Quote: (zombocom @ 19 Jun. 2009, 17:59 )
Neal: because different objectives are worth different amounts to each player, the scenario cannot be balanced if the objectives on one side of the board are more easily captured/contested than those on the other side.
Measuring from the centre is the only way to be certain it's fair.
First, now that I've thought about it, I don't agree that the different objectives have substantially different value to opposing players. You score and contest the same. Defending your Blitz is similar in value to you as capturing it is to the enemy. It's +/- 1 goal. Same for DTF and T&H.
Second, I don't agree that a small difference in size equates to an appreciable difference in the ease of capturing or contesting an objective. We're talking about no more than a 10% difference in objective radii at the maximum theoretical value. In the vast majority of cases it's far less, e.g. 40mm square v 60mm round (the two most common objective sizes around here) measured from the edge is a difference of between 1.75mm and 1cm in capture range, about 1-5% difference in distance and about 5-6% difference in overall area.
Third, as I pointed out, contesting directly is not the only way to prevent objective capture. Blocking is also valid and the ease of blocking is inversely proportional to direct contesting. Even if you assume that the difference in size makes a substantial difference to capturing and contesting (which, again, I don't), blocking offsets it.
Fourth, 2 of the 5 GT goals have nothing to do with objectives, so the relative importance of the objective size is further reduced by that. Sure, Blitz and T&H are common, but BTS is common as well.
So far, the ONLY example anyone has provided from a game was not caused by differences in edge v edge on different sized objectives, but on edge versus point measurement.