Typhon2222's Maps

[Robber]

That sounds good, too. I made some suggestions in the MFN.

~Robber, one-linedly (and about to be Aldin chum...)

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by Robber

~Robber, one-linedly (and about to be Aldin chum...)

[Typhon2222]

Following excellent suggestions by Robber and Dad_Scaper , I've revised YAR'S REVENGE. Here's how it looks now:



Three changes were made:

(1) The two stalagmites in the central shadow corridor were pulled back. This provides better coverage of the starting zones. It also makes it easier for very large figures to traverse the central corridor (and harder for rats to clog it).

(2) The glyphs were moved by one hex, and the hexes around them changed.

(3) I added two hexes of extra height, one per side. You can just see them in the middle of the two rock plateaus, nestled in the crook of the tallest encircling walls. I think these will make things in each of the two 'rooms' more interesting.

Here are the new build instructions.

Let me know what you think!

[Typhon2222]

Heya Robber, thanks oodles for the detailed feedback!

Originally Posted by Robber

Another point I like is that you seem to incorporate a higher-than-usual amount of glyphs. It makes more places for the battle to occur.

Yesh, I have to say, I like having at least two glyphs on any map, and sometimes four. I usually go for Valda and/or Dagmar, because these seem to be the least game-changing. Valda's movement bonus helps melee more than ranged, which is a big plus. And Dagmar's initiative bonus is worth having, but I appreciate that it only takes effect at the end of a round, rather than giving immediate bonuses. I also appreciate that it doesn't make certain types of units more attractive than others. That's why I shy away from Astrid and Gerda in particular, and to a certain extent, Wannok. Units who have low base stats for attack/defense gain proportionately more from an extra attack/defense die than do units with higher base stats. So Astrid and Gerda end up helping cheap and/or ranged units more than more expensive and/or melee units (since cheap units, and ranged ones, usually have lower base stats). And Wannok similarly helps cheap units, because they can better absorb taking a wound. Better to lose a Goblin than a Minion, for example.

To counter-balance them, I think the game could use glyphs that rather than adding to one's own attack/defense stats, instead decrease the stats of one's opponent. That would give incentive to play high-cost high-stat (and melee) units instead, since if your opponent grabs the glyphs, it hurts you less in relative terms.

Originally Posted by Robber

The only problem in Quicksilver Fane is that there isn't enough height. It only goes to about level three. Aesthetically, it's great. Plus, the road is really different.

As an uncapped castle supporter, I think it is great. But I'd like more LoS blockers inside the "circle" section.

You know, some people have said they find that the jungle plants -- and the fact that it's easy to get multiple units around every one -- make up for the lack of LoS blockers. But not everyone has felt that way, so you're DEFINITELY not alone. The biggest complaint has actually been about the cordoned-off starting zones. If your opponent can rush all the way forward, he can block the access points entirely. That's an issue, I admit, and has to be planned for. I think Dad_Scaper is thinking of using it at your upcoming tourney? If you get a chance to play on it, please let me know what you think.

Originally Posted by Robber

On to Yea Through I walk- Also aesthetically awesome, I think this is a great map. The lava-on-height spots are great. The only two complaints are as follows:

1. The highest points on the map are closer to 1 side. When playing melee-on-range, it makes a pod of range on height and approaching figures are slaughtered. The lava feild balances this a little bit, but a LoS blocker there would help.

You've made me more aware of this issue in my maps. Many thanks. As you say, my thinking was that the lava-field nature of that high-point would balance things out a bit, combined with the fact that it doesn't actually border the glyphs directly. But perhaps it still ends up being unbalancedly attractive.

Originally Posted by Robber

2. There are too many spots that are on the heighest points of the map. I usually like to stick to somewhere between 4 and 8. This map has 14, and Margins of Error has 20.

Absolutely true. Part of it has to do with my attempt to make maps friendly to double-hex figures. I may be over-compensating though. Of course, it's also true that the two maps you're looking at have lava fields as the highest points.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oooh, here's your map thread, typhon.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I'll be interested to see how Quicksilver Fane plays; all the road and jungle may help obviate the need for LoS blockers in the middle.

That was exactly my hope when making it, D_S. Some people have said they found it to be enough. Others have disagreed. If you get a chance to ask people at your tourney what they think about it, I'd love to hear. (They'll probably complain about the congested exits from the starting zone. I agree, it's a potential problem.)

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Marginal Gain, on the other hand, looks like a shooting gallery.

Maybe so. Though the feedback on it has been really positive. Actually, the feedback so far has been for its four-player version, Margins of Error. But they're essentially the same map. Reviews here and here. Both found it to be more balanced for melee than expected.

[Typhon2222]

Yay, YAR'S REVENGE has been accepted for review by the Maps for Noobs.

[marroking1]

Hello Typhon2222 I just wanted to let you know that I used your map Yars Revenge in a Battle report of mine.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by marroking1

Hello Typhon2222 I just wanted to let you know that I used your map Yars Revenge in a Battle report of mine.

Oh cool marroking! I know you say that you don't encourage posts by others in that thread of yours, so I'll say it here: nice action shots! Very suspenseful.

[UtahScott]

Hey, Typhon2222. After seeing a couple of your map nominations in the Battlefields of Valhalla thread, I thought I'd come over here and explore. You have some good-looking work, I might try something for our April gameday.

I hope you'll move beyond your frequent use of paired glyphs, though. Either each team gets the same glyph, which equates to none at all, or one player would get both. Move +4, or Initative +16, seems rather unfair to me...

Keep up your efforts.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by UtahScott

Hey, Typhon2222. After seeing a couple of your map nominations in the Battlefields of Valhalla thread, I thought I'd come over here and explore. You have some good-looking work, I might try something for our April gameday.

I hope you'll move beyond your frequent use of paired glyphs, though. Either each team gets the same glyph, which equates to none at all, or one player would get both. Move +4, or Initative +16, seems rather unfair to me...

Keep up your efforts.

Heya US, thanks for posting!

So you normally prefer an odd number of glyphs? Personally I dislike having only one, since it tends to suck all action towards it (usually the center). I can see the allure of three though....

[RoninValentina]

Pretty shore Utah meant he wishes you wouldn't double up glyphs, to be "fair." Two Initiative glyphs, or Move glyphs, one on each side of the map. If the glyphs are evenly spaced from each start zone, but vary in power, 1 move and 1 wound, then the match becomes more interesting. If both sides want the wound, then the fight will go that way. But if one side leaves the move glyph uncontested to focus on the wound glyph, will the guy who takes the move get enough of an advantage to overwhelm the other? And so on. Make sense?

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

Pretty shore Utah meant he wishes you wouldn't double up glyphs, to be "fair." Two Initiative glyphs, or Move glyphs, one on each side of the map. If the glyphs are evenly spaced from each start zone, but vary in power, 1 move and 1 wound, then the match becomes more interesting. If both sides want the wound, then the fight will go that way. But if one side leaves the move glyph uncontested to focus on the wound glyph, will the guy who takes the move get enough of an advantage to overwhelm the other? And so on. Make sense?

Oh sure, that makes sense. And I know that seems to be the preference of many. I just have certain reservations with doing things that way.

For one thing, it constricts map design: to be fair, that system requires glyphs need to be evenly spaced from each start zone, as you say. That wouldn't be too bad, but the problem is that having them evenly spaced isn't enough. To be really fair, it requires having equivalent environments around each glyph regardless of which side they're approached from. Because if, say, the glyphs have higher ground on one side than the other, or better firing ranges when approached from one side, or whatever, then there's incentive to go that way. And if the glyphs aren't the same, then you've just introduced assymetry that helps one player.

Take your own Rising Fever, RV. Each glyph is 11 spaces from the start zone. But all other things being equal, I imagine I'd more often want to go left than right. Why? Because going left takes me past a bush, whereas going right doesn't. And if I'm a double-hex large figure, I can actually park on the hex and get the bush bonus at the same time for fewer movement. So if it turns out that the glyph to my left is a preferable one -- say Astrid or Gerda or Valda, not Dagmar or Lodin -- then I've got a slight advantage.


Your Rising Fever (which is an awesome map, btw) is actually a lousy example for me to pick, because the advantages of going left rather than right are going to be pretty minor in most cases. But you get the point.

Using two of the same glyphs allows you to place them anywhere on the board, as long as their positions mirror each other. This opens up more options for map design.