So Vataro and I were having a conversation in Risky's Room about this map and it's balance.  I'll admit that after I started playing it I was sure that I had accidentally made Wizard (yellow) a better starting place than the others.  Wizard is closer to more bonuses in more of the maps.  I tried, when designing it, to keep the highest bonus furthest away from the player on each map but it was impossible to really do that so I made some choices trying to give each player a map that they had an advantage on but now when I look I feel like I screwed Warrior a lot.

So, I went through the finished games list and what I found was interesting:

Wizard 11

Valkyrie 16

Warrior 17

Elf 27

This is not a breakdown I would have expected but another thing showed also....I know the names of almost all the players who have won.  Most of them are players I know to be good players and have a lot of experience.  Now I haven't gone so far as to see who beat who in the games, but it does say to me that good players tend to win more than inexperienced players.

I thought this was interesting because many people have told me that one starting position has an advantage over the others and I've been told this for all 4 of them!  Now I'm not saying that this proves the map is balanced because I'm still not sure, but I do think it is rather interesting from a strategy point of view.  I think Wizard has to defend early more than the other players, Warrior has the best spot to be aggressive early, Elf seems to have the best choke points and Valkyrie doesn't have to go for 1 specific area since her bonuses are all the same so she has the advantage of playing a more open game.

Those are my thoughts from quickly looking over the games played.....discuss

Important to note is that you get to actually choose who you play by what color you choose (right?).
That's a pretty big thing that's easy to miss/forget when choosing your color is normally just by picking your favorite/norm.

Is that important to note? I always assumed it was obvious :P.

Either way though, yes you can choose. However, every time I have started games I have started 1 with me in each position. In a tournament, however, I could see where this could matter.

And for the record, Risky checked on my individual wins and I have won 3 times as Wizard, 2 times as Valkyrie, 3 times as Warrior, and 4 times as Elf. I also find that interesting (especially since, as I mentioned, I have tried to play about the same number of games at each position). I also have won using a couple different strategies for some of the different starting positions (probably not Valkyrie though, I should work on that).

When my current games wrap up my stats will be:

Wizard: 4/7
Valkarie: 3/6
Elf: 2/3
Warrior: 2/2

Which I think shows that the Wizard is certainly playable, but past that seems to suggest that the elf and warrior are perhaps easier to play.

However of the games I lost, the Elf won 3, warrior won 3, valkarie won 1, and wizard won 0.. and the one time I lost to the valkarie I was wizard. When I was valkarie I tended to lose to the warrior, and when I was Wizard I tended to lose to the Elf. This I think is potentially interesting.

BlackDog's opinions in this thread cannot be valid, for he wins every game he plays regardless of starting position. >:(

I've made a fog layer and an image layer for it and also change the cards because I never really liked them and I am going to update the live version today but I'm thinking about increasing the cards scale to make them more part of the game. I'm just thinking about 4,6,8,10,12... scale, should I or should I just leave them and update the image?

I say leave them (the card scale, that is).

do you WANT them as more part of the game? could use the same scale just start them out as being meaningful (6-10ish)?

I re-released without changing the scale.
Regarding the starting locations, I really think each favors a different style of play and once you've found the one that suits your style you can make hey on the map. I am usually yellow in all games but I find that Warrior is more my style of play because he seems to be the one that can get aggressive the quickest.
I don't really know from just looking at the map why Elf would have such favorable win percentages. I've now won a game with all of them but I thought winning with Elf was the most difficult and really only won because Valkyrie ran out of units before taking the Warrior spot on a map otherwise she would have swept me up the next turn.

Risky, I just noticed you misspelled Necklace in the board description. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but though I'd let you know. :)

Yeah, I keep spelling it Neckless all the time. It's just one of those words for me, I guess. It's also spelled wrong for the territories. Every RiskyMap has something like that in it so I'll just keep it. What, are people gonna have less respect for me? Pee-Shaw!

I've played 9 games (6-3 record) on the map so far and I have yet to be in a game where the Valkyrie wins. I've won 4 as the warrior and 2 as the wizard Losing to the elf twice and the wizard once.

I think the worst part about the starting position for the Valkyrie is unable to take a bonus on it's first turn.

I have to say that the Valkyrie is tough. I made a sincere effort to specialize in the blue vixen, but even when I played (I think) just about perfectly, I always seemed to be one turn behind (admittedly usually to BlackDog) in conquering my quad, which may be due to the impossibility of grabbing a bonus on turn one. I'm not saying she's impossible to win with, but it requires more skill and more luck, IMO.

I have won with the Valkyrie. Just sayin'.

I think the lack of a first turn bonus for Valkarie is not a big deal. Most people get a +3 or something on their first turn, but the valkarie is compensated by the fact that her starting position is very secure. Nobody is in a position to take out any of the valkaries starting locations early in the game... in the long run this pretty much evens things out.

I think the real reason the valkarie tends to lose is that the Elf tends to win. The Valk and Elf are both strong on the top two boards, and weak on the bottom two boards, so the valk has a good chance of competing directly against the Elf for primary board. Elf is obviously stronger than valk on the top right, and arguably stronger on the top left.

However, while the top right board is a nice start for elf (or valk), he then has to go through both red and yellow to get the remaining two bonuses, which makes for a slow mid game. In the games I won as valk, 2/3 of the time the Elf went top right, and got bogged down while I took top left. I would argue then that top left is the strongest board for both Valk and Elf.. and elf tends to gain momentum there quicker.. starting to look bad for Valk?

This correlates well with my win/loss record.. when I am valkarie, I tend to lose to the warrior (since I am giving the Elf a hard time), and when I am wizard I tend to lose to the elf (since I am giving the warrior a hard time). And when I am the warrior or the elf I tend not to lose.

Yes, I have noticed BD as Warrior is a nearly unstoppable force. I have also noticed that my wins with Valkyrie were taking the top left board asap.

I usually go for top left as Valkyrie as well, since there's usually less direct competition from the warrior there. However, against a good player of one of the other adventurers, I often wind up a turn behind with that strategy, as it simply takes too long to clear out the quad.

I've played as Valkyrie in 3 games (I like blue) and lost 3 games. I've played 3 games total. I know EN prefers Elf and has developed a nice strategy that suits his style, and Blackdog's analysis was a fascinating read. I like boards that support different styles, even if the board may lean towards this or that player.

Now that we have Scenarios I am thinking about different scenarios for Gauntlet. When teams are available, it will be better, but what would people think about a 16 player version?

I think that some players would have a definite disadvantage, as some of the starting positions are very poor. One of the things that makes 4-player Gauntlet interesting is deciding how to divide your bonus and efforts amongst the four playing fields -- with 16 players, there's no judgment involved.