What's new
  • Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.

What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Alkali Lake)

MrNobody

MrNobody

Just A Head
What Makes A Good C3G Map?

C3G_ConflictChernobyl.png

So we discussed making a thread like this in-sanctum and I finally had the free time to start it up.

Basically, the Valhalla/Classic sector has a really solid Maps community, and with that comes lots of design philosophy talk about what makes a map good. Now I'm sure many of us have played C3G games on Classic maps, and while they totally work, I've generally found that C3G-specific maps have a better feel when it comes to your average superhero game.

I'm hoping we can have a bit of a concrete discussion about why that is, and what makes a C3G map work or not work. Similar to how FreshFoods is handling the unit retrospectives, I figure we could look at maps one at a time to determine what works and what doesn't with each particular map.

I figure we can start with Conflict Chernobyl, since pound-for-pound it's probably the most popular C3G Competitive Map. I'm gonna write up a brief post for it.
 
Last edited:
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

So Conflict Chernobyl:

C3G_ConflictChernobyl.png


Biggest Pro:
One of the things that I love about this map is what I personally call "two turn deployment." That is, if you spend your first two turns of the game moving the same standard speed* up on the battlefield, that unit will generally be in a well-primed strategic position. On Turn 1, you can move them next to the Palm Tree nearest your Start Zone, then on Turn 2 you can move them up to the high ground on the middle of the map.

This is great because it means your units can get into the battle fast, but it also gives lots of different types of units a fair shot. Fliers and faster units might still want to hang around the Palm Tree on Turn 1 if they aren't fast enough to get to the high ground, and slower units can still usually make it to the Palm Tree on Turn 1 and can huddle around it for protection as they move up.

It also means the battle gets going fast. Usually I have troops engaged in combat by the end of Round 1, if not sooner.

*For these purposes I consider "standard speed" to be a Move 5 character with no abilities that affect its movement, like Flying.

Biggest Con:
I'd have to say the Glyphs, at least partially because we don't actually use them in practice? :lol:

I have played with them before and they add some interesting strategic options, but a 50% chance of a Pit Trap usually isn't worth sending your units out of their way for.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

1. Symmetrical
-Each team has the same opportunities.
2. No major height/levels at play.
-Flyers don't have a distinct advantage over walkers.
3. Smaller
-Start zone sitters and hubs with unlimited range aren't completely safe, and on the flip side, it doesn't take a ton of time moving up your various figures into the action.
4. Just enough LOS blockers
-The few Evergreen Trees and 2 Destroyed Ruins offer some opportunities to break LOS.
5. Terrain Variety
-Concrete, Asphalt, Grass, Jungle Pieces, Water, and Destructible Objects offer a decent amount of battlefield decisions and can enable the powers that can otherwise be niche to a few units like Luke Cage, Hulk (Avengers), or Poison Ivy etc.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I linked the map in the OP. I think the glyphs were added for theme and are not needed for competitive balance.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I like Conflict Chernobyl but I feel like I play the same game over and over again. I think great maps offer different ways to play on it and different experiences. I don't feel like I get that with that map.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

A Map where multiple types of characters can shine but others are not inhibited horribly because they lack flying.

So, if there are very high points there should be ladders or ways for other characters to easily move onto height at given points. If there are vantage points that enable ranged combat then there should be line of sight blockers.

Road in general is a great addition to any map because it allows for grounded units to move a bit faster over select areas and somewhat keep up with flying units.

A great map should enable a variety of units and strategies to be functional. It's hard to enable everything but enabling either a variety or just one very specific synergy is definitely a plus for me.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Great idea for a thread!

Chernobyl is probably my favorite. Not sure I can articulate exactly why, it's just good. Maybe some other maps only really have one way to go (meet in the middle on a road/bridge) or are unfair if you have no fliers/range.

Chernobyl has a solid meeting spot in the center with some height, it's nice, but optional. You can move along the road if you want to go fast and don't care about height. There are also great height spots to target the center on the other side of the ruins if you don't get there first. ruins give you defense against range as do the many bushes. There aren't so many obstacles/DOs that they are a hindrance, but there are enough trees and things where you want to plan out your moves. Overall, very fun and balanced map.

Reflecting I think what makes a good map is a map where anywhere your figure happens to be, there are multiple good places to go and still keep the ball rolling.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I feel like I've used the road on this map before, but for the life of me, I'm not sure why I wouldn't just want to deploy to the middle of the map almost all of the time, since coverage is about even and most of the height is there in the middle.

I'm not sure if I've ever played with the glyph in (I don't like having to choose a glyph as I feel it's too variable competitively) but I do feel like the glyph has a role in pulling figures to less used areas of the map.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map?

MrNobody said:
I've generally found that C3G-specific maps have a better feel when it comes to your average superhero game.

I'm hoping we can have a bit of a concrete discussion about why that is, and what makes a C3G map work or not work.
Click to expand...

This interests me - I've often wondered what makes a good C3G map. How frequently do you all try new Classic maps for your C3G games? Of my recent maps, I wonder whether Sunnywood would work well for a C3G game. Or Underwood (its twin), if there is a preference for Marvel terrain.

sunnywood.jpg

underwood.jpg


This map has a smaller footprint, dampened elevation changes, fixed glyphs, a road for getting around the middle, and a new approach to limiting ranged attacks. At first glance, does this look closer to being a good fit for C3G? Or is it still way off? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this map's suitability.

No obligation to comment on my map specifically. I'll check back regardless, to see what else you all have to say on this topic more generally. I am curious.
 
Last edited:
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I had hoped you would pop in. Thanks for chiming in GameBear.
Always fun to get a fresh perspective on things.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

There are some great classic maps to play on. But I feel like most are small for C3G. With the big move so many heroes have its so easy to be in a startzone quickly. Classic maps are also typically balanced with glyphs that we don't use. They are designed for squad scape and without DOs in mind. I've played plenty of C3G games on Classic maps but would never playtest on one.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Sunnywood looks like a fun map. Looks like a face sticking out its tongue in the second picture. :p

Conflict Chernobyl is my favorite. Never played with Glyphs, but would be interesting. I use all parts of the map often enough. That bushy-height area off to the left is a good spot to camp a commander needing LOS and/or ranged attackers, with the water giving a little distance between that figure and those in the center.

Had Echo with Human Torch's range and her normal 6 Move ring-around-the-rosey with the water against a full life Thing for the win in a Miek test.

I feel like all maps are pretty repetitive to an extent, but this one feels less repetitive than Dark Dimension, and more exciting than Mogo, as examples.

Destructible Objects really change how this map plays. A lot of fun options open up when you have all these non-opponent "figures" all over the battlefield to interact with. Can't remember the last C3G game I played without them.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I think with Sunnywood and Underwood in particular, there's a lot of potential for turn one and two star zone bombing.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map?

Ericth74 said:
There are some great classic maps to play on. But I feel like most are small for C3G. With the big move so many heroes have its so easy to be in a startzone quickly.
Click to expand...
IAmBatman said:
I think with Sunnywood and Underwood in particular, there's a lot of potential for turn one and two star zone bombing.
Click to expand...

The example map (Conflict Chernobyl) threw me off quite a bit. It does bulge in the middle more than I initially realized, but it's still pretty small compared to other C3G maps I've seen, and only has 3 levels. The total footprint is 214 hexes, which is not any larger than typical Classic maps. Sunnywood is on the smaller side, at 175 hexes, but still has the same start zone separation as Conflict Chernobyl.

So.. larger footprint (not smaller) is preferable? And no glyphs? Are glyphs not used at all, or does C3G have its own set? Start zone separation is pretty well understood on the Classic side. Is there consensus on the ideal separation for C3G?

I'll get out of the way, but I'm very interested to see where this converation goes.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Fwiw, I'm definitely not a map expert. :p It does seem Conflict Chernobyl is pretty close between start zones too. I think it's a *little* more blocked off in terms of ability to block LOS from attackers, but no great shakes in terms of differences.

I'd guess you probably have more map authority than just about anyone in these parts, so definitely don't feel like you have to hide in the background! We'd definitely benefit from hearing your thoughts. :)
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map?

GameBear said:
Ericth74 said:
There are some great classic maps to play on. But I feel like most are small for C3G. With the big move so many heroes have its so easy to be in a startzone quickly.
Click to expand...
IAmBatman said:
I think with Sunnywood and Underwood in particular, there's a lot of potential for turn one and two star zone bombing.
Click to expand...

The example map (Conflict Chernobyl) threw me off quite a bit. It does bulge in the middle more than I initially realized, but it's still pretty small compared to other C3G maps I've seen, and only has 3 levels. The total footprint is 214 hexes, which is not any larger than typical Classic maps. Sunnywood is on the smaller side, at 175 hexes, but still has the same start zone separation as Conflict Chernobyl.

So.. larger footprint (not smaller) is preferable? And no glyphs? Are glyphs not used at all, or does C3G have its own set? Start zone separation is pretty well understood on the Classic side. Is there consensus on the ideal separation for C3G?

I'll get out of the way, but I'm very interested to see where this converation goes.
Click to expand...

I would agree with what Bats said. Please add to the conversion where you feel fit.

As for map size. Being small isn't always an issue. I do a lot of testing on Conflict Chernobyl, but mostly because the matches are short and sweet, and play is predictable on it. But I also find it boring, as the games seems to play out the same way. Control the center height or snipe from the side height.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Yeah I would say we don't have any real map experts here. If you look at our limited number of released maps vs our vast number of released(and on deck) figure designs.



IAmBatman said:
Fwiw, I'm definitely not a map expert. :p It does seem Conflict Chernobyl is pretty close between start zones too. I think it's a *little* more blocked off in terms of ability to block LOS from attackers, but no great shakes in terms of differences.

I'd guess you probably have more map authority than just about anyone in these parts, so definitely don't feel like you have to hide in the background! We'd definitely benefit from hearing your thoughts. :)
Click to expand...
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I think part of what may slow startzone bombing on Conflict Chernobyl is that the center section with jungle plants feels like the safest place on the map to be, so a lot of players may hesitate to push past that or feel like it's a risky endeavor.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Ericth74 said:
I like Conflict Chernobyl but I feel like I play the same game over and over again. I think great maps offer different ways to play on it and different experiences. I don't feel like I get that with that map.
Click to expand...

This might be a big taste thing for me. When I’m doing a more serious game (playtest/competitive) I kinda prefer the map gameplay feel kinda “same-y.” That way I know what to expect feom the map itself and the differences in gameplay come from the units interacting. The map is the canvas and the armies are the paint, if that makes sense. I think that’s (one of the reasons) why I haven’t leapt headfirst into the DO trend. (The other being Google Docs testing.)

I have a blast with more unpredictable maps in looser gameplay though.

The talk about SZ bombing is very interesting. I think Bats has a point that on CC, the middle feels like the safest place to be, so SZ bombing comes at the cost of giving that space up.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

What's interesting for me is I feel completely differently about playtesting versus competitive gameplay.

In playtesting, I want that consistent feel of the map with fewer variables that might affect the costing of a unit.

In competitive gameplay, I like having more tactical outlets that can give me a chance to even the playing field if the army match ups aren't in my favor. I feel like rather than adding to "randomness" these additions reward the more tactical player.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Never really thought about it but I agree with that.
Probably why most of my testing has been on like three maps.
Cannot even remember my original before Island Plane Crash.
City Park is my current go to. Really need to try Elm Street.
Never played Chernobyl except maybe at the Con.
 
What Makes A Good Map?

I'm back once again, with a somewhat off-topic post. Apologies. It kind of relates, at least. Right?

What kinds of maps do you like? Come vote in the ScapeCon II Map Contest! I know this is C3G, but that doesn't mean you can't pick your favorites. There are three brackets, and you can vote for as many (or as few) maps as you want. Thanks for taking a look.

Bracket 1
Bracket 2
Bracket 3
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

I'll take a look! :) Hoping to run a map contest here in C3G soon, but I need to finish up Mongul first.
 
Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl

Would love to see this conversation pick back up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top