Peasant Card Hunter Tournament w/ Prizes!

@SLG: I mean I'm not sure it's fair to "move on from a subject" after making accusations like that, lol. A forum classic, I suppose, but let's look at the facts. Inflexibility in the rules? At every turn I've been responsive and changed things... but that doesn't mean I need to roll over every time a player has an opinion. I have them too, as do other players, and I for one don't think arguing these points is the same as refusing to fix obvious problems.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my last post, despite my best efforts—I am challenging the idea that there is a clear problem. You keep saying it's obvious. It isn't obvious to me. You say it's a major flaw in my reasoning that I look at the stats instead of watching individual matches, but how do you even watch an individual match to know whether someone lost because of the extra tile? There are so many factors in who wins a game, and if the balance between p1 and p2 evens out to basically 50% across a useful sample size (now 1700!), then I don't see any traction to your claims.

Why does this instance of asymmetry pose a balance problem at all? We have no reason to believe it does, besides your common sense, which flies in the face of the data. We can argue about types of fallacy or illogic, but like, why. In the next round I'll be introducing a stage-striking rule that'll allow you to avoid this map if you want, but the rule will be there mostly to reduce whining (not yours, but others', regarding maps like Lions or Wall or whatever it is they dislike—everyone finds something to dislike), not to maintain balance.

Here's an idea! Maybe you could spectate, I don't know, 100 games on Crundyup's Bridge, record them all, and use commentary on the videos to show where you see obvious asymmetry-based advantages/disadvantages that end up affecting a player's ability to win. I (and others) can watch them all, evaluate your commentary and the situation, and maybe there will be an obvious problem after all.

But right now, to reiterate, there is no obvious problem with the map. The devs admitted that the asymmetry was an oversight. Oversights ≠ balance issues. They often go hand in hand but in this case I'm disinclined to match them up. I would like you to try to be a little generous and allow yourself to accept that maybe, rather than being inflexible about a problem I see, I am actually challenging the existence of the problem in question. I think for the problems I see in the tournament I have done my best to patch them quickly, more often than not in response to player feedback

Maybe. Thanks to step attacks and reach attacks, though, positioning is pretty important for melee builds as well. Say you're War/War/Pri vs. War/War/Pri. You need to worry about protecting your priest, you need to make sure your warriors can attack in when they're buffed and have attack cards, you need to make sure that your one warrior doesn't strike into three enemy characters, etc. etc., and with team moves on top of step attacks there's a lot of fluidity and potential for counterplay in those exchanges. Rarely, I think, are you going to see 6 melee characters honestly slugging it out on the bridge itself, and when you do, I'm not sure the asymmetry makes a big difference. If you only had your racial move each turn and no step attacks or team moves then maybe three dwarves on the grass side would be at a 2-vp disadvantage against elves on the snow side, but that's not what Card Hunter is actually like.