EPTAutomatically generated StarCraft maps - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
It might be useful to look at played maps and try and mimic the distances between the key points of the map, like distance to base to base, natural to natural, secondary Tertiary bases. | ||
|
trackd00r
Chile284 Posts
 It might take a lot of time but if you make it with ultimate balance and pathing it would be a very good achievement for BW players and a big step for RTS gaming. Cool stuff. | ||
|
togelius
Sweden2 Posts
While I know all of you know StarCraft better than you do (and most of you probably better than my co-authors do) there are a few things that puzzle me. In particular, I wonder about symmetry. The argument I hear is that maps are never fair unless they are symmetric. I personally think symmetric maps are boring - symmetry means that you know exactly how the enemy's territory looks even before visiting it. (Of course, if you play the same map over and over there you would know what the enemy's home territory looks like anyway - but our idea is that with automatic map generation, you would never need to play the same map more than once, like in Civilization.) What we are trying to do is to measure and optimize various types of balance so that maps can be balanced without being symmetric. I realize this is quite hard to achieve, but we need to start somewhere. As for the comments that we should have started with two-player maps rather than three-player maps: you are probably right. But we wanted a challenge. And the nice thing about three-player maps is that it is impossible to make them perfectly symmetric. A note about the maps: all the maps have a single level only (no ramps etc) and consist only of ground and mountains/cliffs. I'm sorry that we apparently didn't get the textures right... Thanks a lot for your comments, we will read all of them - keep them coming! | ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
Seems really exciting though ^^ Great to see that research and innovation is still happening in this space. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
I agree you probably don't need perfect symmetry for your maps as you have a different target audience than what everyone here is used to, but I do think you need general symmetry. I don't see how you'll overcome the huge difference in initial advantage that a choke provides compared to an open base. edit: Although something I saw in your maps and it struck me as kinda cool, a huge impassible terrain that provides a choke, but it's so far away from the base it 'protects' that it's not really possible to wall it efficiently. This makes from interesting non-symmetry that doesn't give one player a huge advantage. I'll still agree with my initial point though, having a direct choke into someone's base while another player doesn't seems impossible to make fair. | ||
|
Rembot
United States137 Posts
Many differents... | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
But the problem with maps THIS open is that zerg can just dominate every game with speedlings. Terran and Protoss t1 units have no chance against them without tight choked bases. | ||
|
zappa372
Chile365 Posts
| ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D4ehz.png) This was one of the most interesting maps that it chewed out, quite unlike any of the other ones I got. The layout of the chokes, with a little tweaking could make something legitimate, my biggest problem is the proximity of minerals to the starting bases, in everycase, the mining times would be drastically different, and one player would be very far ahead of another in the first 2 minutes. Really interesting project however, good luck in your further investigation. | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
"Fair resource distribution" - is that relative to each base, including expansions? Or is it just talking about the mins/vespene next to the starting bases? Also, concerning "distribution" - all the bases appear to have the same number of resources, but the mins/vespene are of varying distance from the nexus, so some bases would get resources faster. Is that "fair"? "This map has choke points" - Existence of choke points or fair choke points? Good luck in your project! edit: sp | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
1. Symmetry, sorry but it has to exist for it to be fair. Randomly generate a quarter/third/half of the map and put one starting point on it, then copy it 4/3/2 times to have your map. This can make simple designs seem more intricate and interesting as well. Think cutting out a snowflake shape in paper. 2. SC generally requires a natural that is close distance for it to be fair for the less mobile races. There should be a starting base with somewhat of a choke into a natural expansion rule. If you incorporate this kind of thing into your maps it'll make them far more playable. I really like that somebody is researching this because it'd be so cool to have randomly generated maps making each game unique, but those maps kindof look like my 9 year old cousins attempt at making a SC map. Keep trying, but unfortunately you can't have it completely random and have it be playable or fair. | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
I would have used "How imbalanced is this map on a scale of 100 to over 9000" and "Is Left imba? Fuck yes / Hell yeah!" and "Is this map frustrating? Yup / Well duh" options to rate them. I liked only the 5th map, but just because Right and Bottom can battle over that 3 gas expo. | ||
|
Snackysnacks
United States411 Posts
On July 19 2011 08:01 Stenstyren wrote: Starcraft is played on mirrored maps and your algorithm does not seem to take that into account. Every starting position needs to look exactly the same and have the exact same distance to the natural etc. Otherwise the game will be extremely imbalanced. Well, not so much in Immersive maps, but the algorithm lost alot of basic points. Im not sure if we all get the same map to judge, but take a look at number 4, i can see major turtling from the 9 o-clock start, but in my head, adjusting the map alittle (two players) moving resources about, i started imaging a PVT on that map, Terran making choices such as wraiths, mass goliath (counter carrier mass) strong bio-tank and going for a deathpush, i started picturing observers with templars storming over the ridge, reavers and shield batteries holding chokes, drops and air from protoss. I started getting nerd chills. These maps COULD very work well in a casual, lan environment, imagine that you sit with a group of buddies, you roll a map, air vs turtle, then come up on the spot a gameplan and play. Though, i think this needs to stay FAR FAR away from 3 starting locations, or else its asking to be mirrored. EDIT: I didnt know you could take the picture from the thing, i ment this map http://itu.dk/people/cogr/starcraft_experiment/img/EvoMap6.png Just start twisting a few mineral locations around, walls/cliffs, make 2 players, could be entertaining. | ||
|
Empyrean
17020 Posts
My independent study project next year is to use Markov Chains and genetic algorithms to compose Bach chorales :D | ||
|
Bwenjarin Raffrack
United States322 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/167_Fantasy%20II.jpg) | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
Edit: A more complex task would be the creation of a simulator that plays CPUs on the generated maps and rates them according to positional and racial balance. | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
Snackysnacks
United States411 Posts
On July 19 2011 10:00 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote: Most people seem to be forgetting maps like Fantasy II. Making a somewhat balanced map while eschewing symmetry is difficult but not impossible. In the context of the maps generated so far, however, there's a lot of progress to be made. There are many common features for almost all modern maps, symmetry or not. Oh god was that map beautiful. Just like that picture, the starting locations need to support game plans to take out other locations. Im thinking the algorythm, seperated into 3 parts (for each spawning location, if you are deadset on 3player maps) could take into account of different playstyles such as air, turtleing, fast expansions and that sort of jazz, the you plug 3 gameplans/bases into a map, see how that looks. | ||
|
Yurie
11960 Posts
As for this. Top left would win on most of the maps, no problem. Having a choke and large main is huge in most RTS games. Some game designs ignore the chokes or the main size. I can't think of any that ignores both except for 4x type of games that still has chokes/defenders advantage to a certain degree. The only way I see these maps working is if the miners move to the minerals and then sit on them. Per the wc3 tree mining of night elves or undead gold. After that you have to have a game design where the majority of units ignore chokes. Thus most units have to be flyers/diggers, removing most importance from the chokes. Perhaps the top tier units are effected by chokes, that would still give them meaning. I can't think of a single game like this though. I liked the random maps in RA (I think it was this c&c game) and AOE2. | ||
| ||
