Question Dump: Post Your Questions Here.

[flameslayer93]

As a tournement attendee, I’m not bothered too much if a map is imbalanced one way or another too much. It’s not going to ruin my day, or future attendence. We like to change maps for each event, so you can always consider that to be an option.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Well, some "opinions" are better informed than others, and some are supported by greater consensus. Ember Canyon Road is not, in my opinion, well-suited for tournament play, despite its presence in the BoV. And by "in my opinion," I don't mean I don't like the map. What I mean is, it's not suitable for tournament play.

This. It doesn't matter whether a map was "fun" to play on that one time you built it. What matters is that it will create balanced games that doesn't immediately make a matchup unwinnable simply because a map heavily favors one type of army over another. No one wants to sit down to an auto-loss. A bad map is a bad map.

For the record, I created the GenCon map pool this year. I fully admit that I screwed up by including Burial Marsh; it's a bad map. My apologies to all that had to play on it (including myself). The rest were all solid to excellent maps.

I'm planning on adding in non-BoV maps that I've played on to my Tier List as well, seeing as being BoV or not really doesn't matter.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

...No one wants to sit down to an auto-loss...

Doesn't some responsibility for this sit with a player who knew the maps and brought whatever that auto-loss army is anyway?

I like the way that a TD's taste in maps can change the metagame for a particular event.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by ollie

Doesn't some responsibility for this sit with a player who knew the maps and brought whatever that auto-loss army is anyway?

I like the way that a TD's taste in maps can change the metagame for a particular event.

Maybe, but my goal as a TO is to let as many possible armies be playable. I don't want anything that is reasonably competitive to be shut out because of my poor decision on maps.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Maybe, but my goal as a TO is to let as many possible armies be playable. I don't want anything that is reasonably competitive to be shut out because of my poor decision on maps.

But my point is that the definition of "reasonably competitive [for a specific event]" should be decided /after/ the maps are announced, not before. I don't buy the idea that because a unit is listed at B+ in the power rankings, say, that something has gone wrong if it's not B+ at a particular event.

[Dad_Scaper]

Isolated occurrences of a map not sucking are not evidence that the map should be used.

[ollie]

If that's directed at me, I think I'm claiming something you'll like even less: Consistent occurrences of a map sucking are not evidence that a map should not be used.

A tournament where all the maps are heavy snow, slippery ice, hot lava, gloopy swamp and generally really difficult to navigate would be good fun. If you bring Knights because the power rankings tell you that they are good, then you're the one doing it wrong.

[Dad_Scaper]

Please don’t concern yourself needlessly with my posts when I’ve been drinking. I thought we’d discussed that already, Ollie.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Please don’t concern yourself needlessly with my posts when I’ve been drinking. I thought we’d discussed that already, Ollie.

I forgot. I've been drinking too.




Wait.





Can other people see us?

[Dad_Scaper]

We were at the home base of one of America’s finest breweries, Dogfish Head. In order, I enjoyed a Blood and Flesh, a Firefly, and a Seaquench. All superior beverages for a summertime adult.

Also, I’m now having a glass of pinot grigio. And the answer to your question is “I don’t think so.”

[kevindola]

Interesting side discussion on whose fault it is when a one-sided map set is used.

I once played at a tournament with 6 map and glyph combinations all predetermined. 2 of the 6 used Thorian. A playoff loser vehemently decried the use of Thorian as a glyph when his all normal range army fell in the playoffs.

In general I agree about Thorian's competitive balance, but at the same time if you knew you would have to play two games that used the glyph of Thorian to win the tournament, was it Thorian's fault you brought an army that would have a difficult time in that environment?

edit: for those who know my tastes, it may not surprise you to know I lean more towards ollie's take on this in general

[flameslayer93]

@OrcElfArmyOne

What’s wrong with Burial Marsh, in your opinion? It looks like a pretty fun map, albeit it that it punishes cavalry units.