The FW maps feel like total Bane Shift to play on

Yeah yeah, dead game, not worth complaining about balance now, blah blah.

But whenever I get put on one of these maps, either the original one with 2 fonts or the newer one with 5 fonts, it's so damn boring. It's a complete standoff with neither side ever wanting to make the first move for 20 rounds until someone gets fed up and powerturns with their entire runedock on the field. The old 2-font one in particular is like this, and games are just total slogfests.

Whoever's working on new Pox, make sure to pay careful attention to map designs so none of them end up heavily favoring one particular strategy over another. Also while we're on the subject of maps, maybe new Pox could have some interactive map-specific elements besides "fonts", like a geyser that erupts at regular intervals and deposits "nora globes", or a sinkhole that disrupts champion positioning by slowing them. Dynamic battlegrounds like that would help the regular map rotation not get stale.

 

nope those are my favorite maps.

 

I usually rush on the maps

 

Or a couple of nice Rip Demons

 

As much as I hate those maps, it's rather hilarious when I'm playing SP and draw Reckless Spellhack first turn and manage to squeeze him into a double deploy. Reckless Teleport 3 has won me a few games through dumb luck alone.

 

That's what the FW map was, no features, and that was one of the most hated of the first 6 maps from what I remember.

 

i love those maps. All of the versions.

and Sok, part of whats great with this game IS diversity. Its good that some maps are hated or loved or both. Embrace that. Dont try to smooth it out if you have the chance again. And hate-posts are just as important for the game like Rage quits. Thats all what made pox great. Love+Hate. Randomness and still not.

 

I believe it's possible, yes. But the way it's implemented would have to be different from the way Poxnora has historically handled maps. Because even with Pox's mostly symmetrical and featureless maps, there have always been cases where a certain map favors a certain type of deck. Aquatic decks will do better on the FS maps, decks with lots of flying champs will do better on the SP map or Ironfist Pass map, etc. Personally, I think that a non-random pre-game map selection system would create equal opportunity for a lot of decks and increase strategic diversity. It would go something like this:

1. Two players enter a pre-game map selection screen. A list of all available maps is shown.
2. Players take turns choosing to sacrifice a portion of their first turn's nora for the right to select the map the game is played on. Sacrifices are made in increments of 5 nora. For example, player 1 sacrifices 10 nora for the right to choose the map. Player 2 can either concede the choice to the opponent, or sacrifice 15 nora to gain the choice. Player 1 can then sacrifice 20 nora to gain the choice back, or concede to player 2. This continues until a map is selected. There's also the option for both players to agree on a randomly selected map if they'd prefer.
3. The player who chose to sacrifice more of their starting nora picks the map. Other things can be added if relevant, such as which side of the map you want to start on, or if you'd rather go first or second. There would, of course, be a minimum required "investment" of nora into the choice to prevent player 1 from simply sacrificing an irrelevant amount of nora, and a maximum amount to prevent completely one-sided games from occurring.
4. Players then select their decks and load into game as normal.

This would be the basic system, and all nora amounts are, of course, examples only. Things could be adjusted according to the game's overall design. For example, maybe the amount of nora sacrificed applies to more than just the first turn. Perhaps the initial sacrifice is deduced from beginning-of-turn nora generation in smaller amounts over a period of several rounds rather than all at once on the first turn. Or maybe the player who lost the choice gets a portion of the winning player's sacrificed nora to balance things out.

What makes this system ideal is that both players get a lot more control over what has previously been an entirely randomized aspect of the game, and one that has always had a very large impact on strategy. A player might, for example, want to play a deck with a lot of cheap units focusing on swarm tactics. Some maps would be better suited to that kind of strategy than others. But by forcing players to bid for the right to map choice, that advantage could potentially be lost in favor of a more even playing field. Alternatively, a player might want to give up an early resource advantage if they know for sure that the map they will play on heavily favors their chosen deck. An opponent of this fictitious player would then have to adopt a strategy befitting the loss of map choice. Knowing that the enemy will have a terrain advantage forces them to adapt and use unconventional tactics to counter this initial loss. Using the previous example, if the chosen map favors swarm tactics and cheap meat spam, player 2 can select a deck that does well against this kind of strategy; or, if they don't have such a deck prepared, focus on early aggression, strong defensive buffs, and/or knowledge of target priority.

Regarding alternative map features, I think it would come down to how the maps themselves are designed. What Pox has usually done is place a single nora font in the middle of the map for players to fight over, with a few fonts on the side that are taken early in the game and generally ignored thereafter. There are some exceptions, and that's actually one thing I like about the 5-font FW map is that all the fonts are in very close proximity to the main battleground area due to the small size of the map. Nothing is really off-limits and no areas are entirely neglected. And even if one side gets control over the southernmost font, that area is sufficiently sufficiently close enough to the other fonts for the losing player to mount a comeback (assuming they still have control over both their fonts). But I digress.....

The font system has always seemed odd to me. @kalasle made a great post a while ago regarding Worms and how the theme was one of the most broken in the game if played right, something I tend to agree with. He argued that, " Normally, outside of worms, if a player loses an engagement, they have to deploy their reinforcements back at a font or a shrine and the enemy has to spend AP on movement rather than damage. This naturally reduces the amount of damage a losing player will take". In other words, winning a mid-font battle isn't as gamebreaking as some would believe. In fact, it can even be a detriment in some situations, such as on the Lava Plains map where the mid font is isolated between two choke points. The initial loser of an engagement risks very little, aside from the extra resource generation, by giving up mid. This is why it's odd: because it goes against what players are naturally inclined to believe, that surrendering the middle-ground is always a losing proposition in the long run. And on some maps, this is most definitely true. Losing mid on the KF map, for example, is hell because it's only a short distance from your shrine. Opposing reinforcements can be deployed right on your doorstep, and players are often forced into a zugzwang where they don't have the resources to fight for mid, but they can't afford to lose it either.

Now consider a system where there is no mid font, on any map. Both sides now have to deploy reinforcements farther from the front lines and spend a few turns getting into position before they can enter combat. But a completely empty middle-ground is no good, because there's no incentive to fight over it. I think what could be done is that instead of having a central font to fight over, which only serves as a resource boost + deployment zone, the middle (i.e. main battleground) of the map could be dedicated to an alternate objective that doesn't come with a deployment zone. This would allow players to still take advantage of harass tactics (since side fonts are now more valuable) while maintaining an area where brawls can take place without the threat of advancing reinforcement placements. As for what those objectives might be, it would depend on the map. A "nora geyser" for example might conceivably reward cheap meat decks more, but it could also reward decks with a lot of expensive heavy units, because it would allow them to deploy more reliably (rather than more often, with cheap meat). A sinkhole map would definitely favor fliers, but ground-based units with high speed values would still be able to keep up. Depending on how it's implemented, champions on a sinkhole (or similar "loose earth" terrain) could spend some AP to dig a tunnel to the other side and pop up near the enemy's back line.

And here is where the idea of non-randomized choice becomes important. You have to consider not only what YOU are going to be playing, but also what the opponent might be running based on their eagerness to select the map in pre-game (and what map they actually pick). You could conceivably figure out a lot about an opponent's strategy based on what map they pick and how badly they wanted to play on it, then choose a deck to counter them. A deck with a lot of cheap meat would prefer a larger map that would let them turtle for a bit and build up their forces, or a map with lots of side fonts to harass. Knowing what faction the enemy is playing as before the game begins would aid your assessment (something that would be possible in my proposed system).

Keep in mind that all of these examples are using terminology unique to Poxnora. It could be that whoever makes Pox 2 decides to do away with fonts, factions, nora, and the concept of objectives entirely. Hell, they could even turn Pox into a full-on TCG if they wanted (though most of my assumptions were based on @Capitulator's Poxnora 2 project, which I gather will be largely similar to Pox as it is now). It's a great discussion topic though, and I'm sure this will all be useful info at some point.

 

I did read it all, but I'm just going to reply to a little bit. Bidding on maps is big design decision and I wouldn't go there unless those I listen to with game design experience came to a consensus on it.
However, I've already put in "fonts" that only deploy but don't generate nora, and vice-versa. Some of the test maps use variations of these at mid font so it is either easy to recapture (can't deploy reinforcements at it) or it only provides positional advantage (no additional nora gen). Having other neutral relics that can be captured is an easy thing to add at any point (e.g. I've considered a monolith that has 20 spell presence) but its all going to have to be thoroughly tested for balance and fun.

 

DMC punches that stalemate in the ****.