New maps for Season 3 map pool

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2943356#blog

Quote:

---

1v1 map pool additions:
http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gall...8247987366.jpg
This map features close rush distances in most start locations, and the natural expansion is fairly easy to access, due to the rock guarding a part of the choke point. This means that the map won’t be strictly about the rush, even though it’s a rush map.

http://us.media2.battle.net/cms/gall...8248001493.jpg
Kerrigan’s Wrath is a symmetric map with no spawn point that is favored over the others. Without breaking the two rocks, this map is very straightforward to play, but when the paths blocked by rocks are opened up, you'd better take notice!

http://us.media1.battle.net/cms/gall...8248032778.jpg
Unlike Kerrigan’s Wrath, Shifted Sky will have varying gameplay depending on where you and your opponent spawn. You’ll want to bring multiple strategies to this map, and adjust your game depending on your and your opponent’s start locations. This map also features an extremely large number of different attack paths, some of which can be opened up by breaking rocks.

http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gall...8248009376.jpg
This is the macro map for Season 3. Early on, it will be possible to easily take two expansions. This, along with the long rush distances in all start locations, will most likely encourage players to go for a mid- or late-game strategy, rather than a quick, rush-based strategy.

2v2 map pool additions
http://us.media1.battle.net/cms/gall...8263943593.jpg
http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gall...8263893018.jpg
In 2v2, we’re trying to go with mostly maps where you and your ally have a shared choke point to defend. At higher levels of 2v2, there are clearly team compositions that are stronger than others on open maps. We’re hoping to address this balance issue through map layout, since this is only a 2v2-specific issue.

3v3 and 4v4 map additions
3v3 maps
http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gall...8263886412.jpg
http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gall...8263957445.jpg

4v4 maps
http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gall...8263906764.jpg
http://us.media2.battle.net/cms/gall...8263927847.jpg
Looking at the statistics, we’re seeing that the higher level players rarely play these formats. Therefore, we’ve decided to go with a bit more of a casual-player-friendly selection of formats. We want to provide a good mix of fortress style maps, as well as rush maps, to cater to the broad player base here. Our goal for these two formats is for players to be able to enjoy variety in the gameplay, rather than trying to provide an eSports level of game balance.

---

So.........Blizzard loves destructible rocks and mostly limiting players to 1-2 bases. Is it just me or is there a lot of air space on their "macro map" for air units to hide in and use??

EDIT: I would think siege tanks do well on "Kerrigan's Wrath" at pressuring the second in vertical spawns and at pressuring the third in horizontal spawns.

FFS, would they just get rid of close spawns already?

Tbh I really like those 1v1 maps, they look pretty good and balanced, well they maybe need some tweaks, but overall they are cool.

Looks great. Did they say when they plan to institute season 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazur

Looks great. Did they say when they plan to institute season 3?

---

Nope. How long has Season 2 lasted now??

the 4v4 ones looks interesting :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackhammerIV

Nope. How long has Season 2 lasted now??

---

Season 1 closed around March 25th. If season 2 lasts the same 7 months, season 3 should begin in October. But we'll be smart and say Blizz will start season 3 when it feels the time is right. I for one think Blizz's definition of "soon" is in play. We'll know when Season 3 is eminent when we get the test realm opened, with or without a companion test patch. ;)

Forgot my map notes (lol): 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 all look worth a reasonable try. In the 1v1s, the 1st and 3rd look okay. Kerrigan's Wrath, oddly enough, lacks the open spaces that Zerg typically need. The 4th looks like it favors colossi/reapers/blinkers just a touch. I say this because of the intentionally designed ledges pointing toward the center from the spawns covered by steam vents.

Dunno why they're bothering with seasons IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

Dunno why they're bothering with seasons IMO

---

2 reasons, imo:

1) Filters out the dead wood, which has improved competition overall, though individual experiences may vary.

2) Allows fresh slates for newer players who may want a restart following a poor start. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a newer player admit to this.

Edit: 3rd point that is related to and stronger than point 2: it can be a confidence builder to have new seasons, as with sites like www.sc2ranks.com, one can see how much one has improved. This effect would be heightened if we could easily find win% figures for ourselves.

Cool with some fresh maps! i wonder withc of the old maps will stay in the pool though!

... i cant analyze maps at a glance, at all, but none of the 1v1 maps look horrible to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todie

Cool with some fresh maps! i wonder withc of the old maps will stay in the pool though!

... i cant analyze maps at a glance, at all, but none of the 1v1 maps look horrible to me...

---

The only thing that I mind is the largest 1v1 Map, the other platforms are too close to the main bases, so rushing Siege Tanks, even without Medivacs can be deadly, because it delays your gas gain pretty far. And the ground distance between that base and the main is pretty god damn long, so if Zerg doesn't have Mutas, it will take years for him to get there, and Terran can already make few Bunkers. Same with TvP.
But that is the only thing I found bad with this map, everything else is pretty good, which is huge surprise from the Blizzard! :D

We need a 16-spawning point island map in the 1v1 pool.

Make it so Blizard!

I'm getting tired of all these symmetrical maps. How about something asymmetrical? or something thats random and thrown together?

Like this one maybe
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Flooded_Plains
I always have a good time on that.

or Powerlines, another good one
http://classic.battle.net/images/bat...c/lp/4/xpl.jpg

or what about bridge to bridge 98'
http://classic.battle.net/images/bat.../lp/8/bb2b.jpg

or what about something crazy like
http://classic.battle.net/images/bat...LP/bw06/cc.jpg

or even
http://classic.battle.net/images/bat...lp/bw02/cy.jpg

I had fun on those maps and though I do like to have the symmetrical maps to test my skill I also like to have non-symmetrical maps just to have some fun.

The sad thing about this is that none of these maps are original, and it shows Blizzard's lack of creativity. Nothing in Starcraft 2 is creative, or shows originality. It feels like every mundane turd has been polished to the every last bit of shininess.

All these maps, even by just looking at them, feel boring and uninteresting. The different ways to attack or the tactical movement in this map just feels step by step, nothing spontaneous or original. The fact that every one of these maps have a circular moat around then tells me again, they want people to use boring harass strategies where you can't realistically counter without air units.

They're trying to hard at creating strategy using maps by making it obvious to players that they should do A B or C, when what they should do is make good maps with advantages and disadvantages of expansions to make players figure out what to do.

I just feel Blizzard wants to control the gameplay way too much, it's like you're supposed to expand here, because we made it so doing anything else is pointless (ie, just like Rush, Macro maps, they're forcing gameplay)

You don't get interesting gameplay and therefore you don't get interesting maps like these:

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...ghtBreaker.jpg
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...sseyAngled.png
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...lhalla-1_1.jpg

These maps just feel open to whatever you want to do. The Blizzard maps just feel like polished turds IMO, boring uninteresting maps.

Close rush distance maps should be treated like a necro thread.

Steppes of war!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

I'm getting tired of all these symmetrical maps. How about something asymmetrical? or something thats random and thrown together?

---

You can't really have assymetrical maps. There would be all sorts of positional imbalances.

I agree with Wankey, possibly for the first time ever. :P But honestly the first "Normal map" is stupidly positionally imbalanced; it's impossible to take a gold when tanks can hit your mineral line from your opponent's main.

Kerrigan's Wrath actually seems like it might have some interesting attack paths and positioning, but gameplay on that map will basically revolve around breaking down the rocks to get into your opponent's base.

Shifted Sky is another one of those maps where securing a third base is similar to a bonus objective in a campaign mission, in that it's hard to do and will only make winning more difficult.

Even the "macro map" seems small. essentially, it gives you 3 bases instead of the standard 2 before taking another base becomes insane. It doesn't look that much better than their other recent "macro map:" Slag Pits.

At least they seem to know how to go about 2v2. I almost feel Blizzard spends more of their time playing 2v2 and up than 1v1. I do appreciate what they are doing by making more casual maps in 3v3 and 4v4, recognizing that their audience is very different than the audience for 1v1 maps. Now they just need to take the casual maps out of the 1v1 pool.

@RODTHEGOD: The orginal Blizzard maps were some of the most imbalanced maps there ever were. They were hella fun for that reason but, in a competitive environment, they are absolutely horrible.

i will not miss District 10... NEVER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MulletBen

I agree with Wankey, possibly for the first time ever. :P But honestly the first "Normal map" is stupidly positionally imbalanced; it's impossible to take a gold when tanks can hit your mineral line from your opponent's main.

Kerrigan's Wrath actually seems like it might have some interesting attack paths and positioning, but gameplay on that map will basically revolve around breaking down the rocks to get into your opponent's base.

Shifted Sky is another one of those maps where securing a third base is similar to a bonus objective in a campaign mission, in that it's hard to do and will only make winning more difficult.

Even the "macro map" seems small. essentially, it gives you 3 bases instead of the standard 2 before taking another base becomes insane. It doesn't look that much better than their other recent "macro map:" Slag Pits.

At least they seem to know how to go about 2v2. I almost feel Blizzard spends more of their time playing 2v2 and up than 1v1. I do appreciate what they are doing by making more casual maps in 3v3 and 4v4, recognizing that their audience is very different than the audience for 1v1 maps. Now they just need to take the casual maps out of the 1v1 pool.

---

I think many people agree with me on many topics, just my delivery makes them think otherwise. I'm working on the delivery part.

The problem with Blizzard design is destructible rocks, this is one of the dumbest design ideas ever to come from the design team, but they're not willing to kill their children to they force it down people's throats.

Destructible rocks has done absolutely nothing to increase gameplay, it only forces to increase frustration, as you have ot keep scouting the destructible rock, when there are a million things going on. Everyone wants predictability in a fight, but when you get out flanked because they destroyed the rocks, it just feels ridiculously lame and counter to good gameplay.

I think a good idea is to make destructible rocks a global sound, if you hear rocks being destroyed, then it's a audible cue to tell you that something else is happening. Otherwise, I feel destructible rocks is incredibly unforgiving and really dumb design mechanic.

What the community has come up with which are far better solutions:

Using destructible rocks to surround rich minerals. That way you can still build your nexus / hatch but still have to destroy the rocks to kill it. This way it is *FAIR* to all races, unlike the current solution where it is only fair to Terran since they can move their command center.

Using destructible rocks to make chokes half sized, which I think is also good idea as well.

Too bad Blizzard has a bunch of numb skulls working there, sucks how bureaucracy has won over creativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

I'm getting tired of all these symmetrical maps. How about something asymmetrical? or something thats random and thrown together?

---

Amen to that. My favorite map in BW was Ghost Town. Symmetrical maps are so boring and lead to predictable play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

You can't really have assymetrical maps. There would be all sorts of positional imbalances.

---

Oh come on. Thats like saying you can't have assymetrical races. At the very least blizzard should try. And I'm not even suggesting they be used for competitive areas. Blizzard could easily add a "silly map" area that people could play on, maps that aren't balanced, just for fun.

I want them to add a random map which generates a new map each time you play it. Granted this won't be on ladder but it could be fun as hell for random custom play. Even better if they make it an obs map so people can witness the on-the-fly strategies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

Oh come on. Thats like saying you can't have assymetrical races. At the very least blizzard should try. And I'm not even suggesting they be used for competitive areas. Blizzard could easily add a "silly map" area that people could play on, maps that aren't balanced, just for fun.

---

there are a bunch of melee maps made by blizzard that arnt ladder, and they have better thigns to do atm. This is smething the comunity can do.

and i can only firmly disagree with wankey, not least on the matter of destructable rocks; the comunity that kept on creating competitive maps in sc/bw invented the concept and made 'everyone' realize destructible terrain makes maps more dynamic as it makes the terrain interactive.

I have three or four thoughts on the matter based on what I've read:

1. "Dunno why they're bothering with seasons IMO"

Well, the seasons would make more sense if you remember the patch they wanted to release right away after release called the "tournament patch", where at the end of every season people could fight to become "Division champions". This patch kept getting pushed back as the community made it obvious that things like "Chatrooms" were more important.

I'm not saying this in a condencending way, just explaining why "seasons" should exist. At this point there is nothing to end a season other than statistics. I can see your point. But at least this should remind you (or others who look at your note and don't remember this) what the seasons were originally intended for.

2. Close Rush Distances again....

Even I don't have to write a wall of text to express that I'd like to see some more varied distances.

3. Destructable rocks have done nothing to increase gameplay, the community can do better.


Actually, the community was the one that created destructable rocks in SC:BW, it was just in the form of ion cannons or Xel'Naga Temples restricting places. So even this kinda supports your "lack of creativity" angle. ^^

Your suggestion of "surround areas with rocks will be fair" is actually unfair as the terran can just fly in, in many cases. I feel the most fair setup is an open area around the gold base, the destructable rock required to land and mine there. And all the area around the gold base is "unbuildable" in a way that allows a few base defenses but no space is large enough to land a hatch/nexus/cc there temporarily. This way you have to break the rocks for any of the three bases to actually mine there, but the unbuildable areas are in such a way that all three races can create an adequate defense.

4. The first 2v2 map makes me cringe a bit.

Compare attack paths attacks to and from the top right base based on it's ramp position. That is my preferred base by far as it puts the entry in the corner instead of the middle of the map. This is the type of "base imbalance" I cry about. Sometimes it adds variety to the gameplay, but in this case I simply see advantages to one spot over the rest. Personal thoughts at least.

5. Pie and Cake

I like pie. I like cake. Both are OP. We need more to keep us from being UP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

Oh come on. Thats like saying you can't have assymetrical races. At the very least blizzard should try. And I'm not even suggesting they be used for competitive areas. Blizzard could easily add a "silly map" area that people could play on, maps that aren't balanced, just for fun.

---

agreed. it's easy to see why symmetrical maps are (more or less) positionally balanced, but that does not logically preclude every possible asymmetrical map from also being positionally balanced.

similarly, in a mirror match up, there is clearly no race advantage for either player. but in a non-mirror match up, a perfect game will still be balanced between asymmetrical races.

they should definitely make some "fun" asymmetrical maps which simulate real world battlefields a little better than the boring symmetrical stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghetto-blasteR

but that does not logically preclude every possible asymmetrical map from also being positionally balanced.

---

Yes it does, and if it doesn't, then the so-called asymmetrical map would probably look nothing like what you guys have in mind. How can you justify having a cliff on one side of the map that makes it easier to push on, but not the other side?

Look at these positional imbalances on Scrap Station:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=155163

Even Scrap Station was not symmetrical enough to be a balanced map. They also probably haven't fixed that notch in the top left base that makes it extremely easy to cannon rush, though I haven't played on this map in forever. I'm all for having asymmetrical maps as a fun custom game, but the community can make those themselves IMO.

Quote:

---

but in a non-mirror match up, a perfect game will still be balanced between asymmetrical races.

---

If the races aren't exactly the same, then it's imbalanced. A good game though will make it so that the vast majority of players can compensate for pretty much all of the imbalance by changing their play (like how it is now with 99% of the whiners in SC2). In SC, the races are the only thing that's variable, and everything else, including maps, is controlled. If you decide you want to make something else variable too, then balancing the game has just become an order of magnitude harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Yes it does, and if it doesn't, then the so-called asymmetrical map would probably look nothing like what you guys have in mind. How can you justify having a cliff on one side of the map that makes it easier to push on, but not the other side?

---

Easy. It's called adapt or die. It's called having different weaknesses/strengths on different sides of the map that different players can exploit based on their current position. And I think you're still thinking in a symmetrical fashion based on the extreme example you gave below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Look at these positional imbalances on Scrap Station:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=155163

---

Ok that is a rediculous example. You're saying that these maps aren't symmetrical enough? I mean come on a Starcraft player should be able to adapt to unforeseen problems. We aren't computers playing chess here where every possible move is known before the game starts. The best strategists have to make decisions based on imperfect information, in a non-ideal world, not "OH MY GOD, MY SPINE CRAWLER IS A FEW UNITS AWAY FROM WHERE I NEED IT TO ATTACK!!!! OH MY GOD!!! HOW UNFAIR!!! THE GAME IS OVER!!! I LOOSE!!! GAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Even Scrap Station was not symmetrical enough to be a balanced map. They also probably haven't fixed that notch in the top left base that makes it extremely easy to cannon rush, though I haven't played on this map in forever. I'm all for having asymmetrical maps as a fun custom game, but the community can make those themselves IMO.

---

I'm curious how much that small imbalance effects the maps statistics. Probably very little. My guess would be 1% or less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

If the races aren't exactly the same, then it's imbalanced. A good game though will make it so that the vast majority of players can compensate for pretty much all of the imbalance by changing their play (like how it is now with 99% of the whiners in SC2). In SC, the races are the only thing that's variable, and everything else, including maps, is controlled. If you decide you want to make something else variable too, then balancing the game has just become an order of magnitude harder.

---

Wait, what? "if the races aren't exactly the same, then it's not balanced?" That's retarded. How is it starcraft is known for its 3 distinct races and for their balance? If you look at the races and their statistics over enough games you can find some imbalances that could be fixed but I do think there is such thing as balanced enough. Loosing 1 game due to an imbalance after playing 200 games I'd say is pretty balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Yes it does, and if it doesn't, then the so-called asymmetrical map would probably look nothing like what you guys have in mind. How can you justify having a cliff on one side of the map that makes it easier to push on, but not the other side?

---

no, it doesn't. it's like in algebra: you can prove that if i have x and you have x, we have the same value, but you can't prove that if i have x and you have y, then we have different values for all values of x and y. it doesn't matter if this balanced asymmetrical map looks different from what i or anyone else has in mind because what exactly i have in mind is 1) not known to you, and 2) not central to my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Look at these positional imbalances on Scrap Station:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=155163

---

interesting read, but an example of an imbalanced map doesn't disprove the idea that there could be balanced asymmetrical maps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

If the races aren't exactly the same, then it's imbalanced. A good game though will make it so that the vast majority of players can compensate for pretty much all of the imbalance by changing their play (like how it is now with 99% of the whiners in SC2). In SC, the races are the only thing that's variable, and everything else, including maps, is controlled. If you decide you want to make something else variable too, then balancing the game has just become an order of magnitude harder.

---

if you factor in all the variables (such as race, map location, etc.) into some kind of complex formula, and assume both players are playing as well as humanly possible, and have it somehow spit out one variable as a way of measuring the probability of winning for each player, you can't prove that you won't get 50:50 despite map asymmetries. it may be hard, but not necessarily impossible to create such a map. if one factor on one side of the map gives an advantage, who's to say you can't make a different factor on the other side of the map that gives a different advantage that essentially balances out?

Asymmetric maps as in asymmetric properties of different starting locations, would IMO probably yield so unpredictable circumstances that they would make for gimmicky gameplay in a majority of cases (given several such maps and/or such maps with 3+ variations of asymmetries of starting-location properties)

... though you are correct that much of the charm of sc-gameplay is its dynamics and how different situations influence players to react in unique ways, and that the ways to play the game are in no way fully explored yet, i still believe there are some dominant racial traits that easily end up favouring one race or another in various situations; if the actual buildup to these situations does not stay symmetric, correct abuse of these racial traits can easily end up granting unfair advantages; largely inevitable situations that are significantly harder for a player and race in one position to deal with, than for the other.

alternatively, asymmetric starting locations would most probably favour one race over another in certain positions, making it feel like possibly even more of a coin-toss than the possibly to spawn close by ground on meta or temple makes those maps feel currently.


TLDR: The game is complex enough without assymetric maps. assymetry would lead to chaos and or luck-dependant gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

Easy. It's called adapt or die. It's called having different weaknesses/strengths on different sides of the map that different players can exploit based on their current position.

---

Sounds good, but save that for custom games. :p

Quote:

---

Ok that is a rediculous example. You're saying that these maps aren't symmetrical enough? I mean come on a Starcraft player should be able to adapt to unforeseen problems. We aren't computers playing chess here where every possible move is known before the game starts. The best strategists have to make decisions based on imperfect information, in a non-ideal world, not "OH MY GOD, MY SPINE CRAWLER IS A FEW UNITS AWAY FROM WHERE I NEED IT TO ATTACK!!!! OH MY GOD!!! HOW UNFAIR!!! THE GAME IS OVER!!! I LOOSE!!! GAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!"

---

Map imbalance is not an example of an "unforeseen problem" or "imperfect information". One player shouldn't be able to cannon rush another player easier because he randomly spawned in the better location.

Quote:

---

I'm curious how much that small imbalance effects the maps statistics. Probably very little. My guess would be 1% or less

---

Map imbalances affect every game, but I never said the effect is significant.

Quote:

---

Wait, what? "if the races aren't exactly the same, then it's not balanced?" That's retarded. How is it starcraft is known for its 3 distinct races and for their balance? If you look at the races and their statistics over enough games you can find some imbalances that could be fixed but I do think there is such thing as balanced enough. Loosing 1 game due to an imbalance after playing 200 games I'd say is pretty balanced.

---

Again, I never said the effect was significant.

And yes, if you think Brood War's races are perfectly balanced you're a fanboy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghetto-blasteR

no, it doesn't. it's like in algebra: you can prove that if i have x and you have x, we have the same value, but you can't prove that if i have x and you have y, then we have different values for all values of x and y. it doesn't matter if this balanced asymmetrical map looks different from what i or anyone else has in mind because what exactly i have in mind is 1) not known to you, and 2) not central to my point.

---

I was talking about the maps that Rod linked to. A perfectly balanced map, if it were to contain any asymmetry, would have to not affect gameplay, because that would create imbalance towards one side. In which case there wouldn't be much point in putting it in in the first place, other than aesthetics.

I don't think your algebra example is relevant to map balance. Also, just because x & y could be the same does not mean they are. Saying I can't prove they are equal is an argument from ignorance.

Quote:

---

interesting read, but an example of an imbalanced map doesn't disprove the idea that there could be balanced asymmetrical maps.

---

Again, argument from ignorance. I only have to point to the fact that terrain affects gameplay to support my argument that asymmetrical maps are imbalanced, not to mention the countless examples of this fact out there. If your argument is that asymmetrical maps can somehow be perfectly balanced, the burden of proof is on you.

But again, if by "balanced" you mean good enough to play on battle.net where most people will probably not even notice or care, then yeah that's definitely possible. You might even be able to create an asymmetrical map that pro-gamers would not complain about, but from a theoretical standpoint, even that map would not be perfectly balanced.

Quote:

---

if you factor in all the variables (such as race, map location, etc.) into some kind of complex formula, and assume both players are playing as well as humanly possible, and have it somehow spit out one variable as a way of measuring the probability of winning for each player, you can't prove that you won't get 50:50 despite map asymmetries. it may be hard, but not necessarily impossible to create such a map. if one factor on one side of the map gives an advantage, who's to say you can't make a different factor on the other side of the map that gives a different advantage that essentially balances out?

---

And you can't prove that you will get 50:50 for asymmetrical maps. See how fun that argument is. :P

StarCraft is all about timings. x & y might be equal at one point in time, but not another, and this can be exploited & proved. This is the challenge of balancing SC. An equation that assumes that people are playing as well as humanly possible isn't of much value either. I'm pretty sure the game is only balanced right now because people aren't playing as well as humanly possible.

Quote:

---

Easy. It's called adapt or die. It's called having different weaknesses/strengths on different sides of the map that different players can exploit based on their current position. And I think you're still thinking in a symmetrical fashion based on the extreme example you gave below.

---

What you need to understand is that you're basing your claim on assumptions because you haven't tried it yourself. I've been with the SC custom map community since practicaly the beginning. Custom asymmetrical maps were the most fun for me to play before my ICCUP days so I downloaded tons of them and even tried to make some of my own. So, being among the community, I know that mappers tried for years to make asymmetry work. It never did. There's a reason ICCUP and Korean league maps went with symmetry later in the game's life when earlier maps were asymmetrical. But, if you think you can make it work then go ahead. I promise you after some time of that, you'll be agreeing with us wholeheartedly. This is just basically more Blizzard fan syndrome. Seems like everyone thinks their a super game developer despite having no experience or basis to believe so.

Besides, the truth remains that its already hard enough to make a balanced game with symmetrical maps. Imagine asymmetrical maps. It wouldn't be worth it. The only reason you're proposing this is because its simply an idea in your head that hasn't been put to the test. Its called theorycrafting among us StarCraft gamers but it has other names in other areas as well. There's millions of design documents of machines that theoretically could have worked and should have worked, but never did. An idea is easy to justify when its only challenge is in your head, especially when you're biased.

I mean, seriously, did you even play SCBW? The imbalances on maps like Lost Temple and Big Game Hunters were atrocious and people tried to years to make different version of the map to fix these problems. None of them ever did, so they went to a symmetrical formula and maps like Python were made. In fact, for Lost Temple, I remember seeing a statistics where if a Terran player spawned at a certain location, I believe it was at the top, their chance to win went up 10%. Simply because of location. Neither Blizzard nor custom map makers were able to do much to fix this without changing the very basis of the map.

Quote:

---

Sounds good, but save that for custom games.

---

/thread

I agree completely. Asymmetrical is more fun, even with imbalances. In fact, imbalances are part of the fun. But, that's not the case for serious gaming. South Korea would declare nuclear war on Blizzard HQ if they went Rod's way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

I don't think your algebra example is relevant to map balance. Also, just because x & y could be the same does not mean they are. Saying I can't prove they are equal is an argument from ignorance.

---

1) why is the algebra example not relevant to map balance?

2) i don't have to show that x and y are equal; i'm just indicating that they can be. you can't prove they are unequal (not equal) because there will be some cases in which they are equal. i'm drawing an analogy here; most asymmetric maps will be unbalanced, but that doesn't mean EVERY asymmetric map is NECESSARILY unbalanced and therefore we should never explore the idea. please understand that this is the main point before you dismiss something as "argument from ignorance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Again, argument from ignorance. I only have to point to the fact that terrain affects gameplay to support my argument that asymmetrical maps are imbalanced

---

no, that is not sufficient to conclude your point. i agree that terrain affects gameplay. i disagree that you need identical terrain elements to add up to the same gameplay "measure of balance", whatever that is. another mathematical example: you can make 10 out of 5 and 5, or you can make 10 out of 2, 4, and 4. hypothetically, if one side of an asymmetric map has let's say a resource advantage and the other one has a defensive terrain advantage (etc... the possibilities are endless) then: 1) not only could you have a hypothetically perfectly balanced map, but 2) practically speaking, you could have map that may not be perfectly balanced, but balanced enough that you could still get some competitive value out of it until people find the exploits (and then the map can be adjusted accordingly)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

If your argument is that asymmetrical maps can somehow be perfectly balanced, the burden of proof is on you.

---

perhaps. i was speaking hypothetically. this kind of thing would be best supported empirically, but that would never happen unless people learn to break away from the symmetrical maps for the sake of experiment and exploration. i think it would be good for the community, both for fun as well as academically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

And you can't prove that you will get 50:50 for asymmetrical maps. See how fun that argument is. :P

---

but i'm not trying to say that. i'm trying to say that we CAN get 50:50, not that you always will (which is obviously not true). as such, the burden of proof to disprove this hypothetical statement is actually (and logically) on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

StarCraft is all about timings. x & y might be equal at one point in time, but not another, and this can be exploited & proved. This is the challenge of balancing SC. An equation that assumes that people are playing as well as humanly possible isn't of much value either. I'm pretty sure the game is only balanced right now because people aren't playing as well as humanly possible.

---

i see where you're going with this, and i don't disagree. but then this is an ultra pessimistic view in terms of the possibility of balance... never mind maps; you're practically suggesting that different races can never be balanced (which, again, has to be proven). but then i can turn that around and say, well, obviously the community is trying to smooth everything out, constantly trying to adjust things little by little to approach an asymptotic level of balance between races. why can't the same be done for asymmetric maps?

So your argument basically boils down to the idea that if both sides of the map are imbalanced, then that's fine because both players have an equal amount disadvantages to overcome? This is just wrong. A defensive advantage earlier in the game might be more important than a resource advantage. One player could tech in safety, and the other could expand. But tech beats economy and the other player loses because he spawned in the wrong spot. Or maybe another race has more timing windows where it can get rolled because it doesn't have a defensive advantage. How is any of this good for competitive play? You seem to be speaking from a casual theorycrafting perspective. Again, positional advantages on a map do not "cancel out" like some sort of formula. To say they do is a fallacy.

And yes, I have a pessimistic view of balance. If you don't start out with exactly the same things, there will always be something that can be exploited, if only to a tiny degree, by virtue of the fact that it's different. But if you want perfect balance just play a game where everybody starts with the same exact units & terrain: like chess.

Quote:

---

i'm trying to say that we CAN get 50:50, not that you always will (which is obviously not true). as such, the burden of proof to disprove this hypothetical statement is actually (and logically) on you.

---

That's some ghetto ass logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

So your argument basically boils down to the idea that if both sides of the map are imbalanced, then that's fine because both players have an equal amount disadvantages to overcome?

---

yes, that's precisely it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

This is just wrong.

---

prove that this is always true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

A defensive advantage earlier in the game might be more important than a resource advantage. One player could tech in safety, and the other could expand. But tech beats economy and the other player loses because he spawned in the wrong spot. Or maybe another race has more timing windows where it can get rolled because it doesn't have a defensive advantage. How is any of this good for competitive play?

---

i think you answered your own question a few posts ago (or maybe someone else did i dunno). there seems to be an underlying tone that there is only one "correct" way to play, but as you you already know even with symmetrical maps your play style has to be adapted depending on the terrain. likewise with this. if your position's terrain has slight advantage type X, then play according to X. yes, that's the basic idea. but to say tech always beats economy? that's a really rash statement to make. if you can make a rigorous case about that then please go ahead. but keep in mind that i never said the imbalances had to be extreme, so we're not talking like one guy gets to tech completely unchallenged while the other guy gets to expand completely unchallenged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

You seem to be speaking from a casual theorycrafting perspective. Again, positional advantages on a map do not "cancel out" like some sort of formula. To say they do is a fallacy.

---

you can label it as casual theorycrafting if you like and i won't dispute that. but i'm still not convinced that small positional advantages can't roughly cancel out just because you say they can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

And yes, I have a pessimistic view of balance. If you don't start out with exactly the same things, there will always be something that can be exploited, if only to a tiny degree, by virtue of the fact that it's different. But if you want perfect balance just play a game where everybody starts with the same exact units & terrain: like chess.

---

unfortunately i happen to be a chess player, and you actually just backed up my point by bringing it up: while both players have the same units and terrain, they actually play very differently by virtue of the mere fact that white moves first. if you read book openings, the way white plays and the way black plays will be completely different. suffice to say black can't just mirror white's every move. therefore, it can be argued that white and black essentially play like different races. however, is chess a "broken" game? does the game statistically favor one side? i haven't been keeping up to date on it myself, but even if one side has the tiniest advantage, the game is still very much playable (and has been for the past few hundred years with its current ruleset).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghetto-blasteR

prove that this is always true.

---

Why? The burden of proof is always on the person opposing the status quo. There are too many examples showing asymmetrical maps to be imbalanced, including scrap station. Can you even provide one example of one that is balanced?

Saying that perfectly balanced asymmetrical maps might exist is like a particle physicist saying he discovered a new particle with no mass or energy and which can't interact with anything. Who cares? We're not required to prove him wrong.

Quote:

---

i think you answered your own question a few posts ago (or maybe someone else did i dunno). there seems to be an underlying tone that there is only one "correct" way to play, but as you you already know even with symmetrical maps your play style has to be adapted depending on the terrain. likewise with this. if your position's terrain has slight advantage type X, then play according to X. yes, that's the basic idea. but to say tech always beats economy? that's a really rash statement to make. if you can make a rigorous case about that then please go ahead. but keep in mind that i never said the imbalances had to be extreme, so we're not talking like one guy gets to tech completely unchallenged while the other guy gets to expand completely unchallenged.

---

Tech, economy & army are pillars of StarCraft. This post explains how to take advantage of them and why tech is generally > economy: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2416197882

For example, whenever I see a Protoss fast expand, I just get a really fast colossus & roll him off one base, and it always works. This is why it's standard to not fast expand in PvP. But if his side of the map is easier to defend in the slightest, perhaps he can fast expand given enough luck & skill. So how is that fair? Why should it be easier for him to expand in even the slightest?

Quote:

---

you can label it as casual theorycrafting if you like and i won't dispute that. but i'm still not convinced that small positional advantages can't roughly cancel out just because you say they can't.

---

This is why I linked the post about the scrap station map. A tiny notch in the top left base makes it more favorable to spawn in the bottom in pvp because it's very easy to cannon rush. What other advantage do you give to the other side of the map to "cancel" this out? This is the kind of small (not extreme) imbalance that's out there.

Have you seen the maps Rod linked? You really think that if a crevice or some other minutae on a map is enough to make high level players complain, that some wonky asymmetrical map will be fine in the pro leagues? And if the positional imbalances' effect on gameplay is so "small", what's the point of adding them other than aesthetics? Why not keep making semi-symmetrical maps like scrap station? You haven't really answered this question.

Quote:

---

unfortunately i happen to be a chess player, and you actually just backed up my point by bringing it up: while both players have the same units and terrain, they actually play very differently by virtue of the mere fact that white moves first. if you read book openings, the way white plays and the way black plays will be completely different. suffice to say black can't just mirror white's every move. therefore, it can be argued that white and black essentially play like different races. however, is chess a "broken" game? does the game statistically favor one side? i haven't been keeping up to date on it myself, but even if one side has the tiniest advantage, the game is still very much playable (and has been for the past few hundred years with its current ruleset).

---

I'm not backing up your point by saying that chess is more balanced than StarCraft. And if the fact that white moves first is exploitable by pro chess players, then I suppose even chess isn't perfectly balanced, though casual players might not care/notice. Just like how you advocate asymmetrical maps because you're not at a high enough level to feel the effects of these imbalances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Why? The burden of proof is always on the person opposing the status quo. ... Can you even provide one example of one that is balanced?

Saying that perfectly balanced asymmetrical maps might exist is like a particle physicist saying he discovered a new particle with no mass or energy and which can't interact with anything.

---

wrong. in the case where something is postulated to exist, the onus may be on that person to find an example, but the burden of proof is on everyone else to show that it's impossible. if the first person can find even one example then it's pretty much over, but if everyone else finds a million examples it's still not over unless they can prove it logically for all cases.

to modify your particle physics analogy, it's more like there is a physicist hypothesizing that such a new particle CAN exist and then working his way from there, not that he's actually discovered one. and that is how scientific breakthroughs start.

the reason why it's tough to provide an example of a good asymmetrical map is because people are so averse to making them and exploring that avenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Tech, economy & army are pillars of StarCraft. This post explains how to take advantage of them and why tech is generally > economy: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2416197882

---

very good read. this is fairly convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

For example, whenever I see a Protoss fast expand ... Why should it be easier for him to expand in even the slightest?

---

but in this example you're giving one side ALL the advantages: economic accessibility, and a more defensible position. what advantage does the other side have? can you clarify this example?

consider this thought experiment: what if one side had gold instead of blue minerals but no choke points (econ advantage) while the other side was on high ground with a ridiculously narrow choke (time advantage to tech)? would the gold guy still lose to the high ground guy? probably not, but here the example is pushed too far to one extreme. therefore, in some middle ground, it should be balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

This is why I linked the post about the scrap station map. A tiny notch in the top left base ... This is the kind of small (not extreme) imbalance that's out there.

---

i still think the scrap station example is very case specific. instructive, yes, but have you considered that a single small imbalance has a much larger effect when everything else is perfectly balanced? i think it's precisely because scrap station is trying to be essentially symmetrical that one flaw topples the whole thing over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Have you seen the maps Rod linked? ... Why not keep making semi-symmetrical maps like scrap station? You haven't really answered this question.

---

honestly i haven't looked at rod's links yet. but i think the purpose of creating an asymmetrical map, aside from just aesthetics, is for experiment / fun / "chaos" from more variables. in terms of what you're saying about why make differences if the differences will be small, well, i don't know if that can be properly addressed unless there is a way of measuring 1) how "chaotic" an imbalance is as well as 2) how much the imbalance tips in favor of one player or another, and comparing these two things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

I'm not backing up your point by saying that chess is more balanced than StarCraft. And if the fact that white moves first is exploitable by pro chess players, then I suppose even chess isn't perfectly balanced, though casual players might not care/notice.

---

by framing white's first move as "exploitable" you're implying that having the first move is necessarily better, but that's not true. believe me, chess is pretty damn balanced even at the top levels, despite white and black playing differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Just like how you advocate asymmetrical maps because you're not at a high enough level to feel the effects of these imbalances.

---

whoa, why you getting personal, gradius? i thought you were an admin or something?

i'm not saying i don't feel the effects of the imbalances; i'm saying that people all too quickly assume that different types of imbalances can't cancel one another out. therefore, something very interesting is doomed to go unexplored. don't misrepresent my argument please.