Asymmetric Melee Maps
I have been working on an asymmetric map layout for the last 2 weeks are so and have been giving it alot of thought during that time.
Obviously, the big issue with asymmetric maps is balance. i agree that it is almost impossible to reach the same level of balance you can achieve with mirror maps, but i think you can get close to it. it just requires alot of work/planning/testing.
Now if you look at sc2: there is 3 races, each has it's unique units/techtree/playstyle - because of this fact alone the game isn't 100% balanced, will probably never be and there will always be people whining and complaning about it. but i believe this is also what makes the game more interesting and successful than most other rts titles out there.
the different mechanics for each race, however, make even mirrored maps also unbalanced in tvz, zvp and pvt. for example, i think most will agree that a close position tvz on meta is far from being a balanced matchup. because of different race mechanics, all maps at least require players to adjust their game plan/playstyle to whatever spawnpositions you get. the only matchups where this isn't the case: tvt, zvz, pvp mirror matchups.
i was thinking about why it is widely accepted to have map/spawn position dependend imbalances in mixed matchups - it is even considered to make certain matchups more interesting to some degree. however in mirror matchups this has been pretty much nonexistent. a tabu? why not have a tvt matchup on an asymmetric map where spawn positions favor different builds for each player. like, have one terran with a more vulnerable natural but a closer third than his opponent. one might go for a more mobile army while the other might make more siege tanks, etc. those are just examples..
in my opinion, i think an asymmetric map can be balanced to an acceptable level. in fact, maybe more balanced than some of the mirror maps are (like the close pos meta tvz i mentioned above, or tvz on scrap station anyone? but the almost perfect balance of mirror matchups would be lost.
there are already alot of maps with rotational symmetry, which are also technically unbalanced unless you spawn cross position. recently, 3player rotational maps have gained alot of popularity - which are even a little more unbalanced than regular rotantional maps as you cannot have idendical terrain for each side - the game is designed for 45degree angles, 60degree angles just don't work that well :D especially ramps and chokes will cause alot of trouble. but testbug has proven that it can work and 3player maps have gained the acceptance of the community. granted, there is a huge step from 3player maps to completely asymmetric maps. but i believe once someone does it successfully there will be alot more coming. i would love to see more mappers and players give it a try. personally, i think that asymmetric maps can make matches even more interesting as they allow for more possible scenarios, more ways on how a map can be played.
i was wondering how others feel about about this topic. what is your opinion on asymmetric maps? do you think it could be played even on a competitive level? maybe only for lower skill levels?
|
I've been working on an asymmetric map for a loooong time. Just trying to work out the layout .And there has been so many times I have basically wiped it clean and started again.
This has always been because of balance issues of course. Alot of the maps I upload here are often pushing an idea I am exploring for my asym map (the last one was different starting times on Protosopolis Gardens) , partly to see the reaction/advice/general rules of thumb from other great map makers and find out how bad an idea it was to apply it  and mostly for my own learning curve in map making.
your example "like, have one terran with a more vulnerable natural but a closer third than his opponent" I think is a a good one. Because it raises the question of how player skill is percieved.
At the moment it seems that a match follows the idea of - All things should be equal, so the only thing left unequal are the players- . If its not all equal (or even percieved as not being equal) then it could throw up too much contention with regards to a fair fight.
Also players already adapt to the terrain, and in different instances (during micro battles, or routes etc) So i was left wondering what it was i was aiming for by making an asym map. What would be the point of it to counter or justify the contention.
What I am focusing on right now is 2 things
1) a map based around taking and holding positions to be able to safely advance. Basically taking territory eg. by taking this expo I can better control this area of the map and it leads to this other expo.
Its nothing new really, only in that it would be the key focus of the map. Which means starting distances and timing related to that kind of thing are treated as less relevent.
2) The other is trying to make it balanced but not balanced. eg. the distance to the third is the same, with the path being the same width, but player A has to travel in a straight line whilst player B has to turn a corner.
Its harder to work out though and even then I'm not sure if it will work.
|
I've actually been considering the opposite the last day or two. I actually cannot find a reason to have more than two spawn positions on a map at all, so I've been sticking to 2p maps. If someone could convince me otherwise that would welcome, but I'm just not sure.
I'm something of a perfectionist when it comes to mirror, over time I've eliminated various types of maps because of imbalance. Starting with 3p maps, because they cannot be mirrored properly, followed my the rotational-spawn 4p maps, which also have extreme asymmetric in close positions (new rotational GSL maps have done a good job of making all rush distances the same, but it's still not exactly fair,) and now I've removed all 4p maps.
It's a little weird, because non-rotational 4p maps are actually mirrored, in different ways like LT/Meta vs Shakuras/Kulas. However, I don't see any pros to a 4p map at all, only cons. There will be four quadrants of the map that are the same, meaning less original, creative terrain work and more mirroring. This makes it easy on the mapmaker, but limits their ability to design the map. It makes games more boring, I'd much rather watch a XNC game than a Meta, or even a Crevasse or Terminus (although TDA seems to make for the best games). The spawn positions are more predictable in a 2p but the expansions can be less predictable, and the paths units take, and a lot more stuff that is more complex than that.
So in a way I actually agree. 2p maps are no less symmetrical than 4p maps, but 4p maps have more of the same terrain coppied more times, so even though you can spawn in different locations (which has it's own set of problems,) once you're into the game it can get less interesting, as you say that the symmetrical maps are less interesting.
But there's no way to get around the fact that having 4 spawn positions adds luck to the game. Even if all the positions seem balanced for every matchup (which is a tough task), there's still decisions that must be made before you know where they are, as well as things like one player getting lucky and scouting the right way, while the other has to go all the way around. It's not too major, but at this point I don't see any pros for 4p maps to counteract it.
I think the 2p maps are a good middleground, they are perfectly mirrored but have way more terrain to be designed by the mapper. So if the mapper is good, the very custom terrain but lend itself to better and more balanced gameplay than a 4p map, while being less boring as well. It's all more in the control of the mapper, and I think allows the games more high-level, because there are more things to think about, not just the same terrain features over and over as much. It allows higher-level mapping to by glorified as well, as more skill I think would be required, or at least more effort could be put into a single 2p map the same size and with the same or close-to the same number of bases as a 4p map.
Getting more to the subject at hand, I think mirror matchups in particular need a very symmetrical map, some players might have a better time with certain portions of a asymmetrical map, even if it's considered balanced, which it probably could never be close to.
But while reading this, I did think about non-mirrors. And actually, I'm not sure if it's a great idea, but it's not based on chance so it should be better than 4p maps. Basically, what if the map was altered based on the race? That is, a base where the Zerg spawns would be altered to look different than a base where a Toss spawns. Could be done via triggers. You could actually balance the matchup somewhat in these ways. You cannot alter the cliff levels with triggers but you could add/remove destructible rocks and neutral buildings, and things like that. IDK, it might work to do something like that. Maybe on a map like Crevasse, you could remove the rocks blocking the ramp for all Zerg players, maybe. Or random stuff like unpowered cannons for Protoss. Might be better just to keep it simple, though.
|
EPT
