|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
People say that men like to score every five seconds. So do baseball teams. So when I reread the book "The Homerun Kid" by Dan Gutman, I couldn't help but think of our beloved national pastime.
If you don't live in the US, Japan, Korea, or the Dominican Republic, you may know little about baseball. It's a game which involves a ball, nine players per team, and four bases. Baseball teams beat their opponents by running around the bases more times... elements that are sometimes lacking in modern baseball.
"But that's blasphemous! Hitting has gone up in the last decade! RBI, HR!"
Let me explain:
***
Every sport/game/competition works in one particular way the majority of the time! I mean, should baseball move the fences around every inning? Throw beachballs instead of baseballs? I'm not sure you're watching the right thing, just in the same way that the bottom of the ninth is interesting in many different baseball games, starcraft is interesting, because no two games are ever alike, no matter what builds are used! And depending on the situation, the drama is still there! Oy!
|
The extra patch of land in original LT that let siege tanks kill gas on a really privileged position come to mind, how to prevent these minor glitches from completely imbalancing the game ?
Its not that constant maps remove the adaptability and creativity skill, they just add new ones, like map knowledge, specific BOs, etc...
|
worst idea ever, i don't want more random than absolutely needed in starcraft :/
|
Random maps only are imbalanced if the maps have time to be examined.
This requires on the fly adaptability to win instead a boring textbook rush where the advantage of knowing the route is nullified. Especially if the map turns out to be an island map.
|
I'd find it useful for making large maps when I don't have the time to carve out the land, but nothing else. Most maps are so small that there wouldn't be much randomness at all, seeing as there are certain qualities needed to make the map even remotely playable (much less "balanced" for pro and ladder). Plus, it sounds like the map editor will have tools powerful enough to make randomization practically obsolete. Randomization works best for obnoxiously huge maps where you can build virtually anywhere, like in Civilization. Starcraft maps are small and there are tons of places where and lots of terrain types upon which you cannot build.
It is a cool feature, but it would be virtually pointless for Starcraft II. What we really need is a dedicated community of map-makers who can whip up insanely creative maps with the click of a button. We also need to take the time to play on larger maps than usual, so there is more room for such creative map development -- the larger the painter's canvas, the greater the brush's freedom.
|
On August 08 2009 13:43 D10 wrote:
The extra patch of land in original LT that let siege tanks kill gas on a really privileged position come to mind, how to prevent these minor glitches from completely imbalancing the game ?
Its not that constant maps remove the adaptability and creativity skill, they just add new ones, like map knowledge, specific BOs, etc...
Something to keep in mind is that maps we already have are imbalanced and they're made by PEOPLE. So nothing less should be expected from randomly generated maps.
In non-mirrior matchups, it's inevitable that some imba will occur. But ultimately this is a problem of small sample size. In a best of, chances are that players will get lucky or unlucky equally.
And because the maps are unique every time, players won't automatically know if a map favors them, much less the things they can do to take advantage of the terrain. In other words, a imbalanced map does not automatically grant a win or lose, the mystery of the battlefield gives extra room for the underdog to win.
|
On August 08 2009 14:39 Aerox wrote:
Random maps only are imbalanced if the maps have time to be examined.
This requires on the fly adaptability to win instead a boring textbook rush where the advantage of knowing the route is nullified. Especially if the map turns out to be an island map.
That is some fucked up logic. Why are maps not imbalanced if you can't analyze them? Often times maps aren't imbalanced because of 1 abusive, calculated strategy, but because the terrain is naturally in favor of one race. No amount of analysis will change that and the players don't have to do anything to take advantage of it. If there are tons of walls around, protoss is gonna have a hell of a time flanking a tank push, and it doesn't take a week's prep with a coach and some b team practice slaves to figure that out.
What random maps require the most to win is luck, and that's why they shouldn't be adopted by any competitive SC2 groups. I mean the feature would be tons of fun, but I and many others would be very disappointed if preparing for specific maps was taking out of SC2. Plus no one wants an OSL final to be determined by Jaedong getting God's Garden vs Flash game 5.
On August 08 2009 15:27 Benthum wrote:
In non-mirrior matchups, it's inevitable that some imba will occur. But ultimately this is a problem of small sample size. In a best of, chances are that players will get lucky or unlucky equally.
The players taking turns getting lucky maps wouldn't make for a good series (well it might, see bisu v jaedong in GOM, but it wouldn't make for good games or a truly epic series.) A series where Protoss is 80% to win games 1&3, then Terran is 80% to win games 2&4 isn't nearly as fun to watch as a series where the maps are balanced the whole way through. On average each player will have 2 wins going into game 5 but the series with balanced maps has more room for variety, the games have more standalone value and viewers stay more interested.
Plus once a player gets a gift from the map gods, odds are it's not gonna even out. We don't have the sample size to ignore the effects of any 1 lucky map, so it could be devastating to series play as we know it.
|
Show nested quote +On August 08 2009 15:27 Benthum wrote:
In non-mirrior matchups, it's inevitable that some imba will occur. But ultimately this is a problem of small sample size. In a best of, chances are that players will get lucky or unlucky equally.
The players taking turns getting lucky maps wouldn't make for a good series (well it might, see bisu v jaedong in GOM, but it wouldn't make for good games or a truly epic series.) A series where Protoss is 80% to win games 1&3, then Terran is 80% to win games 2&4 isn't nearly as fun to watch as a series where the maps are balanced the whole way through. On average each player will have 2 wins going into game 5 but the series with balanced maps has more room for variety, the games have more standalone value and viewers stay more interested. Plus once a player gets a gift from the map gods, odds are it's not gonna even out. We don't have the sample size to ignore the effects of any 1 lucky map, so it could be devastating to series play as we know it.
The uniqueness of each map means that players won't automatically know if a map favors their race, much less the specific things they can do to take advantage of the terrain. In other words, a imbalanced map does not automatically grant a win or loss because the mystery of the battlefield gives extra room for the underdog to win - a balancing element that repetitive maps lack.
|
The mystery of the battlefield doesnt even make sense from a lore point of view, in real life you have lots of time to study the terrain (even if a few hours) and make a strategy before hand.
|
On August 08 2009 15:41 huameng wrote:
The players taking turns getting lucky maps wouldn't make for a good series (well it might, see bisu v jaedong in GOM, but it wouldn't make for good games or a truly epic series.) A series where Protoss is 80% to win games 1&3, then Terran is 80% to win games 2&4 isn't nearly as fun to watch as a series where the maps are balanced the whole way through. On average each player will have 2 wins going into game 5 but the series with balanced maps has more room for variety, the games have more standalone value and viewers stay more interested.
The maps would be random each time. And I doubt you could be 80% to win in any map you see for the first time, simply because there are so many unknown factors to consider...
Plus, the main challenge in making a random map generator algorithm isn't having it create reasonably balanced maps... that would most likely be fairly easy. The hard part would be having having random maps that are both balanced *and* interesting - allowing a high enough degree of variation in the maps that it doesn't feel like there are just a couple of maps with different "skins". It would be interesting if they managed to pull it off.
However, i doubt random maps would really be used in the pro scene, and that's a shame, really...
|
On August 08 2009 16:10 D10 wrote:
The mystery of the battlefield doesnt even make sense from a lore point of view, in real life you have lots of time to study the terrain (even if a few hours) and make a strategy before hand.
In starcraft you have time to study the terrain too before the battle - that's why you send workers / overlords out to scout. It might not be "lots" of time, but hey, in real life training one soldier takes months / years compared to a few seconds in starcraft.
|
Random maps is a good idea. If nothing else have them mirror so both players have to deal with the same stuff.
Let there be parameters... same minerals in each main, same amount of expos near the base, same base layout, etc etc.
Though in the pro scene? That's pretty dicey. Thats adding more RNG which is the exact reason WoW is an awful e-sport. It would make for great special matches though 
|
If SC2 plays out similarly to how SC does, then, IMO, this would be imbalanced: certain races are easier to adapt with than others; for me, Protoss takes no time to learn a map -- you can basically learn a map on the fly. On the contrary, I have never been able to win my first game on a map when using Terran: Terran is so terrain dependent that if you have not mastered the layout, then your play will suffer greatly, and psychologically you will feel that you are going to lose since you are not comfortable with something that is critical to your race's success.
|
I would rather have random map selection -- as in you don't even get to see the name or layout.
|
The result? Modern games follows a repetitive pattern of player A doing an opening and player B reacting by choosing a known counter (I see you 9 pool, so I’ll put down 2 canons before nexus). So rather than a game of "who can out think the other", the weight has shifted to "who can click the fastest"
I hate it when people combine to statements with some kind of causal word; putting a causal word between two statements does not create an causal relation ship.
1) people don't have to think that much on the fly
so
2) it becomes a click festD
why? Chess openers are written out untill move 20 or smt. Does that make chess into "who can move his pieces the fastest?"
|
I for one hope Blizzard does NOT implement random maps for the ladder.
Having played all three Age of Empires games competitively, I've seen my fair share of games being decided by the random map outcome. In fact the biggest Rise of Rome tourney (Age of Empires I expansion) got decided by random maps, as one of the finalists got berry-fucked twice in a row (difficult access to starting resources).
But this is not even my main complaint against random maps, as I'm sure it is possible to come up with a decent algorithm with sufficient restrictions for random maps. The thing is random maps often makes for a very blurry game where there's no clear execution of build orders or strategies. Players often explore the map while they build up trying to get the edge. You often find yourself going with a mainstream strategy that works well overall, and then adapt the strategy to the map as you go along. It basically defeats the purpose of having an ultra fine tuned gameplay such as that in SC1. Random map aliminates so many aggressive strategies.
If they include it for custom games, then cool, but not for ladder.
|
I tend to agree with that the game has become too much of a click fest. Years ago, there were pro gamers who could excel with what we would call "low apm" today, and probably even considered low then (was before my time).
In today's game, if someone has 240 apm and they can fare decently as a pro, then we marvel at it as it is some sort of great feat. I feel that 240 apm in any game should be enough...
I think having to play the game at a fast pace is great, but... when you make a strategy game, I think you want to find a delicate balance where strategy will remain at the forefront, and solid mechanics and apm will be in a more auxiliary role than it is now. I feel hand-speed is starting to overshadow strategy to a certain degree.
|
Some people have wrong logic here. People say that Boxer is great because he did ridicoulus strategies etc, but that doesn't mean that there is randomness in his play. Read his autobiography and you'll find out how many hours did he spent on creating strategies etc. There is no way that someone can pull great strategy on the fly. It can only be completely luck based.
imho it could be fun in custom games but terrible in ladder games.
|
On August 08 2009 07:45 zazen wrote:Not only this would be very, VERY hard to implement, the maps would also be completly imbalanced... This could never truly work in SC2... Sorry. 
Has everyone forgotten about age of empires? Random map generation worked perfectly in these games, although the scale of the map was larger than in Starcraft. Random map generation would be amazing and would definitely add quite a bit of unpredictability and fun to a game that after 11 years is just starting to get kind of boring.
|
I think you are misjudging the situation. It's not like there was almost no innovation nowadays, and in fact you even gave us a list of important developments in SC that are spread somewhat equally over that time frame. But those developments could never have been made by confronting people with random maps. You could never make the jump from 3 hatch muta to 2 hatch muta on a random map because it is such a fragile build that it would fail in 99% of the games, and thus could never be refined enough to be useful.
You also couldn't create innovative builds because in SC a great part of your build has to be decided before you scout your enemy, and certainly before you have the time to scout and analyze the whole map. So you would always go for some cookie cutter builds or all-ins. Depending on the frequency of cliffs over mineral lines, terrans would either tech early drops or not. But usually you don't get to scout that before you have to put down your gas.
All I could see coming from random maps is standard play, until someone spots a terrain feature he can abuse and win the game. There is no time to adapt to a random map, simply because of the timings in a fast-paced game like SC.
Besides, if you don't see innovative play in SC that often, you've got to open up your eyes for the details. In almost every progamer match I can see some creative or unexpected move. It's just that innovation in SC today is not as easily spotted as it was in boxers time.
A good example that also shows the importance of non-random maps:
Recently there have been several zvzs where one zerg makes 6 lings and hides them from the opponents overlord, then he makes some more lings, shows them and attacks with all lings at once, surprising the enemy with a larger force than expected. I am not sure who invented that strategy (I somehow got effort as a name in my head, but don't know for sure), but it would not have been possible if that player had not known the timings and patterns of overlord scouting, as well as places where he could hide his lings. You could not do that on a random map because that build is decided long before you can find out all the stuff you need to know to make this work.
To conclude this: IMO random maps don't give us anything desireable in competitive SC. Maybe for fun every now and then. They only disrupt balance and take away many strategic options.
Oh and about AoE: in AoE all the "races" are about the same. As long as the map has similar starting positions everything will be fine. This does not work for SC at all, though. Just because a map is mirrored it does not mean it is balanced at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
