Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[dok]

If you go back and look over my many reviews at this point, you will see the recurring theme that I value maps that give unique experiences. While the many outstanding maps that have been added to the WoS list over the last couple years require a wide variety of approaches in order to win games, there’s no question that the pool of competitive tournament maps has grown to feel more homogenous. Fulcrum’s layout takes a wildly different approach from what we’re accustomed to, and as a result games on Fulcrum play out pretty differently than games on any other map.

To me, though, the biggest and most salient knock on Fulcrum is that games on Fulcrum tend to play out pretty similarly to other games on Fulcrum. You see a lot of “army with range advantage shifts right; army with range disadvantage assaults the position”. This is certainly not every game on Fulcrum, but it’s a fair number of them.

Broadly speaking, I think the map is pretty fair, even in that matchup. I’ve won plenty of games assaulting the right corner turtle, and I’ve seen others do it plenty as well. And as stated above and by others, I really enjoy how this map encourages some tactics and play patterns you rarely see on other maps.

Are there specific things I don’t like about the map? Sure. The big one that sticks out to me is that the level 3 sub-hill on the right has two jungle-protected spaces. This is just an unnecessary boost to the strongest defensive position on the map. I also feel like the left side could use its own level 3 sub hill; as it stands the left side level 2 space before the water ends up being a bit of an empty quarter of the map, only used occasionally for transit, or in the odd match against ranged flyers.

All of this is to say that I wouldn’t mind seeing a modestly updated version of Fulcrum in the WoS. One of the main ideas of this project is to be a living list where maps can leave and arrive and change. But in much the same way that I value diversity in sets used, I value diversity in map shape, style, and tactical approach. IMO the overall WoS is still stronger with Fulcrum than it is without it. YES to retain Fulcrum.

[1Mmirg]

I may not have played as many games as dok on Fulcrum, but I have played many, many games on it. It can be a hard map, but I have consistently found it fair across many competitive armies. I love the use of cover and jungle, as well as water. I'm not a big fan of the height proximate to the start zone, but the walls help limit this position (I wish both sides could have the small ruin).

While I recognize that Fulcrum doesn't fit in well with many current maps and map-making approaches, I believe it still does what it does well--encouraging players to prepare for a diversity of possible maps and forcing players to try different playstyles than they may be used to.

Fulcrum won't be everyone's favorite map, in every tourney, but it continues to feel relevant and meaningful.

Like dok, I wouldn't mind some small modifications to it, but I think it retains its value in the WoS. I vote YES to keep it in the WoS.

--

While I am here, I'll also vote in favor of the changes to Origin. These are smart choices that help the map play better.

Origin remains a map that is on the edge of my comfort zone. It is a bit too rough on melee units (and really frustrates 4 move units!), but I think it is the best of the best for a single RotV and good enough to be used in any tourney's map pool. I think it is valuable for the WoS to have maps like this that do as much as it does, as well as it does, with only a single set.

I vote YES to the new Origin.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

I've played more games on Fulcrum than probably anybody with the exception of maybe dok (or Dignan). I have slaughtered range with melee countless times in tournaments and continue to do so on Fulcrum (just played it a local in Jan). I see no reason for it to be dismissed from the WoS.

I vote NO to remove Fulcrum.