I thought about this but in relation to bw alot, overall I'm come up with this as positions are randomly assigned and games are playing usually best 3 out of 5 or 2 out of 3 minor advantages and disadvantages are a way of life.

With that they create position specific things which changes the game play which i love because else i'd see a lot more identical starting builds and positions and get bored. Things that are different are interesting.

It's nice to think about a perfectly balanced game, but i think that game would only be played by computers.

nearly is good enough

triumph

United States100 Posts

July 19 2010 06:29 GMT

#23

On July 19 2010 15:24 semantics wrote:

It's nice to think about a perfectly balanced game, but i think that game would only be played by computers.

Then it's not a game.

semantics

10040 Posts

July 19 2010 06:31 GMT

#24

On July 19 2010 15:29 triumph wrote:

Show nested quote +

Then it's not a game.

not if the game is to create an ai to win on your behalf.

[Agony]x90

United States853 Posts

July 19 2010 06:44 GMT

#25

I know the perfect solution. Top down play! no more of this perspective bullcrap!

But seriously, i'm sure its something to keep in consideration for those who are better players than I :D.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

July 19 2010 07:14 GMT

#26

To answer your concerns:

1) Doodads

Map makers should, and usually do, never rely on ornamental doodads as part of map balance. Doodads on the map will first and foremost provide a map with eye candy. But because it also interacts with the pathing, doodads must be used sparingly and intelligently to prevent imbalance.

I made a map called clover in which I tried out using masses of trees as a main feature of the map. In the end, it made little to no difference to the overall balance of the map and just got in the way of the player making proper decisions such as "can i walk my units there or not?"

2) Terran Add-ons

In the map maker, if you show the pathing layer, you will see the building grid. The "standard" ramp is a ramp that can be blocked off by 3 supply depots, or 3 buildings that are 2x2 in size. Because the addon is 2x2 in size itself, terran players must organize their buildings in such a way to utilize the addon as a ramp blocker. The barracks/factory doesn't always have to be situated inbetween two depots.

A map that does not allow for a barracks/factory+addon to be utilized in addition to depots can be considered ... I won't say unfair, but more difficult for a terran player because it breaks from standard thought process of what terrans expect from the map.

3) Minerals

Because minerals are 2x1 in size, map makers should strive to have mineral lines in vertical, horizontal, or diagonal orientation to the cc/nexus/hatch to have the easiest time mirroring bases. Though, I highly doubt there would be much issue if the minerals were on some weird angle - as long as its mirrored, the distances remain the same. The only issue is with zerg hatcheries in that drones always spawn at the south, and have to travel an extra distance when spawning if the minerals are to the north. Nexus/CC, the workers will appear at whatever closest point is to the minerals.

Gas is the big problem - there was an excellent thread a while back with gas resourcing that described the much lower rate when gas are diagonal to the base. Because of that thread, I strive to make my gas placements due N/S/E/W rather on the diagonal.

4) The trapezoid is a non issue. Your angle of view of your base has no physical effect on the building placement and etc.

figq

12519 Posts

July 19 2010 07:32 GMT

#27

On July 19 2010 15:44 [Agony]x90 wrote:
I know the perfect solution. Top down play! no more of this perspective bullcrap!

Even this won't solve it, because:
- all screen resolutions are rectangular, meaning that depending on the base area shape, you get a wider horizontal view than vertical view. Despite this, maps with rotational symmetry (which isn't even central symmetry) exist in the standard pools for BW - eg: Neo Moon Glaive.
- objects further from the center of the screen are slightly smaller due to perspective; so depending again on the base shape, orientation and position of the mineral line, you could have slightly better or worse view of your base within a single screen.

Vei

United States2845 Posts

July 19 2010 07:39 GMT

#28

The game itself isn't anywhere close to being perfectly balanced so I really don't see why maps should be expected to be either. Anything glaring or obvious/easy-to-fix should be, but I disagree with your OCD-level of nitpickingness (respectfully). I don't think it's a huge deal, although I do think like if you spawn at 6 your workers have a slightly shorter walk to the minerals than if you start at 12, no? Not sure what else to say about that : D

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

July 19 2010 22:29 GMT

#29

--- Nuked ---

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

July 21 2010 22:54 GMT

#30

--- Nuked ---

InfiniteIce

United States794 Posts

July 21 2010 23:06 GMT

#31

A very good OP. I'm still considering the ramifications of what this could all mean, and evaluating your thoughts as to the same.

I definitely like and appreciate these sort of underlying "metagame" (if you will) principles that go far advanced past the "TANKS ARE IMBA OMG" threads.

I await further discussion on this topic, but I voted to stick with VARS, because
1) I believe you are onto something, and
2) I don't believe we have the maps available in the style your post reflects to make the judgements necessary to validify the implications suggested. Thus I would like to see you continue on this path!
(Sorry, did I use too many big words?

)

Also @ anxiete

On July 19 2010 14:56 AnxietE wrote:
EDIT: Meh, the image didnt work. Can someone link me to someway how to post images on TL, or tell me?

Use this tag:

[img]www.someimagelinks.com/image.jpg[/img]

Superouman

France2195 Posts

July 21 2010 23:06 GMT

#32

Rotational symetry allows more aggresive play whereas your "VARS" maps are just "i take my part of the map, let's macro"

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

July 21 2010 23:08 GMT

#33

--- Nuked ---

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

July 21 2010 23:11 GMT

#34

--- Nuked ---

Maginor

Norway505 Posts

July 21 2010 23:27 GMT

#35

Rotational symmetry may cause issues with 1v1s on 4 player (or some 3 player) maps if there is a close spawn, because if the two players want to expand away from each other, the accessability/defendability of their expansions will be different for them. And for instance, one's main may be close to two's natural, while two's main will be behind his natural and far away from his opponent's main. This may lead to some severe positional disadvantages for one player. This issue doesn't occur on 2-player maps, though.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

July 21 2010 23:30 GMT

#36

--- Nuked ---

dimfish

United States663 Posts

July 21 2010 23:37 GMT

#37

Let me echo the oft posted "it doesn't matter too much" sentiment that has already been argued quite a bit here, but since I got called out I gotta back up my man Barrin: mineral fields as rectangles yes look nice but also we gotta think it over to make nicely-balanced maps.

Since this is topical, I'll preview that I'm adding a mineral patch/geyser distance analysis for every base like CheeC[h] calculated by hand to the next version of map analyzer. Maybe we'll find out maps without reflection symmetry all have the worst possible MULE layouts!

Zaphid

Czech Republic1860 Posts

July 22 2010 00:18 GMT

#38

Perfectly symmetrical maps are probably the most terrible thing a map maker can create. Look at Broodwar, almost every single map has something that makes it "work" some kind of doodads or positional difference that makes you adapt to your current spawning position. Refer to JD vs Fantasy semifinals game 4 in OSL as a perfect example of that. If you could just copy/paste strategy that works on every single "balanced" map, the game would lose a lot of it's flair. People ultimately want to play a game that's fun, not a game that's balanced to the T.

Also, your trapezoid thing is BS, it's trapezoid because you are looking at a square from an angle, it's called perspective. Even the editor has the option to create map snapshots from top-down view, I don't see why should you limit yourself to only vertical symmetry.

Yes, I believe you are full of shit:p I think your creative energy is better spent on making maps that are nice to look at and interesting to play on.

k!llua

Australia895 Posts

July 22 2010 00:23 GMT

#39

i'd like to see some more maps produced using this as a base theory. i think it'd be unfair to really judge one way or the other without seeing it put into practice.

Chriamon

United States886 Posts

July 22 2010 00:24 GMT

#40

When I posted in the thread about your map I sort of stumbled upon this, but I feel that the whole VARS style map is very suited towards a particular style of play, that is, mech, or any turtle and harass style, which is pretty much terran dominated.

Basically, On any VARS map, the two players will always be expanding towards each other, or they will be expanding to unoptimal locations. The optimal expansion path is going to be symettrical to my opponents, thus we expand towards each other. I believe this is why a lot of maps have the "rotational symmetry" style seen in steppes and blistering sands. VARS just isn't suited to balanced play IMO, at least in its current state. I say this because it is generally agreed that Zerg (or anyone using a mobile army) wants to expand away from its opponent, and Terran (siege tanks really) want to expand towards its opponent. The best compromise is the rotational symmetry seen in blistering sands and steppes style maps.