New maps for Season 3 map pool

[Ghetto-blasteR]

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.

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.

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?

[Todie]

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.

[Gradius]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheEconomist]

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.

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.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

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".

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)

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.

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.

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?

[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? 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.

[TheEconomist]

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.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

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.

This is just wrong.

prove that this is always true.

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.

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.

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).

[Gradius]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.