Re: What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Con. Chernobyl
I'll put it up tomorrow when I have some more time.
I'll put it up tomorrow when I have some more time.
-
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)
- Thread starter MrNobody
- Start date
Maps that I feel that are listed as competitive but should not be. Also should probably not be playtesting on:
Alkali Lake
Crash Landing
Hydra Base Gehenna
Moon Base Alpha
Platforms 5 and 6
Ravaged Road
Rocket Launching Platform
Sauron's Eyrie
Swamp Lab
Tri-Ways War Zone
X-Marks the Spot
Maps that I could see debate about:
Grundy's Grave
Muspelheim Melee
Alkali Lake
Crash Landing
Hydra Base Gehenna
Moon Base Alpha
Platforms 5 and 6
Ravaged Road
Rocket Launching Platform
Sauron's Eyrie
Swamp Lab
Tri-Ways War Zone
X-Marks the Spot
Maps that I could see debate about:
Grundy's Grave
Muspelheim Melee
I know this will be unpopular, but Heroscape is an army drafting & strategy game. You know what the map is before you draft so you should draft your team on the best strategy you believe will overcome the enemy on the map before you. Saying a map isn't competitive because it uses a certain terrain type/piece is wrong to me. Especially when that terrain is official terrain. This is my personal opinion of course & I would be the first to say that I am not a skilled competitive player & that I probably wouldn't be able to best draft on any map. But isn't that what makes it a competition?
I think that if a map is symmetrical the only real competitive killer is if the start zones are too close or there are parts of the map that not all units can get to. Yes if a unit can get to somewhere easier & quicker than another unit that to me should still qualify as long as all units can get there - you draft accordingly. I think asymmetrical maps can also be competitive but you would need to accommodate for it in the competition rules like all combats require 2 matches swapping start zones for each match. Hell a lot of other miniature games actually have the placement of obstacles as part of the start game & thus making asymmetrical battlefields.
Anyway I think (my personal opinion) is that ruling out maps just because they use specific terrain (like capped castle walls for instance) is excluding the strategy of the draft which is one of the key parts of the game.
I think that if a map is symmetrical the only real competitive killer is if the start zones are too close or there are parts of the map that not all units can get to. Yes if a unit can get to somewhere easier & quicker than another unit that to me should still qualify as long as all units can get there - you draft accordingly. I think asymmetrical maps can also be competitive but you would need to accommodate for it in the competition rules like all combats require 2 matches swapping start zones for each match. Hell a lot of other miniature games actually have the placement of obstacles as part of the start game & thus making asymmetrical battlefields.
Anyway I think (my personal opinion) is that ruling out maps just because they use specific terrain (like capped castle walls for instance) is excluding the strategy of the draft which is one of the key parts of the game.
Arkham
C3G Con Champ 2021 and 2022!
Both forms of thought are understandable.
I think the list Eric has put together is agreeable for me. Although I understand where A3n is coming from, and he's not wrong in that you **know the map prior to playing**, but only ~half our library of 1300+ has Flying? And then only so many of that ~half have decent Move or Range. So it's a bit of a shame to essentially say "you know the map heavily favors figures with Flying, and even more so the ones with above average Move or exceptional Range, so I better limit my options to them if I want to stand a chance or have an equal shot to win..." Same mindset with lava maps and tossers, to an even more hyper focused/limited group of units that gain a big advantage.
So while I don't fault you or anyone else that may feel that way, but IMO, that's the distinction between competitive and casual that should be made. Casual = no focus on equal odds for the overwhelming majority(at least 80%) of our library. Competitive = as equal of odds as possible for the majority of our library.
Ultimately, I don't see any harm in more strictly distinguishing something as Casual vs. Competitive, as it shouldn't dictate any sort of map quality or fun factor etc. Nobody should feel discouraged for making a Casual map as if it's somehow inferior. If anything, it's a label to help newer players play on something more guaranteed to not heavily skew/favor one team over the other if that's a concern at all.
All that said, a tourney held specifically on Casual maps would be fun. But understandably, that sort of then requires you to build around those maps rather than what you may want to play. If you're in the mood to run Criminals for example, you better think twice.
**In tournaments, you may know the map pool, but you're stuck with a pre-chosen locked in army or limited draft roster.
**With playtesting, just because you know the map, doesn't mean that unit should be played on it if its going to heavily skew the results, something newer players may not fully grasp.
I think the list Eric has put together is agreeable for me. Although I understand where A3n is coming from, and he's not wrong in that you **know the map prior to playing**, but only ~half our library of 1300+ has Flying? And then only so many of that ~half have decent Move or Range. So it's a bit of a shame to essentially say "you know the map heavily favors figures with Flying, and even more so the ones with above average Move or exceptional Range, so I better limit my options to them if I want to stand a chance or have an equal shot to win..." Same mindset with lava maps and tossers, to an even more hyper focused/limited group of units that gain a big advantage.
So while I don't fault you or anyone else that may feel that way, but IMO, that's the distinction between competitive and casual that should be made. Casual = no focus on equal odds for the overwhelming majority(at least 80%) of our library. Competitive = as equal of odds as possible for the majority of our library.
Ultimately, I don't see any harm in more strictly distinguishing something as Casual vs. Competitive, as it shouldn't dictate any sort of map quality or fun factor etc. Nobody should feel discouraged for making a Casual map as if it's somehow inferior. If anything, it's a label to help newer players play on something more guaranteed to not heavily skew/favor one team over the other if that's a concern at all.
All that said, a tourney held specifically on Casual maps would be fun. But understandably, that sort of then requires you to build around those maps rather than what you may want to play. If you're in the mood to run Criminals for example, you better think twice.
**In tournaments, you may know the map pool, but you're stuck with a pre-chosen locked in army or limited draft roster.
**With playtesting, just because you know the map, doesn't mean that unit should be played on it if its going to heavily skew the results, something newer players may not fully grasp.
Arkham
C3G Con Champ 2021 and 2022!
FTR, I think Flying already feels rewarding enough even on some of the smallest/flattest maps we have. Like Conflict Chernoby for example, Flying still can feel helpful to have even if its only saving you a couple spaces of movement here and there, or the ability to ignore water etc. To ramp it up to full blown 8 level ladder avoidance and the ability to easily kite any figure without Flying, can feel more crippling than rewarding. 
My TTS tourney army is based around lava. It's not terribly fun for anybody.
Yeah that's totally Super League. Everyone drafted their map first then built around it. Like LP said I tried to build around my Lava map with Magneto II.
We had a hell of a fun game until Graviton showed up!
Except for my W/L record!
Play your games with Cinder!
Yes. You are hosting him in the Indy Conference championship (best of three - you have home, away, home if necessary).
I’m up 1-0 on Toy in ours. Need to play our second soon (I’m hosting).
Just haven't had a chance. Maybe next week. My wife is recovering from surgery so my time at home is all taking care of kids and housework.
reverie
Active member
I brought City Park to our Holiday Party. I only got to play one game on it but I watched portions of others and it seemed to play well for classic Scape. It's also better than most for theme and brought a nice splash of something different to the tables with concrete and asphalt, which we don't use a lot of. Obvious start zones are underrated. Would build again!
What do you guys think of Icy Road?
What do you guys think of Icy Road?
Last edited:
Looks good.
City Park is a really great map. I use it regularly.
Icy Road is s fun map too but it's pretty big. I used it more for multi-player C3G games. It's size would probably be too much for classic scape. Slow melee squads would struggle I think. C3G maps are really balanced for squad scape, the overwhelming C3G armies are built with 4 or 5 heroes and rarely with squads. Classic armies are mostly squads with a single bonding hero. Those armies play very differently.
Icy Road is s fun map too but it's pretty big. I used it more for multi-player C3G games. It's size would probably be too much for classic scape. Slow melee squads would struggle I think. C3G maps are really balanced for squad scape, the overwhelming C3G armies are built with 4 or 5 heroes and rarely with squads. Classic armies are mostly squads with a single bonding hero. Those armies play very differently.
I really enjoy Icy Road, but, yeah, plays better with fast heroes. I don't mind that it takes a little longer to develop, though, as that makes it feel strategic. I do think some icy-powered types can feel a bit strong on it, though.