Depends on what you mean by pseudo-symmetrical, I haven't heard that term in this context before.
Kinda like Dumont, the layout is near symmetrical, the buildings, sectors, everything.
Unlike Wolfheze |
|
Let's say there's this BO3 round, with player A and player B.
A wins game 1 with 243 VPs left.
A knows, with experiences, that he will most likely loose to B in game 2, with army and map match up. But, A will most likely win to B if he has the tiebreaker choice.
A has 2 choices, a VP rush that has a relatively good chance of getting B's VP count to under 243 but will surely lose the game, or a really hard strategy that can guarantee a sure win IF and only if A can pull it off, but the chance it works is lower than the VP rush and he will surely lose the tiebreak decision
Obviously, VP Rushing seems like the best choice, you'll surely lose one game but win the tiebreaker, rather than you might win the game but lose this game and the tiebreaker if you fail.
This is how I see the VP Tiebreaker, (Sorry if it's not exactly how it goes, can't really Tourney due to schedule and time zone).
Mirror matches on a symmetrical map seems like a really good escape from this, let's check. People will have to master at least 3 of the 4 different match ups possible (As SU vs Ost, As Ost vs SU, As SU vs SU, and As Ost vs Ost), which may or may not make tournaments more fun to watch (may depend on faction design). If this does happen, the tiebreaker would be a bit more fair, and would allow player A to perform the risky (and perhaps more exciting) strategy than just VP Rushing.
Even though I am against Mirror Matches, MMs look like a good way to break tiebreakers so far. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
