|
Introduction:
Whats up everyone. <Insert e-peen enlargers here.>
I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to make a perfectly balanced map. And when I say "perfect", trust me: I mean perfect. "Nit-picking" is an understatement when describing how I work with my own creations, which is probably the main drive behind me creating this thread.
To clear things up, this thread is not about map "balance"; this thread is about Map Symmetry. That said, a perfectly symmetrical map is not the same thing as a perfectly balanced map. i.e. Symmetry is not balance; balance relies on symmetry.
My point is that the way I see it, you have to make a map perfectly symmetrical before you can even think about it being perfectly balanced. The problem is that my idea of perfect symmetry is probably different than your idea of perfect symmetry (in terms of SC2 maps), and I want to know whether you think I am on to something or if I am stupid and full of shit.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So what do I think perfect symmetry is?
I am convinced there is only one type of perfect symmetry for a perfectly balanced 1v1 map: Reflection Symmetry.
More specifically, east/west or Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry (VARS lulululul, I guess that's what I'll call it? sounds good i think).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I think vertical axis reflection symmetry (VARS) is the only type of perfect symmetry for a perfectly balanced map?
It really comes down to 4 (edit: 5!) things. When I first started this post, it really felt like 10 different things, but each of these 4 (5!) things really makes the perfectionist inside of me cry sadface tears. Most of these things do not exclude any other symmetry other than VARS, but all of them together certainly do, in my opinion.
- 1. The first thing I will mention is how 3d rendering from an angled overview can give hiding spots to some areas of a certain base, while the same area in an "identical" base on another side of the map may not have the same advantage.
One advantage is simply how depending on how you place doodads that you can hide single units (scouting workers) behind like trees or small rocks, and even cliffs. This is not a huge advantage (although it can be), but in some cases you really have to scroll over an area with your mouse to have any idea that something is there. + Show Spoiler + In this picture, the probe can't really hide behind the tree. Let's look at an identical tree on a completely identical flipped piece of land: + Show Spoiler + Of course, you can kind of see the probe, but this is really just an example. I'm sure you can use your imagination to see how this can affect other situations. + Show Spoiler +
It also has an affect on northern cliffs: + Show Spoiler +
- 2. The next thing that really bothers me is Terran addons and how they interact with ramp walls. My problem is that I don't think you should be forced to lift off just to make an addon, when someone in an opposing position wouldn't have to. I'm just gonna show you some pictures of optimal walls and let you see why I think it's stupid.
+ Show Spoiler + It's not a big deal if all the main ramps for all the spawns in your map have the same advantages/disadvantages IMO.
- 3. Minerals.
+ Show Spoiler + Minerals definitely make me sad. It is pretty much impossible to place minerals in more than 2 opposing positions and there be exactly the same amount of building room around them, and exactly the same distance apart, especially in relation to multiple other bases etc. Minerals being rectangle really kills rotational symmetry IMO. Ask dimfish, the creator of the Map Analyzer if you want more confirmation that minerals are rather difficult to make 100% positionally balanced.
- 4. This is really the final killer. This even by itself really does justify pure VARS.
Simply put, your view of the in-game playing field is a trapezoid. This trapezoid will conform to the terrain, and your camera will even change height depending on the terrain. But the main thing is that it's a frikkin trapezoid. If you remember back to like 3rd grade, a trapezoid only has ONE line of symmetry. + Show Spoiler +(Let's just pretend it's upside-down, too lazy to edit it). Oh, look at that! It has VARS! (Again, for clarity, VARS is just a line up and down directly in the middle with both sides being the same as a reflection. Vertical Axis Reflection Symmetry)
+ Show Spoiler + I think another big part of this is that I believe you should always be able to have the potential to have the exact same amout of view of your base as the other guy. If you really think about the picture above (which isn't really to scale, just to give you an idea), you can really see why in cross positions on some maps you can simply have a better view of your base, depending on how it is designed.
- 5. (EDIT, #5 was made because someone reminded me about it. I forgot when I made this) Larva Spawn! Larva only spawns on the south side of your base, further giving reason for VARS)
Again, it is really all of these things combined, not any individual piece, that really makes me think that VARS is the only way to go.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What are some possible solutions? What would need to happen in order to satisfy my desire for perfect symmetrical balance?
- 1. The first thing that comes to mind is that you can completely switch the view of the map for each player. For example, while someone on the bottom of the map has a view looking from south to north, someone on the top of the map could have a view looking from north to south. Etc. I'm pretty sure this is already possible (for a custom map), but the problem with this is that it doesn't really fix minerals and addons.
- 2. The next thing you would need to do is to is either make minerals square, or make them able to be turned on their side, like a tall rectangle.
- 3. You would also have to make addons buildable on pretty much any side of a building. I guess I could live without this though.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The good news is that I figured out how to work around this as much as possible. But it really only leaves one type of layout: a layout that involves VARS.
Here is an example of one of my early beta-stage maps that uses VARS (It looks like shit right now so I'm just gonna show you map analyzer picture): + Show Spoiler + As you can see, it does indeed have perfect symmetrical balance, and really doesn't conflict with any of the 4 things I generally have a problem with. I am actually about to make a new thread for this map, I will link to it from here when it's up. BTW don't mind how the middle expansion doesnt have minerals, it will.
Again, the purpose of this thread is to discuss perfect symmetrical balance (not the much more broad and ambiguous topic of actual map balance), but I am really interested to hear about what other people think about my ideas of what that is.
Poll: Should VARS be standard in many tournament maps?I can see what you mean, but it doesn't mean too much. (188) 63% You're onto somethin' here. Stick with VARS! (91) 30% This doesn't mean anything. Just ask the pros. (13) 4% I do not necessarily agree with you, here's why. (7) 2% 299 total votes Your vote: Should VARS be standard in many tournament maps? (Vote): You're onto somethin' here. Stick with VARS! (Vote): I can see what you mean, but it doesn't mean too much. (Vote): This doesn't mean anything. Just ask the pros. (Vote): I do not necessarily agree with you, here's why.
Sorry if anything lacks clarity. It took me a long time to make this post and I just wanna finish it. Let me know if you have any questions.
- Barrin
edit: Link to my first map using VARS.
edit#2: Disclaimerish thing. (VARS doubt) + Show Spoiler +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.
|
Perfect symmetry isn't strictly necessary, nor, I'd say, desired.
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.
|
i get it, and i find it funny how you cant make an addon on any side of the building. it has always bothered me though, that the mineral patches arent square. i have no idea why, but it bothers me.
|
You have decent points (although the unit hiding only works against people who dont have healthbars on permanently), but the concern I would have is that vertical symmetry seems to force every map to be 1v1.
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.
|
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. You might make a map balanced in terms of Terran cannot abuse Tanks on every single cliff (by using open space/water and so on to force Tanks to have limited firing areas from most positions) and by using pathing blockers or double-height cliffs you can negate both Collosus and Reapers, but by doing all of this you will end up with a relatively open map giving Zerg an advantage. Likewise if you make a map with high cliffs that stop Reapers and Collosus and also have tighter bases, chokes and battlefields to limit Zerg you then end up making Tanks powerful again.
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.
|
My opinion is that the fact that Starcraft 2 includes different races already indicate that "chess-style absolute equity" is not the direction in which the game is headed, if you see what I mean. I think Starcraft 2 is strategy + chaos + + Show Spoiler +laser beams and explosions .
|
Interesting I dont get the trapezoid thing.
|
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.
|
Interesting. You'd think that they would've solved the issue with terran.
|
i agree. I think a player should be able to switch his view north-south if he wants to. Really can't see how that would imbalance things. Its just nice to be able to see the game from the angle u prefer.
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
|
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.
|
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).
|
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 =)
|
Does it really matter if one position has a 1 percent less win rate than another? Only using vertical symmetry is boring. No.
|
Thank you, this is a well thought presentation. However overall I don't agree with your 4 points, and then there are some more: 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.
|
I think maps should be symmetrical to a certain extent, but not too much to make the game boring - when maps are like you said in the OP, they feel too robotic (imo).
After all, this is a "game" meant for fun !
|
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.
|
Hi, I used to think like this aswell. I recently finished treatment for ocd and this was one of the things that I had problems with when making my own maps. I couldnt even live with a single doodad being diffrent on both sides. After getting rid of this horrible mind disease and looking at for example scrap station which is very much not symmetrical ive realised that it really shouldnt be taken so seriusly. there is no real life sport that is 100% even (wind etc) so why should starcraft be?. It is even enough. Over the course of a bo3 these disanvantages will be reduced to maybe 0.1% and thats about the same as someone sneezing during a battle xD
|
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.
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.
|
See the add ons, If you played BW, There is the same thing where addons are only in one spot. Did that stop people from playing? no. It inspires more creativity in your building placement. And about the d|b thing (i cant flip the E here, so b/d shall work), look at a popular ICcup map, Destination: + 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?
|
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!
|
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
|
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.
|
On July 19 2010 15:29 triumph wrote:Show nested quote +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. not if the game is to create an ai to win on your behalf.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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?
|
I updated op with a link to my first map that uses VARS.
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.
|
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]
|
Rotational symetry allows more aggresive play whereas your "VARS" maps are just "i take my part of the map, let's macro"
|
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 ^^
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|