|
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. trapezoid thing is in-game view btw...
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! *cheers 4 dimfish* imo :D
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. I agree. But I also think that most things that have been mentioned hold some merit. Flair is a good thing. At the same time, I still want to see how this theory holds up in the highest of ends >.<
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. I will dedicate my next map to proving you wrong, sir! (With all due respect) ^^
Not the one you saw but my next one.
- Barrin
|
Bumping for more feedback <3
|
There's always the fact that each player has equal chances of starting in either position. So even if one side has certain differences from the other, both players should be prepared to spawn on either side.
|
There's always the fact that each player has equal chances of starting in either position. So even if one side has certain differences from the other, both players should be prepared to spawn on either side. While this is actually kind of obvious, I'm glad you said it. I subconciously expected it to be assumed, but it's good to underline it.
|
I completely agree with OP.
Also, this is why I don't understand why a rudimentary tile editor isn't a part of Galaxy (for all I know, it might be, though, I haven't played with it too much yet).
It's boring work to try mirroring a map by hand. If I could just plot in the tile height by numbers on a rudimentary graphical representation of the map (i.e. just tiles with numbers on them). Half the job would have been done in a jiffy.
The way it works now (if I'm not mistaken), takes AGES, just to get the basics of the map going.
|
I find it interesting watching the votes as this thread goes along. It's stayed at almost exactly 1:2 against it this whole time.
I completely agree with OP.
Also, this is why I don't understand why a rudimentary tile editor isn't a part of Galaxy (for all I know, it might be, though, I haven't played with it too much yet).
It's boring work to try mirroring a map by hand. If I could just plot in the tile height by numbers on a rudimentary graphical representation of the map (i.e. just tiles with numbers on them). Half the job would have been done in a jiffy.
The way it works now (if I'm not mistaken), takes AGES, just to get the basics of the map going. I remember being a free-server GM world builder on ultima online. Every single tile had it's own height. It certainly took ages, but man it was easier to think about than this lol.
edit: should this thread be moved to the new Maps & Custom Games forum section?
|
While all of you have been waiting for SC2/grinding ladder/single player, I have been brainstorming map concepts. I firmly believe that the restrictions VARS puts on map creativity far outweighs it's preciseness. As much as I still think a handful of pro maps should use VARS, I have pretty much abandoned this concept as a viable norm, as I feel it hinders far too much creative potential.
I could probably fill this thread a few times over with my ideas on why it hinders creativity, a lot of which would have to do with how pure VARS strictly excludes more than 2 starting locations; which is obviously huge, but I believe it holds more implications than many people realize when you can only mirror position them.
A handful of maps can pull off pure VARS just fine while being entirely unique, but I promise you there are serious strategical restrictions for using VARS.
(I have no intention of abandoning my first map that uses VARS.)
Pretty much every map I make that doesnt use VARS will have at least (usually exactly) two lines of symmetry.
|
There will never be a perfect Left-Right symmetry as long as terrans can only set up their add-ons to the right.
|
On August 02 2010 06:00 Zaru wrote: There will never be a perfect Left-Right symmetry as long as terrans can only set up their add-ons to the right.
What is wrong with that? It has been like this since the dawn of Starcraft.
|
Most everything has already been said, but I would like to make the point that the main thing SC maps need is variety. There will always be symmetrical 1v1 maps for every tileset, it's everything else that makes the map stick out. Symmetry comes in many many forms which are all fun to play.
Some of my favorite maps have actually been 3 person and 5 person maps. 3 person maps in BW are actually very imbalanced a lot of times, as 2 spawn points are in corners, while the 3rd is in the middle (of one of the sides), effectively making 1 spawnpoint have twice as much area to attack from (by air, anyway). Most of the 5 person maps were somewhat circular in nature.
The point is that these maps wouldn't necessarily have clear single lines of symmetry, but were still mirrored well. What is also interesting is when playing 1v1's on maps with more spawnpoints, each set of positions can play very differently. Spawning close or far on metalopolis for instance, can make for a radically different game. The most popular maps in BW were not 1v1 maps, Lost Temple/Python is a 4 player map, while BGH is an 8 player map, and the wide variety of starting positions always kept those maps interesting.
Also, isn't it possible to rotate the view at least somewhat to reveal hidden units instead of using health bars? I never really used it much in the beta, but I'm almost positive I saw a Day9 daily where he did so to get a better view of blocked units. I also remember the camera panning perspective and making the unit become visible if the camera moved to either side when I tried to hide units, but I could be wrong about that, though it definitely is harder to hide units than it used to be. In BW Cover actually worked like High Ground to give a miss chance to attackers, which could stack together for even more miss chance, but I haven't really noticed any difference in SC2 outside of getting the first attack because the units were hidden, so idk if hiding units really makes much difference anymore.
|
Most everything has already been said, but I would like to make the point that the main thing SC maps need is variety. Yes!
Also, isn't it possible to rotate the view at least somewhat to reveal hidden units instead of using health bars? I never really used it much in the beta, but I'm almost positive I saw a Day9 daily where he did so to get a better view of blocked units. I also remember the camera panning perspective and making the unit become visible if the camera moved to either side when I tried to hide units, but I could be wrong about that, though it definitely is harder to hide units than it used to be. Yes you can rotate your camera right or left a little bit (Insert and Delete). But having to do so would still give an advantage to one person if the other didn't have to :D
There will never be a perfect Left-Right symmetry as long as terrans can only set up their add-ons to the right. True. But there is a point where it means as little as possible. I believe having both main ramps facing either up or down is this optimal point, and can only be done with right-left symmetry or VARS. BTW there will never be perfect symmetry at all as long as addons are like that.
|
|
|
|