Surely you have all the answers you need in the data, Soks. I'd imagine you'd have some idea as to the game length you want - surely you can determine the average game length of all maps played. From there, identify any maps that skew hard to player 1 or player 2 in terms of %-win rate. Get rid of any maps that play too long (or short, I guess) or skew to one player or the other. All the better if you can filter by matches played between players of particular ELO differentials. Additionally, I'd look at maps that people auto-concede or FQ at a higher than average rate. Perhaps that would be captured by looking at data where there's a result or FQ within 5 minutes? I'd say, I'd much prefer fewer maps with better games. I can tell you why I like/don't like certain maps, but surely a better approach is to look at the metrics.
Yeah, but you also need to know if people hate playing a map regardless of how well balanced it is. Tundra Lake may have no balance issues, but I don't think many look forward to playing it.
Lets see some larger maps that detail each faction more more history and lore of the maps can tell a lot about the factions.
I agree. Most maps actually fall into what I consider to be a pretty good range. That said, part of the reason I am requesting feedback is to see what players like and dislike so that I can correlate it back to data. Is 52% P1 WR too high, or does it take 54% before a map is hated?
There is nothing wrong in players disliking a map, is part of human psychology: there are a lot of factors that allow a loss or a win during a game (cards, map, skill, deck build), and people tends to understimate the ones they are responsible for (skill+deckbuild) and overstimate the others. Win/loss percentage over the playerbase is just a better and safer indicator than human feedback for this kind of analysis. Then, on a different note, there are maps that clearly favors certain themes over other: snow, water, lava and cliffs can help a lot if you play the right deck. Probably, they get a lot of hate when played with a wrong deck or against a deck that is clearly favored by them. I don't know how this can be solved without changing the map design; probably a larger rotation with only a few of these maps can mitigate the problem. As for my personal feedback. Simmetrical maps, with an odd and low number of fonts (3 or 5) that are well spaced (more than 9 spaces between each other) are my favoured ones. So, Ruins of Valdac (3 fonts), Lava Plain (3 fonts) and Groove of Ashes are what I see as balanced maps (they also don't suffer from an eccessive terrain influence).
I dont know if we are still able to express opinions about the current rotation but anyway here's what i think, Current Rotation: Axillium II - Please restore earlier version !! it was amazing. VII is only good if we haven’t experienced the amazing VI before. Dark Marsh - Great map ! multiple possibilities for a various gameplay scenario. Forsaken Wastes I (2 fonts) - one of my fav maps. Forsaken Wastes II - good map. allows rush or stall. odd number of fonts so great one Ironfist Mountains - great map. period K'thir Forest - good map ... no comment. K'thir Hill . if p2 decided to contest mid font before the side font ... he can and will and not much can P1 do about it in most cases. in best cases will cost a relic to contest as 6 AP is not enough for P1 to get there. (i'm doubting this but i believe that its still the case') other than that good map Lava Plains - good map ! lovely Lost City - forced to stall map. hideous ! players just pile up champs and buff on the font. unless someone decided to get some action happening on the side fonts, no action and not much room for power turns as the distance is insane. Nora Glades - i miss that map ! was a pretty good one Shores of Maljara II (3 font) - good map. didnt mind the prev version but that is also good. bad for large units i gotta say. but i like that it allows P2 to contest mid font easily should P1 decide to start with it. Tundra Lake (was the wrong one initially, should be corrected) - i'm actually contemplating surrendering before first rune draw if it's that map ! i hate it so much i'd rather be fishing than wasting time giving myself a nervous breakdown playing that map (just like lost city).
My only issue with the maps right now is Darkmarsh for player 2. Unless you double deploy on turn one you are almost always at a significant disadvantage when contesting the mid font. It also seems too easy to push people out of the font and deny access or just aoe them to death as they bottleneck trying to get in.
Dear sokolov please take this into consideration The map that favour 2x2 is kindof unfair that is if u dont draw a relic ir the opponent is IS you will be down on nora for a long time I am not the best player but when someone like gutsa points it out it has to have some level of truth to it Kind regards
I wanted to point out that on the 5 font Forsaken Wastes map that if player 1 deploys a 6spd with Teleport or a 7spd with leap etc they can get to the mid font a full round before Player 2 and it gives a huge advantage.
Lost City is the most ******** map in the game. If you go second you soon end up with 1 font (nearest to your shrine) to the enemies 3. they can cap all 3 of them with ease and hold them, its difficult as hell to take any back. literally every game on this map it happens, unless the player decides to take it easy on me and not go for the bottom font. i just insta quit on this map as soon as i see them go for all 3 fonts. note my units are 6 speed, not less and thats all the enemy needs it seems. i lose if enemy goes bottom /left font first turn and caps their nearest font their next turn. ive watched some good players struggle on this map going second... if the enemy has a fast bg, some speed 7 etc its even worse.
Auxilium, the one with 5 fonts... people (not me unless they have cackle) get mad about, where a 2v2 can cap 2 fonts, half the time i can work around it dropping a relic and moving to another font. fonts are gained and lost easy in that map, i actually like it.. im not saying it needs changing, its nothing evil like Lost City is.
Darkmarsh map is kinda ok imo, just have to deploy nearest to the mid font whether you go first or second really. i enjoy the games where i deploy as stated and they do not and go for their closest font, gives me a real advantage. especially if they cant deploy the turn after, font is mine muhahaha. had some real early surrenders on this map. the only thing that frustrates me on this map is the ease the enemy can move just off / above of your nearest font with spare ap and sit there (if your on the right side of map) then they auto take or contest your font next turn with or without a relic, even with one unit there guarding they can easily move around it. its not like you can move two units to defend this font or you will lose the left mid font. if you did manage to defend it tey can always move around the side and cap the font zone space out the side of the wall.
I like how the games play out as long as you have the right runes but it's so draw dependent. If your opponent gets a 2x2 early and you don't have either that or a relic you've pretty much lost straight away. I played Konung the other day and he deployed a Giant Fesh on turn 2, i had literally no option but to just let him have his side font uncontested or to just suicide one of my units into that font.
Shores of Maljara II - love this. Axilium II - hate this now. usually always get out manuevered and my bg's suck here. Darkmarsh - dislike, i hardly ever win here, i dont often win mid font and usually lose it if i get it, they just push to it with more units than i have. K'thir Hill (5 fonts) - love this. Lost City - super hate this. due player ones advantage. Elemental Plateau - love this. 2v2 is fun here.
