New maps for Season 3 map pool

[Gradius]

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 burden of proof is on everyone to show that it's impossible? This is the kind of reasoning I'd use if I were trying to start a religion.

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.

So how do you know this hypothetical perfectly balanced asymmetrical map can exist?

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?

Economic accessibility was not an advantage in this example. It only became one because of the imbalanced map. A fast expand in a pvp would normally get rolled.

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.

But it has other flaws, like the distance from the main to the nat. Again, you operate on the assumption that these flaws can somehow "cancel out". They can't, and you don't seem to be able to provide any examples that they can. Two wrongs don't make a right.

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.

So what is the difference in gameplay? Is there a level at which the difference would create imbalance? And would you be able to detect the extremely small effects of this imbalance at any level? I doubt that. If chess is so balanced at the top levels, then white moving first appears to have as much of an effect on balance in chess as a doodad in a SC map does in SC.

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.

lol, it's not a personal attack to say that you're not at a level where you count your opponents' workers when you scout, though it is an assumption. I think if you were, you'd have a much bigger issue with positional imbalances on maps. I'm not at that level either.

[RODTHEGOD]

The burden of proof is on everyone to show that it's impossible? This is the kind of reasoning I'd use if I were trying to start a religion.


So how do you know this hypothetical perfectly balanced asymmetrical map can exist?


Economic accessibility was not an advantage in this example. It only became one because of the imbalanced map. A fast expand in a pvp would normally get rolled.


But it has other flaws, like the distance from the main to the nat. Again, you operate on the assumption that these flaws can somehow "cancel out". They can't, and you don't seem to be able to provide any examples that they can. Two wrongs don't make a right.


So what is the difference in gameplay? Is there a level at which the difference would create imbalance? And would you be able to detect the extremely small effects of this imbalance at any level? I doubt that. If chess is so balanced at the top levels, then white moving first appears to have as much of an effect on balance in chess as a doodad in a SC map does in SC.


lol, it's not a personal attack to say that you're not at a level where you count your opponents' workers when you scout, though it is an assumption. I think if you were, you'd have a much bigger issue with positional imbalances on maps. I'm not at that level either.

The starcraft races probably were not 100% balanced but they were close enough. Blizzard can make maps the are close enough in terms of balance.

The truth is we can argue back and forth all day about how asymmetrical maps can or cannot be balanced but the thing is blizzard hasn't even tried yet. I mean what do they have to loose? A little bit of time? The very least they could do is try and see what happens. Are you really objecting to them even trying?

[MulletBen]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. From my standpoint, the claim here seems to be that asymmetrical maps are always, without exception, fundamentally imbalanced. In terms of mathematics, there are things called "proofs," which work by using preexisting axioms to show that a statement is true. outside of a proof, the only way to be certain that something is the case is to count all possible permutations to infinity.

More generally, you seem to be taking the position that, like you have said, "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." I'm not saying that this statement isn't true, but I don't think it is obvious enough to be accepted as an axiom without any backing.

EDIT:

The burden of proof is on everyone to show that it's impossible? This is the kind of reasoning I'd use if I were trying to start a religion.

The difference here is that most religions make claims that are inherently unfalsifiable.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

The burden of proof is on everyone to show that it's impossible? This is the kind of reasoning I'd use if I were trying to start a religion.

well we can agree to disagree on this point. i have a really interesting (mathematical) example that's more in context and i'm sure if you saw it you'd understand what i meant but i don't want to stray off topic too much, although feel free to pm me if you're curious.

So how do you know this hypothetical perfectly balanced asymmetrical map can exist?

i don't. but obviously it seems a lot more plausible to me than to you. but let's imagine two equal teams are having a tug of war. if you suddenly gift one side with double the men, then they win. undo that, and suddenly gift the other side with replacement men that have double the strength, then they win. alone, both the advantages of greater number and greater strength increase your chance of winning. if the variables function continuously then it stands to reason that if you were to have some middle ground combination of the two, different advantages would end up balancing each other out. there's no reason to think that having even more variables could not still reach some kind of equilibrium within the system; it might be trickier, but no reason to say it's impossible.

So what is the difference in gameplay? Is there a level at which the difference would create imbalance? And would you be able to detect the extremely small effects of this imbalance at any level? I doubt that. If chess is so balanced at the top levels, then white moving first appears to have as much of an effect on balance in chess as a doodad in a SC map does in SC.

the difference in gameplay is that you play differently according to the map. you modify your build orders to suit the situation. gameplay =/= win rate, i.e. you don't need difference in win rate in order to have difference in gameplay. in chess, white moving first makes a world of a difference in how he plays without necessarily breaking the game in favor of him or black, and that would be the beauty of an asymmetrical map.

I think if you were, you'd have a much bigger issue with positional imbalances on maps. I'm not at that level either.

okay, let me clarify my position: maps that strive to be symmetrical should be made so with very rigorous standards. but i'm sure everyone would agree on that point so there wasn't a need for me to say it earlier. but that's not to say that blizzard / the community / whoever shouldn't explore asymmetrical maps. who knows.

[Todie]

tthe thing is, even if balanced assymetric maps would be possible, it seems abundantly clear that it would be significantly harder to create such maps than to create symetric balance.

[Genopath]

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

No, 3rax and 7p is fun Beat it, tosskid.

On another note, none of those maps are symmetrical. They are asymmetrical. Shame on you, balance team! :P

[TheEconomist]

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

The thing is, is that sometimes a person is so hard-headed you have to cut through the bullshit so that they can understand you. If you tip-toe around them then you're only wasting both of your time.

I know Gradius. He's no asshole. He's not trying to hurt your feelings. He's simply stating an observation. If what he says is the truth, then what good does it do going around it when it could save so much time simply being up front about it and any other method is simply a waste of time since the point will deflect off you anyways.

But, again, FFS people, if asymmetrical maps were at all feasible then they would have been done when SCBW was in its infancy. Everyone seems to ignore that point. While pretty much everyone else is arguing about theory and fantasies, I've given concrete, real-world examples that come from my personal experience and those of dozens of thousands of others.

That is faaaaaaaaaaaaar beyond anything you guys have done. Therefore, if you believe the "burden of proof" is on us all, then it's your turn to respond . . . without bullshit theories, please.

I now redirect you to a /thread post that was sadly looked over.

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showpost....8&postcount=34

Ignore it again and I'll only assume you have no argument.

[Gradius]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. From my standpoint, the claim here seems to be that asymmetrical maps are always, without exception, fundamentally imbalanced.

Obviously that is not my claim in this thread since that cannot be proven. If there is an asymmetrical map that is balanced, that's because the asymmetry doesn't affect gameplay enough. It's akin to placing a doodad in a weird spot or having a cliff edge be off-position. Giant asymmetrical plateaus and chokes like in Rod's maps are definitely exploitable. I don't believe in perfect balance, but that's my opinion and not central to my argument.

You guys seem to be really confused about burden of proof...It is not only on the person making the claim, as both sides are making a claim, ghetto's being that "there is an asymmetrical map that can exist that is perfectly balanced". Burden of proof is not static, it falls to the side with the least evidence for their claims. The defense in a trial doesn't have to do anything if the prosecutor provides no evidence that the defendant is guilty, since the status quo is the defendant being innocent. But usually they give you something. And then the burden of proof shifts. In this thread, I've got the fact that there are no balanced asymmetrical maps, and that most balanced maps are pretty symmetrical. So the burden of proof has shifted. If you provide nothing, then you lose the debate. Though the burden of proof shouldn't have been on me from the start. Asymmetrical map mavens are opposing the status quo. They are suggesting a new or remarkable idea, so the burden of proof is on them anyway.

Ghetto's argument is analogous to the following:

Hidden Content:

Gravity is not always an attractive force, because you can't prove that it is an attractive force all of the time.

My mom was abducted by aliens, because you can't prove that she wasn't.

I've discovered a new particle with no mass, energy, and that can't interact with anything.

Somebody should make this post on teamliquid:

"Blizzard should add more wonky asymmetrical maps to the 1v1 pool. I know these maps can be balanced because there is no proof that they can't."

Needless to say, it would get eviscerated. I bet the OP would get banned too.

The difference here is that most religions make claims that are inherently unfalsifiable.

At this rate you guys have a better chance of building a god detector than finding a perfectly balanced asymmetrical map.

[dusthoof]

they need more maps like Xel'naga cravens. Balanced 2 spawn maps. I hate the fact there's so many 4 spawns on ladder

[Ghetto-blasteR]

If there is an asymmetrical map that is balanced, that's because the asymmetry doesn't affect gameplay enough. It's akin to placing a doodad in a weird spot or having a cliff edge be off-position.

this is not what i mean by an asymm map. from this point onward let's clarify the definition to mean a map that plays fundamentally differently from one that was otherwise symm.

You guys seem to be really confused about burden of proof ... But usually they give you something. And then the burden of proof shifts.

to be honest, i think you are the confused one. because your statement about balanced asymm maps being impossible in all cases is a great deal more extreme than mine, then in your own analogy, you're the prosecutor with the burden of proof. and i have given you theoretical reasons to support why such a map may exist (they don't seem to be getting through) but unfortunately i can't give you empirical examples as i'm not a map maker and i don't know if anyone's really tried, again, which is specifically because i don't think anyone who cares about both 1) balance and 2) asymm has been daring enough to break free from the assumption. and by the way, addressing a statement you made earlier, i don't advocate asymmetry per se, i just don't see why people don't try it out and see what happens.

In this thread, I've got the fact that there are no balanced asymmetrical maps, and that most balanced maps are pretty symmetrical.

yes we all get it. but i've addressed this time and time again. nobody's really tried asymm map and the few attempts there were didn't go all out about it so they ended up very feeble. that is why there are no balanced asymm maps (and logically ALL - not just "most" - balanced maps are symm). but that only speaks to what exists currently, not what could potentially exist.

Ghetto's argument is analogous to the following:
...

no, it doesn't. you're deliberately comparing my theory to other ridiculous things. tell you what, instead of going for the straw man right back at you, why don't i summarize what i believe is your current point and you can comment whether it's fair and amend it accordingly:

1) there exist no balanced asymm maps (therefore i can't provide an example of one)
2) the relatively few asymm maps that do exist are not balanced
3) any difference can always be exploited
4) different differences are fundamentally better than one another (tech > economy) ... which, btw, was not how i interpreted that article you linked. what i took out of it "hit then where they're weakest" is that if they go econ, then their tech is weakest so you tech in response: it's your best response, but it doesn't mean it's strictly better. in fact all three races are essentially like rock paper scissors in terms of their strengths/weaknesses
5) things are complex enough as it is without the map being an additional variable; perhaps even different races can never be balanced

mine is more like:

1) there may exist balanced asymm maps if people figured out how to make them
2) relatively few imbalances on an otherwise balanced map may have a much larger effect (e.g. scrap station) rather than larger, obvious imbalances (that have been tested and tweaked)
3) but in A vs B, if A has difference X to exploit and B has difference Y to exploit, then without filling in the unknowns you're no closer to predicting who's the winner
4) no advantage is fundamentally better than any other advantage if you can tweak the relative amounts. just like a 10 lb weight may be heavier than a single 5 lb weight, but it's not heavier than 1000 5 lb weights.
5) a more complex endeavor is not necessarily impossible. just because creating an asymm map seems "too hard" it doesn't prove that it can't be done. and whether different races can every truly be balanced is a matter of philosophy i suppose.

"Blizzard should add more wonky asymmetrical maps to the 1v1 pool. I know these maps can be balanced because there is no proof that they can't."

Needless to say, it would get eviscerated. I bet the OP would get banned too.

well needless to say, nobody would ever write it that way. i thought you were known for cutting through bullshit? stuff like ^ isn't a fair way to have a debate.

At this rate you guys have a better chance of building a god detector than finding a perfectly balanced asymmetrical map.

again ignoring the concept of falsifiability. if balanced asymm maps are fundamentally impossible, then prove it. i'm sure it's not impossible, but clearly you and everyone else contributing to this thread so far have not figured out how.