TimmerB123 wrote:
I want to express my opinion of this, but I don't want it to diminish any of our communities awesome mapmakers hard work.
I also don't want to have this reflect negatively on Brad or anyone else playtesting the custom maps for legality. If anything - it makes their work all the more important.
This is just my 2 cents:
Tripling our restricted map list size is a big mistake. I think even doubling it is too many. Everyone is always for more maps, more maps, more maps. I am too - but not for the restricted list. I love a wide variety of maps for fun games, scenarios, even relaxed tournaments. But for the RESTRICTED LIST, I think it needs to be a SMALL LIST. It needs to be only the cream of the crop. The best, LEAST ABUSABLE maps.
Map strategy and squad synergy with a map should always be a part of the game, but a minor part, as opposed to a dominant part. Squad building and gameplay should remain larger components. We don't want the map dice roll to become what wins a game, except in very rare cases of evenly matched squads run by evenly matched players.
In 2007, Kelly won Gencon in no small part due to using a peculiar map to his advantage. It lead to a huge uproar to ban Geonosis (along with Mustafar). In 2008 the Hardboard was definitely a large part of Bill's strategy, and in 2009 Deri won maproll on all 3 finals matches to play on his trainstation. All three are excellent players, and used those strategies brilliantly - please don't misinterpret - I am not taking anything away from them. Would they have done well had they lost more map rolls? Maybe. But maps played a big part.
In 2010 - the map list was more restricted than ever. It was painstakingly selected and worked out great. From what I saw - the final 8 had little to do with map rolls being won. In fact - virtually no top squad was map dependant. It was a great testament to how good those players were and what great squads they had.
Let me clarify more - the NUMBER of maps on the restricted list isn't important. It's the level of abusability. With a higher number, some will inevitably slip through the cracks, and become abused.
I came up with a great strategy on Taris and won the Chicago Regional 2009. So that year tons of other players hopped on board and did the same, and the next year it was banned. (Rightfully so)
I see similar problems with many of these maps.
I hope we get a much, MUCH smaller list for Regionals and GenCon
I initially wanted a smaller map list, or at least a rotating one. It was pointed out to me however, that if it met the requirement it met the requirements and Restricted wasn't necessarily an indication of numbers.
Sure, I tripled the Map list, but it was FOUR years of custom maps. I also had the leeway of taking a "wait and see" approach on some of them (Swamp Caves) as the map list has the option of being reviewed every 6 months. This gives me Regionals to shake out any problems and to update it before Gencon. It's another reason why I "spoiled" the map list to Jason for the Lansing event.
Honestly, I could have used you months ago when a lot of people who said they'd help...didn't. I probably put about 10 hours or so into each map studying it for abusability. I also ran this list by quite a few individuals expressing my and listening to their concerns on each one. Am I confident with my choices? Yes. Do I think one or two will drop off? Likely. Are either of those a bad thing? No.