|
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?
|
|
|
|