Quite frankly, after seeing West's new map he is going to sell at GenCon, I am very alarmed about the map design process at WotC. Clearly he CAN design a map that is balanced for skirmish play, and the only reason that I can see that he hasn't done so in the last few attempts is because they are not "pretty" or "aesthetically pleasing" or some other line of bullshit. That is not his fault, I blame WotC and specifically the art director for that - though I have no idea who that person actually is. The person who approves or disproves decisions about the map needs a course in game design 101, right after being told these maps are being made for a GAME.

Anyway, my art director never handicapped the mapmaking process to focus on aesthetics. As far as I can remember, none of my art directors has ever had any issues with the style of the maps. They've also always been very conscientious about delivering my concerns about gameplay issues to R&D, so I don't fault them in that regard either. There are two things about the map packs that basically got overruled against my advice: the placement and treatment of the AT-TE on the Teth courtyard, and the placement of boulders on Rattatak Arena. (I had them clustered tighter around gambit; they wanted them spread out.) I persisted in questioning the decision about Teth so much that for a long time I wondered if i had damaged my relationship with WotC, though I've been assured that all is well. For the record: I didn't expect that the courtyard would make a DCI list, but I tried to do what I could to at least make it approachable for informal games. (I've since picked up a lot more ideas on how to improve it; enough to recognize that even my original intent wouldn't have won over any of you folks represented here.)

If my art director has a fault in the issues we're discussing here, it's that he may have sheltered me too much from any criticism R&D might have had. I lowered my rates to help make it possible for WotC to bring more maps to market for the players (I doubt the map packs would have happened at all without this), and I offered to develop maps of my own for their consideration. There's a chance that my art director didn't want to risk offending me with a lot of nitpicking from R&D for fear of losing a good deal. Looking at it another way, he might have been protecting my creative freedom and thus argued against making me revise certain things about the maps. I don't have any evidence of this, but it has crossed my mind.

One thing's for sure: if WotC hires me to make more SWM poster maps (and I have no reason to think they won't, when they're ready), I'm going to arrange a direct line, so to speak, with R&D and make sure that whatever we produce will serve the competitive game whenever humanly possible. You folks who organize and routinely play in competitive skirmish events are the beating heart of SWM, and the products have to take your needs into account.

Well you just need a thicker skin.

If there is criticism, it's because the R&D people probably knew something you didn't, and something the art director should not have "sheltered" you from. While I'm sure the intent was noble, you have to admit that it didn't prevent criticism, it just ended up coming from a larger source.

Personally, I would rather my co-worker or boss be critical of me and my work at my job if it is meant to make it better than for them to say nothing and our customers to be the ones who offer the criticism instead.

I think that is an excellent idea, and I would urge you to be sure that this "direct line" takes into account not just what the game looks like to the public today, but what it's going to look like a year to two years from now, because that is the stage that R&D is working on.

To be clear: I don't know if my art director did try to prevent criticism from R&D from getting through to me. That possibility never even occurred to me until recently. It could explain why R&D didn't ask me to revise some of the more open-gambit maps, but there could be any number of reasons for it. These range from them not seeing it as a problem to them not feeling there was sufficient time to make changes. (For a couple of years there, I frankly had some trouble meeting deadlines. I'm not proud of it, but it's true.)

I feel the same, but I'll take constructive criticism wherever I can get it.

From your position, I can see the logic in considering it a possibility. After working with R&D for as long as I have, I think the odds are rediculously long that it occurred. I'd guess any concerns were more like "make it huge friendly" up front and "seems fine" at the end. And I'm sure some will be upset that my impression is that each map likely didn't go through some high-level metagame analysis playtesting with pieces slated for the coming year to weed out any trouble spots but thereyago!

And anyone who thinks they ever will is dreaming.

I realize this map is horrid and please know that you really dont have to persuade me to get rid of it.

Dean, before we start chucking maps, could we look at the possibility of Lobo's championship only map set up? I am not saying this map should stay or go as i really havent played it yet, but some maps could stay legal locally, but just not for regionals/Gencon. If this needs to go then so be it, but keep his idea in mind.

LOL, Scott, I think Dean was actually the one who mentioned it to me at Gencon this weekend. If it wasn't his idea, I know he was standing around when it was discussed.

Yeah, I personally feel like the best idea overall is the "championship" and "open" format ideas, so that each LGS would have a little more lee-way in how they run things. I know the young kids at my home store would really appreciate being able to use maps like Cristophsis and Teth, since they usually don't have the money to pick up every single map that comes out.