[D] "Perfect" Map Symmetry - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
AtomicTon
United States103 Posts
| ||
semantics
10040 Posts
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
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
not if the game is to create an ai to win on your behalf. | ||
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
But seriously, i'm sure its something to keep in consideration for those who are better players than I :D. | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
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
On July 19 2010 15:44 [Agony]x90 wrote: Even this won't solve it, because:I know the perfect solution. Top down play! no more of this perspective bullcrap! - 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
| ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
Witness chess: White has a slight advantage, but it's one of the highest-regarded "thinking man's games" in the world. Pwned. By the way, that slight advantage you'r talking about ALWAYS annoys the shit out of me when I play that game. lolol but the concern I would have is that vertical symmetry seems to force every map to be 1v1. ya I know balance and competition for anything other than 1v1 doesn't really matter though IMO. But only because nobody thinks it does :D While I think symmetry can remove positional imbalance for either player if it is a mirror match, there is almost no way to design a map symmetrical or otherwise that doesn't give at least some positional 'imbalance' to one player or the other - especially if you consider all three races. True. My main goal was really just to reduce positional imbalace as much as possible. The thing is, balance is so much more significant than symmetry that it swamps the microscopic positional stuff you're discussing. you're right, however, balance relies on symmetry. I feel you cannot truly work on balance until you've mastered symmetry. Um...you say that you want VARS symmetry only and then you show plenty of ramps where the vertically reflected version has to lift off to put an addon while the original doesn't. Which is why I wouldn't use those types of ramps in such a way. I didn't make this clear in the OP, but really the only two types of ramps that really work with VARS would be both players having a northern-facing ramp or both players having a southern-facing ramp from main to natural. On that note, I don't think it really matters for any ramp other than the main-natural ramp. If you wanted to remove this problem entirely you'd not only have to use VARS but you'd have to use vertical and horizontal ramps only - which are hella ugly and also different sizes than the diagonal ramps used in all of the current ladder maps. Yup. As my pictures show, it takes more buildings to block the straight ramps. I've actually been looking at all the ladder ramps. They are indeed ALL diagonal. Hiding units behind cliffs will still exist even with VARS, so that's irrelevant. the problem isnt really hiding units there. that's fine. the problem is that in that particular part of the base, someone in a cross position in a map using rotational symmetry wouldn't be able to hide something there. Very rarely, if ever, do pro players ever complain about spawn positions because games rarely are so close that it becomes a factor in who actually wins. True. Honestly the only thing that ever bothered me about it was really early game where if you were trying to save the spot for an addon instead of building a supply depot, someone in one position would have already have their ramp walled off but if you were in another position waiting for an addon then maybe a critical zergling runby would simply work where in another position it wouldn't. That's about it though >.< all the maps would be so similar This is also too true. While not as bad as you made it seem, it would indeed be pretty bad. Using VARS also totally kills creative map design. Honestly all the maps would be so similar, there might as well only be one map that ever gets used competitively. If someone told me, as a map maker myself, that if I ever wanted my maps to be used competitively I had to make them all completely symmetrical using VARS, I think I would cry a little, and then give up making maps entirely. its ok you can cry with me :D 6. I even advise map-makers after they implement the perfect symmetry of their maps, to manually break it a bit, and make each position unique. *UBERGASP* That's how Blizzard's official maps are. Yeah. Man those maps made me cry before I made this thread Even if you just have a flat field, with nothing else but flat ground....there won't be perfect balance. Hatcheries spawn from the bottom only, and terran addons build on one side only. So, even if you could minimize the impact of positional imbalance as much as possible, it will still exist to an extent. Actually, using VARS on a flat field to position the minerals would indeed make it perfectly balanced in a ZvZ mirror. The key is to use VARS and not HARS. I forgot about the larva thing when I made this thread though, I totally thought about that before. I am a zerg player after all >.< That's actually pretty big too using my logic btw. Arguably the biggest. couldnt even live with a single doodad being diffrent on both sides. Honestly... I was getting to that point lmao. I was literally going to make every doodad use VARS. I know that the 3d effect is MUCH less in BW than SC II, but that makes the game more creative, and exciting. If one player hid a small group of units behind a cliff, and then after the other players units passed, wouldnt that be awesome (to view)? Well yeah sure. but why should one base have an arguably better place to hide units than another? or any two symmetrical parts of a map really. LoS blockers are better for this IMO (Kulas Ravine, for example).There's also the problem with gas that has been brought up here before, but as mentioned and will be mentioned more, these issues with symmetry are acceptably negligible to the game's balance. thank you for mentioning that, I didn't know. by the way if anyone has any related information like this or a link to related information like this I am totally interested. Holy crap, this is why I leave map making up to the pros, I seriously could care less about perfect symmetry on a map. Good luck man! tyvm :D But seriously, i'm sure its something to keep in consideration for those who are better players than I :D. Yes indeed. Even if a mapper isn't using VARS, it should be to their benefit to understand why someone would use it. --------------------------------------------- If I didn't quote and respond to you, it's probably because I agree with you. About the idea of little imbalances giving a map "flavor": You are totally right. I guess I just let my undiagnosed OCD get in the way of me seeing that. I had not really considered that when I made this post. By the way, while I am indeed mainly interested in discussing symmetical balance, I am also particularly interested in knowing what everyone thinks about using VARS in most tournament maps - because that is really my first mapmaking goal in SC2. If I do not make any maps that get put into tournaments - I consider every single one of those maps a failure, despite how good it might actually be. I can see that most of you think it is not a big deal, and in fact can even add fun to things. Therefore I will overcome my undiagonsed OCD and adopt a style that embraces little quirks within each bases, but I probably wont forget the reserve I once had for such things, which will probably affect the way I do things somewhat. In fact, you will probably see maps with all sorts of styles from me. I am going to go through with my first map that uses VARS, but I will certainly start to branch out. Thanks for the feedback! If I forgot anything feel free to mention it again. I'd prefer if this thread continued so that I could glean more information and understand more points of view (preferably not a trapezoid point of view, tee hee hee :X). - Barrin edit: man this post is long. Am I supposed to put those quotes in spoilers? | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
I hope if it's ok if bump this thread once every day in the afternoon for the next week while we wait for release. I'm interested in getting more people's opinions about this, although we have covered most of what should be covered. | ||
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
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
| ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
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 conclusions that these implications bring forth. Thus I would like to see you continue on this path! (Sorry, did I use too many big words? ) nah i got it and I agree ^^ | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
Rotational symetry allows more aggresive play whereas your "VARS" maps are just "i take my part of the map, let's macro" I disagree with this entirely. | ||
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
| ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
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. Yup. The first map with rotational symmetry with the imbalance you described that comes to mind is Fighting Spirit. If you make a rotational map with 4 lines of symmetry this doesn't happen though. | ||
dimfish
United States663 Posts
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
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
| ||
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
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. | ||
| ||