EPT[D] "Perfect" Map Symmetry
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Imperfex
Canada5 Posts
Witness chess: White has a slight advantage, but it's one of the highest-regarded "thinking man's games" in the world. Further, since start positions are randomized in Starcraft, it provides Yet Another Thing that you have to consider when you spawn in on a map, and can lead to really long-term interesting matches. There was one map I remember (though not the name) from SC1 where zerg could use the unburrow trick to sneak Zerglings inside the bottom player's base. Very situational, and it meant that the bottom player had something else to keep in mind while playing. Provided the map imbalances aren't huge (top player starts with gold, bottom starts with 1/2 size blue), I find they just make the game more interesting. | ||
|
Rkie
United States1278 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
To some extent, I like how people can radically change their plans on the basis of spawn positions, and how, say, close spawns change how a player has to expand, etc. You'd lose all of that if all maps were VARS maps. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
In order to remove as much positional imbalance as possible you need a mix of the above (and other features which I haven't outlined but are common in most maps) and to achieve this mix oftentimes symmetry is not required. I can see where you are coming from and like I said earlier in my post I agree that it can remove positional imbalance in some circumstances, however, confining oneself to strict VARS would result in all maps looking very similar, and matching would become bland. Half of the fun of watching Proleague or Starleague (and so on) from Korea comes from the wide variety of VARS HARS (horizontal), none-mirror symmetry, and even completely non-symmetrical maps to keep not only the fans but the players guessing. BO5s exist for high-profile matches for a reason after-all. | ||
|
Heat_023
Canada160 Posts
laser beams and explosions  | ||
|
OPSavioR
Sweden1465 Posts
I dont get the trapezoid thing. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On July 19 2010 10:12 Barrin wrote:To clear things up, this thread is not about map "balance"; this thread is about Map Symmetry. The thing is, balance is so much more significant than symmetry that it swamps the microscopic positional stuff you're discussing. | ||
|
triumph
United States100 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
with the minerals, i agree. Why not make them square? with addons, most definitely agree. Its just dumb that one player can do a wall in and the other one can't because he spawned on a different location. If these issues aren't fixed, well its not gonna be that bad. People will still play and watch and it will still be amazing. But if these things were fixed, the game would be that much better, although probably just as popular as it is without them. But as a player i would definitely appreciate these changes. Thanks for a great read | ||
|
Hamster1800
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
VirtualAlex
41 Posts
It looks like this M | W Pretend the M and W look the same but just flipped. Maps like Blistering Sands and Desert Oasis have this kind of symmetry. There is no line of reflection, but both players have identical features (not considering map angle of course). | ||
|
funcmode
Australia720 Posts
On July 19 2010 11:36 VirtualAlex wrote: There is another kind of symmetry. Actually I am not even sure if it could be defined as symmetry... but most of the currently blizzard maps are like that. It looks like this M | W Pretend the M and W look the same but just flipped. Maps like Blistering Sands and Desert Oasis have this kind of symmetry. There is no line of reflection, but both players have identical features (not considering map angle of course). You're talking about rotational symmetry (and yes it is a type of symmetry). And while using it leads to some "issues" such as with terran addons, and hiding units as the OP describes I don't think they're significant enough to totally gimp map design to achieve "perfect balance". The issue with terran addons is incredibly minor and even on a 1v1 map has far smaller significance in terms of the strength of spawn positions than many other factors, most obviously the strengths of different spawns for different races on 4 player maps. 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. Hiding units behind doodads like trees can be more balanced simply by more careful use of doodads. Don't put trees in places where they will block LOS to anywhere important or even pathable - particularly in one main base and not the other, etc. Hiding units behind cliffs will still exist even with VARS, so that's irrelevant. Mineral placement can also be pretty much completely balanced without VARS if you place them correctly and sensibly. The camera perspective is also practically a non-issue. The difference in visibility is incredibly minimal, and when the only players this would affect are already achieving hundreds of APM, is having to move the camera a tiny bit when your opponent didn't going to cost you the game? Very doubtful. 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. Some positions are without a doubt more beneficial than others, but any situation on any of the current maps is winnable, and thus the players don't complain. Instead games are won or lost because of mistakes or superior strategy or skill, not positional (spawn) advantage. 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. My last point, and I think the biggest reason this shouldn't ever become the status quo, is because it also practically kills much of the variety that makes playing (and watching) this game so interesting. I'm fairly sure that Lost Temple, a 4 player map which is actually pretty far from symmetrical in a lot of places, is one of the most popular maps used in tournaments. The obvious reason is cause of it's 4 spawns, no-one could ever truly predict how a game might turn out. The variety in viable strategies changes drastically based on the spawns, and this, in my opinion, makes for much more intense and exciting games. Using VARS only maps would just destroy this aspect of the game. In short, no, VARS doesn't make maps significantly more balanced, but it does significantly kill both creative map design and a lot of creative play, so no thanks, rotational symmetry for 1v1 specific maps works just fine =) | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
1. Hiding/Shadows are imba on the horizontal axis as well, so there's just no perfect balance. Players should learn to press the buttons for changing the camera angles often enough. 2. Terran addons are imba in BW too. Walling the same ramps on symmetric maps depends on the o'clock position. It didn't break the game too much. It seems to make it more interesting. 3. Again, symmetric Mineral lines are imba under other game engines as well. It's a minute difference, but it's there and people just live with it. 4. The trapezoid view should even out, as long as there's enough action on both fronts. Compare it with outdoor sports and the direction of the sun light. 5. Maps are not supposed to be perfectly balanced. That would be boring. They have to be pretty balanced, with a little bit of imba flavors of different sorts. 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. That's how Blizzard's official maps are. | ||
|
monitor
United States2404 Posts
After all, this is a "game" meant for fun  ! | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
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. | ||
|
Illva
Sweden137 Posts
| ||
|
psion
106 Posts
Still, I would have made it so that terran addons build under the structure 1x3, and cut out a little bit under the structures to make it obvious what addon is under it. I'm afraid it's too late for such ideas though, and I'm kind of disappointed that Blizzard didn't seem to try anything to fix the issue. | ||
|
Anxiety
United States650 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + http://www.repdepot.net/img/minimap/1024/1384.jpg 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)? And some maps are so unsymmetrical, yet they still get in some League usage, even if the time is short.See Fantasy (Map): + Show Spoiler + http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Fantasy_(Map) And: In short, no, VARS doesn't make maps significantly more balanced, but it does significantly kill both creative map design and a lot of creative play, so no thanks, rotational symmetry for 1v1 specific maps works just fine =) ^This. Ill use it to summerize mine too. EDIT: Meh, the image didnt work. Can someone link me to someway how to post images on TL, or tell me? | ||
|
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
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
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
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Orange Goblin
218 Posts
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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Zaru
Austria93 Posts
| ||
|
Anxiety
United States650 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
