Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread

[Riggler]

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

Ditto Grungebob!!

Sorry I've been absent a few days. I was moving all my possessions 425 miles away and closing on a house. BTW, I've got a kid and Halloween was in there. Needless to say I've been busy.

Glyphs: I can't believe there was a 2 page debate on this. Thought it was settled. Maps will be accepted regardless of whether someone puts glyphs on it or not. Maps will be accpeted for nomination whether glyphs are revealed or not. We decided that before we started. Go look at the bylaws.

Now, when we get to voting ... I suggest we vote for how the map is set up considering glyphs and vote yes or no. If we can offer suggestions that the glyphs are the only problem with balance we can say so as we decline it. Then they can resubmitt it with new glyphs.

Whether we as judges of maps like exposed glyphs, hidden glyphs, no glyphs. Doesn't really matter. Play the map as designed. Does it meet the criteria for acceptence in your opinon? If so, vote yes. End of story.

Is Forsaken Waters balanced? Yes. My vote is yes exactly as its written in the scenerio book by Hasbro.

Now the only problem I see is starting spaces. Looks like the solution to that was decided by adding additional spot spaces already on the board. Good enough.

My vote for Forsaken Waters is yes. I've played it dozens of times. Its balanced. Don't have a problem with the glyphs. In case its a week or so before you hear from me again. That's my vote.

 

[Rÿchean]

All future use of the word "mark" shall be replaced by "egoist"

silly me!

 

[bunjee]

Mark suggested glyph locations on the map with the ? symbol, and leave it at that.

Mark? who is Mark ???

Ok ok, Indicate suggested glyph locations on the map, etc.

All future use of the word "mark" shall be replaced by "egoist"


Seriously though, thanks to everyone putting time into this project, it is a huge venture.

 

[CornPuff]

Glyphs: I can't believe there was a 2 page debate on this. Thought it was settled. Maps will be accepted regardless of whether someone puts glyphs on it or not. Maps will be accpeted for nomination whether glyphs are revealed or not. We decided that before we started. Go look at the bylaws.

The glyph debate shouldn't have happened here, although I'm glad it did. I know I added some fuel to the fire .It was maybe the most serious discussion of glyph pros and cons seen on this site. Anyway, its irrelevant on all future maps, as we will judge them as submitted, no questions asked, no glyph rearranged.

From now on, I say we don't change a thing on any submitted map. This has been a nightmare.

We are trying to generalize at first, then specialize later. A 24 hex starting zone should be able to handle anything from a 400-700 point army. I see a trend for army sizes to start growing larger rather than shrinking. If, at a later date, there starts to be a push for "micro" maps (200-400) then we can adjust accordingly and begin to specialize the tournament maps.

Fixed zone size seems pretty specialized to me... anyway, I thought we did it so participants could count on 24 spaces at any tourney they went to, so they didn't have figures get ripped off their army as they go from map to map. Oh well. To Bunjee: there should be enough good 24 hex maps that we won't run low for a while. When we do, I'm sure we will lax the req to 18+.
Argh, I just can't let a start zone post slip by

That is why Rychean is pushing for glyph PLACEMENT over which glyphs to use. The most important thing is having glyph placement be even. If an organizer wants static glyphs to ease in setup, then at least he knows exactly where they go.

Thanks GB for clarifying my point more clearly.

Yes, IMO, identifying and/or verifying the placement hex for the glyphs are more important than the glyphs themselves. I feel it is about providing a service to the event coordinator to have the maps reviewed and tourney play recommendations made. Maybe that is beyond the scope but I do feel it is important to take into account the varying styles and numbers of glyphs that can or might be used for a any map we want to recommend. We cant very well say yes this map is worthy but we only recommend it without glyphs or just one glyph or only with a healer on it. We need to be able to recommend a map with the expectation that it is flexible for a number of different styles of tourney play.

I disagree. We can't say 'this map is worthy, and any variation of it is worthy as well.' This kills the integrity of this project. All of a sudden, it looks like we approve of every crappy variant of FW ever made. I can't speak for variants I haven't seen, so I will only recommend variants that I have seen.

I think this is a core issue. It's why I wanted multiple "start zone and glyph" layers. It's why I don't like random glyphs, or if they are random, to specify the glyph pool that is used to populate the random glyphs. I want to provide event organizers with specific play experiences. Rychean, it seems you want to provide event organizers with a map prototype, something they can change and mod for their event.

I'm not comfortable judging map prototypes. I want to help tournament participants directly by judging maps they will use. I thought I had a good idea by eventually creating a directory of good tournament maps that event organizers can pick from and provide as is to the participants. Of course they have the final say, but we could make it so easy that they would have no reason to muck around with glyphs or start zones. We would do that for them.

There are a lot of event organizers out there, and if they feel they have to change the maps we judge to enhance their ease of setup or player's enjoyment then we fail. The participants are playing versions of maps that we didn't approve so why did we bother approving them in the first place. There are a lot of versions of maps that suck, and a lot of versions that suck subtly. Event organizers can't always detect maps the suck subtly, especially when they are modifications of good maps. We need to provide event organizers enough good maps that they will not go around changing the ones we've approved.

I feel like this issue will be ongoing. We need to either broaden our scope to concern ourselves with these things or we need to back off it and say that we will only review and test a map in its presented form. If the map designer has the glyphs in a jacked up spot but the map otherwise would be balanced, maybe we just have to say nope the glyphs/glyph placement jacked up an otherwise good map, so it is not worthy.

I also personally have to vote no on Forsaken Waters at the moment. I know everyone likes the map, and thinks it's a good candidate, but I think right now people agree that's it's an excellent map that needs some tweaking to actually be worthy. It's not our place to tweak it until it fits into Battlefields, it's our job to turn it away until someone submits a worthy version.

It is for this reason I reject FW. Its start zones didn't meet our specs, and the glyphs split the judges. If a forum member wants to resubmit FW with specific glyphs and start zones, I would welcome it. Specific Glyphs of course could mean specifically random , or even my favorite, random from a list of glyphs )

I don't regret going through this process with FW. It helped flesh out a lot of different aspects of this project. I do think we need to move on, as trying to collectively design this map is killing us.

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

These maps are judged so that they can be enjoyed at hosted tournaments. Losing sight of that is folly.

This thread will stay focused on good map design, as stated in our bylaws because that is the HOW. We will also focus on event hosting, because that is the WHY. These maps are judged specifically so that people will have even more fun at tournaments. These maps are judged to increase the Tournament Participant's experience. To be a resource to event coordinators, we have to talk about event hosting.

In order to be of ANY value we need to encourage event coordinators to use the maps we judge. If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.

 

[Grungebob]

I disagree. We can't say 'this map is worthy, and any variation of it is worthy as well.' This kills the integrity of this project. All of a sudden, it looks like we approve of every crappy variant of FW ever made. I can't speak for variants I haven't seen, so I will only recommend variants that I have seen.

I think this is a core issue. It's why I wanted multiple "start zone and glyph" layers. It's why I don't like random glyphs, or if they are random, to specify the glyph pool that is used to populate the random glyphs. I want to provide event organizers with specific play experiences. Rychean, it seems you want to provide event organizers with a map prototype, something they can change and mod for their event.

I'm not comfortable judging map prototypes. I want to help tournament participants directly by judging maps they will use. I thought I had a good idea by eventually creating a directory of good tournament maps that event organizers can pick from and provide as is to the participants. Of course they have the final say, but we could make it so easy that they would have no reason to muck around with glyphs or start zones. We would do that for them.

There are a lot of event organizers out there, and if they feel they have to change the maps we judge to enhance their ease of setup or player's enjoyment then we fail. The participants are playing versions of maps that we didn't approve so why did we bother approving them in the first place. There are a lot of versions of maps that suck, and a lot of versions that suck subtly. Event organizers can't always detect maps the suck subtly, especially when they are modifications of good maps. We need to provide event organizers enough good maps that they will not go around changing the ones we've approved.

I don't know if you are just being dramatic for affect or what, but building a map with optimal glyph positions and allowing event hosts to choose whether on not to use glyphs and how to use glyphs does not equal a prototype situation as you are insinuating. This isn't about having a different version at all. It is simply about optimal glyph placement. If I'm running an event and am using random glyphs (which has been described earlier but I can do it again if necessary) all I need to know is where is the best place to put them. If I am using specific glyphs.... All I need to know is where to put them!! If I am using some variation such as glyph bidding etc... All I need to know is where to place them!!! How does this equate prototype or variation to you?

These maps are judged so that they can be enjoyed at hosted tournaments. Losing sight of that is folly.

Folly? Nobody uses the word folly.

If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.

It is simply about scope here. You are not accomplishing anything by dictating to folks, how to run a tourney in a thread devoted to competitive map design. Nobody is talking about any kind of manipulating at all. If a host has a tournament and looks to this effort as a resource, chooses from some maps here, decides on glyphs for his own reasons, and then has an awesome event, then this effort has paid off. You seem so stuck on, and adamant about certain things and frankly you could be blocking forward progress here. You do make excellent points that are intelegent, articulated well etc, but I am not sure you are looking at the big picture.

 

[Grungebob]

Also on a side note I don't think any of these maps should include more than one copy of any given expansion. If a person is hosting an event the supplies to reproduce the maps needs to be kept to a bare minimum.

 

[Rÿchean]

It is for this reason I reject FW. Its start zones didn't meet our specs, and the glyphs split the judges. If a forum member wants to resubmit FW with specific glyphs and start zones, I would welcome it. Specific Glyphs of course could mean specifically random , or even my favorite, random from a list of glyphs )

I'll take the other side, I approve FW with these specifics that we have all contributed. FW is the most balanced tourney worthy map that Hasbro has put out.

the new black spots will work fine to accommodate the larger start zone of 24 hexes. Glyph A is the best primary placement of 1 random glyph and glyph V is the second most optimal placement when using 2 random glyphs. The reasoning here is that two glyphs that close together (A&G)with no cover between will usually be controlled by the same player. Glyph spot V allows a spot with cover further away making it harder to hold both glyphs at once. This could be noted as part of the download or recommendation; basically if using 1 random glyph use this spot, if two use these two, etc...

I vote FW in with the above modifications and would gladly supply a PDF with the above.

The others judges need to chime in on FW as I don't see any further value in debating it's worthiness. We do need to move on.

 

[Riggler]

I thought the discussion about whether we are going to be map editors or map judges had already been decided. I thought we decided we were going to be map judges, and NOT map editors.

It was understood the first map we would review was the Forsaken Water with the Winter Holdout setup. It was a trial run. From the looks of it, we are no longer looking to review this particular map and setup. We are now, it appears, looking at a modified version of this map.

If so, it looks to me like its a modification. And this may not be needed, but should be pointed out for future reference. Ordinarily, if the required number of us don't agree that the submitted map passes our scrutiny, then we would vote to reject. If that map was modified by somone in the community and resubmitted, it would then have to get a vote for nomination (WHICH, does NOT require it to have been played by judges).

For a map to be voted on by the judges, it is, by our bylaws, to have been played by the judges. I have yet to play the modified FW map presented above and so am not ready to vote on that version until I do.

The way I understand it the follow votes were cast for FW: Winter Holdout, unmodified:
Me-- For
Cornpuff -- Against
Eclipse -- Against
Rychan -- Against

I don't have time to see if Rev and UPC chimmed in above. But that pretty much seems to settle it if I understand correctly how these judges have voted on the published version of this map.

So, I do think it would be appropriate to ask for a vote of judges on a NOMINATION of the modified FW map posted by Rychean if that's what judges want to consider. It says nothing in our bylaws about editing a map (there was a discussion about this).

If this is the route we want to take, then I would vote yes on its nomination.

On a personal note to Cornpuff, I see evertime someone chimes in with "I don't agree with 24 start spaces" that you chime in with basically , "Yeah, I told that. I think one day they'll listen." At least that's how it comes across to me. We all know your position on this. It doesn't really help anything to revisit it and it only serves to frustrate me (maybe others). Its not like this is the ONLY thing you've chimed in about .. such as multiple layers of maps. All I'm trying to say is if you get outvoted, let it go. Accept the decision and move on like its your own. I got outvoted on the unmodified version of FW: Winter Holdout. Ok, cool. Let's move on and decide what we do next and how we do it. No problem. I guess, I'm just saying, be cool man.

 

[Grungebob]

Hey, if you all are waiting on nominations I would like to nominate this one:

Mole Hill (Jonathan map) link.


I played on this map at our last tourney. I was decimated by an army I thought would never have a chance against my army. The map had nothing to do with it. I actually think my army might have had an acheles heel or maybe I was too confident in DED.

 

[Rÿchean]

I have played this map (Jonathan's Mole Hill) well over 10 times but I will wait for others to have a chance to review before I post my opinions and vote.

Judges, please use this link.

The map was modified for tourney play with Glyphs and Ruins added; start zones are the 24 hex rock tiles on each end.

 

[Grungebob]

Good job Ry. I updated my link.

 

[CornPuff]

I don't know if you are just being dramatic for affect or what, but building a map with optimal glyph positions and allowing event hosts to choose whether on not to use glyphs and how to use glyphs does not equal a prototype situation as you are insinuating. This isn't about having a different version at all. It is simply about optimal glyph placement. If I'm running an event and am using random glyphs (which has been described earlier but I can do it again if necessary) all I need to know is where is the best place to put them. If I am using specific glyphs.... All I need to know is where to put them!! If I am using some variation such as glyph bidding etc... All I need to know is where to place them!!! How does this equate prototype or variation to you?

The prototype remark was in response to Rychean's comment:

Maybe that is beyond the scope but I do feel it is important to take into account the varying styles and numbers of glyphs that can or might be used for a any map we want to recommend. We cant very well say yes this map is worthy but we only recommend it without glyphs or just one glyph or only with a healer on it. We need to be able to recommend a map with the expectation that it is flexible for a number of different styles of tourney play.

I feel that we aren't suggesting flexible designs. I considered these flexible maps 'map prototypes.' Some maps can be modified, for sure, but that shouldn't enter our perception as judges.

If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.

It is simply about scope here. You are not accomplishing anything by dictating to folks, how to run a tourney in a thread devoted to competitive map design. Nobody is talking about any kind of manipulating at all. If a host has a tournament and looks to this effort as a resource, chooses from some maps here, decides on glyphs for his own reasons, and then has an awesome event, then this effort has paid off. You seem so stuck on, and adamant about certain things and frankly you could be blocking forward progress here. You do make excellent points that are intelegent, articulated well etc, but I am not sure you are looking at the big picture.

About scope, I started my thread in the competitive army forum for a reason, not the map design forum. I realize its evolved a bit since then, but maybe I haven't. I mean, I do want this group to dictate a very small part of running a tournament: the maps. The problem is that manipulating maps will likely happen because it seems innocent. Its my opinion that randomizing the 5 glyphs on FW won't work. So I also believe that if a tourney organizer randomized them it would decrease fun of that map. Whether I'm right about FW is irrelevant, I just want people to realize that minor, innocent changes can have significant repercussions on the playability of a map. Event organizers should know that a couple maps that are not excellent don't kill an event, but more awesome maps make awesome events even more excellent.

Yeah, I realize that I'm slowing things down a bit. Sorry to be s stick in the mud, it just takes me a while to adjust from my vision to the group vision.

Well, we are still moving forward. I'm gonna take Mole Hills for a run as soon as I can.

 

[UranusPChicago]

Just to catch up on things...

FW (unmodified) - Against (I realize it is moot at this point as it already received 3 "nay" votes, but I voted for principle.

FW (CornPuff, Rychean modified) - For.

Mole Hill is a good map, I had an opportunity to play on it at our last tournament. I would like to get a few more games before I cast a vote.

I hope to get in some games this Thursday, so hopefully I will get a vote in by the weekend.

 

[reapersaurus]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:

That looks incredibly boring.

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical?

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence.....

 

[CornPuff]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:
That looks incredibly boring.

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical?

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence.....

Hah, I think it looks interesting! There aren't many maps that offer mole hills. Continuously varying terrain should make for some interesting melees, and the spread out high points are also fairly different than other maps. I don't mind the ruins.

Noteworthy of excellence? Idunno, haven't played it. But it does look to give a solid play experience which is what counts in my book.

We ought to start a separate nomination thread for all future nominations. That way Reaper can offer his alternatives

One note: Start Zones aren't labelled on the PDF. I assume them to be the 24 hex rock tiles, but it would be nice if I didn't have to assume.

 

[Grungebob]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:

That looks incredibly boring.

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical?

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence.....

If YOU were putting together a tournament, and you decided not to use this map because you thought it was boring just by looking at it, then that is your perogative. It does have its benefits though, and these should be noted. It is easy to set up and take down. It does not take up much space. It provides a nice focussed battle that almost always finishes before time runs out. In a tournament it is good to have simple maps that provide a balanced game. And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

 

[Hendal]

Mole hill, looks interesting, I personally don't like the ruins in the starting zone. Just outside the starting zone is better, IMO. Not that big of a deal either way though.

I know you want to be able to make the boards from 1 MS, but if you doing this for a tourneyment, I would think about making both ruins the same, to make it an even board ( that way someone doesn't want one side more then the other to have extra cover ). My thinking here is at a tourneyment there should be enough MS to allow this, choose another board for the tourney that uses 2 large or 2 small glyphs.
Might be somethitng to consider for designers, make 2 boards, one with 2 large ruins, and 1 with 2 small ruins???

I have a board I designed for my tourney, is it time to summit a board yet?

 

[Eclipse]

And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

That's a horrible reason to consider the map "best of the best" though As far as the map itself is concerned, I'll withhold a vote until I get some time to play it. I'm actually out of town most of this week and away from my collection. If a vote must be made before I get back, consider me abstained I suppose.

Just from a first impression, I'll agree the map does look a little vanilla (then again, most 1 MS maps do). My actual fear is that it has the same shooting gallery style of play that meatgrinder does, making for some very boring Krav dominant battles. Again, that's just a first impression based on what I can see. The tight quarters might lead to a more interesting battle than you'd guess at first glance.

 

[Grungebob]

And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

That's a horrible reason to consider the map "best of the best" though As far as the map itself is concerned, I'll withhold a vote until I get some time to play it. I'm actually out of town most of this week and away from my collection. If a vote must be made before I get back, consider me abstained I suppose.

Just from a first impression, I'll agree the map does look a little vanilla (then again, most 1 MS maps do). My actual fear is that it has the same shooting gallery style of play that meatgrinder does, making for some very boring Krav dominant battles. Again, that's just a first impression based on what I can see. The tight quarters might lead to a more interesting battle than you'd guess at first glance.

From the first page of this thread: The Bylaws

Goal: To offer the Heroscape gaming community balanced, playtested maps for both tournament and competitive play. And to establish standards for playable, balanced, and aesthetic maps.

Now tell me how this does not fit Molehill. If we do not want any new maps that have not been overused then this endeavor is useless. How is wanting fresh new maps that have been tested, considered a horrible reason to put effort into this area. Molehill has been extensively played by two of the judges already. Seems like a very good choice to cut your teeth on to me. Certainly not "horrible"

 

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

Hi everyone. Long time, no post.

Just wanted to chime in on Mole Hill. I like the idea of Mole Hill. Fairly symetrical, lots of little level changes but not to high, good stuff.

My concern is that the map will promote Ranged battle after Ranged battle (maybe the vipers or Microcorps could counter). Most people will pick high ground and shoot away. Your opponents would have to cross the lake, or go the long way around taking fire as they move foward and over uneven ground.

I think a few minor tweaks would help make this a truely great map.

I would suggest closing the gap in the middle of the lake and make two smaller lakes with a land passage up the middle (lowest even ground possible). This will encourage melee to run the gauntlet.

Second open up some fast lanes (no high ground to cross) on either side of the new twin lakes. Again this will stimulate the use of melee troops. (I just noticed they are using trees but no roads/bridges. I would highly encourage road/bridge use).

Lastly, and this is not really a biggie, but I would do it. Switch the ruins and the trees. The ruins up front would provide more cover and some tress in the back (side by side) would still give a little cover in the starting zones.

Just my ,

 

[Eclipse]

Note I cut out the "balanced" and "testsed" parts of the line and added the

I was just joking as I read the "it's a new map" line out of context and it sounded funny. I suppose horrible is a bad word to use in that context, sorry. As far as whether or not it's actually worthy, I didn't say no, I said I haven't played it yet. I gave a few first glance impressions and concerns, but there's no way I'll vote on it either way until I've tried it out myself.

 

[Grungebob]

I'm not even saying it should make the cut either. What I am saying is that it deserves to be looked at. It was enjoyed at our last tourney. I had a ranged army that lost to an all melee army on this map.

 

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

I had a ranged army that lost to an all melee army on this map.

This is where playtesting in invaluable. Taking a second look I can see how an all melee army could just keep moving forward (as it is a smaller sized map).

Would this be the norm? not sure, only playtesting would tell.

And since 2 people have played it and liked it, I would be inclined to try it out myself.

 

[Riggler]

I'll be happy to give Mole Hill a shot. I've never played it. My only first impression concern is it might make life difficult for double-spaced non-flying figures. But that is an at-a-glance first impression.

It could take me a few weeks to get in a few games on this one.

 

[Hendal]

On mole hill, when you guys say 2 random glyphs, what is the random pile from? Are the glyphs from the MS ( all of them )? And what way are you playing the glyphs, random selection ( and they are then shown ), or random till you land on them and turn them over?

I got in a couple of games last night on the board ( mole hill ) , I like it. I think it favors range, but almost all boards do.

It is intersting for me to play on boards that are not symetrical, because I always make my boards symetrical so you are playing on even sides. But Hasbro is yet to make a board symetrical. I think mole hill works in a lot of ways. and is a fun board. Really fast to set up.

I have some game time with Kenntak tomorrow and was going to see about using mole hill and get his opionion on the board.