Adaptability, Creativity, and Randomnized Map Generator

[Norfindel]

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.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

[Hammy]

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.

[dreadmourn]

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.

[Xyvik]

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.

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.

[MattII]

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%).

[n00bonicPlague]

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.

[GRUNT]

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.

[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.

[n00bonicPlague]

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.