#Phobies Map Criteria

351 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

wise dirge
#

Map Design Criteria

When designing a map, the following criteria are helpful:

1) The map possesses a minimum of 3 highly contestable panic points.

2) The map possesses a heart that is both open to attack and defensible.

3) Vault sniping is limited to the central tile or less (excepting Billy).

4) Triple melee openers are viable and strong.

5) Both players are able to advance and win the match through aggressive play.

6) Terrorforming is optional for successful play.

7) Convenient and comfortable panic point control with a Sentinel is minimal.

8) Damage tiles (lava, etc.) encourage aggressive play.

9) Utility tiles (healing spas) are contestable or have a positioning/tempo tradeoff.

10) The map allows for flexible Phobie choices and does not force a collection-specific approach.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Please feel free to use this channel to discuss the list for potential refinement and additions. I am posting this list here so that if it is altered I only need to make one alteration instead of altering the list in every post.

Current list of Map Feedback Discussion threads:
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1428768101629038653
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1367323199829708810
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1360049562496143440
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1361507137506906202
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1361385558341062957
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1361029401084563466
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1432642596970303491
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1364375300347002953
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1451280327623311482

wise dirge
#

https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1431328185018093598
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497650348851073226
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1435675411932774492
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1412515444975206430
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1411961219723558963
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497660578112602223
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497649114417205300
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497647264288473108
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497656656769581086
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1362086686669934783
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497638199533633789
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1361411524786258051

#

https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497662422046085325
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1360696563244077142
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1412482344832471060
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1362898472310804691
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497663355547287702
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1361553076300943440
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1410639982984433664
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1360796400429830325
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1360892123846676630
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1412626630429380628
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1364339564960813128
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497658982444171294
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497657844600668170
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1412521211069468804
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497655189811757166
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1362527841400651827
https://discord.com/channels/930177578004791356/1497639679003070484

#

I would need clear examples of this to fully grasp the point. This seems like a fact of level impacts at a glance. Like if I am 4 levels above you, on any map my Jar Cannon can harass your Murder Wing, etc.

#

I'm especially not sure how #6 applies to Lights Out.

#

This list seems more about collection checks and collection limitations than level differences, though.

#

The list you gave.

Honestly everything you wrote in terms of map theory seems correct to me, but none of it seems grounded in level differences.

#

It's either collection issues or tempo issues.

#

I am reading the doc.

zenith slate
# wise dirge I'm especially not sure how #6 applies to Lights Out.

Lights out can allow the overleveled player to take lava damage without it affecting their trades and playing between the lava lines offers a lot more control. But Ergo is a much better example here is an example layout of how a higher level player can establish control for my claim 6. With Blue being overleveled, green contesting, and red being underleveled

wise dirge
#

It almost feels like what you are really writing is that maps with a standoffish and stallish nature are bad because they allow for players to accumulate stat and collection based Phobies without the opportunity to counter play.

That seems largely like a tempo and collection based claim to me.

Surprised to see Transaction Declined listed as bad. All of the maps you listed as good I agree with and agree with your points.

wise dirge
#

Map features should scale with Phobie levels.

#

Like what I'm reading here is that you are listing maps with a lot of strategies. Counter play options, different ways of approaching them. Map having high tempo, I feel. Then in contrast, the maps you list that are not good do not have a lot of counter play options or ways of approaching them, and this is because their structure does not enable high tempo play as a successful approach. That means that players are free to turtle for a super team that is very hard to overcome alongside level differences.

#

So it seems to me that the real issues are about tempo and collection check scenarios.

#

Leaving Transaction Declined aside.

#

I think this describes the rest of what you wrote for the other maps.

#

To be clear, I think this specific feature is good:
"Controlling of space on this map is extremely limited partially because the central part of the map is so enclosed (4/7 center tiles are obstacles). Additionally defending the opposite side's panic point means going BEHIND the heart, which sacrifices a LOT of center control."

Being able to conveniently control the center is bad and why so many maps are standoffs. That Transaction Declined makes everything awkward is part of why it is a solid map experience.

zenith slate
#

Another example of high tempo maps that leave the under leveled player forced to defend is withering heights however having more keys per turn offer some decision making each turn.

wise dirge
#

I haven't seen you list any besides Transaction Declined.

wise dirge
#

Okie dokie. I'd like to talk more about this, especially Transaction Declined. I've also been reflecting on its map structure and what I perceive to be problems, but the map is also very fast so I am wary of opening it up.

#

"This fighting on multiple fronts splits units and exacerbates level difference, especially when breakpoints are hit, and the lower level player can’t trade evenly in the smaller fights and thus starts in a much larger losing position than normal."

This is just a basic feature of most maps. Forcing players to split forces to control different areas makes maps more interesting and dynamic. It's a good feature with a frustrating consequence, not a bad one.

#

This higher level of aggression issue on Transaction Declined is also largely a map scaling one, with what I am reading. P2 struggles to stabilize because the heart has so little health. Give it another 60% health and that will no longer be the case, is my feeling.

#

The only real issue I have with Transaction Declined is the ability for a Sentinel to control all 3 panic points.

zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
#

I disagree with this slightly. I believe that it is currently too easy for P1 to start with control over all the panic points on transaction declined, P2 is forced into turrets or Sentinels to fight back and takes 2300+ (235+705*3) damage from panic points alone over the first couple turns.
I think that by moving swapping the edge panic points with the conveyor so that P1 does not have a unit sitting next to each point end of turn 1, it would slow the pace of the map a little bit. (I know this opens up new issues with using the booster to poke heart but its the first solution that came to mind that would allow P2 a bit more control to for fight panic points)

wise dirge
#

Give me a match example. I beat Hopeloy with P2 turn 1 Inoc so it seems pretty solid to me.

#

He did not play turn 1 Tickles, but again this is a balance issue, not a map issue.

#

It's not a question of map structure, but how Tickles and Inoc should interact. Personally I think Inoc should not 2-tap Tickles at all so that it IS a bad opening.

wise dirge
#

My sense is that much of this is due to the double wall placement in the center. When a map has a central panic point with two pairs of walls around it, it tends to lead to very restrictive play because you cannot move around them very easily.

sharp hinge
#

Claim #1 I think is definitely wrong. In fact I think it's backwards. Aggressive play is more possible when you are over-levelled, sure, but so is solid positional play.
Playing aggressively gives the lower leveled player a chance to either counter-attack or punish over-aggression.
Over-levellled players don't play more aggressively since it's to their advantage, they do it since it's more fun.
Obviously it's also situational, but I think in general if you want to avoid the level anldvantage being more obvious, you really don't want to discourage over-levelled players from playing aggressively.

#

Btw, ty heaps for compiling this! It's a really good topic to discuss 🙂

#

Claim 2 I also disagree with but more on a pedantic level. Collection advantage is not inherently bad, but level advantage is inherently bad. The game would just be better if it didn't exist.
I agree with the point about the level wall though. I wish the elo climb were more gradual.

#

Claim 3 is definitely obviously true, but it doesn't say anything about which sort of maps that is, so it's hard to work in to a map judging criteria.

#

Claim 4: I agree, great analysis. Phobopolis should feel seen. Is this already covered by current criteria, though? If not, what would a new criterion look like?

#

Claim 5 seemsmlike an elaboration for claim 4.

zenith slate
sharp hinge
#

The most clear example of this for me is jar cannon. When your jar can 2-shot but not the other way around, it means you can just pop their jar once and force it back, but they can't do the same.
Also notable is MW not being able to dislodge Jar.
I don't know how this is a map issue though. I'll read through the convo now to see if it helps.

zenith slate
sharp hinge
#

The only time I ever beat hopeloy on TD was as p2. Just putting that out there.

#

Stats or anecdotal?

Anyway, I agree that if the under-levelled player plays too defensively, then they're eventually going to lose. And on maps where you feel like you have no counter-offensive options, you're eventually going to lose as well. But sometimes the solution is to just not feel like that. Go on the counter-offensive anyway.

#

Might be collection-based?

#

Maybe you feel like you don't have any counter-offensove options because you literally don't have them in your collection.

zenith slate
sharp hinge
wise dirge
#

Do you have matches I can watch regarding this experience?

sharp hinge
#

Mino is so underrated on TD 🙂 I love it. Surprise endgame melee reinforcements are a very steong play for the aggressive player, and mino gives you lots of aggressive options.
It works great in level 1 mode too though.

zenith slate
#

My only issues with Minotaur are on that map and the layout that nclr drew in screenies

sharp hinge
#

Re: breakpoints, I feel like that is a huge issue vs over-levelled players that allows them to play more offensively. But that's basically true on every map. I'm not yet seeing how it is worse on certain maps.

#

Played it a while ago, I think it is in the phobie usage guide for slammerhead, let me check.

#

And quag.

#

Yeah, if you're just heebie-jeebieing it by moving melee troops into each other, the over-levelled player will have a huge advantage. And your claim is TD forces that? I'd be keen to see a match where it felt forced.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
zenith slate
#

I guess next time the map rolls around we are going to need to do some frenemies for testing

sharp hinge
#

Heart hp not scaling is a huge issue that gives high levelled players (over-levelled or not) a huge advantage when playing aggressively. Maps that encourage aggressive play fron either side will exacerbate this issue. I really hope that gets fixed soon, and properly.

#

TD doesn't feel cramped to me since there are so many different lines of attack. If you're hiding behind your heart then it is definitely cramped though. But it's really tough for an opponent to successfully defend all 3 points.

#

In fact it feels so open that It's hard to intuitively understand why Karst thinks removing a pair of obstacles would make it better.

#

I find Moai way harder to defend on than TD. (ironically, though, I have a pinned game where I successfully defended while counter-rushing against hopeloy. But it would never have worked with proper map scaling.)

Do you have any cool moai defensive games I can watch and learn from?

#

Oooof, that is very strong on moai! Still thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.

Papou is a great example of a player who is able to leverage his level advantage well but also able to be beaten if you manage to find good counterplay options.

sharp hinge
# wise dirge Do you have matches I can watch regarding this experience?

Here is a match that just finished ||(vs @inner flint , ggwp!)|| where, due to level advantage, when Endeis tried playing aggressively to control the points I was able to kill haphe without using inoc, and also my inoc could 2-tap tickles. After that, it was really hard for Endeis to control the points and I was able to play hyper aggressively, using the conveyors to bring in super fast aoe melee reinforcements that were too relentless and high hp for Endeis to defend against.

Is this the sort of game you were imagining @keen smelt @zenith slate ? Do you feel like Endeis had no real options here? Or is it a bad example of what you meant for some specific reason?

zenith slate
# sharp hinge Here is a match that just finished ||(vs <@407361438663835653> , ggwp!)|| where,...

I think this game is a pretty good representation of what we were talking about. The Haphe play is a really interesting opener that I have yet to experience myself and I will need to look into it later.
You can see the issues on the map where the defending under leveled player is unable to both contest panics points in 1v1 fights with 1 keys and struggles bring stated units into the fight before game ends.
This map allows you to both body block the panic points you hold while actively hitting heart at the same.
This game ends with Endeis up 5 keys as he starts with 1 more key as P2 while he had to sacrifice 6ish keys to body block. IMO trading key advantage for tempo especially with the aoe melee unit on this map completely destroys the lower level player.

inner flint
#

Normally I’ll play aggressive panic point control against high level players, I feel like that’s the only chance I can win. My favourite style is to play defensively and this won’t work against high levels who rarely make mistakes.

wise dirge
sharp hinge
# wise dirge That is funny because sometimes I feel the opposite. Hahaha. I wonder what that ...

Probably it means that our own individual experiences are anecdotal and have a relatively small sample size. Like can we really remember 30+ games we played as p2 on TD against an overlevelled opponent where we played defensively, and 30+ where we played aggressively, and use that info to accurately which one worked better? Or is it just that we happened to win or lose a few times using those strategies, and noticed the patterns?

wise dirge
inner flint
inner flint
novel python
#

Phobies would a much better game if the devs at Smoking Gun had read up on their Karst Theory

sharp hinge
astral falconBOT
#

@sharp hinge

dudiobugtron leveled up!

Congrats, @sharp hinge! You are now level 34!

Phobies Game
wise dirge
#

@sharp hinge something I was thinking about. Why are these not contestable here, but they are when we move them in one tile? Like what is the objective change that occurs?

image.png
#

I think the answer might be that in their current position, a 2 range Phobie cannot attack that panic point without getting hit by Snowball or Jar Cannon.

#

Which makes approaching that panic point much more difficult.

#

The panic point can also be recaptured immediately.

#

So I wonder if an objective criteria for "contestable panic point" may be:

  1. It can be attacked by a 2-range walking Phobie without being struck by Snowball from vault.
  2. The panic point cannot be recaptured straight from the enemy vault.

Then again that would invalidate Transaction Declined's panic points with points #2, so maybe that's not a good criterion. Just sharing thoughts.

#

Ideally we would be able to formulate all of the rules objectively instead of using a vague notion like "contestable".

sharp hinge
wise dirge
zenith slate
#

So this play only becomes doable once the end is in sight

wise dirge
zenith slate
# wise dirge Mm hmm.

I think moving 1 closer lets you use a thrower to contest over the wall with cover letting you trade and contest a bit easier

wise dirge
zenith slate
#

Should panic points be treated like spas where taking them loses pressure of the middle or other important locations?
I think exponential decay is a decent example of this, where holding panic points gives up a bit of control

wise dirge
zenith slate
#

Night shift is a good example of a bottom panic point that can be contested by both players and is 4 spaces from both vaults

wise dirge
wise dirge
#

There are also oblong maps like TFIL where panic points are contestable but would clearly break this rule.

zenith slate
wise dirge
wise dirge
#

Sounds good.

wise dirge
#

Hm?

sharp hinge
# wise dirge Hm?

Sorry, I misunderstood what you guys were talking about. How does night shift break the snowball rule?

wise dirge
sharp hinge
sharp hinge
#

Maybe remove 'phobies' since it's implicit.

#

'Map feedback discussion' could also potentially be removed, as it's also implicit.

#

As an aside, but does triple melee really need to be viable on every map as an opener? If a map has good opportunities for aggressive play for both sides, but triple melee doesn't quite work, is that even bad?

sharp hinge
#

Cool, thanks; looking forward to it.

wise dirge
sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

So the criteria should mention something about 'generally' or naturally etc...

Note the points on vicious cycle can be covered by a sentinel on stim. I have a game with papou atm where we are 1 key trading on his top point.

wise dirge
sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
sharp hinge
wise dirge
#

I don't think so, but also I think it's fine to take over #🧩︱strategy

sharp hinge
#

Also note that whether snowball can reach a point sometimes depends on Terrorform.

wise dirge
#

Am I misunderstanding?

sharp hinge
wise dirge
#

You were talking about adding "generally" to contestable, I thought.

sharp hinge
#

In the one I linked.

wise dirge
#

Help me understand.

#

Maybe let's start from the start?

sharp hinge
#

You wanted some specific definition for determining whether a point was contestable. I think you should instead be looking to determine what makes a point highly contestable. Since that's what the #1 says.

wise dirge
#

Ah I see. Yes I agree.

sharp hinge
#

"A panic point is highly contestable when a 2 range non-flying Phobie can cover its space while also being out of range of a Snowball vault snipe".

  • I can't currently think of a counterexample.
#

At least not one that doesn't involve terrorform.

wise dirge
#

Definitely not a highly contested panic point.

#

Same here. Also the panic points at the top/bottom of Mysomania.

image.png
#

Let's continue to reflect, though. I feel this is making progress even if we don't have it locked down.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

I think that still doesn't work though. The corner points on this might sting, are they highly contestable?

wise dirge
#

I'm okay with making that a little vibe-based for now. 😛

novel python
wise dirge
novel python
wise dirge
#

Definitely.

novel python
# wise dirge Definitely.

If you extend the rule of symmetry even further, it works better too. If a point also offers the same defensibility for both sides, that’s even more likely to work

sharp hinge
lament forge
wise dirge
#

My personal philosophy is this: in most card games, the goal is to hit the opponent's face and do damage. Once the opponent hits 0 health, they lose the game.

The heart is the equivalent of the face.

It is strange, then, that there are so many maps where you simply cannot attack the face. You can put minions on the board and then stand and wait...that's...boring and stupid, in my opinion.

So to me it's about more than tempo - it's a simple design principle that I think they misstepped on. If I am winning, I want to be able to end the match faster and attack the opponent's face to conclude the match. That for so many matches the best option even when you are winning hard is to simply pass turns is a design error.

#

Yes - that is my feeling.

#

On Mount Blight, for example, I think the map is much better if we just remove a vault. This creates rotational symmetry which makes the heart partially exposed.

#

Oh yeah I'm fine with that. The heart doesn't always need to be highly exposed. If you look at Vile Vortice, for example, I think the heart positioning is perfectly fine here:

360.png
zenith slate
#

@wise dirge any chance you can list the map discussions urls or add links to to the top of this discussion? This is starting to get really hard to navigate

wise dirge
#

He's asking about the individual map threads - that's a good idea. I was just thinking that no one is posting in the new ones probably because they can't find them and I can't ping everyone. lmao

zenith slate
#

I was looking to find Maoi and it was just hard. Was hoping for listed map threads

#

We also might need to slow down the posting to every other day. With just 1 day between maps we are struggling to get everyones opinions and have a good discussion with the timezone differences. There are too many maps going at once rn

wise dirge
# zenith slate We also might need to slow down the posting to every other day. With just 1 day ...

It's okay for multiple threads to be concurrent. I don't consider any thread "dead" at any point. So if someone goes back to comment on an older thread that's fine with me.

I mostly open up threads when I feel like I'm in a good place or when I've hit a big enough stall that I need a change of pace and will return to a map later for more discussion.

All of the theads are now listed in the OP of this thread, which is pinned. I alphabetized them for easy browsing. 🙂

zenith slate
wise dirge
# zenith slate Awesome

It's hard to alphabetize because I can't see the names when I type the links - only after submitting. 🤣

Had to do it 1 at a time.

#

But also @zenith slate I'll probably wait until tonight or tomorrow to post the next one. If anyone ever has any requests for maps they want to discuss, I am not following any particular order or anything.

zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

If you don't have powerful displacement it's an instant-loss.

#

The map isn't even playable without Akira.

zenith slate
#

Huh, I just have not gotten a high elo match on that map. I have always played it with multi wall breaks snipers/ throwers and or fliers

wise dirge
wise dirge
#

Dyno you are so stupid.

#

The Vicious Cycle thread is up for you.

#

@sharp hinge @keen smelt @zenith slate Apologies, but would you all mind deleting your posts in this thread up to this point?
#1360046433352548393 message

I am running up to the character limit in the OP and would not be able to link more threads, otherwise. These are my first posts in the thread that are not a reply to another poster for usage.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
sharp hinge
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

No rush.

wise dirge
wise dirge
#

New Ergo is up.

wise dirge
#

Is this supposed to be Dearly Departed, or am I remembering wrong?

image.png
zenith slate
sharp hinge
wise dirge
#

I am looking to condense the 10-point map criteria to make it easier to read through and parse.

#

Thoughts? Especially on my criteria naming shorthand.

#

The goal is to be able to look through at a glance instead of read through paragraphs like we have to right now.

keen smelt
#

This looks good to me

wise dirge
#

Are all of my criteria titles adequate?

keen smelt
#

How would we use it without a screenshot

wise dirge
keen smelt
#

So we won't be able to post screenshots in the discussion though :/

wise dirge
#

Gah. That's so annoying. You need to yap more. lol

#

What is your current level?

keen smelt
keen smelt
wise dirge
#

Good change - changed.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

All maps have been created using Pato Rey's tool in the Map Feedback Document now. That was exhausting and time-consuming.

#

Next I will do a pre-evaluation of every map using the shorthand. Then I will go back and finish up some of the current threads. Then I will catch the doc up on those findings. Then I will start making the posts in alphabetical order in the future so I can keep track of this stuff better.

wise dirge
#

Looking to change Criteria 10 to this so that it is a positive statement instead of a negative one - saying what a map is instead of what it is not. @sharp hinge thoughts?

image.png
# 
Map Design Criteria
When designing a map, the following criteria are helpful:
1) The map possesses a minimum of 3 highly contestable panic points.
2) The map possesses a heart that is both open to attack and defensible. 
3) Vault sniping is limited to the central tile or less (excepting Billy).
4) Triple melee openers are viable and strong.
5) Both players are able to advance and win the match through aggressive play.
6) Terrorforming is optional for successful play.
7) Convenient and comfortable panic point control with a Sentinel is minimal.
8) Harmful tiles (lava, etc.) encourage aggressive play.
9) Defensive tiles (healing spas) are contestable or have a positioning/tempo tradeoff.
10) The map allows a flexible playstyle and does not force a collection-specific approach.
#

I reworded a few - ideally changing the phrasing for clarity but not meaning.

#

@zenith slate @keen smelt

keen smelt
#

Looks good to me

zenith slate
#

Looks good to me too

sharp hinge
#

I do wonder though if flexoble playstyle isn't just already covered by other criteria.

#

(Aggro possible, tri melee viable, heart attackable,, GD optional, sentinels not OP etc...)

#

In which case, maybe 10 should remain specifically about collections rather than playstyle.

keen smelt
#

Or do we want to get even more specific? It seems the only time we've agreed something is a collection check is on a map where lobbers are required, or am I missing something else?

#

Bc if that's the case ^, then we can just say something specially about lobbers

wise dirge
#

It will come up with others. Xylo is puller dependent.

#

I think I will keep it as is if everyone is cool with that.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

For eg, castaway isn't a collection check even though it has abysses. It definitely allows flexible phobie choice.

#

Xylo, however, is a collection check and shouldn't pass this criteria in my opinion.

wise dirge
#

I agree with both of those examples.

sharp hinge
#

Oh, I see what you mean now.

#

"The map allows flexible Phobie choice. Every collection has competitive options available."

"The map allows for varied collections with flexible Phobie choice."

"Players with small collections have viable options available."

wise dirge
#

Do you not like my current formulation?

sharp hinge
wise dirge
#

Hm.

sharp hinge
# wise dirge Hm.

Playstyle includes things like playing aggressively or defensively, attacking the heart, contesting points, etc... This criterion is about not locking people out of playing the map well because of their collection.

wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

Collection-specific approach is maybe a bit ambiguous though. I get what you mean but I already knew beforehand so I am unsure.

Like, I know you don't mean that it forces different approaches based on your collection. But, does it come across that way to people reading it for the first time?

wise dirge
#

Hmm not sure, since I am also biased...

wise dirge
#

I'd ike opinions from everyone here on what I need to present per-map in the document. In the previous version, I wrote a few paragraphs explaining the scoring. However, I wonder now if it's just repetitive and taking up unnecessary space when the chart is more self-explanatory now. Similarly, when I list a new map, I would take the time to write out what was changed and why it helps, but if I'm presenting a new map then it is generally implied that I feel the issues have been fixed, and it's not too hard to sniff out the changes (maybe?).

I'm trying to go back and get myself more organized before posting more threads because I was getting lost in the details and lost track of where I was on each thread. If I can simplify the process to just maps and evaluation charts, that's better for me and allows me to do more, faster, with less burden. If it doesn't feel clear what's happening any why, though, then I need to do more. I'm trying to find the right balance. I don't want to write a bunch of stuff that doesn't need to be written. The less I have to write, the faster I can move and the cleaner the document looks.

So please look at the Biff's Room entry here as a sample of what I used to do:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFBkH_r9TRc-M-DjEjez7TR6fgR04TUaEwDZm5OFHzE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.9wrfgiwhanuf

Then you can look at Never, Forever for an example of only doing a write-up for the alterations:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFBkH_r9TRc-M-DjEjez7TR6fgR04TUaEwDZm5OFHzE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ip9c1d1wva3h

Or I could just have the evaluation chart and the rework with no explanation, and in a general section leading up to the maps I would write out a more general explanation of good vs. bad map feature examples people can reference if they are unsure of changes in general.

Thoughts?

#

@novel python @inner flint @keen smelt @zenith slate

sharp hinge
# wise dirge I'd ike opinions from everyone here on what I need to present per-map in the doc...

I think it depends what the point of the document is. As a resource for linking people to when they ask how you feel about a map, the initial writeup about why the map is bad would be really useful. But as something to present to the devs as suggestions, the extra info makes it much more unweildy. In either case, the justification of the changes is not needed IMO.

For that second use, I think that the individual map criteria should each be justified (with examples) in the preamble. So some of what you have already written could be copied up there.

zenith slate
# wise dirge I'd ike opinions from everyone here on what I need to present per-map in the doc...

Ok looking through your doc right now. I believe an opening segment to talk about why these 10 map requirements should be met might also be useful to be added.
I think you are going to end up with questions on why these criteria are needed unless you answer them in advance.

Also because maps are going to be alphabetical referencing maps out of order can cause some confusion and force the reader to read other segments and come back like with The Penny Dropped referenced on Billy's Room.

#

I personally like the individual map criteria with examples in preamble but this is mostly formatting and with the table it can be avoided to speed things up

wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
#

Yeah

#

Short and sweet

wise dirge
#

So I will:

  1. Add a section that justifies the criteria and gives examples of good/bad iterations.
  2. Remove all write-ups for the current map version.
  3. For a new version, I will create one bullet point per change.

I'll leave it open for further discussion and opinions before I go through with it, but this feels right to me so far.

keen smelt
#

Plus then the important points about what makes a map fun aren't hidden anywhere in a specific map halfway down the document

wise dirge
#

This all sounds good to me - thanks everyone!

wise dirge
#

Not finished, just showing how I'm organizing.

image.png
wise dirge
#

@sharp hinge @zenith slate @keen smelt
I am still working on drafting the discussion sections, but you can see what I am working on so far:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XFBkH_r9TRc-M-DjEjez7TR6fgR04TUaEwDZm5OFHzE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qceytonajs3o

#4 and #6 are completed rough drafts of what I want the other sections to look like. Bullet-point arguments that are easy to follow in their logic is the goal. If anyone wants to take a crack at the other sections or offer feedback, I'm glad to receive it. Tired enough that I'm starting to type gibberish so I think I'm done for now. 😄

sharp hinge
wise dirge
keen smelt
#

I'll try to look at it tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have the time then

inner flint
# wise dirge I'd ike opinions from everyone here on what I need to present per-map in the doc...

If you are just referring to map alterations, I like the 2nd method personally as it explains why a map needs to be changed in such way.

the 1st one is including your own thoughts and a different player might have a different opinion than yours. Of course sharing your own opinion is good for mentoring, but if you need to present this to the devs, I feel the strategy part can be excluded, unless the devs need more insights before making the changes.

The 3rd one can work among the veterans and experience players, but it will be less beneficial for new players since they can’t feel the annoying part of a map that early yet.

wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

Feel free to be nitpicky if you think it can be improved. I'm not afraid of criticism.

zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

I do hate how "FAIL EXAMPLE" keeps getting separated from the image, but Google Docs won't let me group images and text like you can in Word.

keen smelt
wise dirge
sharp hinge
# wise dirge Alright, I have finished a first pass of discussion sections for all 10 criteria...

It looks good, I can't offer suggestions yet but I am sure I will think of some later.

In the mean-time, the justification list for the criteria reinforces my suspicion that the "triple melee opener is viable' criterion doesn't add anything new. All of the justification is basically just 'three contestable panic points is good'.

I feel like if we want to keep this criterion, we should include justification from given #2 (play diversity).

#

I also noticed that all of the examples are small maps. Is that deliberate?

wise dirge
wise dirge
#

The big bummer was that I couldn't use Hall of Mirrors or Teen Spirit since the maps are wrong in the wiki. Lol

sharp hinge
#

For eg: "if there are 3 contestable points, then it allows p1 to play for tempo and enables high-tempo openings such as 3 melee Phobies." could be a justification added to the 3 panic point criterion.

wise dirge
#

I think all three of these are contestable, but I would never play triple melee here.

#

This might also be true for Crypto.

#

Technically all three panic points are contestable, I believe.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
# sharp hinge Ooh nice. So, it's not worth playing for early tempo since you can't swap to he...

I'm honestly not entirely clear on why on some maps, 3 contestable panic points seems like enough on its own, and on others it's not. Like if the HSH and Crypto hearts were more exposed, would they suddenly become tempo maps? It doesn't feel like that's true to me, like there's another piece we haven't entirely captured that makes triple one key a criteria that might be revealing another map aspect we aren't seeing.

#

Do you agree with all of the pass/fail examples I chose?

sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

TFIL is a really cool example for eg, since aggro is definitely possible with the heart location and number of contestable points, but there's always a huge risk of getting vault sniped even on your own side of the lava.

wise dirge
#

I want to lock all this down for the foreseeable future. Took me all weekend to get this organized and I never want to touch it again if I can help it. Lol

#

Absolutely exhausting.

keen smelt
# wise dirge I'm honestly not entirely clear on why on some maps, 3 contestable panic points ...

I think I disagree with this. I think for a map to be high tempo, the heart needs to be assailable once map control is established. Otherwise the slow player can just play defensively until they take back sweeping map control. But this slow play only loses if panic point damage can then be transitioned into direct heart damage to kill the heart, since panic point damage alone is almost always too slow.

#

Like I think the reason why the big house is not a tempo map is exactly this. I've held all 5 panic points for multiple turns before and calculated out that with best play, the opponent still wins, since they have time to build up a defense and sweep in to take back the panic points. And I think this is because I can't transition my control of panic points into direct heart damage

#

Plus I think melee phobies tend to be particularly good at doing heart rushing if the heart is assailable. Put a razor mouth next to the heart and it needs to be killed or else that damage will add up, which forces a reaction from the defender, which means the aggressor can snowball this into more map control and more heart pressure, etc.

#

Basically I think the triple melee opener is a proxy for "if P2 plays super slow, can p1 punish them by rushing the heart?" Otherwise, the triple melee is too bad at a combat for center control and therefore not viable

#

There's also the lack of map scaling that adds a wrinkle here. It's gonna look different for an account with level 20 phobies than an account with level 10s

wise dirge
# keen smelt I think I disagree with this. I think for a map to be high tempo, the heart need...

I could have worded that better. What I meant was that sometimes it feels like panic point control is sufficient for maps to be high tempo. Redrum, for example, is a high tempo experience even if you never push the heart, and to some degree it feels like the contestability of the far panic point is "higher" than that of Home Sweet Home, even though that third panic point technically has the same distance from the vault. So what I am wondering is: why is that and what is the real difference?

Re: The Big House, I think part of the issue is how far the panic points are away from your own vault. It's like there's a sweet spot. If a panic point is too far away from your vault, you can't get to it in a reasonable amount of time to contest it. If a panic point is too close to your vault, it's not contestable. That's kind of what I'm thinking about. There's also the important fact that for a panic point to be fully contestable, I believe you need to be able to capture it with something besides just a sacrificial 1 key and hold that point.

wise dirge
keen smelt
#

Or am I missing something

wise dirge
keen smelt
#

If it's an obstacle you just terrorform it

#

And if you deleted that tile from the map (and hid the heart so it's untouchable), I think a slow play gravedigger into innoculus would stall the game pretty dang fast

#

I guess what I'm thinking is this:

  1. Phobies only has 2 win conditions: kill the heart, or kill their keys.
  2. panic point damage alone almost never is enough to kill the heart (on small maps, in my experience). I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong about this though

Assume P1 plays aggressively with triple melee, and P2 plays super slowly. If the heart cannot be assailed, then by (2), p1 cannot win through panic points, and P1 cannot win by killing keys because p2 has not summoned the keys to be killed. Then p2 can just leak panic point damage until they summon a more expensive, slow, better team comp, and retake center control forever.

Thus the only way a map can be high tempo is if control of panic points can be transitioned into direct heart damage. Does that argument seem fair?

wise dirge
sharp hinge
sharp hinge
wise dirge
sharp hinge
#

I enjoy trying GD as p2 and trying to survive on redrum.

wise dirge
#

So if you can survive with it without me attacking the heart and the match feels slower, then it's a good indication of the heart's importance.

sharp hinge
inner flint
keen smelt
# sharp hinge I've definitely played plenty of matches where I slowly wore the enemy down with...

I do too, but that's because I end up doing direct heart damage anyway. Home sweet home in particular runs this way: at some point if you control the middle you can kamikaze for the enemy heart. But I think this supports my point rather than disproves it, since we're only winning by doing direct heart damage, and if the heart were harder to defend than I think the maps would become higher tempo

keen smelt
#

Another reason why I suspect unassailable hearts mean the map can't be high tempo: it gives the defender time to summon fantome, whose only real weakness is high tempo play where their heart might die before fantome can get much value. But in this case the defender has enough time to save keys, summon fantome + another phobie like kaboom/Blondie/etc, and the aggressor must fall back or die

wise dirge
wise dirge
#

I updated the criteria discussions to group the pass/fail example header and image so they are always together. I added the second justification for triple melee openers.

sharp hinge
wise dirge
wise dirge
wise dirge
#

I decided to change "Harmful Tiles" to "Damage Tiles", and "Defensive Tiles" to "Utility Tiles", to better convey that stimpads are supposed to be in the "Utility Tiles" category, and not the "Damage Tiles" category. I did this because I noticed that some of the comments were associating Harmful Tiles with stimpads, and this was not my intention since their ruleset is more similar to healing spas than lava tiles.

wise dirge
#

Everything else is up to date.

wise dirge
#

Feels good to be caught up - I got so lost in the details for a while, there.

round plover
#

Why not make this small maps design criteria 🤔

wise dirge
#

I completed a first pass no all of the game's maps and put rough draft alternates in the document. Feels like folks are a bit busy right now so I'm not posting the next map yet, though. Not many comments in the Agora thread.

keen smelt
round plover
#

Do the map criteria also applies to big maps too

wise dirge
#

Yes.

sharp hinge
floral adder
#

Do I have to enable something to see these

image0.jpg
#

Or did they get removed

wise dirge
#

Update: ironically, clicking on one of them seems to make the name show up...

floral adder
#

Oh

#

Yeah they work, I also didn't know that for other Discords too lol

wise dirge
zenith slate
#

@wise dirge do we have an exchange rate discussion?

wise dirge
zenith slate
# wise dirge We do not. I usually prioritize problematic maps.

It might be nice to have 1 or two good maps that we can point back to for analysis. I think a good example might significantly help players when they attempt to design their own maps. Just telling players a list of things that don't work is harder than having examples that do work so they get a bit more understanding from both sides.

wise dirge
zenith slate
wise dirge
#

Detention and redrum have been done so we have a baseline.

zenith slate
wise dirge
zenith slate