PDA

View Full Version : fire pit map -- does anybody like it?



paz
03-22-2013, 04:20 PM
About the map with the lava in the middle creating a 2x2 bottleneck.

What's the idea with that map? 2x (or 3x) Siege Archer teams are already plentiful, but on this map that has about 200 usable tiles facing archer heavy teams SHOULD be auto loss for anybody fielding less than 2 archers, especially when building up the team on the wrong side of the fire pit (provided the other guy has the patience to do some extreme camping.

So I officially hate this map. I also hate 3x SA teams that park their yarls and camp, but that's a thing I am already used too from the beta.

Did I mention that there is too much camping in the game? The fire pit map further encourages this which is why I think it is bad.

vrolok83
03-22-2013, 04:45 PM
Campers are so easy to beat: just play 1/2 warrior and watch the splash damage fly.

If you're playing aggressive and complaining about the fire map, you're doing it wrong. Raiders can cross the fire and take very minimal damage when they do so. Just be careful never to end your turn on the coals.

bruther
03-22-2013, 06:23 PM
I hate playing the fire pit map, but I always figured that was my problem; like, I hate it because it's challenging and I'm not good enough at this game yet to know how I should respond to it. I haven't seen it reward camping, personally... In fact, I haven't seen any player do well at any decent level of play by turtling up and waiting to be attacked. I would say that the game mechanics nicely insure that landing the first strike is advantageous, so that waiting to counterpunch is not effective. Do others not agree?

piotras
03-22-2013, 06:47 PM
I like the fire pit idea, but don't like it's shape, I would rather see it dividing the top/bottom halfs (parallel to starting positions).

sweetjer
03-22-2013, 06:48 PM
I love this map. I think it provides an interesting layer of strategy on top of the board tactics and gives entire abilties new applications (RoA + Battering Ram into the fire pit = awesome). People have talked about camping since the beginning of the game. I don't really understand it as a complaint. Camping is a viable strategy sometimes, and some builds force your opponent to camp (for instance, if I'm playing against aggressive raidmasters I try to camp around them out of range until they are out of WP or drop shield). On the other hand, if you camp indicriminately it's probably going to end in a loss. You really just need to learn how to counter it with proper positioning and how to time your attack. Other than knowing the right board tactics, the other part of the game is developing a team that works with multiple contingency plans.

stoicmom
03-22-2013, 09:31 PM
I have been less than enthusiastic about landing on this map; however, without exception, all of the games I have played on it during the past week, everyone, including me, is setting up on this side of the fire pit. It's almost an unspoken understanding. I have actually had fun, finally, on this map because people are consistently playing on the same side as me :D

erom
03-22-2013, 11:45 PM
Oh good, this thread again.

Love this map.

Having a few different/challenging maps in a rotation is good for the development of a healthy metagame.

Butters
03-23-2013, 05:43 AM
Yes, that map can be difficult to handle and frustrating.
Your strategy for more standard maps might be rendered moot on this one... Ant that's a good thing !

Would you rather have all maps be blank grids with just different backgrounds ? It is one of the few maps that includes a significant terrain element (with the one that has 4 pylon things) and I cherish it for it. Even though, I have to admit, I hated it at first - and still catch myself thinking "oh this is going to be a headache" when I see it come up.
If you don't want to deal with it, just setup on the lower/right part of the map like 90% of players. You could even announce that to your adversary. Each time I did that they aligned and we had our fight on the lower half-map, which is an interesting variation in itself.

If anything, I'd like to see many more maps like it.

Vexbane
03-23-2013, 10:20 AM
This thread seems popular. I like this map and the challenges it brings. I wish more maps had some kind of tactical aspect.

LordLupin
03-23-2013, 10:38 AM
I personally like this map the most, and seeing as it was the tutorial map, i got hyped to believe there would be more like it. Variation in maps are essential and i am still hoping for maps with elevation built into it, but i guess that just wont fit into this game. The firepit is a map that to some extent rewards archers, but i could just as well see a map where there would be a wall instead of the firepit. You can easily be duped into believing that the firepit stops people for walking over, only to suddenly have raiders not give a damn and run straight over. It's a map that rarely gets to be straight forward and it gives options for team comps to work. I dont believe team comps should be pressured to only work on completely open maps, as that would actually be a boring growling match between warriors.

Wordplay
03-23-2013, 11:18 AM
One of my favourite maps. Best map to fight against all melee teams. I agree, max Siege Archer is rather annoying on this map.

FfSsBb
03-23-2013, 12:26 PM
Haven't had the pleasure to play against three siege Archers on this map, but I quite like it. The decision when and if to ignore the hot coals in the middle and just rush over them (even with a varl) is something the other maps do not have, which makes it a unique experience.

I also had some success in placing one unit (most often a varl) on the other side away from the rest of my team. If the opponents teamis on my five guys side, I have a fresh unit that can come around fast enough before my team gets slaughtered. If he has his team on the one guy side, my varl will bind them long enough for me to firmly establish the other side and control the crossing.

RobertTheScott
03-23-2013, 12:33 PM
This is my favorite map...but I do run a Strongarm.

Strangely, though, it was never the map that had the most learning curve for me. To me, the really technically-difficult map is the snow map. Those darn poles in the middle of nowhere used to screw up all my positioning until I (very, very slowly) learned how to deal with them.

KamikazeDurrrp
03-23-2013, 02:48 PM
I really don't like the "Great Hall" map. It feels like one of the most restrictive maps in the game and I'm always finding myself at a huge disadvantage whenever my opponent has an SRM or more archers than I do. I can understand the change of pace and a difference in strategy, but in the end the map just favors some strategies and builds (SRM and archer builds) so much more than others that I find that I have to agree with the sentiments that the map should be removed, or at least changed.

If you want my opinion, the easier way to change the map to add more spaces players can move in the spawning area. Since the center is blocked by some random beam or something, it really prevents people from setting up in the center, forcing people to heavily populate one side or the other. I know that 2 space choke at the back center can create a lot of interesting scenarios and strategies (moreso if you have a SB or a RM) but I think if that choke was removed you'd have a lot more flexibility on where to place your units and prevent a lot of the turtling that often happens on this map. This would also help in eliminating some of the archer favored situations since you adjust your units more easily to deal with the archers.

Wordplay
03-25-2013, 03:52 AM
You're not forced to populate one side or the other - I often split into two groups or deploy in the centre - wins and losses with both configurations. I think the standard wisdom on this map isn't necessarily the optimal tactical solution.

Phantom
03-25-2013, 08:19 AM
I like this idea but it feels cramped to me, like each column is too thin to move around well in. Could just be my preference to have a lot of space to work with though.

Leartes
03-25-2013, 09:53 AM
I like the map. No I don't know how to properly set up, but games play very different from the other maps which is a huge plus. We need more maps with terrain features. e.g. the meadhall is too similar to the proving grounds and the map with the poles in the corners. One or two of these is fine, other than that we imo need more maps with interesting features.

Kuba
03-25-2013, 05:23 PM
I hate and like this map at the same time. I hate it because I am not able to fully use it's potential yet. But I like it because it adds variety to the game. I hope there will be more maps with obstacles, maybe big unpassable table in the middle of map. I would like to see some kind of destructible obstacles too. And maybe at some time in future when there are lot of maps, players might be able to pick their favourite and not favourite maps to play on.

Zahar
03-26-2013, 12:26 AM
I love the concept, yet I'm not sure I like the title setting.

I think a square, large fireplace in the middle would be nicer that a line. The way it is it breaks the map in 2 too often, and the initial positioning is limited.

Or maybe a shorter line, to allow better initial positioning.

StandSure
03-26-2013, 10:05 AM
I like the variety of maps. The fire pit creates a much different game compared to the more basic maps like the proving grounds, which I think is a good thing. Personally, I would rather see more maps with obstacles and unusual layouts because I enjoy the level of strategy that is added.

My only complaint is that I seem to get the fire pit map MOST often and almost never get the beach map, which has its own set of challenges with the piers.

I'm hoping that combat in the Saga takes place in a wide variety of locations/situations, because of the "traveling" nature of the story.

WeihGuy
03-27-2013, 10:06 PM
Hate it. If you start opposite ends, it's a camp fest because you cant properly move your units because of that god dam pillar and pack of swords at the end...ridiculous. At least make a gap in the firepit or remove those good for nothing pillars.

Aleonymous
03-28-2013, 10:25 AM
At first, I really hated the fire-map, but now, I'm starting to like&enjoy it quite a lot! This one and the beach-one (with the four poles) are my favorites.

Deploying my units only on one side is something I've abandoned in this process, i.e., nowadays, I spread them almost evenly on both sides to be safe. When the opponent is on the one side only, I attack through the open-flank (and let my WH do a little fire-jumping) and defend on the cranked-flank. When the opponent is on both sides, then things usually evolve as two separate battles...

One suggestion I'd have for this map is the following: When any unit dies on the coals, it extinguishes them, making those particular grid-tiles safe for other units to cross (say for 1-2 rounds/turns). Bridging!

In overall, I'd like to see more maps like this one!

Skaer
03-30-2013, 08:51 PM
I like the map. It's a bit awkward, but I love setting the opponent up to take lava damage and die at the start of their turn. :D

Jawbone78
04-02-2013, 12:24 AM
Put me down in favor of the firepit. It adds a little unpredictability to the match. I've had a couple of matches where I've basically blitzed across the pit taking my opponent completely off guard - but you never know what will happen, because reactions and strategies on that board are by far the most varied. The game is far better for having different boards to play on. My favorite is the four posts board though. I find I tend to fare poorly on open maps, and rather well on maps that allow me to use obstacles against my opponent. Whether that's because I'm good at those maps or terrible at the game in general, I can't say.

Haeso
04-02-2013, 02:06 PM
I like the fire pits in the middle, I dislike the pillars that block the center of your deployment. The map also HEAVILY favors skystriker teams, but since you can't choose the map you play on that's not a big deal.

Aleonymous
04-02-2013, 05:22 PM
The map also HEAVILY favors skystriker teams

Too true. And more so if the teams are unbalanced (few-vs-many archers) and are found setup in opposite sides of the firepit.

I just suffered a massive defeat there, from a 3-archer (mix-grill) build; and he didn't even play it out well. My Warhawk was actually running for cover (!) by the end of his second turn and Pillage found my Warmaster (4/17) auditioning for shooting-target at the three lasses' leisure. He managed to axe one down, though.

sayonaraPal
04-03-2013, 09:05 AM
I like this map because this is the one that makes you consider heavily the environment before taking any action. And in my conception this is what makes a map unique.
I like to start using a raidmaster and siege archer in the middle, the rest is deployed in one side of the pit. If the enemy starts on the opposite side I leave the raidmaster to block the path and try to nuke with archer.
If the enemy is on the same side I bring the raidmaster and use the archer to advance slowly on the other side.

Aleonymous
04-03-2013, 09:34 AM
...If the enemy starts on the opposite side...

In my opinion, the million-dollar question is "who jumps the firepit?". Sometimes it's worth sending a high-Strength Varl (e.g. Warhawk) for a fire-walk in order to kill annoying archers and/or damaged raiders. Sometimes it's worth waiting for the enemy to attempt the jump, and punish him/her for it. But everyone agrees that archers can make a big-difference in this map!

Greix
04-04-2013, 03:53 PM
Siege Archer: "Ahahahah! Feel the fire of my coals! Taste the flames of vengeance as I wrought fiery death upon you!"

Warmaster: (Scratches his butt with his axe, looks at the archer with a nonchalant face.) "Whatever, dewd." (Walks over and pulps her in a single hit.)

Siege Archer: "Alas! An axe to the skull! My only weakness!"

-True story.

Seriously. I think people forget that taking down a foe's Strength is both the best defensive and offensive option all wrapped in one. If taking a point or two of damage lets me kill an Archer or maim a guy's axe arm, I gladly will.

The fire pit divides not just armies. It divides those who differ between trying to win cleanly, and those who aren't afraid to get a little ash on their boots to get bloody... in the favorable way.

Aleonymous
04-04-2013, 04:07 PM
-True story.

Hahahaha, I think you nailed it, Greix! :D That's the #1 response to people whining about this map.

Rensei
04-05-2013, 06:54 AM
Maps are a great way to add some extra diversity to the game. There are already a lot of possible builds and setups, but any more is always welcome - even at the cost of a minor advantage for a certain class (even better, different maps make it harder for a cookie cutter build to emerge).

Aleonymous
04-05-2013, 09:20 AM
(even better, different maps make it harder for a cookie cutter build to emerge).

Towards preventing the emergence of "unbeatable" builds (and/or decreasing the need to constantly patch-out such builds), I agree that map-diversity is one of the simplest and prettiest solutions.

Alas, as with all diversity-based solutions (more maps, more units, more skills, more rules!), its bound to stop somewhere/sometime: devs will move-on to other projects, players will identify the best solution for all scenarios etc. All of which means that TBSF could end-out like chess... And here is where the ELO thing becomes important, i.e. players to be able to battle against their equals. Yesterday, I QuickMatched against an ELO>1500 player, high-up in the leaderboards (I am ~1050, residing in the 1000+ area! :D), and I can tell you it was instructional but not entertaining at all!