Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

- a Glyph on lvl 3 would be a first (all WoS maps have 0 or 1 for glyphs except Platypus) so I'm not surprised that ruffled feathers, but again...this specific, weak glyph is intentional...so it HAS to have height around it in order to give ample opportunity to contest. Would you prefer the glyph on lvl 3 be isolated on it's own? no, because then the glyph becomes a strong high point. At it's location, there is plenty of height to contest it...and even then it's only relevant at end-of-round so you're not really gaining any bonus or fighting for it DURING the round. my tests proved it was useful to have when you gained the position sure...but there was ample opportunity for counterplay, especially with the lowground shadow to attack up on the height of the rock.

So I haven't played Caothland yet, but I would do the same comment as I did on Beachfront Eddy in your map thread (both are similar maps) I don't think the high level side needs a glyph, and if it does, I'm fine with Lodin or a treasure glyph, not very fine with Dagmar as, as I said, it's a strong glyph to me (and even less with Kelda).
I reiterate that I haven't played on it and you surely make an interesting point with your second paragraph about the rock side not being that strong due to the fast swamp side. It's suprising but interesting to me, I would not dare to say you are wrong without playing on it extensively.
In my experience a "low and fast" lane, with the intended goal to strike before your opponnent even get height, is difficult to make it work and most map trying to do that fail but some do make it work (Hellsgate, Embattled Fen, Battlefield23, Turnmoil to a lesser extent).
For what's worth I agree with you on this point, the fact that side is fast is more an upside than a downside to me.

If you think Flash is wrong you should definitely let Caothland through the process, a judge may be wrong that's partly why a map requires 2 downvotes to be refused.

[Flash_19]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

While your comments and review on Slated is fair...I'll have to disagree pretty much on every point of your assessment on Caothland.

- Development for 6-move figures is a fair critique...but I'd point out that Turmoil allows a 5:2 ratio for lvl 3 development. Better than 7:1 sure...but still...that's one aspect of a map that doesn't necessarily break it...no map is perfect.

- Interesting you felt the rock section got the most play. I've played on this map probably more than anyone, and the fast development on the low half (intentional) is quite advantageous as you can go low ground, then hop up on the opponents side of the rock to try and gain advantage from there before they get setup. MANY of my games have played for the low ground "speed run" because of how quickly you can advance to your opponents position to lock them up while they develop.

- The DC comment makes no sense. there's literally 1 space (same level) where a DC can engage into the SZ on turn 1. That's FAR from broken, especially when 2 inducted maps already allow that to happen. Dance of the Dryads allows a turn 1 SZ engagement (same level) by a DC and Turmoil allows 2 SZ engagements (from HEIGHT)! I reject that assessment as a fault of this map.

- a Glyph on lvl 3 would be a first (all WoS maps have 0 or 1 for glyphs except Platypus) so I'm not surprised that ruffled feathers, but again...this specific, weak glyph is intentional...so it HAS to have height around it in order to give ample opportunity to contest. Would you prefer the glyph on lvl 3 be isolated on it's own? no, because then the glyph becomes a strong high point. At it's location, there is plenty of height to contest it...and even then it's only relevant at end-of-round so you're not really gaining any bonus or fighting for it DURING the round. my tests proved it was useful to have when you gained the position sure...but there was ample opportunity for counterplay, especially with the lowground shadow to attack up on the height of the rock.

- WoS maps with lvl3 jungle coverage: Battlefield 23, Fulcrum, Percolator.
Hexes of coverage, respectively: 2, 10, 6
Adjacent lvl4 to "counter" position, respectively: 0, 4, 0
Caothland sits at 6 spaces of coverage on lvl3 with 2 spaces of lvl4 that can attack down on 4/6 of the lvl3 jungle spaces adjacent. For lvl3 jungle being considered so strong, I'd say that's pretty good counterplay to allow adjacent lvl4...especially when 2 out of the 3 inducted maps that allow lvl3 jungle coverage have literally NO such counterplay.

----

That all said, I appreciate the feedback and the time ya'll have spent reviewing. Please remove all my current maps in the queue from further review.

Thank you.

Thanks for your response - I appreciate your thoughts and while I don't express it often enough in my reviews, I really do appreciate the effort that went into creating the map - this is definitely true for Caothland.

I will freely admit that in many of my reviews I try to be thorough while simultaneously not belaboring myself with making sure I've explained every point as I've experienced it from my gameplay experience. Please forgive me for not adequately explaining my position. Hopefully the following provides better context for my issues with the map.
You have brought up the fact that many of my criticisms hold true for many other maps that are currently accepted in WoS. I’m glad you did. It is important to remember, however, that those maps that contain those features have other features that mitigate potential issues. For example, Turmoil is nice for 6-move figures. But it also has road to help boost the movement of 5 move figures in a way that helps to compensate for the benefit given to 6-move figures (to say nothing of the level 2 shadow lanes). B23 and Percolator do have level 3 jungle, but the location of the jungle on B23 relative to other desirable positions and the number of hexes covered is different than level 3 jungle on Caothland. The level 3 jungle on B23 also can’t be accessed by a 6 move non-flying figure sitting in the start zone with one turn. On Percolator the relationship between the level 3 jungle pieces, height, and ruins creates a different dynamic than Caothland. Also, I think I made it clear in my review of Percolator that I wish it didn’t have so much level 3 jungle coverage, but that that issue by itself was not sufficient to warrant a downvote from my play experience because of other things the map does so well. You are right that Caothland does provide level 4 counterplay to the level 3 jungle. And quite frankly, that was a part of what made the decision difficult (but more on that later). I do think that counterplay was a good effort to limit the power of the level 3 jungle – unfortunately, there was only 1 game I played where that really seemed to be happening effectively.
In short, it is the combination of features on Caothland that led to my downvote. I do like the map, and I think it does some things very well. I do think the decision making and strategy that goes into rushing an opponent through the fast lower middle versus getting established on height can be a rewarding gameplay experience when games play out that way. Unfortunately, I didn’t see that type of play occurring very often perhaps because of how jungle and shadow is placed throughout the map, and how the height is distributed.

My comment about Deathchasers was simply intended to convey how short and fast that low middle section is (particularly considering that these are not road-boosted deathchasers). My statement should not be understood as suggesting that any map that allows for a turn 1 attack by a Deathchaser is a bad map. I will admit that I personally don’t love figures being able to attack so quickly in traditional tournament formats because I think it leads to increased swinginess in games. But I don’t usually find it to be in and of itself a map-breaking characteristic (i.e., sometimes over-aggressiveness ends up helping your opponent because you’ve overextended yourself). As another example, I don’t think a map needs to be Zelrig-proof to be a good map, but that doesn’t mean the map should create a situation where that play can’t be contested.
And yes, glyphs on level 3 are strong. While the initiative glyph is relatively weaker, it is a glyph that can be very powerful at times. We all know how game changing initiative switches can be. My point was that a glyph located in an area that already has so much going for it simply exacerbates the problem in drawing more attention to that spot – even if it is less powerful, and even if there are opportunities for contesting the glyph. Again, it’s the combination of issues creating a gameplay experience rather than each individual issue’s impact on gameplay that needs to be considered here.

As some additional context, I played the map about 6-7 times with at least 3 different individuals varying in skill level from an experienced beginner to advanced player. Each game played out largely the same regardless of who I was playing and despite mixing up armies. Even still, I was going back and forth on the map until the last game. I say that to emphasize that this was not an easy decision, and it took quite a few games to come to the conclusion that I did. Again, this was not a whimsical decision. I eventually ended up feeling that the combination of issues warranted a down vote regardless of the good features.

To change gears just a little bit - Foudzing made a very important point. I'm one judge, and I have been wrong about a map before. Some maps I have dismissed initially ended up becoming maps I actually grew to enjoy. Time and community experience can vindicate Caothland and it can be nominated again in the future as it gets more experience and as more feedback about it is given. I care about the feedback that other people give, and if I’m alone in my criticisms, that information that can help vindicate the map so to speak.


On a different note that I feel is related - I'm sure it is very discouraging to see your maps get rejected. While I hope you don't feel this way, you may feel like each down vote is a personal attack against you. I want you to know that I really do appreciate your contributions to the community. I think a statement I've made before in various places is applicable to many of your maps. The map has good bones or is built on a good idea, but just a few small tweaks need to be made so that it can really shine. I feel like that is the case with Caothland. Again, I do like the map, and my initial review was unfair in the sense that it didn't express adequately that I actually enjoyed things about the map (and I doubt this post has done that adequately as well). To continue in the spirit of frankness, I would encourage you to invest a little more time into perfecting some of your existing maps. You obviously enjoy creating new maps, and that’s awesome – keep doing it! I just feel like you have many maps that are good, but a little more investment into perfecting them could make them even better. I think Caothland is close and it was in my opinion one of your best nominations. I believe a few tweaks could make it even better.

[superfrog]

I want to chime in on Caothland as well ( @Sir Heroscape ), because I do think it was a good nomination and the map does several things well.

Privately some of us have compared the map to Zephyr (another map with the same sets, mostly mirror symmetry, high side/low side), and Caothland succeeds in a number of places where Zephyr slips up.

I was several games into my review process and hadn't quite decided, although I was leaning towards a downvote. Here's some things I'd look at for potential improvements for the map (not sure you can/should do all of these, but they came to mind as I played the map).

• shift some jungle from the rock side to the swamp side, or maybe redeploy the trees by the SZ.
• bring the sand 3-hexes closer to the rock side
• replace the top glyph with a treasure glyph
• open up a continuous level 3 rock path below the 3-hex outcrop, to allow for easier attacking up and more dynamic central path.
• set the bottom glyph as Wannok instead of Ulaniva, or go random
• bring the bottom glyph slightly inwards? Not as sure on this one.

Again, some of those are more well thought-out than others, and I recognize that I had a hand in revising this map before so some of the issues may well be an oversight on my part.

Anyway, hope to see Caothland resubmitted at some point down the line, and I'm always available for workshopping if you're interested.

[1Mmirg]

Originally Posted by Flash_19

Song of the Walrus

We have enjoyed all of our games on Song of the Walrus.


I agree that it pulls right, but has countering reasons sufficient to move left as well. I agree that the center sees the most action (in most games), but the center itself is interesting and the flanks allow movement around and into the middle in several ways. The glyphs (especially if they are strong) ensure that the sides are at least worth the effort and ensure the map is not entirely center-centric.

The map truly stretches the pieces and I'm very glad that I have a white cardboard base I can use under it or else my eyes would be bleeding a bit from too much table peeking through.

I will admit that I did seriously consider a No vote for Song of the Walrus, because play can be fairly predictable, but I think this is a great use of the terrain sets and this is a solid tourney map, certainly one that I'd mix in. Perhaps it is not the most exciting option (I miss roads, shadow, and trees, I'll admit it) or the one that will put the most mental pressure on the players (it is not, though, as straightforward as it initially appears); however, this is a map that allows for most armies to play balanced and meaningful matches.

I decided to go back to our stated purpose:

Wargrounds of Scape curates a collection of high-quality maps from community nominations. In the spirit of recognizing the decade-plus tradition of mapmaking on this site, we seek to provide a one-stop shop of maps from all eras and projects that provide consistently excellent gameplay for the modern meta.

We hope that tournament directors — and anybody else seeking high-quality competitive maps — will find this a valuable resource.

With this in mind--knowing this is a solid tourney map and a high-quality map for the sets it uses--I vote YES to accept Song of the Walrus into the Wargrounds of Scape.

[dok]

Song of the Walrus by Typhon2222

As many of you know, I have always been a big fan of this map. It uses what is in my opinion the least versatile master set (well, other than Marvel, which is barely a master set) and the least versatile expansion set, and makes a pretty fun and dynamic map from it. I helped Typhon with some suggestions on it that are probably 12 or 14 versions back in the map’s history. The longstanding older version was a staple of tournament play, and the new version widens the center of the map to enable more effective flanking and counterplay in that center.

This was done at the expense of losing the perches on the outside of the two central blockers. There was some concern that this would make the flanks unattractive and actually exacerbate the central pile-up. However in my experience the sides are still pretty useful, especially if the glyphs have any pull at all. Sending some figures out around the left side of your startzone is usually useful, and you can sneak around the outside of the central blockers to flank the center without too many lost activations.

Despite the wider central zone, there is definitely still potential for the map to get clogged up. While I didn’t experience this personally, I did review some games played on this map where someone was able to bog down the middle area with blocking figures like deathreavers. This is, obviously, what figures like that are supposed to do, and to some extent I don’t think we should fault a small map for occasionally allowing games like this.

To me, the question when it comes to maps that are “extreme” in some way (unusually narrow choke points, unusually melee-friendly or range-friendly, unusually close start zones, etc etc) is how much this map warps things relative to how we would expect other maps in a tournament map pool to play. To me, while SotW is obviously easier to clog up than many maps are, it is still not too matchup-warping. The sides can be used to flank and the center is still 4 wide across and takes consistent effort to fully block off.

to induct Song of the Walrus.

[OEAO]

2 Reviews (aka why I'm right about Global Warming).



Song of the Walrus: This map does some things that I really like. Overall, it's an efficient use of the limited terrain available in these two sets. Development is good out of the starting zones. The level 2 is strong, but I also really like the level 1 path around the 4-hex glacier.

I also really like the placement of the 1-hex glaciers. They do a great job of being relevant line of sight blockers in the center. I think 1-hex LoS blockers are pretty hard to use effectively (at least for LoS blocking- it's pretty easy to break up blocks of terrain and weaken podding spots with them), and Typhon has them in exactly the right place.

My issue is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the 6-hex glacier- at least in the current iteration. The middle can really clog up, and it's more difficult than it needs to be to flank.

There are a few possible ways to remedy this. First, a smooth level 2 path around the outside could help (I'm not sure if it's enough, but it'd definitely be an improvement). This requires raising 2 tiles (which I think is possible, but I haven't tried it myself).

The second option would be switching the 4-hex and the 6-hex positions. This would require a bit more work, but I really think it'd be worth it. The size of the 6-hex would be much less problematic coming out of the SZ, and the 4-hex would be significantly easier to flank around- something that's desperately needed on a map that's 4 hexes wide in the center.

I look forward to seeing another version of this one. But for now, NO to induct.




Yngvild Pass: I was hopeful going into this one. Easy terrain requirements and a solid split starting zone setup looked promising. Unfortunately, this one showed its newness immediately. There are some problems that more tournament games would have shown:
-The glyph areas are still a bit tight. I would start by adding one extra hex of level 1 on either side of the 2-hex to see whether that opens it up enough.
-The large ruin should be flipped. The foot of it creates an annoying chokepoint.
-The 6-hex glacier is difficult to move around, in part thanks to the ribbons of height adjacent to it.
-The random 1-hex potholes throughout don't add to gameplay. And they make it rough for double space figures to navigate the map.
-And while there is level 2 throughout, the pathing of the level 2 isn't that smooth- that is, you're required to move up and down these ribbons to approach the opponent. Moving from left to right in particular is more challenging than it should be between the potholes and ribbons.

NO to induct.

[superfrog]

The first ever 4-upvote non-inductee.

[OEAO]

After the 1-man dumpster fire in Discord over the last two days, I'd like to throw a PSA out there to any other mapmakers who are submitting their maps to WoS. I'll try to keep this as general as possible.

WoS induction is not easy. It takes time. The bar is high, and no map is guaranteed to meet it. Frankly, as I've stated publicly before, the bar will keep getting higher as mapmaking in the community continues to improve. And some maps that currently meet the bar may be removed in the future.

When I test a map, I stop as soon as I have one problematic game. If this is the first game, I stop right then- especially if the game is more problematic than any game I've ever had on any WoS map. For WoS specifically, I don't care about the good games- I care about the bad games. And often I'll play the exact same matchup on a different map to make sure it's not the armies (which I did both times for my most recent 2 downvotes, and both times the new (non-WoS) map provided better and less problematic gameplay).

When downvoting a map, I identify the elements that caused problems in my game(s). If you don't understand why an element was problematic, make sure you reach out for clarification, and I can explain what exactly caused it to be an issue.

I also usually offer suggestions on how to improve the map. Of course, there is often more than one way to fix a map. And that's fine! My suggestions are just that- suggestions. Further, making one change may very well require another. Again, that's ok! You will have to do some work on your own; my review isn't meant to hand-hold you through the entire revision process. Rather, it identifies problematic elements, provides some brief thoughts on how to fix it, and then leaves you to do the work.

Although I'm not going to necessarily hand-hold, I am always more than happy to explain in greater detail what happened, why an element was problematic, why I'm suggesting a given change, and maybe even some thoughts on how exactly to implement some suggestions. This has happened before when I've given brief feedback that required more context and explanation, and every time it's resulted in a better map. Please feel free to PM me, and I'll do my best to help get you started down the right path to improve the map.

And, of course, discuss with other members of the community as well- there are plenty of people who are happy to offer suggestions on maps.

Edit, and this is very important: The context matters. An element being present and acceptable on one map does not mean it's acceptable on another. 1 to 1 comparisons are rare- that is, the effect of an element on one map may very well be different than the effect of that same element on another based on everything else that dictates and affects how that map plays.

[Sheep]

I'll withdraw the current Yngvild Pass.

[superfrog]

I’d like to nominate my map Canary.


It’s a map that uses 2 BftU and 1 TJ, with 2 random glyphs, and has been played in three events (two using the current version, and one using a version one small update behind):

VCheese 4
Utah Monthly May 2023
Colorado Monthly February 2023 (old version)

Of course, this map derives a lot of its DNA from my previous nomination Wingspan, which has seen widespread play, including at ScapeCon 2022. The WoS reviews of that map were instrumental in the revisions I made there and ultimately the creation of Canary. Notably some central heights have been joined to prevent turtling temptation.

The main change of the small update after February was raising an edge space to level 2 to improve mobility on the flanks, in response to some feedback I got from that Denver event. A few shadows were also shuffled and two SZ spaces lowered to water to make the other tweaks possible.

Obviously this map owes a lot to Typhon’s iconic map The Borogoves and my earlier map The Jabberwock as well, but I really find Canary much more free-flowing and dynamic than either of those.

Thanks for your consideration, hopefully got one more nomination coming this summer.

[OEAO]

I like when maps are updated, and I like when maps are based on, or inspired by, a previous map. I look forward to trying this one post-ScapeCon!

[Typhon2222]

Glad to see Canary nominated! One of my favorite maps, period.