[D] Reflection vs. Rotational Symmetry in (4) 1v1 - Page 2

SaltyDog

Uganda73 Posts

February 14 2011 23:20 GMT

#21

Rotational symmetry in 1v1 maps like Xel'Naga Caverns is clearly a great thing. Rotationally symmetric maps look less symmetric, more natural and so are more aesthetically pleasing. Rotational symmetry in 2v2 maps like Delta Quadrant (in the context of a 1v1 match) creates inerrant imbalance excluding cross positions. Also, trying to limit this positional imbalance stems creativity to an extent; rotational symmetry in 2v2 maps tends to encourage large, reflected center areas with small, rotated main bases (it would be interesting to see a map that did this the other way around) which is not necessarily bad but a bit monotonous.

Although reflective symmetry is a little weird in 1v1 maps, in 2v2 it enables varied strategy in relation to spawn positions without inherent positional imbalance. Lost temple, Metalopolis, Shakuras plateau, all the poplar 2v2 maps have bi-axial, reflective symmetry.

So rotation for 1v1, reflection for 2v2. Although it's all about the 1v1 play, so why bother making 2v2 maps? Big, rotational 1v1s with lots of expansions are the way forward imo.

ggb667

United States16 Posts

February 23 2011 20:14 GMT

#22

I have read these threads on symmetry and am unconvinced it is needed. If positions are substantially similar in terms of distance, expansions, and choke points I can't see why the map should be a mirror or rotationally symmetric in each case. It also limits the influence of the map on strategy. It should be OK for some positions to encourage expansion or turtling as long as the overall win percentage from each starting position for each race is identical.

iGrok

United States5142 Posts

February 23 2011 20:23 GMT

#23

On February 24 2011 05:14 ggb667 wrote:
I have read these threads on symmetry and am unconvinced it is needed. If positions are substantially similar in terms of distance, expansions, and choke points I can't see why the map should be a mirror or rotationally symmetric in each case. It also limits the influence of the map on strategy. It should be OK for some positions to encourage expansion or turtling as long as the overall win percentage from each starting position for each race is identical.

Yeah, good luck doing that. Once you become Testbug (the mapper not the map), let us know.

P.S. Seven Sins ftw.

ggb667

United States16 Posts

March 09 2011 15:35 GMT

#24

Yeah, good luck doing that. Once you become Testbug (the mapper not the map), let us know.

P.S. Seven Sins ftw.

You agree the principle is right then? Good. Difficult? Yes, fun? Oh yea!

adso

718 Posts

March 09 2011 15:56 GMT

#25

What iGrok is implying ggb667, is that you are sort of posting vs in a fan club thread, no one minds
mapmakers are the kindest of souls (inside)
but while i agree with you that it's fun that we all want, i concur that it's a hell of a task to do

thank you for sharing BoomStevo
mapmaker bow to you sir

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

[D] Reflection vs. Rotational Symmetry in (4) 1v1 - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming