Adaptability, Creativity, and Randomnized Map Generator

Some say men think about girls every five seconds. For me, this is also a good approximation of the rate I think about Starcraft. So when I re-read the book "Ender's Game" last week, I couldn't help but relate the story to our beloved RTS game.

If you're one of the two people who has never read or heard of "Ender's Game" (read it), it's about a boy military genius, Ender, and his struggle to win simulated battles. Even when the odds were unfavorable, Ender beat his fellow trainees through adaptability and creativity... elements I say is lacking in modern Starcraft.

"But that's blasphemous! Haven't you even heard of Boxer!? OMFG BBQ!"

Let me explain:
Clearly, early Starcraft was very different. Players like Boxer used new strategies to catch their opponents off guard. But as expected with all games with static rules, the obvious strategies were soon figured out, and overtime, new ideas appeared less frequently.

To be sure, the game is still evolving (i.e. mech-build vs Zerg), but these new ideas appears very, very infrequently and once the dust settles, the new quickly becomes the mechanical. Forge fast expand, for example, wasn’t always the norm for PvZ.

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".

"So what? Clicking requires skill, and even if the strategies are repetitive, it’s fun to watch players macro and micro to those set patterns!”

But ask yourself this, why do so many people still like Boxer these many years after his prime? And why are so many others from the old days never heard of again? Simply, Boxer did the ridiculous, and his creativity is exciting to watch, and we prefer innovative players over the mechanical ones. It’s the players who innovate – Savior (use of swarm), Bisu (Bisu build), Flash (Dual Armory build), Fantasy (Fantasy build, mech build), July Zerg (Mutalisk Stacking), Jaedong (2-hatch muta, queen usage) etc… we remember and like to watch.

But modern players face a serious problem when it comes to creative play. The game has been so played out, that viable strategies are already known by everyone. Even Battlenet noobs like myself know the basic openings for each race. But who can blame the players? Repetitive strategies are repetitive because they work. Deviate from known counters, and you’re sure to lose. So in a sense, the players have become slaves to overused, over-studied strategies. Strategies that, I say, ultimately have their roots in the maps.

The map is a huge influence, if not the sole culprit in shaping strategies. To give an extreme example, Zergling rush works EVERYTIME on the old map Blood Bath. And in modern games, some maps heavily favor certain strategies. For example, we only see ZvZ on Battle Royal. No team would send P or T players because Battle Royal favors Zerg players so much that no P or T strategies works. Besides these extreme examples, modern maps all have very similar layouts: A main with a ramp, a natural expo or two, and the size of the maps are also very alike. So expectedly, strategies remain largely the same from map to map.

Maps effecting stratagies are expected, but it becomes detrimental to creativity when players enter a match fully aware of the terrain. They no longer have any reason to deviate from the tried and true build orders. So even before the match begins, creativity has already become a minor element during gameplay.

The solution? Randomize the terrain for each game, and force the players to adapt. Force them to scout aggressively (not only the other player, but also the battlefield), force them to analyze the terrain for the best build order, force the players to decide where to position their units. No longer will players enter a match with a playbook. Instead, they’ll have to outsmart the enemy with novel strategies to best suit these novel battlefields.

Only then will each match will be truly unique. We’ll see victories resulting from maneuvers and adaptation rather than macro and static build orders. Gone will be the days when commentators use the first few minutes of the VOD to give shutouts. Important decisions will begin from the start.

Here's my point: include randomized map generator in Starcraft 2, and make adaptability and creativity a bigger part of the game!


Edit: On Balance of randomly generated maps:

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 the players will get lucky or unlucky equally. The uniqueness of each map also 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, an 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.

Finally, imba can also add excitement to the game. It’s admirable when a player wins, but much more so (and more entertaining to watch) if he wins despite the odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benthum

Here's my point: include randomized map generator in Starcraft 2, and make adaptability and creativity a bigger part of the game!

---

Dude, I would absolutely LOVE to see a radomize map feature in SC2 and have been fighting for this for years now. There is simply no better way to make this game more exciting than by mixing up the terrain and resources, forcing players to adopt and strategize on-the-fly. Then SC2 is less about click speed and actually about thinking strategically on the execution of a plan based on your surroundings. Plus, the fact that games start with the terrain revealed makes this mechanic more approachable.

They managed to pull this off with Age of Mythology, and personally I felt it was a wondrous feature.

Sadly, I fear Blizzard is unwilling or unable to pull off something like this for SC2. As the days pass this game gets less and less innovative, bringing it to a shadow of its former shelf. It's really disappointing.

I like this idea. Though I count myself as probably the worst StarCraft player here and known nothing of these strategies, I've noticed that players will stick to a small number of maps that they know like the back of their hand. Hell, I learned this through Halo: when my best friend was tutoring me, he indicated that knowledge of terrain was more than half the battle. "Our team has to secure such-and-such item for strategy X to succede; if the enemy acquires the item, we counter in thisway."

Very mechanical and repetitive. Though Diablo 2 is similar to an extent, randomization of the terrain at least made grinding sessions bearable.

I approve.

The problem with random maps in SC2 is the competition and balance. SC wouldn't be nearly as popular today if maps couldn't be certified balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The problem with random maps in SC2 is the competition and balance. SC wouldn't be nearly as popular today if maps couldn't be certified balanced.

---

Understood. This mechanic likely wouldn't be suitable for ladder play where balance hinges on symmetry. But jeez if they could pull it off and gave us the option, I'd gladly opt for a random map over the standard maps which will eventually dominate B.NET. You'd have to do so with an open mind, knowing you could possible draw the wrong card.

What about including a lot of possible human-created maps which are choosen randomly? Or that the random map creator creates symmetrical maps always? (should be easier to do now that there are ramps in all directions, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Or that the random map creator creates symmetrical maps always?

---

That's a sound solution. Kinda ups the ante, but I'm sure they could pull it off given the stunning programming that went into D2's randomization.

Really hope Blizzard reads and considers this...

I support this idea simply because it's related in some way, shape, or form to Ender's Game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The problem with random maps in SC2 is the competition and balance. SC wouldn't be nearly as popular today if maps couldn't be certified balanced.

---

While that is true, the Age of Empires series has quite a large tournament setting (no, not as big as SC is) and they play random maps on it.

I fully agree with this, but I know Blizzard won't. Blizzard believes that -anything- random is the opposite of strategy, which is dead wrong.

What is strategy based on? War. What is war? War is all about dealing with the unknown. No matter how good your intelligence service, no matter how much you plan, -something- is going to happen on the battlefield that you didn't expect. Most of the time it -is- human induced, of course, IE the enemy general does something you don't expect. But a good 25-50% of the time the unexpected happens in weather (which blizzard ruled out) in terrain differences, in battles going into areas that weren't explored beforehand and weren't part of the equation, by equipment breakdown, morale surging or falling, etc. etc.

I do not agree with having things like equipment breakdown or morale in an RTS game (morale is my largest hate factor of the Total War series). But having a random map and random weather would force players to improvise.

Since weather is ruled out, random map is the next thing. It would be beautiful and allow for things to be different.

I must applaud you, Benthum. Your views on the subject are almost -exactly- what mine are. Bring back STRATEGY to the genre, not 'who-clicks-the-fastest'.

QUOTE: Blazur / Norfindel
Age 2 and Age 3 have very specific set rules on the random map generators that always make sure the tournament maps turn out symmetrical. It isn't really all that difficult to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The problem with random maps in SC2 is the competition and balance. SC wouldn't be nearly as popular today if maps couldn't be certified balanced.

---

well in theory they could design a map generator that one option could be to select the number of players that would be allowed on the map and/or select how the map will be symmatrized. like would it be left-right, top-bottem, the 2 diagonal options, 4 corners or even cross placement. the map generater would then generate a map for one of those areas and then replicate the exact same terrain in the other sections. That would allow the option of symmatry on the maps.

For sure this is a cool idea, although I do agree with the only reason the game has lasted this long is because of the balanced of the maps and the races.

Now the reason this would not work for SC2 is because there is no longer "black fog of war". Just in case people didn't know this yet the whole map is already "explored" for you. Personally I LOVE this change and I hope they keep it just it basically for sure shuts down your idea, and I don't think Blizzard would add map randomization in anyways so I'm sure it doesn't even come into relevance for them..

As a person who played a lot of Age of Empires over the years, I can say that randomized maps have a lot of pros and cons.

The pros, at least in theory, are as you implied - because things are not static and expected, the player is forced to adapt.

The problem is that having things be totally random presents a very difficult balancing challenge. Even if things are random, they have to be mostly even for all players involved in order for a map to be fair and balanced. This requirement reduces the randomness that a map can possibly have, because no matter what resources and points of advantage have to be evenly distributed.

What I found in Age of Empires is that because of these limitations, although maps were randomized, they were not randomized to a truly significant degree. There were lots of little details in the map that changed from game to game, but not any really big ones. Players could always count on having a certain amount of resources within a certain area near their base, and they could count on their opponent being a certain distance away from them in roughly the same place on the map.

Furthermore, I found that when I compared the maps in Starcraft or Warcraft 3 to those in the Age of Empires games, the developer-created maps in the Blizzard games tended to be much more intricate and detailed because they were created purposefully, whereas maps in Age of Empires games tended to be a lot less interesting. Although once you play Starcraft and Warcraft 3 for a long time you become very familiar with all of the maps, there are a great deal of maps in both games (far more than the selection of random-generated maps in the Age games).

I'm not saying that randomization could not work in a competitive game, but the engine for generating the random maps would have to be very powerful so that it could create many different maps with lots of significant variations that are nonetheless balanced for all players.

I have a feeling it would take Blizzard a long time to create and polish such an engine. Maybe for Starcraft 3. :)

Edit: On Balance of randomly generated maps:

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, the players will get lucky or unlucky equally.

Imba can also add excitement to the game. It’s admirable when a player wins, but much more so (and more entertaining to watch) if he wins despite the odds.

I see this being a interesting option when creating a game kinda like with WAR3 where you could make random hero, reveal map.

Its fun, and interesting but certainly not for mainstream ladder play, however if it catches on and is fun to play I would be fine with it having its own ladder, like the casual league.

Though there are several problems with the idea as well, depending on how good the randomization is would depend on how much it changes the game, for instance if it was very random and creative with its randomness it would make for unique and insane play..but that also might result and lots of build order losses...and if it wasn't random enough it would become not so different from normal play. Also I think this sort of randomization favors races that can have tons of vision of the map the quickest ( zerg).


On a slightly offtopic note, I would love to see some non mirrored maps in play, but theres obvious issues with that, though could be interesting to add onto the random map thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benthum

t's about a boy military genius, Ender, and his struggle to win simulated battles.

---

simulated??? who cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benthum

If you're one of the two people who has never read or heard of "Ender's Game" (read it), it's about a boy military genius, Ender, and his struggle to win simulated battles. Even when the odds were unfavorable, Ender beat his fellow trainees through adaptability and creativity...

---

if it was real battles, i mighta gave it a shot. but since the battles are simulated, thats sucks and now i really don't care.

double post :( ffs

A random map generator, done correctly, could never hurt the game, I fully support it. As for tournament play on random maps unknown to the players beforehand, I have my doubts about getting a map generator to consistently generate well balanced maps on a regular basis at this point in time; however, I do not see what would stop one from preparing carefully balanced human-made maps (or even randomly generating maps then checking them for balance prior to playing) without showing them to the players. In fact, it could be done right now with sc1 if we had a good backing and some fine map makers around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogueleader89

A random map generator, done correctly, could never hurt the game, I fully support it. As for tournament play on random maps unknown to the players beforehand, I have my doubts about getting a map generator to consistently generate well balanced maps on a regular basis at this point in time; however, I do not see what would stop one from preparing carefully balanced human-made maps (or even randomly generating maps then checking them for balance prior to playing) without showing them to the players. In fact, it could be done right now with sc1 if we had a good backing and some fine map makers around.

---

This is a great point, but there are some problems.

1. Who would create the maps? When it comes to the pro-scene, legitimacy comes with large profit seeking organizations. Creating new maps cost money, and it's unlikely that these organizations would throw away maps after one use when the current system is already drawing enough audience. Without solid proof that unique maps can draw a larger crowd, status quo prevails.

2. The amount of maps that needs to be created requires a lot of time to test and develop. Much easier if algorithms churn out a maps, and humans adjust or get rid of the blatantly imba maps afterwords.

3. What about non-professional players like ourselves? What's better than watching Starcraft is playing it. If unique maps are only available in a tournament setting, casual players will be left out a majority of the time.

I 100% support this idea. I would have never thought of something like this, even though in hindsight, it would obviously add so much to the game.
It doesn't have to support ladder matches and strong competition. It's meant as something players can casually do for fun with others. Nothing stops organizations from locking maps to a specific set and skipping the random aspect completely. I'd definitely use the random feature a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The problem with random maps in SC2 is the competition and balance. SC wouldn't be nearly as popular today if maps couldn't be certified balanced.

---

Who says they can't be balanced, I mean, if you generate a map that takes up 1/4 of the normal map, then mirror it you get a map that's perfectly symmetrical.

And still, it was never done by people that made map editors. They could do something like that, but it's a lot of effort.

Quote:

---

Who says they can't be balanced, I mean, if you generate a map that takes up 1/4 of the normal map, then mirror it you get a map that's perfectly symmetrical.

---

Map balance means more than just symmetry. Blue Storm and Battle Royal are symmetrical, but few would truly call them balanced.

I think your first "mistake" is in your title when you say "randomnized".
SC2 MUST cater to very competitive gamers. That means that, unfortunately, random elements aren't a good idea because they don't help in determining who the winner of a match should be (who the best player, at that moment, is).

Also, the question isn't about knowing how balanced human-made maps are, but it's about figuring out how randomized maps could help make the game more competitive. And the fact is that they can't.
They're always a part of random in a game (like spawning points in TvT that can really be decisive, say in Medusa where the player who's clockwise to the other is screwed), but the whole point is trying to reduce that, not encourage it. I'm afraid that by making things more random one wouldn't be helping the more adaptive player, but introducing a whole new "luck" factor. For instance, if a tiny, very open map were generated, the zerg would be very much at an advantage in ZvT, whereas a medium sized semi-island map would probably favor the terrans.

I agree, I hope we can like support this idea and hopefully Blizzard will consider, With this will open new possibilities, creativity and strategy is much more at play which is what RTS is all about. To be honest I prefer Cheesy built its radical but fun to watch as well and for me this is strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hammy

That means that, unfortunately, random elements aren't a good idea because they don't help in determining who the winner of a match should be (who the best player, at that moment, is).

---

But that's the point, I feel. If you look through a list of the best generals in the history of warfare, they were "best" because of how they handled unknown, random elements. Field Marshal Rommel was an expert at tactics and overall strategy because he was bold and quick on his feet, and because he reacted to unknown situations better than his opponents.

That's what war is about. That is what true strategy is about. When you remove the random element, the battle comes down to, not who's better, but who can memorize build orders and do them faster. I do not consider that person to be a 'better' player. I consider them more mechanical, and strategy has nothing to do with being mechanical.

Quote:

---

Also, the question isn't about knowing how balanced human-made maps are, but it's about figuring out how randomized maps could help make the game more competitive. And the fact is that they can't.

---

By introducing a random element you force players to think creatively, to adapt to a situation that they aren't 100% sure of. Yeah, you know the -general- area where resources are, and even with an "explored" map you know the layout, but when the layout is different each time you are forced to think of new strategies and tactics on the fly.

THAT will make you a better player. That will be more competitive. That will be...dare I say it...more strategic

-In addition-
There are always certain parameters that can be added to a random map to make sure it can be balanced. Size, 'islands', etc. etc. etc. can all be added to make sure things stay balanced. Just look at Age of Empires again. They have certain 'types' of map, where you know what you can expect in terms of OVERALL map layout, but the exact location of resources, ramps, islands, etc. etc. is always different.

So if you say "random small map" you know Zerg will probably fare better. Does that mean P or T can't win? No. It means they have to adapt and try something new in order to win.

Luck is a huge part of war, and a huge part of adapting strategy is to be prepared for luck. Reducing everything to pure numbers makes the game Chess, which is not strategy, it is the pure mathematical examination of tactics. Chess, unless you're -really- into it, is boring in the end because every move has already been made, every opening already has a name.

Strategy is interesting because the greats like Rommel and Robert E. Lee thought up NEW things, exciting things, things that weren't reduced to pure numbers. If you look at pure numbers, Rommel should have lost a heck of a lot more than he did because he always had led less than his opponents did. It was how he USED his resources that allowed him to win, the tactics and strategy and deception that he pulled off. That's what strategy is all about.

-Another addition-
My favorite quote of Rommel, straight from his personal diaries, is this one: "The best general is not the one who makes the least mistakes. The best general is the one who causes his opponent to make the most mistakes."

Handling random events, or 'luck' as you might call it, all depends on how you can grasp it, use it to your advantage even if it would have normally been a disadvantage, and forcing your opponent to make mistakes when they think they are winning. Psychology, luck, adaptability and creativity are what make the best generals and strategists.

I think that element has been sadly missing in most RTSs these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Map balance means more than just symmetry. Blue Storm and Battle Royal are symmetrical, but few would truly call them balanced.

---

Well apart from the fact that SC2 will play different from SC anyway, I was thinking more along the lines reflection symmetry than the rotation symmetry these two have (ie, Andromeda, played 405 times with none of the non-mirror matches with even 60%).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PosImpos

As a person who played a lot of Age of Empires over the years, I can say that randomized maps have a lot of pros and cons.

The pros, at least in theory, are as you implied - because things are not static and expected, the player is forced to adapt.

The problem is that having things be totally random presents a very difficult balancing challenge. Even if things are random, they have to be mostly even for all players involved in order for a map to be fair and balanced. This requirement reduces the randomness that a map can possibly have, because no matter what resources and points of advantage have to be evenly distributed.

What I found in Age of Empires is that because of these limitations, although maps were randomized, they were not randomized to a truly significant degree. There were lots of little details in the map that changed from game to game, but not any really big ones. Players could always count on having a certain amount of resources within a certain area near their base, and they could count on their opponent being a certain distance away from them in roughly the same place on the map.

Furthermore, I found that when I compared the maps in Starcraft or Warcraft 3 to those in the Age of Empires games, the developer-created maps in the Blizzard games tended to be much more intricate and detailed because they were created purposefully, whereas maps in Age of Empires games tended to be a lot less interesting. Although once you play Starcraft and Warcraft 3 for a long time you become very familiar with all of the maps, there are a great deal of maps in both games (far more than the selection of random-generated maps in the Age games).

I'm not saying that randomization could not work in a competitive game, but the engine for generating the random maps would have to be very powerful so that it could create many different maps with lots of significant variations that are nonetheless balanced for all players.

I have a feeling it would take Blizzard a long time to create and polish such an engine. Maybe for Starcraft 3. :)

---

This is the best post in this thread.

I've also played a good deal of AoK, AoM and AoE3, so I appreciate an informed reply which points out some of the realities of random map generation.

The technology behind random map generation isn't so sophisticated that it can continuously generate maps with the level of complexity and brilliance of design of the maps we see being used right now in SC. I'm not even sure it would be possible to create such an engine, at least in the immediate future.

Here's the question though: Do maps need to be perfectly balanced? While this is undoubtedly a yes for tournaments, it is considerably less so for casual games between friends. The wants and needs of the latter group is somewhat different from that of the 'pro' scene. Maps that are new, interesting and unfamiliar would be as desirable (if not more so) than the tired and old symmetrical maps that are 100% balanced for all players regardless of start location and race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Here's the question though: Do maps need to be perfectly balanced? While this is undoubtedly a yes for tournaments, it is considerably less so for casual games between friends. The wants and needs of the latter group is somewhat different from that of the 'pro' scene. Maps that are new, interesting and unfamiliar would be as desirable (if not more so) than the tired and old symmetrical maps that are 100% balanced for all players regardless of start location and race.

---

Of course they don't all need to be perfectly balanced; however, I don't think a random map generator is the way to go. As easy it is to create a map and as small as maps are, an RMG would be pointless. We should rely on strong creative map development from Blizzard and the community. In fact, I would suggest that Blizzard creates a system through which map makers can submit their maps in order to be "Blizzard Approved" for either official ladder or general melee. Such a system would provide the entire community with a wide variety of maps -- balanced and imbalanced, generic and unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

But that's the point, I feel. If you look through a list of the best generals in the history of warfare, they were "best" because of how they handled unknown, random elements. Field Marshal Rommel was an expert at tactics and overall strategy because he was bold and quick on his feet, and because he reacted to unknown situations better than his opponents.

That's what war is about. That is what true strategy is about. When you remove the random element, the battle comes down to, not who's better, but who can memorize build orders and do them faster. I do not consider that person to be a 'better' player. I consider them more mechanical, and strategy has nothing to do with being mechanical.



By introducing a random element you force players to think creatively, to adapt to a situation that they aren't 100% sure of. Yeah, you know the -general- area where resources are, and even with an "explored" map you know the layout, but when the layout is different each time you are forced to think of new strategies and tactics on the fly.

THAT will make you a better player. That will be more competitive. That will be...dare I say it...more strategic

-In addition-
There are always certain parameters that can be added to a random map to make sure it can be balanced. Size, 'islands', etc. etc. etc. can all be added to make sure things stay balanced. Just look at Age of Empires again. They have certain 'types' of map, where you know what you can expect in terms of OVERALL map layout, but the exact location of resources, ramps, islands, etc. etc. is always different.

So if you say "random small map" you know Zerg will probably fare better. Does that mean P or T can't win? No. It means they have to adapt and try something new in order to win.

Luck is a huge part of war, and a huge part of adapting strategy is to be prepared for luck. Reducing everything to pure numbers makes the game Chess, which is not strategy, it is the pure mathematical examination of tactics. Chess, unless you're -really- into it, is boring in the end because every move has already been made, every opening already has a name.

Strategy is interesting because the greats like Rommel and Robert E. Lee thought up NEW things, exciting things, things that weren't reduced to pure numbers. If you look at pure numbers, Rommel should have lost a heck of a lot more than he did because he always had led less than his opponents did. It was how he USED his resources that allowed him to win, the tactics and strategy and deception that he pulled off. That's what strategy is all about.

-Another addition-
My favorite quote of Rommel, straight from his personal diaries, is this one: "The best general is not the one who makes the least mistakes. The best general is the one who causes his opponent to make the most mistakes."

Handling random events, or 'luck' as you might call it, all depends on how you can grasp it, use it to your advantage even if it would have normally been a disadvantage, and forcing your opponent to make mistakes when they think they are winning. Psychology, luck, adaptability and creativity are what make the best generals and strategists.

I think that element has been sadly missing in most RTSs these days.

---

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I think it's my interpretation that's different.
For instance, you compare Starcraft to real warfare (which makes sense, since it's a real time strategy game) but since it's a virtual war you're always somewhat limited by what's been implemented in the game. In starcraft both players start with the same ressources and develop at the same speed. Basically everything should be mirrored (because the races should be balanced)
The problem with making random maps is that they will affect each race differently. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be "imbalanced", but I'm afraid it would end up adding restrictions to the players. Although, while looking at the big picture, having random maps might allow us to see a great variation in gameplays, but unfortunately each map would probably still have a specific way to be played. So yes, it would be interesting to see the players struggle to figure out how the map should be played, but this feature would end up reducing the amount of "style" each player might have. For instance if Kal kept on drawing maps where there were huge open spaces all over and very few cliffs, would he have earned the title of "red shuttle"?
On the other hand, when it comes to human-made maps, they're specifically designed to allow a great variety of styles on the SAME map. That's really important because the map makers also follow the meta game's evolution. Perhaps mechanics end up taking a really big part (because the players end up rehashing strategies they've already practiced hundreds of times), but that still gives the players the liberty of practicing new and original strategies on maps they know they'll be playing on.

Of course it depends how "random" these maps would be, but they might end up encouraging two very different styles: standard or utter cheese. Well I prefer something in the middle, like developping some totally viable new strategies that fit your own style. If you want an example, think of when leta (re-)introduced two port wraith, or when fantasy showed us how to use vultures and valkyries in unison, or how bisu made the "bisu" build popular. None of these builds would have popped up (or at least, they never would have been tweaked to perfection) if maps were random...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

Of course they don't all need to be perfectly balanced; however, I don't think a random map generator is the way to go. As easy it is to create a map and as small as maps are, an RMG would be pointless. We should rely on strong creative map development from Blizzard and the community. In fact, I would suggest that Blizzard creates a system through which map makers can submit their maps in order to be "Blizzard Approved" for either official ladder or general melee. Such a system would provide the entire community with a wide variety of maps -- balanced and imbalanced, generic and unique.

---

Just look at SC1, and you'll see why map submissions can't replace a map generator. We already have a wide selection of maps for SC1, but a majority of games are only played on a few select maps (case and point, Python).
Truth is, people are lazy and afraid of unfamiliar situations. How many times have you seen players stay in the obs slot and won't go up to play? They don't know the opponent and don't want to find out by loosing. They want to feel safe and play in situations (be it players or maps) they already know and feel comfortable with. Unless the game can force players with new maps, chances are there'll be a lot of "Python 2 gogogo!" on B.Net 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

But that's the point, I feel. If you look through a list of the best generals in the history of warfare, they were "best" because of how they handled unknown, random elements. Field Marshal Rommel was an expert at tactics and overall strategy because he was bold and quick on his feet, and because he reacted to unknown situations better than his opponents.

That's what war is about. That is what true strategy is about. When you remove the random element, the battle comes down to, not who's better, but who can memorize build orders and do them faster. I do not consider that person to be a 'better' player. I consider them more mechanical, and strategy has nothing to do with being mechanical.

By introducing a random element you force players to think creatively, to adapt to a situation that they aren't 100% sure of. Yeah, you know the -general- area where resources are, and even with an "explored" map you know the layout, but when the layout is different each time you are forced to think of new strategies and tactics on the fly.

---

except real life has no interest in being balanced. you could have the greatest general in the world fighting for a very weak country thats technologically extremely inferior. video games try to break these little things. he who is better should win period.

take this. if i made a game about the US army vs somalia and i made it multiplayer, and i made it realistic with the us having powerful tanks, troops, helicopters, smart bombs, drones and air support and i gave the somalis aks and rpgs, nobody would want to play as them. i would have to make unreasonable or unrealistic buffs to the somali side.

even though in your case, you are simply rearranging the composition and structure of the maps, it has different effects on each race. the better players will lose because of the maps a lot of times. and like real life, its not fair in determining who should win. this is why video games try to eliminate these little barriers that are present in real life in determining who should win. the now and then cases of winning against all odds are very rare and in many cases is because of an extreme gap in skill between two sides. when the skill gaps are not very far from one another, the real life limits of one side being favored despite lower skill is more prevalent. such circumstances should be minimized as much as possible in a competitive game in determining uncontested true skill between opponents who are not too far from eachother in skill. thus, its not healthy to have these kinds of mechanics in the design philosophy of a game thats trying to be balanced and ultimately, determine who is better by who wins.

now doing this for the fun factor is a whole other story

SC1's rewards for adaptability and room for creativity have stagnated. Professional Starcraft has become a science, not an art, which is why macrobots like Flash and Jaedong rule the roost, and old creative geniuses like Boxer and Nal_Ra have gone by the way side.

This is why players like Garimto and Boxer have publicly expressed excitement over SC2: creativity and adaptiveness are going to be the order of the day when it comes to victory in SC2 for a long long time.

What if the editor is powerful enough to create a map that has certain random elements in them? (cliffs, chokepoints, water/land resources etc?)

It wouldn't be 100% random but it would be more fun than a static map

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warrior6

except real life has no interest in being balanced. you could have the greatest general in the world fighting for a very weak country thats technologically extremely inferior. video games try to break these little things. he who is better should win period.

take this. if i made a game about the US army vs somalia and i made it multiplayer, and i made it realistic with the us having powerful tanks, troops, helicopters, smart bombs, drones and air support and i gave the somalis aks and rpgs, nobody would want to play as them. i would have to make unreasonable or unrealistic buffs to the somali side.

even though in your case, you are simply rearranging the composition and structure of the maps, it has different effects on each race. the better players will lose because of the maps a lot of times. and like real life, its not fair in determining who should win. this is why video games try to eliminate these little barriers that are present in real life in determining who should win. the now and then cases of winning against all odds are very rare and in many cases is because of an extreme gap in skill between two sides. when the skill gaps are not very far from one another, the real life limits of one side being favored despite lower skill is more prevalent. such circumstances should be minimized as much as possible in a competitive game in determining uncontested true skill between opponents who are not too far from eachother in skill. thus, its not healthy to have these kinds of mechanics in the design philosophy of a game thats trying to be balanced and ultimately, determine who is better by who wins.

now doing this for the fun factor is a whole other story

---

I agree, actually. I believe that all sides should be completely balanced, I just think that a random element, such as weather or map, should be introduced to test the mettle of players. I would not want to play a game where one side is obviously unbalanced (red alert 2, anyone?) because it becomes no fun.

But if the -sides- are balanced, and the map generator is powerful enough to make a map at least mostly symmetrical, or at least balanced, then that random element can add to a player's skill by letting them prove themselves able to handle new, different situations.

I mean, I remember back when everybody knew exactly how many seconds it took for one of their scouts to reach any point of the map in Lost Temple, and it all boiled down to who clicked faster. If you introduce a random map, then it has less to do with muscle memory and more to do with being spontaneous and adapting to a different situation.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texaco

What if the editor is powerful enough to create a map that has certain random elements in them? (cliffs, chokepoints, water/land resources etc?)

It wouldn't be 100% random but it would be more fun than a static map

---

Precisely! Having toggleable options such as map size, number of players, number of expansion sites, resource availability (high/medium/low), map type (labyrinthine/open/island), etc. would certainly be within the realm of possibility.

Just browsed this topic so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned. But one thing about going into a battle on a map, especially in SC1, is that you don't know how many times your opponent has played said map. If he's played it 100 times and you're playing it for the first time you're already at a significant disadvantage. It would be cool if BNet 2.0 tracked which maps you played and how often, since we won't be able to make new account at the drop of a hat anymore, your opponent could then see your stats on that specific map as well as your overall stats.

Also the unknown in SC2 is less significant than in SC1. The fog of war is never complete darkness, you know the terrain surrounding yourself from the get go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

I agree, actually. I believe that all sides should be completely balanced, I just think that a random element, such as weather or map, should be introduced to test the mettle of players. I would not want to play a game where one side is obviously unbalanced (red alert 2, anyone?) because it becomes no fun.

---

yes but when you add in random weather and such, the game becomes a little more of a dice roll. for example, in company of heroes, a sniper is a very expensive tier 1/1.5 unit it can cloak and has a long cooldown after every shot, he can be revealed if enemy troops get too close to him. it also decloaks for like a couple of seconds after every shot making him temporarily vulnerable and his HP and armor stats are extremely low. building one in the beginning would sort of be similar to doing something between a reaver tech and dark templars. however, since the game has accuracy modifiers there is a chance of the sniper missing a shot and in the process either being countersniped or found and killed. this is completely out of your control. there are also times that you will lure an enemy sniper into taking a shot at ur troops just so he can reveal himself and have one of your snipers counter snipe him. and in such situations sometimes a rare thing will happen. your sniper will miss and get counter sniped. there are many other things like this in COH and it just makes the game a little less healthy for competition. in broodwar, there is the cover and highground mechanic where a unit has only a 70% chance of hitting units in cover or highground. they took this out because there are times when a dragoon misses like 4 shots in a row against a cliffed tank that has like 10 hp left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warrior6

yes but when you add in random weather and such, the game becomes a little more of a dice roll. for example, in company of heroes, a sniper is a very expensive tier 1/1.5 unit it can cloak and has a long cooldown after every shot, he can be revealed if enemy troops get too close to him. it also decloaks for like a couple of seconds after every shot making him temporarily vulnerable and his HP and armor stats are extremely low. building one in the beginning would sort of be similar to doing something between a reaver tech and dark templars. however, since the game has accuracy modifiers there is a chance of the sniper missing a shot and in the process either being countersniped or found and killed. this is completely out of your control. there are also times that you will lure an enemy sniper into taking a shot at ur troops just so he can reveal himself and have one of your snipers counter snipe him. and in such situations sometimes a rare thing will happen. your sniper will miss and get counter sniped. there are many other things like this in COH and it just makes the game a little less healthy for competition. in broodwar, there is the cover and highground mechanic where a unit has only a 70% chance of hitting units in cover or highground. they took this out because there are times when a dragoon misses like 4 shots in a row against a cliffed tank that has like 10 hp left.

---

I never once said that CoH is a good game to use as an example of balance. That game is almost as unbalanced as Red Alert 2 was.

But I actually like your example of the sniper. That's more realistic. Yeah it sucks if your sniper gets countersniped, but you know what? If you were a good general you would have -PREPARED- for that contingency, and made sure your whole strategy did not depend on that one sniper. And the person who countersniped you? They knew how to handle your attack and to smoke your sniper out.

Preparing for the unknown and the random, and being able to handle it better than your opponent, makes you a better general. In your example the player who countersniped forced the other player to make a mistake. THAT is what makes a good general: forcing your opponent to make mistakes by flushing him out.

But in the future, aka SC2, we can automatically assume that units would miss as rarely as possible. We could also automatically assume that armies would know the battlefield they were getting into (fog of war explored). But we cannot assume that random or unexpected things would never happen.

Another idea would be the sight modifiers, the smoke and the tall grass, could be random. There could be 8 set locations on a map where one of these -COULD- show up, but you don't know until you actually play the map where they are.

Little things like that can actually make a big difference if you adapt to it better. All of the smoke screens closer to your opponent? Prepare for ambushes. Do some offensive bunkering under screen. All of the smoke screens closer to you? Prepare your own ambushes. Do some defensive bunkering. All of the smoke screens scattered pretty even? Do some hopping techniques.

I don't think blizzard is even going to consider this, so it's not really even worth making good points anymore lol.