With the upcoming Statistical Tournament in mind, a question which occurred to me was how interactive the battlefield should be in a statistical battle-- how much it should be able to affect the battle in a competitive setting. On one end of things, you can have an almost blank grid with little to nothing to interact with (a Final Destination-esque setup, if you will), and on the other end there are hypothetical fields which can entirely change the goals of the combatants in exchange for advantages (imagine a sort of 'king of the hill' setup as an example, which provides buffs to the team who maintains a set territory, giving everyone a new objective to fight over). Both are theoretically viable for a competitive setting, really, although implementing anything near either of the poles means shifting the focus of what the competitive setting is testing. The open and blank battlefield cleanly pits the statistical units against each other, while the, shall we say, mechanically convoluted one can test a different kind of strategy instead of just mashing your Player Unit against the Enemy Unit, although the more intrusive the mechanic is, the higher risk it runs of altering the meta of the fight such that different kinds of statistical units innately gain a distinct advantage (a Unit which involves setting up zones of power, for instance, would preternaturally double down on advantages gained in the 'king of the hill' setup). It can boil down to personal preference, in the end. In the previous Statistical Tournament, we had a field which only had a few large obstacles. I'm confident in saying I think we're due for a complete Tournament without noticeably gimmicky grids, but do you think this Tournament could use just a bit more interactivity in the battlefield, like the map used in a spar with a panda?