Custom PvP maps for a tournament?

Ever since we had the Peasant tournament, I've been contemplating on gathering a group of talented individuals and organizing (as a team) a small single-elimination PvP tournament. It would probably go something like this.

There are no pizza rewards involved or anything like that. It would just be a quick 16- or 32-player tournament for testing purposes. If the event was successful, maybe in the future we could get the devs to donate us a small amount of pizza/items/etc. as a reward, I don't know. But bragging rights would definitely be the main reward.

If we were to organize this, we would need new PvP maps. I think that the tournaments should be different from regular MP, and the best way to achieve that would be to use unique maps, something that hasn't been seen before. And to get these maps, I need tons of help from the community.


Here's the project roadmap:

1. We discuss about what makes a perfect PvP map.
- number of squares?
- map dimensions?
- amount of blocking terrain?
- distance to victory squares?
- number and position of victory squares?
- visual things?
etc.

2. We come up with some kind of rules that all PvP maps must obey.
For example while maps can be all shapes and sizes, the total number of open squares should be the same (because of WW/WWE)?

3. Map designers post their creations on the forums
Using the rules we came up with in the previous step, map designers submit their maps. You can submit as many maps as you like.

4. We will have a vote and pick the 5 best maps
Everyone votes for their favorite map and we pick the 5 that receive the most votes. Alternatively, if we want to keep the maps a secret, we could maybe do this behind the closed doors somehow, I don't know.

5. These 5 maps will be used in the tournament
Each round of the tournament would have a different map. Maps are assigned randomly.


I know that this is a lot of work so I fully understand if people are not overly excited in participating. I posted this topic to see if people were interested at all, or if this is something that is the worst idea ever

So please vote on the poll so we'll see what you think. And if you want to start discussion, the question is: what makes a perfect PvP map?

EDIT: New information here (or scroll down)

 

I don't think there's any single perfect kind of map, but I'm happy to come up with some crazy map ideas. ^_^

 

I'd definitely be interested in participating. Food for thought, SLG, regarding balanced maps: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/unofficial-statistics-site.4949/page-4#post-51270

I know I fought you over Bridge but it's possible that it IS actually imbalanced, in a GOOD way ...

 

Awesome. Some kind of small reward would definitely get more people join the tournament. Thanks.

Gold reward should be fine. I personally think that pizza is not the best reward because it could lead to less revenue for BM. For example I didn't pay a dime for my membership this month because I got it free with my peasant tournament winnings. Then again we are not talking about big numbers here, and small pizza rewards will probably go to things like costumes etc. But it's totally up to you what you want to give as a reward. Best reward imo would be chests, like this:

1st place: 1 Purple chest, 2 Gold Chests
2nd place: 3 Gold chests
3rd place: 1 Gold chest

.. or something along those lines. But unfortunately there's no system in place that could enable that.

Semi-off-topic suggestion: you guys should look into some kind of gift code (serial number style) thing that people could redeem inside the game and get a free purple chest or whatever. You could give a bunch of these codes to whoever is organizing the tournament, and that person would then distribute the codes to winners (using forum conversation thing), who would redeem the code and claim their prize. This would save BM tons of reward distribution micro-management if community events become more popular and frequent. I don't know if something like this would work with Card Hunter but it has worked like a charm elsewhere.

Sure, that's a great idea. That corridor idea especially is pretty awesome.

But.. we were talking about this is chat just now and I was wondering if it would make more sense to give map designers full freedom without any restrictions? I'm just worried that if we have these restrictions like I originally planned, it might lead to designers not bothering to build a map, or maybe submit "illegal" maps by mistake.

We need opinions. Which option is better?

OPTION 1: Maps will have restrictions like "all corridors of 1 tile width", or "open with all difficult terrain" (both suggested by Farbs), or something else. This would have a benefit of all maps belonging to a "set", which would help you prepare for that map. Potential downside could be map designers not participating because they don't like restrictions.

OPTION 2: No restrictions in map making. More maps would probably be submitted because designers have more freedom and they can also submit old maps they've been working on. Potential downside could be maps being so different that it's impossible to prepare your deck for them, making it a bit of rock-paper-scissors.

I don't know which one is better but I'm slightly drawn to option 2 because this is the first time we are doing this and option 2 seems more simple.

That whole Bridge thing was indeed interesting. I looked at those stats when the sample size was close to 10k, and it seemed like Bridge was at 49% while other three were at 47%. So it clearly had an effect, but luckily only a couple of percent.

We first assumed that this player 1/ player 2 unbalance was because the player who goes first has a disadvantage, but it could be a simple case of AI always being player 1. And if AI was indeed the factor that made the difference, and if we assume (pure guess) that the AI's interference resulted in a 3% error, that would make the Bridge 52% and other three maps 50%.

It would be interesting to see what happened to the numbers if BM gave AI a random spot. I'm guessing they would be 50/50.

 

I'd prefer option 2, we can always just not use a map.

 

option 2 seems better,personaly i dont like restritions, as long the map is equal for both teams it should be fine.

 

I say go with option 2, skipping the first two steps in the OP. We can discus what makes maps good or bad after we have some entries to look at.

 

Sure, but then we have a problem of who picks the maps? If we have a poll like I originally planned, people will vote based on what "looks cool", not based on what is actually playable. Should we have a team of "experts" pick the maps or what?

Yes, 100% gameplay symmetry is definitely required.

Works for me. I'll look into my own collection to see if I find something that could work and maybe post it here.

 

We could playtest them and then take a vote only from the playtesters. I don't know, we need SOME selection method.

 

can i post a map? did it long time ago, but think its good. balanced, with some cover, 1 vp and some hard terrain

 

here are my pvp maps. some are jsut crazy..but some i think are good.
http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/tuknir-pvp-custom-maps.3857/

i speacial think the Cellar ( post before this one),

Field

and Frozen Cave

should be interesting.

 

I fought Tuknir in couple of his maps and they were very good imo. I especially liked that cellar map with the victory square on top of that mini pyramid.

 

Some things I think that shouldn't be in a PvP map is a single VP square (or maybe even a small connected group as they favors sitting with Warrior and inaction which isn't fun). Another thing is having corners that someone can get pushed into with WW/WWE (think Melting_Glacier_(Ranked)). Finally, the size should be relatively small to make combat interesting and reactive, instead of about turtling for cover. Difficult terrain can make a small map challenging for all the Nimble Strike + Team Move users much more than simply a larger map. WW/WWE is especially problematic on a large map, so the smaller generally the better.

Besides that I think a lot of it is up to the flavor of the map. Difficult terrain, immovable terrain, and blocking terrain all have their place.

EDIT: After going through every PVP rank map that is currently in Card Hunter -- I don't find any of them to be amazing in fitting the above criteria. Either they have problems with singular VP spots / groups, are too small or boring, lack interesting difficult terrain (or have too much of it in general), and other things. I'll probably work on a map I think is good later on, haven't really experimented with the map editor yet so we'll see.

 

Just a few minor suggestions to alleviate the 're-inventing the wheel' problem...or maybe I'm been here too long.

Ben's post on multiplayer boards is a useful reference: https://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/the-multiplayer-board-suggestions-thread.2483/
If people want to critic or point out flaws, its easy and visually simpler.

Alternatively, you could spend some time collating board statistics like what I've done for the early pvp maps. Eg: Temple tussle
Map analysis and terrain analysis are simple tools that convey a sense for cover %, cluster % etc...

Hope it helps.

 

I was thinking about the selection method yesterday.. I think that my original suggestion of having polls etc. was way too complex and unnecessary. This is just one tournament so I don't think we should make a big deal out of map selection. And because according to current rules (that are still subject to change), players may change their decks freely between rounds, there is really no need to have non-biased maps. Only thing that matters is that the maps are symmetrical. If for example a certain map benefits certain class, it is the job of the participant to recognize this and build their deck accordingly.

I propose that PvP Cellar by Tuknir (image below) will be chosen as our first map. I have tested it and it was pretty cool. The victory square it the center is surrounded difficult terrain which is very interesting strategically speaking. You could for example tyr something like an immovable bashing warrior backed up by nimbus priest.



So unless someone strongly opposes this map, I think we should just lock it in and start looking for the next map to get the ball rolling.

Tuknir has other good maps too, but I think we should try to get maps from other designers as well, and save Tuknir's maps for later tournaments, or have them on standby in case we don't get all 5 maps.

About victory squares.. I was wondering if it made sense to have different amount/formation of victory squares for each map? In other words, no two maps would for example have only 1 victory square. We could do it something like this:

• 1 victory square at the center of the map (like the PvP Cellar by Tuknir)
• 2 victory squares with 1+ squares between them
• 3 victory squares in a straight line with 1+ squares between them
• 4 victory squares in a 2x2 formation ("box")
• 4 victory squares that form a large square, with 2+ squares between them

This would give us a bit more variation. Any comments on this?

I partly agree with the single VP square thing. It can be a bit boring if the other guy just caps and spams nimbus, but on the other hand it opens up many new strategy options and makes builds like bashing warrior more viable. I personally don't see a problem of throwing a single 1-VP square map into the mix.

That's a good point. We definitely want to avoid any kind of Melting Glacier corner things.

I agree. Smaller maps are definitely better.

Cool. The map editor has a bit of a learning curve. I recommend you start like this:

1. Uncheck the "Terrain" layer
2. Choose "Tiles" layer and put in tiles
3. Choose "Decal Doodads" and add those.
4. Do everything else

That will get you started (assuming you've never used the tool before).

Thanks for the link. I'll read the topic later.

Zomg! How long did it take to make that analysis? I like it, looks very professional.

Analysis like that is definitely interesting but like I said earlier, I think we should move away from the idea of "perfect" PvP map, and just have a bunch of different maps without any major restrictions. As long as they are symmetrical, both players are at an even playing field.

 

Well fell free to use any of my pvp mps i can make one or two new ones also (have a couple ideas) but i agree that more designers should submit their own pvp maps its a nice change to submit your work and have many ppl using it. so *whip sound* start producing

 

Good ideas re: maps, SLG, though again I'll point to Crundyup's Bridge as a map that through its asymmetry balanced the two players where player 2 typically has an advantage

Anyway, I want to go make a map now, but I also want to spread the glory of my guild...

 

Asymmetrical maps could work, but generally are *much* higher risk. The problem with the statistics on Crundyup's Bridge is that it includes everyone from every Elo. If you could filter by Elo and other things I wonder what the statistics would be.

Either way, I'm still not a fan of a single VP spot / area. I'll probably work on making something in the upcoming week, but should be busy this weekend due to the Global Game Jam.

 

Actually the imbalance between player 1 and player 2 happens most likely because of what Farbs says here. It is very likely that Crundyup's Bridge was unfair for grass side players, but the AI always being player 1 balanced things out. The numbers were something like 49% for Bridge and 47% for others. This might seem like Bridge was actually more balanced, but if we removed AI from the equation, the real numbers could be for example 52% for Bridge and 50% for others. This is of course speculation but the fact that we do not know how big of an effect asymmetry really has, we should not have any.