|
First a little bit about me. I have been designing games in my spare time for about 8 years. I really enjoy figuring out how games work, and how to apply those same principals to other games.
Non-symmetric gaming is something I was thinking about awhile ago. It is when games have un-equal sides. If anyone has a better name or one already exists let me know. I don't really like non-symettric gaming, but for the sake of this post I am going to call it NSG.
I originally started thinking about NSG while designing my rts game. If I just stayed with one unit set for all players, I wouldn't have to deal with balance that plagues other rts games. I could just tweak the game until it was fun, and then leave it.
I tried to look at the pros and cons of using only one unit set. To do this I looked at mirror matches in starcraft II and warcraft 3. They told two different stories.
In Warcraft 3 mirror matches often resulted in exactly mirrored play. This was usually fine for players as wc3 is focused on more subtle things than build order, but it made watching the games less interesting to new players.
In Starcraft 2, mirror matches are much more dynamic. Players almost always choose different build orders and styles, and they can be extremely interesting to watch. But the games are so different to play than the other matchups that almost all players seem to dislike them. Designing a fun unit for a mirror match seems just as hard as balancing two to be equal.
Now for the pros and cons of using NSG. I already knew the cons. It would mean I would have to design another set of units and I would have to balance them. But to find the pros, I needed some help.
I was talking to my cousin about this concept while playing a game of chess. I thought of a way we could test NSG. For our next game, I tweaked the rules of classical chess.
The white player gets a simple buff. His bishops can move like queens, but only up to 4 spaces in any direction.
The black player gets a more complex change. When moving a pawn, he can drag pawns that are diagonally below the pawn up one space. They can do the same for pawns below them. This allow for entire pawn chains to move as one.
The game changed dramatically. I played black the first game, and won convincingly. My pawns formed gigantic chains all of the board, suffocating my opponent. We didn't call imba right away though (take that as a lesson TL :D). The next game I got white. I didn't want a repeat of the last game, so I made it my main priority to destroy his pawn chains before they got too large. Once his chains were broken in a few places, my super bishops were able to destroy everything else. We played a few more games, which were quite even. The game seemed to get more complicated too, because we didn't have the same goals. The black player tried to march his pawns forward and prevent any holes forming with his other pieces. The white player tries to prevent the pawns from marching forward, and poke any holes in the chain.
The game wasn't perfect. If we played it some more one of the sides would probably become favored like Orc in wc2. But that experiment convinced me that it was worth it to have NSG in my rts game.
I would also love to see more NSG in rts games. I would encourage map makers to make non-symmetrical maps, and see how it works out. It could be very interesting.
 
|
|
|
Always make it NSG just reduce the different pieces as much as possible.
I designed a game myself and made 2 different sets with each 5 pieces the units however must have been put in tiers and i choosed to make 2 "tier 1" and 2 "tier 2" and 1 "tier 3" units each.
But that pretty much depends on wich kind of income and unit build mechanics u have as well as will u have a base (SC,WC) or only support (Grund Control...)
I made a simulation for fighting and it seemed to be propperly balanced but with the graphic overlay and the special abylitys ... everything was pretty fucked up ^^
Balancing would have been hell there and since they were totally different probably not even possible...
good luck on your project mine never reached a real alpha 
(even when i had 2 graphic guys and 2 programmer) lasy people ^^
When designing you should already choose a role for the player...
Like when i reduce SCII to a minimum that would have been:
(just a attemp not really thinking much about this)
Zerg: Fast reaction
Terran: Strong defence
Protoss: Strong army
that helped me alot and i choosed something very obvios:
Offence vs Defence
so u would have Def vs Def
Att vs Def
Att vs Att
now u only need to balance Att vs Def
but its hard to tell if that would have been fun to play :/
wow the article from day[9] is pure Gold
|
On August 01 2011 10:20 Barrin wrote:You might be interested in this thread I wrote a little over a year ago. I explain why VARS (Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry) with ZvZ and PvP is the only perfectly balanced way to play SC2. You should understand that a symmetrical map is not necessarily the same thing as a balanced map. The races themselves are not perfectly balanced, and each race manipulates certain features in different (better/worse) ways than the other races. That said, you might also be interested in reading this thread I wrote about 8 months ago. I talk about a lot of things there, but perhaps the most important concept is: a series of imbalances can create roughly equal balance, if the imbalances are distributed about evenly. That's only a few words, but it really implies quite a lot. Consider the earlier Warcraft games. The races were literally exact mirrors of each other with different cosmetics. With BW they realized that's just not the way to go for replayability/longevity. Think of things like Dark Swarm, Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Irradiate, Psi Storm, Stasis. These things had the potential to be amazingly strong in BW. In a short-sided perspective they can even be considered "imbalanced". But if you look at all of the imbalances as a whole, they all created almost equal balance. This concept is also seen in good mapmaking, and not just the units themselves. For example, you can make the center of the map extremely wide open with pretty high overall openness. This favors Zerg. However, you could also make the map have a pretty small rush distance, have not a lot of bases, and have a base or two with very tight entrances. These things disfavor zerg, but if you add them to the relatively high openness of the map, zerg can actually deal with it quite well. You can expect a pretty darn good asymmetrical map coming from the community within the next days/weeks, anyways. Also, I recommend reading this article by Day[9]. Maybe not precisely related, but a good read for you anyway 
I understand that symmetrical maps aren't always balanced, but the imbalance comes from the non-symmetrical races. Symmetrical maps are always balanced for mirror matches.
I mentioned the non-symmetrical maps because that was one of hte alternatives I thought of for my RTS game. If I had non-symmetrical maps, I would be able to get NSG without designing two unit sets. I decided against this though because players would be unable to choose which side they wanted, meaning everyone would have to learn all styles.
The non-symmetrical maps I was thinking of would have some major differences for each position. For example, one position might have standard natural/third placement, but the other might have an easy to take backdoor natural but a far away third. Balancing would be extremely difficult, especially with all the different races put in, but it is theoretically possible. I am not sure if the map you are referring to will have something like that, but either way I will look for it when it comes out.
I don't have time to read that day9 article right now, but I will when I have some time.
Thanks for your post. :D
|
On August 01 2011 10:20 Barrin wrote:You might be interested in this thread I wrote a little over a year ago. I explain why VARS (Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry) with ZvZ and PvP is the only perfectly
Link is broken.
Correct URL is: here
|
I'm not sure if this is related, but how do people feel about Terran spawn positions and addons when you're doing a wall off? In certain positions you have to lift off to make the addon, and in others you wont have a wall off when you do. I don't see why blizzard hasn't just made it adapt to the map, that would make things more balanced(albeit in a very miniscule way).
|
On August 01 2011 10:36 JoelE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 10:20 Barrin wrote:You might be interested in this thread I wrote a little over a year ago. I explain why VARS (Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry) with ZvZ and PvP is the only perfectly balanced way to play SC2. You should understand that a symmetrical map is not necessarily the same thing as a balanced map. The races themselves are not perfectly balanced, and each race manipulates certain features in different (better/worse) ways than the other races. That said, you might also be interested in reading this thread I wrote about 8 months ago. I talk about a lot of things there, but perhaps the most important concept is: a series of imbalances can create roughly equal balance, if the imbalances are distributed about evenly. That's only a few words, but it really implies quite a lot. Consider the earlier Warcraft games. The races were literally exact mirrors of each other with different cosmetics. With BW they realized that's just not the way to go for replayability/longevity. Think of things like Dark Swarm, Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Irradiate, Psi Storm, Stasis. These things had the potential to be amazingly strong in BW. In a short-sided perspective they can even be considered "imbalanced". But if you look at all of the imbalances as a whole, they all created almost equal balance. This concept is also seen in good mapmaking, and not just the units themselves. For example, you can make the center of the map extremely wide open with pretty high overall openness. This favors Zerg. However, you could also make the map have a pretty small rush distance, have not a lot of bases, and have a base or two with very tight entrances. These things disfavor zerg, but if you add them to the relatively high openness of the map, zerg can actually deal with it quite well. You can expect a pretty darn good asymmetrical map coming from the community within the next days/weeks, anyways. Also, I recommend reading this article by Day[9]. Maybe not precisely related, but a good read for you anyway I understand that symmetrical maps aren't always balanced, but the imbalance comes from the non-symmetrical races. Symmetrical maps are always balanced for mirror matches. I mentioned the non-symmetrical maps because that was one of hte alternatives I thought of for my RTS game. If I had non-symmetrical maps, I would be able to get NSG without designing two unit sets. I decided against this though because players would be unable to choose which side they wanted, meaning everyone would have to learn all styles. The non-symmetrical maps I was thinking of would have some major differences for each position. For example, one position might have standard natural/third placement, but the other might have an easy to take backdoor natural but a far away third. Balancing would be extremely difficult, especially with all the different races put in, but it is theoretically possible. I am not sure if the map you are referring to will have something like that, but either way I will look for it when it comes out. I don't have time to read that day9 article right now, but I will when I have some time. Thanks for your post. :D
Symmetrical maps are NOT always balanced for mirror matches! For example consider Python in BW (there were worse examples, but Python is simple to explain). You have roughly diagonal symmetry. However in TvT there is a situation where one T can spawns on the left side, and there is only one drop path and no space behind the mineral lines, if the other T spawns on say the top there is space behind the mineral lines and below to drop (you have to cover more territory and you have more incoming drop paths). Finally, in TvT although not a big deal in some spawn positions your marine would pop outside the wall (outside your base versus in, depending on position), while less significant in the mirror match (if you got bunker rushed or some shenanigans) this could be the difference between winning and losing.
I can't remember the game or match (sorry), but I think it was a Bisu v. Stork game, and basically even with a symmetrical map one player only had to cover a drop path over his natural which covered the main, while the other player had to cover 2 distinct drop paths, which meant that that player had to have his dragoons spread and it was for his opponent to sneak a reaver in for a drop, and using more units to cover the drop paths took away from the main army.
Also for a good SC2 example see above, although maybe it plays less of a difference considering BW had some weird quirks.
|
Barrin, your very first link gives an ESPORT elephant page.
|
On August 01 2011 11:19 SOB_Maj_Brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 10:36 JoelE wrote:On August 01 2011 10:20 Barrin wrote:You might be interested in this thread I wrote a little over a year ago. I explain why VARS (Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry) with ZvZ and PvP is the only perfectly balanced way to play SC2. You should understand that a symmetrical map is not necessarily the same thing as a balanced map. The races themselves are not perfectly balanced, and each race manipulates certain features in different (better/worse) ways than the other races. That said, you might also be interested in reading this thread I wrote about 8 months ago. I talk about a lot of things there, but perhaps the most important concept is: a series of imbalances can create roughly equal balance, if the imbalances are distributed about evenly. That's only a few words, but it really implies quite a lot. Consider the earlier Warcraft games. The races were literally exact mirrors of each other with different cosmetics. With BW they realized that's just not the way to go for replayability/longevity. Think of things like Dark Swarm, Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Irradiate, Psi Storm, Stasis. These things had the potential to be amazingly strong in BW. In a short-sided perspective they can even be considered "imbalanced". But if you look at all of the imbalances as a whole, they all created almost equal balance. This concept is also seen in good mapmaking, and not just the units themselves. For example, you can make the center of the map extremely wide open with pretty high overall openness. This favors Zerg. However, you could also make the map have a pretty small rush distance, have not a lot of bases, and have a base or two with very tight entrances. These things disfavor zerg, but if you add them to the relatively high openness of the map, zerg can actually deal with it quite well. You can expect a pretty darn good asymmetrical map coming from the community within the next days/weeks, anyways. Also, I recommend reading this article by Day[9]. Maybe not precisely related, but a good read for you anyway I understand that symmetrical maps aren't always balanced, but the imbalance comes from the non-symmetrical races. Symmetrical maps are always balanced for mirror matches. I mentioned the non-symmetrical maps because that was one of hte alternatives I thought of for my RTS game. If I had non-symmetrical maps, I would be able to get NSG without designing two unit sets. I decided against this though because players would be unable to choose which side they wanted, meaning everyone would have to learn all styles. The non-symmetrical maps I was thinking of would have some major differences for each position. For example, one position might have standard natural/third placement, but the other might have an easy to take backdoor natural but a far away third. Balancing would be extremely difficult, especially with all the different races put in, but it is theoretically possible. I am not sure if the map you are referring to will have something like that, but either way I will look for it when it comes out. I don't have time to read that day9 article right now, but I will when I have some time. Thanks for your post. :D Symmetrical maps are NOT always balanced for mirror matches! For example consider Python in BW (there were worse examples, but Python is simple to explain). You have roughly diagonal symmetry. However in TvT there is a situation where one T can spawns on the left side, and there is only one drop path and no space behind the mineral lines, if the other T spawns on say the top there is space behind the mineral lines and below to drop (you have to cover more territory and you have more incoming drop paths). Finally, in TvT although not a big deal in some spawn positions your marine would pop outside the wall (outside your base versus in, depending on position), while less significant in the mirror match (if you got bunker rushed or some shenanigans) this could be the difference between winning and losing. I can't remember the game or match (sorry), but I think it was a Bisu v. Stork game, and basically even with a symmetrical map one player only had to cover a drop path over his natural which covered the main, while the other player had to cover 2 distinct drop paths, which meant that that player had to have his dragoons spread and it was for his opponent to sneak a reaver in for a drop, and using more units to cover the drop paths took away from the main army. Also for a good SC2 example see above, although maybe it plays less of a difference considering BW had some weird quirks.
Then the map has rotational symmetry but not full symmetry. It is a form of NSG, but the differences are more subtle than what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
