• 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.

Workshop Thread

Durgeth Swamps by Heroscaper2010 is now under review...

Durgeth Swamps - .hsc
Durgeth-Sw-amps.png
 
Battlefield 23 by @Flash_19

I did not get a chance to play test the first version of this map before it received two down votes from my highly-esteemed fellow ARV judges. So, I entered play testing on the revised version with a blank slate.

Check this out. In four tests with 500 v. 500 point armies, the average margin of victory was 53 points. That is what I like to see! The armies were a variety of builds. Battlefield 23 is a wonderful sight to have set up on the table. Game play was solid - in every way. Height, cover, blockers, and pathing (even side to side considering how wide it is) were all beyond reproach.

I was initially concerned about all of the castle walls, palm trees, and battlements in terms of how huge figures would be able to maneuver - it seemed crowded in spots. I ran tests with Augamo, Greater Ice Elemental, and Nilfheim. All of the large/huge figures were able to be placed on every hex with the right positioning.

I liked this map so much, it has now moved into my top 10 of tourney maps with this terrain to consider when I host them (which will happen again someday!)

Oh, so this is an official :up: for induction to the ARV cannon.
 
Last edited:
Battlefield 23 by @Flash_19

The first version of Battlefield 23 suffered from some really strong high ground perches for Raelin/Range to abuse. Battlefield 23.2.0 strongly improves upon the first version, with the notable improvement of having the height more consolidated into certain focus areas, and having those areas more easily countered by the road that leads to them. Turns out, that makes for a really good map.

Battlefield 23 is definitely a top tier map in terms of balance and interesting/exciting plays. It has strong high ground on the sides that also have glyphs nearby to control, but they’re limited by line of sight blockers and being vulnerable to rushes from the road. There is also good potential to make aggressive pushes through the center utilizing the height there, but that is also countered by the road and jungle across the map. Even development has some good decision-making to capitalize on; usually I found that development to the left of the start zone felt easier with the road and closer high ground on the flank, but trying to slow roll left leaves a player open to counterattacks from central height, road, and even power plays on the same side from an aggressive opponent. Overall, games were constantly fun and exciting on this map, and I definitely recommend it.

:up: to Battlefield 23 induction stuff.
 
I'm not a judge, but I've had a lot of fun on Battlefield 23 and plan to be setting it up again Sunday for a couple new players!
 
Originally Battlefield 23 rubbed me the wrong way. There were a lot of little things I wasn't liking. Overall it was a good map, but I was glad to see it make it's way back into the consideration of the judges for a 2nd run.

This time around Flash has provided rather significant changes to the map design WITHOUT disrupting the overall original footprint. i.e. it looks like the original. That takes a lot of time and effort to rework a map so that it maintains the integrity of the original design but make the changes necessary to balance it. This version does that in a much nicer way. The development feels more natural and both sides (whether with slow figures or fast), have equal opportunity to grab power glyphs. The hills on each side aren't really hills and do a good job with road and jungle and LOS blockers to make camping on one side NOT the obvious decision. Development through the center was much faster, and did lend itself to more conflict, but that's more an observation than a nitpick. I like maps that pull the tension between fast low ground and more developing time on high ground. The pitfall for most maps like that is that the hills can tend to be too strong, but the case is not here. The hills are still very accessible from the center if the conflict starts to evolve toward height/glyphs and that is a very good thing.

Overall, what was a good map and didn't make it in, is now a great map that has made it in. Thank you @Flash_19 for taking the time to be meticulous and prepare something great.

:up: for Battlefield 23
 
Cool stuff! I know Leaf_It used to make official ARV topdowns but for the time being I've moved the existing topdown to the ARV folder to celebrate!
 
Originally Battlefield 23 rubbed me the wrong way. There were a lot of little things I wasn't liking. Overall it was a good map, but I was glad to see it make it's way back into the consideration of the judges for a 2nd run.

This time around Flash has provided rather significant changes to the map design WITHOUT disrupting the overall original footprint. i.e. it looks like the original. That takes a lot of time and effort to rework a map so that it maintains the integrity of the original design but make the changes necessary to balance it. This version does that in a much nicer way. The development feels more natural and both sides (whether with slow figures or fast), have equal opportunity to grab power glyphs. The hills on each side aren't really hills and do a good job with road and jungle and LOS blockers to make camping on one side NOT the obvious decision. Development through the center was much faster, and did lend itself to more conflict, but that's more an observation than a nitpick. I like maps that pull the tension between fast low ground and more developing time on high ground. The pitfall for most maps like that is that the hills can tend to be too strong, but the case is not here. The hills are still very accessible from the center if the conflict starts to evolve toward height/glyphs and that is a very good thing.

Overall, what was a good map and didn't make it in, is now a great map that has made it in. Thank you @Flash_19 for taking the time to be meticulous and prepare something great.

:up: for Battlefield 23

:woot:
Thanks so much for your review and playtesting efforts Sir H!
 
Thank you judges for your reviews on Drider! I am so pleased Nomad and Sir H had some great games on the little bugger, but also understand the points Flash_19 has made which echoed some of my own wrinkles I wasn’t sure I’d ironed out. I’d like to propose the following revision in hopes that it alleviates some of the issues mentioned while retaining the commendable aspects.

I’ve implemented Flash’s direct advice of removing both single hex outcrops and leaving their bases as shadow tiles. Addressing the movement issues in the north near Lodin has been a long standing struggle in designing this map. I’d originally made the decision to place the shadow tiles in those spots to weaken the level 3 central perch as much as possible even if it restricted development; I was hoping the small size of the map would even that decision out a hair. Removing the outcrops retains two hexes of shadow to contest the perch as well as increasing the amount of spaces it can be attacked from by two. I feel this weakens the perch enough to let me rearrange the original northern section, connecting the road, and removing the shadow dip. The shadows now surrounding Lodin provide some mobility around the glyph and keep the north inviting enough to still want to use.
EDIT: Updated to fix double space glyph denial for Lodin. Lodin moved to lvl 0 and the single dungeon hex moved just south of the outcrop to further speed up lateral movement.

Also a bonus, now the top down kinda looks like a dude with a mustache or a teddy bear face...

UPDATED DRIDER PDF

New and improved:
uc
 
Last edited:
oh wow, yeah I thought I was subscribed to this as well...oops.

:up: to review the new Drider.
@Ulysses can you please post a link to the new build instructions?
 
@Ulysses
So sorry I didn't see this earlier. I thought I was subscribed to this thread - I'll have to double check that. I'm totally down to review the updated version. :up:
@Sir Heroscape and @Nomad

oh wow, yeah I thought I was subscribed to this as well...oops.

:up: to review the new Drider.
@Ulysses can you please post a link to the new build instructions?

No problem! My subscribed posts never send me updates except for the very first one or two I set up.
I've updated my post with the build instructions.
 
@Ulysses
So sorry I didn't see this earlier. I thought I was subscribed to this thread - I'll have to double check that. I'm totally down to review the updated version. :up:
@Sir Heroscape and @Nomad

oh wow, yeah I thought I was subscribed to this as well...oops.

:up: to review the new Drider.
@Ulysses can you please post a link to the new build instructions?

No problem! My subscribed posts never send me updates except for the very first one or two I set up.
I've updated my post with the build instructions.


Thumbs up to reviewing the revised Drider and I am looking forward to it. I will get it built this weekend and then start playtesting.
 
@Joecrazy3193 to start, glad to see you utilizing this thread when not enough people do! so we'll see what we can do to assist in your quest to make this map better.

First off, it'd be really good to read up on some of our ARV Articles HERE. Specifically, read up on the "Map Craft" Articles as we discuss important aspects of building competitive and balanced maps. Starting there should help give you a bit more footing on what is expected of a "tournament-worthy" map and pitfalls to look for when designing your own maps.

One of the most useful articles covers a "checklist" that will help you when you build your map to make sure it's balanced (see spoiler below).

Spoiler Alert!


I'll give some of my comments in referring to that checklist to start. Generally, our standard is if you can answer yes to 2 or more of those checklist questions, you’ll likely want to revise your map. Some maps can get away with doing 1 of those things, but when it does 2 or more the map can tend to be too imbalanced.

Checklist
  1. This map actually doesn't have an obvious "Raelin-spot" :up:
  2. This map Startzone to Startzone is only 11 hexes away. That's actually pretty close for conflict and can make for some early Zelrig bombs or other ranged attacks into the Startzone turn 1 before the opponent even gets a turn. Even Nilf can start attacking the Startzone on turn 1. :down:
  3. This map is actually pretty open :up:
  4. Hive can be placed :up:
  5. The flat area right under the ruin out of the startzone would be a pod armies spot to setup. There are 4 spaces that can get view on most of the map, and keep from getting engaged. That said, it's not an inherently broken position...so I'd give this *:up: if the map had glyphs but a :down: without glyphs. Glyphs on maps can help punish armies that prefer to stay near the startzone and pod up.
  6. N/A - no glyphs
  7. No elevation in the SZ :up:
  8. N/A - no glyphs
  9. It's a pretty open map :up:
  10. Armies can develop quickly :up:

You'll notice that in terms of balance, the map does a pretty good job on the checklist. The 2 big balance concerns with this map are how close the SZ's are for early Turn 1 power plays and the lack of glyphs that can make it more likely for an army that wants to pod to sit back under the ruin and pot-shot all day long.

In addition to the above checklist, there are a few other things worth noting, that gave this map a "low score", and which coincide with my notes above:
  • While not required, there are no power glyphs on the map. Power glyphs can be a really good way to help balance a map to keep the whole map used and the conflict flowing...otherwise it can be a bit too "campy" at times when armies (specifically ranged armies) can sit back and ping at opponents.
  • Use more of the terrain in the sets. The Dungeon and Marvel sets are already really low on terrain count compared to the other sets, I think it'd be important to try and utilize as much of the terrain as possible. Using more of the terrain will help you space out the map a little more so SZ's aren't so close.
  • There's no need for the 2nd level of castle wall. While aesthetically pleasing, it really doesn't do anything for gameplay. Practically speaking, that second level can make it tougher for someone to prebuild and transport the map to a tournament, and for those playing on it, it's easier to knock over.
  • Keep in mind this was a contest of individual maps on merit, but also compared to other maps in the contest. In other words, your maps weren't horrible (clearly there's some good things going here), it's just that when you compare the merits of this map against the others, other maps did a better job in our categories.

So...yes, that was a lot. Basically, here would be my suggestions:
  • Remove 2nd level castle wall.
  • Add power glyphs. 2 on the edges would be my suggestion.
  • Use more of the (if not all) terrain from the Dungeon and Marvel sets to help "build out" the map a little more.

Start with that, and then we can go from there as you come up with new versions.​
 
Request for Workshopping:
DRAGON'S TEETH
DRAGONS_TEETH_thumbnail.png

Thanks for bringing your map to the workshop!

The general concerns I had with your map (and I think this goes for some of the other judges as well) were as follows:

1) I want to see more dynamic height distribution throughout the map - this creates greater depth and allows for more strategic play because there are more interesting decisions to be made.

2) This critique builds off the first - there is quite a bit of terrain available in the sets you chose that you haven't used. You don't have to use everything, but you have the terrain to add greater depth and variety to your map, so I'd encourage you to do so.

3) The middle of the map looks like it could cause some headaches - there are a few choke points through the middle because of the orientation of the two ruins. With the way the glyphs are positioned (in the middle of the path instead of towards the outside edge), coming through the sides to flank an opponent will be harder - not to mention that a lot of that section is on level 0. This means most of the action is probably going to take place in the middle, and you'll want to make sure the action flows well through that part of the map.


As a few positive notes - I love the shape, and I love the clear and concise start zones. I also really like the over all look of the map, so don't go too crazy in trying to overhaul the whole thing. :D

Let me know if you'd like further clarification or help! Maybe some other judges will weigh in here too. @Sir Heroscape @Nomad @heroscaper2010
 
I second a lot of what Flash pointed out. My issues had to do with:
1) Flatness of the map
2) The edges can be clogged down by 1 figure on a glyph
3) The center is easily clogged up

Specifically for this map, think Rats. Rats break this map mercilessly. You just need a 1 squad to essentially lock up the "clog zones" and if you have a few more, all the better to fill and replace. What's more, it really goes for any army. Even all melee will struggle to combat through those chokepoints. Aesthetically I agree it looks quite good, but it does have some issues on the outset.
 
Looking at all of your Notes as well as asking for some extra assistance from the Discord page I have a second version of Bloodbath BLVD.
Trying to make the Map Fun, Competitive, Intense,and Aesthetically Pleasing with keeping the Theme of a City Environment.

.HSC

PDF of Bloodbath BLVD

cvvr0Cg.png


>I did extended the SZs from 11 to 13 spaces away from each other
>added Glyphs
>opened an alleyway on the right side of the map
>narrowed the map in order to focus player movement on the left of the map
>Removed 2nd story of Castle Walls
 
Looking at all of your Notes as well as asking for some extra assistance from the Discord page I have a second version of Bloodbath BLVD.
Trying to make the Map Fun, Competitive, Intense,and Aesthetically Pleasing with keeping the Theme of a City Environment.

.HSC

PDF of Bloodbath BLVD

cvvr0Cg.png


>I did extended the SZs from 11 to 13 spaces away from each other
>added Glyphs
>opened an alleyway on the right side of the map
>narrowed the map in order to focus player movement on the left of the map
>Removed 2nd story of Castle Walls

So my recommendations for next steps would be these:

1) The more power glyphs you have, the more of an advantage strong glyph holders like deathreavers have on the map. These strong glyph holders also have a large advantage when both sides can't access/contest glyphs in the same way. To be more specific - when a 6-move figure can access a glyph in two turns, where it takes 5-move figures 3 turns, that gives those 6 move figures an advantage. That situation applies for your map as it stands right now. It is also a problem when one glyph is easier for one side to control because it is significantly closer to their start zone. The game often turns into "your glyph, my glyph" and the team with the stronger glyph closer to them (or just better glyph for their army) gets a significant advantage.

2) Development out of the start zone still needs some adjusting in my opinion. Height distribution throughout a map is a vital consideration when planning out a map. Where that height is located and how easy it is to get to that height strongly influences how armies move out of a start zone. As you keep working on your map I would suggest that you think a lot about where armies are going to go, and where they aren't going to go based on desirability of position. In general, you want as much of the board as possible to be used.

3) Aesthetic is important, but balance is even more important. I realize you're going for a certain look, but I think it's creating problems for the overall balance. Dips in terrain can create problems in ranged versus melee matchups by forcing melee units to move down, thereby sacrificing height, in order to get to ranged units who are taking shots down at them. The way your map is set up is basically one massive dip through the entire map. The shadow tiles do help, and the defense glyph probably helps too - but I'm still torn on that one.

4) I would playtest your map as is right now with melee versus ranged armies. Have the ranged army be something like 4th Mass or 10th Reg and take careful note of where those armies want to pod up, and what parts of the map they have control over when they're podded up.
 
Bloodbath BLVD <=== Download HSC.

XKPFiCs.png


PDF <=== Download


BfI4Hx0.png


This is a response to FLASH 19 from his Notes.
These are are my findings from playtesting

I playtested the map and played with various types of Teams.

The main change I applied last minute to the map before playtesting was making the exterior glyphs Summoning glyphs which in all three games were used be each player and helped each other reach a goal to either grab an opponent or save an ally.

Majority of the battles were on either by the summoning glyph near or on the height by the edges of the map and near and around the center of the Gerda Glyph.

If either of you are interested im curious to know how you would play on this map and test it yourself. All three games were heated and Fun never felt unjust because of imbalance that the map presented only imbalance was due to player skill and which teams were brought. Range armies won, Melee Armies won, and yes Mirming was able to hit an opponent in turn one. but, it didn't dominate the game. The player was able to lock down Mirming fast and eliminate him. All around solid and close games were held. I do not have a mass amount of doubles to test out huge armies so, hopefully one or two of you could try it out.

I'd like to get one more review before a full Submission would be prefered.
 
Last edited:
@Joecrazy3193 do you have a downloadable PDF? that'll be a lot easier to access quickly

Also, is the above your official re-submission that you'd like us to vote on for review or are you asking for more workshopping first?
 
@Sir Heroscape and @Flash19 Since you both helped me workshop this Map. Wanted to Thank you Both for your Guidance with this Process. Is there anything else I should look out for or add to the post before making Bloodbath BLVD a Full submission for Review?
 
Back
Top