill to the rocky hill, you don't have to make a very far trip.

So, I think this is a very good, simple map. And I'm sure you're maps will get better.

Some of my favorite cartographers' (Ch1can0, Dignan, nyys, Longheroscaper, etc.) first maps, I don't like as much. But then they went on to be mapmakers extraordinaire.

And, if Dr. Weirdscaper ever does make something BoV size, I'll add him to my list.

Spoiler Alert!

Nice couch!

[Warlord Alpha]

Originally Posted by rednax

I'll start off with the positives of the map.

1. Symmetrical. I love symmetrical. You even managed to use the big fat tree, while keeping it symmetrical. And you know, you can use two more trees. No one really cares about the 2 height difference.

I know, I just couldn't find a good place to put them. I didn't want to restrict melee units too much.

2. Good line of sight blockers.

Indeed. There were more than a few moments in our games when a shot could not be taken because those ruins blocked LOS.

3. I like the shape of the map a lot, and really like how rock is on top of rock, and how grass is on top of grass.

The shape is a funny story, I couldn't use my normal table (which is gigantic), so for whatever reasons I used that small coffee table. The long, slender table forced me to make a map that would fit perfectly on it. And about the rock bit, I always can't stand it when terrain is all mis-matched. OCD perfectionist FTW.

Here's the one thing I don't like about the map: The height.

Generally, a good map has multiple "hills" which you do, although the grassy ones aren't very high, and give you no motivation to claim them, even though they are closer to your start zone. Most players wouldn't go there, when higher height is so close by. And, if you change your mind, and want to go from the grassy hill to the rocky hill, you don't have to make a very far trip.

The kinda elevated grassy area plateau-ish thing is mostly just an incentive to evacuate your start zone. It also helps break up the map a little bit too. The little grassy hill you are talking about (the 2-hex one, right?) actually came into play more than you would think. One thing I did while playing against my friend's pile of stingers on the hill was run my units way over below the hill. That was just out of range of his stingers, and if he wanted to attack me he would have to leave his perch, height advantage, and map control behind. So, he sends his melee units after me. Luckily, that little two hex piece there gave me height advantage. Granted, it won't work against a lot of ranged units, but if an even somewhat fast melee unit gets over there the ranged units on the hill are in trouble.

So, I think this is a very good, simple map. And I'm sure you're maps will get better.

Some of my favorite cartographers' (Ch1can0, Dignan, nyys, Longheroscaper, etc.) first maps, I don't like as much. But then they went on to be mapmakers extraordinaire.

And, if Dr. Weirdscaper ever does make something BoV size, I'll add him to my list.

Hmmm...sounds like a compliment! I'll take it!

Spoiler Alert!

Nice couch!

____________________________________________

Hmmm, this seems to have turned into my de-facto map thread. Whatever though, it's my thread so I am allowed to hijack it.

I guess i'm going to have to go and make a map thread in a little while.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by Warlord Alpha

The shape is a funny story, I couldn't use my normal table (which is gigantic), so for whatever reasons I used that small coffee table. The long, slender table forced me to make a map that would fit perfectly on it. And about the rock bit, I always can't stand it when terrain is all mis-matched. OCD perfectionist FTW.


The kinda elevated grassy area plateau-ish thing is mostly just an incentive to evacuate your start zone. It also helps break up the map a little bit too. The little grassy hill you are talking about (the 2-hex one, right?) actually came into play more than you would think. One thing I did while playing against my friend's pile of stingers on the hill was run my units way over below the hill. That was just out of range of his stingers, and if he wanted to attack me he would have to leave his perch, height advantage, and map control behind. So, he sends his melee units after me. Luckily, that little two hex piece there gave me height advantage. Granted, it won't work against a lot of ranged units, but if an even somewhat fast melee unit gets over there the ranged units on the hill are in trouble.

I'm extremely MAOCD (Map Aesthetics OCD) myself, and I hate even being forced to use tiles like lava field tiles when stacking, if you can see them. In Ponsike Mountain, it bugged me so much that in the bio (or scenario, I don't remember which) I made something up about thehils being rich with irn-ore. This would make the hills have some red color in them, in real life. I doubt anyone got that (or cares), but that little disclaimer settled a lot for me!

And about the second paragraph I quoted--that's a very well thought-out (and playtested) explanation. THAT is the kinda thing you need to think about when building your map, and from the loks of it, even in this simple setup, you nailed it.

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Warlord Alpha

Spoiler Alert!

I love the simplicity of the map too! Could you post the instructions to make it, please? I would give you +rep if again if I didn't earlier...

MegaSilver, Unit Debate Master