Adaptability, Creativity, and Randomnized Map Generator

[Nicol Bolas]

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

The problem is that it doesn't work in an asymmetric game.

Each of the three races has strengths and weaknesses to begin with. There are certain things that one race does that they are just plain better at than other races. If a map artifact, particularly a random one, starts selecting for such things, then you have a real balancing problem.

Take percent chance to miss, for example. The Zerg are a damage-over-time race; they have virtually no heavy-hitters, but they have many units with a relatively high attack speed. The Terrans tend to be heavy-hitters, though they do have a few damage-over-time units. Well, with a percent chance to miss, the DOT units are fundamentally more powerful than the heavy-hitters. A DOT unit that misses every 10% is basically a unit that does 10% less damage. Whereas a unit with a low attack speed but high damage is penalized more (a missed shot will take a long time to make up for). You've just tilted game balance towards the Zerg, or you've forced the Terran player to use only DOT units, which makes the Zerg player's job of figuring out what the Terran is up to easier. Either way, the Zerg player is better off.

Take your example of random LOS modifiers. Ranged units are much better off behind these than melee units. The Terrans automatically are stronger. You suggested offensive vs. defensive bunkering. This is useless advice if you don't have bunkers. Zerg static defense, even in the era of mobile crawlers and Overlords that can drop creep, are still not nearly as efficient as Terrans, especially with Salvage once the Bunker no longer has a purpose. Again, you've screwed up the balance.

Ultimately, you want a game where people can come back from a disadvantage. But what you don't want is a game where people are disadvantaged a priori, through no fault of their own.

[warrior6]

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.

no they didn't do anything right. they were rewarded for making a mistake. meaning they didn't know you had a sniper and they took a shot at one of your dudes, your sniper who is suppose to have like 80% chance (or more probably) was suppose to countersnipe him. the AI decided to MISS. and in doing so, your sniper reveals himself and gets shot. its the same thing with a AT gun missing twice against halftrack in the early game where anti-tank weapons are rare and then the halftrack goes around and kills the AT-gun

Preparing for the unknown and the random, and being able to handle it better than your opponent, makes you a better general.

those things can be implemented and emulated without dice roll mechanics

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.

you don't understand player A had a sniper who is picking guys off. player B decides to build his own sniper (a VERY VERY heavy investment). player B forces player A to make his sniper shoot. the sniper is temporarily revealed. player B's sniper shoots and misses, and then gets counter sniped. in such a situation, player B did the right things while player A did everything wrong and yet still got rewarded.

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.

the missing mechanic was just an example of a dice roll mechanic. if you were to implement spontaneous weather that has game play effects, you essentially add factors that are out of both player's hands. although in a game with a big skill gap, these things might not make a big difference, in a close game between equally skilled opponents, these factors that are out of both player's hands can be game deciding.

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.

once game, if you want the balance to be pure, these things would be on set timers on set locations.

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.

the amount of luck from this would be ridiculous. what if player A is better at ambushes than player B, should random luck let him execute this skill? what if race A is better at ambushes than race B? even monopoly board company of heroes left that out.

[Xyvik]

you don't understand player A had a sniper who is picking guys off. player B decides to build his own sniper (a VERY VERY heavy investment). player B forces player A to make his sniper shoot. the sniper is temporarily revealed. player B's sniper shoots and misses, and then gets counter sniped. in such a situation, player B did the right things while player A did everything wrong and yet still got rewarded.

Actually you're still using a bad example for your argument. CoH is a terrible game to use as an example, but for the sake of the argument I'll continue with it. The important part I see in this example is that Player B had other options open to him. He didn't -have- to build that sniper. He chose to. His sniper failed. Guess what? It sucks. If his entire strategy revolved around his own sniper, and he missed, then he's a terrible strategist because he should have known that his sniper could have missed.
What were his other options? Could he have simply ignored the enemy sniper and gone a different route, different units, go Mechanized and not even be worried by the sniper? His deciding to go sniper was actually a very bad move. A bad move that might have worked is still a bad move. It would have been more luck had his sniper tactic actually worked, in which case, Player A, who was doing everything right by having the sniper in the first place and using it properly would have lost out more to random chance than Player B did.

Take percent chance to miss, for example. The Zerg are a damage-over-time race; they have virtually no heavy-hitters, but they have many units with a relatively high attack speed. The Terrans tend to be heavy-hitters, though they do have a few damage-over-time units. Well, with a percent chance to miss, the DOT units are fundamentally more powerful than the heavy-hitters. A DOT unit that misses every 10% is basically a unit that does 10% less damage. Whereas a unit with a low attack speed but high damage is penalized more (a missed shot will take a long time to make up for). You've just tilted game balance towards the Zerg, or you've forced the Terran player to use only DOT units, which makes the Zerg player's job of figuring out what the Terran is up to easier. Either way, the Zerg player is better off.

I however DO NOT SUPPORT chances to miss in SC2. You are exactly correct. The balance does not allow for such things in SC2. So I'm in agreement with you here.

Take your example of random LOS modifiers. Ranged units are much better off behind these than melee units. The Terrans automatically are stronger. You suggested offensive vs. defensive bunkering. This is useless advice if you don't have bunkers. Zerg static defense, even in the era of mobile crawlers and Overlords that can drop creep, are still not nearly as efficient as Terrans, especially with Salvage once the Bunker no longer has a purpose. Again, you've screwed up the balance.

Uhm, actually in the BRs it said that LOS modifiers lowered range units actual range, in which case I must contest your point. Also, Salvage itself already screwed up the balance, in which case I would remove it immediately or make it based on how far the building was from the Command Center.

Also, 'bunkering' is a term that does not exclusively apply to Terrans. It mostly applies to them, yes, but the idea behind it also applies to zerg and protoss, less for zerg yes. Offensive bunkering can be done with proton cannons, and actually since you'd have a pylon there as protoss you could use your warp-in abilities and plot massive ambushes.

The fact of the matter is that the map could be made so that these random things don't automatically throw off balance, the merely make it so you have to think about them.

But, again, there's no point in arguing this anyway because Blizzard isn't going to consider it.

I still hold by my belief that such things need to be included in strategy games, as long as they don't throw off balance. It can be done.

/shrug

[Nicol Bolas]

actually in the BRs it said that LOS modifiers lowered range units actual range

No, it does not. It only affects range in that it blocks LOS. If you already have vision (Overlord, etc), your unit's range is entirely unaffected.

Also, Salvage itself already screwed up the balance

Um, how? Browder says that he feels salvage is imbalanced, but he's not going to remove it unless there is empirical evidence of this imbalance.

It mostly applies to them, yes, but the idea behind it also applies to zerg and protoss, less for zerg yes.

But that creates a fundamental imbalance. As you accept "less for zerg". That means, by definition, "more for others". Hence: imbalance.

At the very least, more of such things on your side will provide one side more of an advantage than another. Which means you now have to develop each side so that it can take advantage of these things in similar enough ways that all sides can use them. Which means that you're having to engineer units for them. Which means this is something you do early in the development process.

I still hold by my belief that such things need to be included in strategy games, as long as they don't throw off balance. It can be done.

Random elements can be used in strategy games, but they have to be rigidly controlled. Statistics shows that random elements can factor out in predictable ways, but only when sampled at a high enough rate.

For short games like RTSs (compared to longer games like TBSs), it just isn't worth it to add these kinds of mechanisms. You don't encounter them enough for the random probabilities to factor out.

[Xyvik]

No, it does not. It only affects range in that it blocks LOS. If you already have vision (Overlord, etc), your unit's range is entirely unaffected.

Sorry, I thought it reduced their range too. I could have sworn that's what they said in the BR. My mistake!

Um, how? Browder says that he feels salvage is imbalanced, but he's not going to remove it unless there is empirical evidence of this imbalance.

I feel that salvage is imbalanced. Having pushed balance numbers for nine different RTS mods and two of my own RTS games in development, I know a thing or two about balance, and Salvage is imbalanced. It gives Terran an advantage in early game harassment and map control that no other side can even come close to. A building that keeps units alive and that can be removed when its health is low for a full refund, without an SCV around? There's nothing comparable in any of the sides, and that is imbalanced.

But that creates a fundamental imbalance. As you accept "less for zerg". That means, by definition, "more for others". Hence: imbalance.

But see the thing is, "less for Zerg" in this case does not equal imbalance because Zerg doesn't NEED these things, Zerg runs on entirely different mechanics. Bunkering is a tactic that can be done with units in addition to buildings, although the term usually refers to buildings. The idea, however, is the same: hole up in one place and defend it. Zerg CAN do that, but Zerg aren't defensive oriented so it really doesn't affect them.

Just like you can't say that it's imbalanced that Zerg have weaker defenses: they don't need strong defenses, they get by on their swarms of cheap units. See the difference I'm trying to point to? I may not have written out as well as I'm thinking.

At the very least, more of such things on your side will provide one side more of an advantage than another. Which means you now have to develop each side so that it can take advantage of these things in similar enough ways that all sides can use them. Which means that you're having to engineer units for them. Which means this is something you do early in the development process.

Not necessarily, although you do have a good point. The LOS modifiers already affect all units in the same way. What is the difference between having them in static places and having them randomly? Not a whole lot. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, tactics and strategies can be made that 'overcome' a perceived imbalance.

Let's continue with this example. LOS modifiers all on your side? that is not necessarily in your favor, because the LOS Mods can be used against you just as well as the other way around. The BR showed that idea, with the Zerg VS Protoss, the Zerg player hid HIS units in the opponents smoke screen. Even though the Zerg player lost eventually, this was an excellent example of using something to his advantage that might have been used by the other player instead.

Random elements can be used in strategy games, but they have to be rigidly controlled. Statistics shows that random elements can factor out in predictable ways, but only when sampled at a high enough rate.

For short games like RTSs (compared to longer games like TBSs), it just isn't worth it to add these kinds of mechanisms. You don't encounter them enough for the random probabilities to factor out.

Agreed on the ridigly controlled, not so much on 'short games like RTS.' I personally prefer my RTS to be long games (Age series, SupCom) in which case random elements could make a greater impact.

SC has always been more of an arcade RTS anyway, so I don't believe there are too many ways we could include random elements without imbalancing things. However, random maps and random LOS Mods are two things that I believe could be done without messing anything up.

[Nicol Bolas]

I feel that salvage is imbalanced.

So you and Browder agree. However, he's smart enough to know that you don't yank a feature unless you have evidence that it's imbalanced, rather than just a feeling.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, tactics and strategies can be made that 'overcome' a perceived imbalance.

There's a difference between a "perceived" imbalance and an actual imbalance. A "perceived" imbalance is like what you were talking about with salvage: you think something is broken, but it isn't. An actual imbalance is like if one side gets 50% more income than the other.

An actual imbalance is something like Blue Storm or Battle Royal. It's clear from the statistics of the best players of the game that certain races do better on these maps than others. Ergo, they are imbalanced.

How do you know that one of your random map features isn't going to create an imbalance like that? KeSPA spends months testing maps for balance before putting them out there. And they still occasionally let something slip through that screws everything up.

I personally prefer my RTS to be long games (Age series, SupCom)

I've only played Age of Empires II. But from that experience, I can say that those games went on just far too long. In SC1, if you get put in a bad position, you're dead. You will lose in the next five minutes if your opponent has half a functioning brain. In AoEII, there were many games that just kept going... and going. And it wasn't the silly "stall by building random buildings elsewhere" nonsense. It was simply how long it took before an advantageous position resulted in victory.

Also, playing an RTS game for an hour or longer on one game isn't appealing to me. Nor is watching such a thing.

[SaharaDrac]

If you like long ass RTS games...then YOU my friend should play Sins of A Solar Empire...! I played a game with my friend last week that took 4 days...and it was fun the whole time!

I prefer Starcraft. But I'm adaptive like that.

[warrior6]

The important part I see in this example is that Player B had other options open to him. He didn't -have- to build that sniper. He chose to. His sniper failed. Guess what? It sucks. If his entire strategy revolved around his own sniper, and he missed, then he's a terrible strategist because he should have known that his sniper could have missed.

so what your saying is its OK for one guy to make mistakes that are possibly game deciding but instead gets rewarded because the gods said so??? the bad player did everything wrong player A. the good player set up a trap, baited the player in and got horribly punished not because of his opponent's skill but because the game said so. he should have known that his sniper could have missed? thats a horrible point. if a noob runs his Halftrack into your AT gun in the mid game, and your AT misses twice with the halftrack than circling around it, its not your fault. this is what i call mimicking the bad part of real life because once again, real life has no interest in being "balanced"

What were his other options? Could he have simply ignored the enemy sniper and gone a different route, different units, go Mechanized and not even be worried by the sniper? His deciding to go sniper was actually a very bad move. A bad move that might have worked is still a bad move.

it was actually a really good move considering the odds and the situation. this is what it really came down to. the sniper has like 90% chance of killing him.

It would have been more luck had his sniper tactic actually worked, in which case, Player A, who was doing everything right by having the sniper in the first place and using it properly would have lost out more to random chance than Player B did.

what? player A got countered. the odds were heavily heavily heavily against player A. a sniper missing another sniper is something thats rare but it still happens. another real life gimick that works horribly is tank/AT shells deflecting off armor and doing little to no damage. times when like a retreating tiger that has like very little HP gets away after 3 shots to it miraculously deflect right off.

I however DO NOT SUPPORT chances to miss in SC2. You are exactly correct. The balance does not allow for such things in SC2. So I'm in agreement with you here.

i'm against any mechanic that relies on dice being rolled. whether its game effecting smoke randomly appearing in random parts of the map, game effecting weather showing up randomly, or random generated maps that have not been thoroughly tested.

[mr. peasant]

i'm against any mechanic that relies on dice being rolled. whether its game effecting smoke randomly appearing in random parts of the map, game effecting weather showing up randomly, or random generated maps that have not been thoroughly tested.

In that case, does this mean you're against random race selection?

With regard to the examples you provide, I can understand the sentiment but I feel that randomly generated maps are different as it's something that has to be specifically chosen in order to be played. By opting for a randomly generated map, you're consciously making a decision to eschew balance in favor of a fresh experience.

[REF]

Well - I really, really like this idea. I might not be the best clicker out there but this gives us guys with 120 APM a better chance to play better guys! It gives the capability of more people to compete, and well brings in new game styles. And you said it perfectly. Boxer is FUN to watch because you never know what he's going to do. This would be so much fun to watch ppl play and to play itself.

About balance, I'm sure you could (or blizzard since they are stating to make SC2 'the' e-sport) code into the game certain critiera to balance the game play between the 3 races. IE: Must have 9 mineral patches, with x distance to the cc/nexus/hatch and as well as must have a natural between a and b distances away from base etc....

I mean, I'm no pro at what makes a map balanced, but after watching countless VODS and playing ICCUP for a while now, I think the only issues i've seen so far are;
Minerals with distance from cc (I play terran )
Natural expansion and # of minerals once again
Size of ramp / # of ramps
Ledges + camping (seige tanks / cannons etc..)
Island expansions with that 1 mineral blocking the cc from floating over.

Any others?

The whole point , is that if Blizzard wants to make this the e-sport game (which they've mentioned over and over) I strongly urge them to implement this into the game.
Not many games have this idea and I've thought about this as well for FPS games, which would incredible... so if blizzard wants to have a competetive advantage DO THIS.