Adaptability, Creativity, and Randomnized Map Generator

[Hammy]

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...

[Benthum]

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.

[warrior6]

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

[SaharaDrac]

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.

[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

[Xyvik]

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.

[mr. peasant]

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.

[Raisk]

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.

[warrior6]

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.

[Xyvik]

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.