New maps for Season 3 map pool

[RODTHEGOD]

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.

Well the fact is that there are no asymmetrical maps in starcraft 2, period. Point to one. Please. And I'll eat my own words.

"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.

But there is no evidence that asymmetrical maps can't be balanced. There are no asymmetrical maps. If you had statistics that illistrated that asymmetrical maps take 700% more time to balance then symmetrical maps, then I wouldn't be asking that blizzard atleast try asymmetrical maps, because they already did.

They should atleast try. I mean come on is that really so hard? All they have to do is make a map, place some locations, then look at the statistics of that map to see if it's balanced and where they could improve. They already have all these capabilities on Battle.net.

Why do you object to them even trying to make an asymmetrical map?

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

Whats my name?

[Ghetto-blasteR]

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.

well aside from the fact that you need a large sample of testers to have more conclusive evidence (which maybe you had, maybe not), this point would be more effective if you could shed some light on the specific and common problems the mappers had. like other than "people abused the imbalances"

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.

maybe, but even if i failed a million times to make such a map it still doesn't prove that it can't be done. nobody here is claiming to be a super game developer; in fact as someone who is likely less experienced than your self-proclaimed experienced self, i ask you to enlighten me as to why asymm maps won't work with actual reasons other than "because i have lots of experience and i have never seen it happen"

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.

i'll agree that it's hard, but not impossible. whether it's worth it or not is 1) debatable and 2) beside the point

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.

wait a minute, so the idea hasn't been put to the test? isn't that why i'm saying people should try this? isn't that how the ideas go from in someone's head / on paper to reality? if many people in the past have tried this, as you say, you should elaborate on that. but if it's true that you apparently just know more than me and therefore draw a different conclusion, that's not enough to say i'm biased. i'm just concluding stuff based on what i know.

I mean, seriously, did you even play SCBW?

yes i did. but maps like LT and BGH were more or less trying to be symmetrical, and by that i mean they had at least one axis or point of symmetry. in the end, they effectively weren't because of stupid things like ramps only facing toward the camera, or just general map maker laziness or lack of insight that didn't make the map truly symmetrical. thus gameplay imbalances arose. but i still think that small differences in an otherwise symmetrical map will make a lot more difference than a map that wasn't chained down by that restriction.

[TheEconomist]

maybe, but even if i failed a million times to make such a map it still doesn't prove that it can't be done

We're not talking about you. We're talking about thousands and thousands of people trying numerous times. So, yes, it does mean that, reasonably, it can't be done. Maybe if God came forth from the Heavens and bestowed upon us a map, it could be perfectly balanced, but, then, I doubt even then that there'd be any meaningful differences. Sure, you can create a map with different terrain on each side, but only so much. And, it wouldn't be anywhere near what you think and it DAMN sure wouldn't be worth the exchange of more maps. We're basically talking a few different doodads or terrain squares. Nothing major.

You're not a map maker. You're not balance tester. You've never tried your idea. It's just a fantasy in your head that has never been put to the test. Therefore, the "argument from ignorance" statement is highly valid. If you had experience, you would know. It takes a map maker to accurate analyze this, not some average Blizzard fan.

Gradius' comparison to religion is also valid. The basis of religion is to have faith where a belief contradicts what is "known" or cannot be tested. Basically, you have faith that these things can be done and, luckily for you, there's no way to prove you wrong. It doesn't matter if I dedicate the rest of my life to making such a map, you can always just spout "Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean its impossible."

But, logically, as a map maker, I KNOW that it cannot be done, to the extent that you imply. There's just too many complications that come from the human element as well as inherent game play imbalances for this to be possible, even if we had a perfect formula to plug numbers in to. And, you know what, people would riot because their so called "balanced disadvantage" is harder for them to employ than the others. I know you're purposefully not taking these considerations into account because its not the debate, but that just makes you stance even more of a fairy-tale.

Because, you see, the difference between you and I is that I have experience. Years of experience. I doubt you have any. Therefore, it makes it hard to argue with you because you don't even know the factors to weigh the possibility. Its like telling a child that he shouldn't touch a hot stove. He won't understand until he tries, and then he'll know why people say not to do it. When you spend some time thinking about the various imbalances of your map, you begin to understand exactly how much is out of your control. The only way to counter this is to balance the playing field for everyone. Staring at a textbox while you fantasize about the impossible for the sake of argument is nothing compared to this.

[Gradius]

because your statement about balanced asymm maps being impossible in all cases is a great deal more extreme than mine

Is it extreme to say that Santa doesn't exist just because we've yet to find any evidence for him? Again, I admit that I can't prove that a perfectly balanced asymmetrical map can exist. If your only argument is that I can't prove that an asymmetrical map can't exist, then we should just agree on that & be done with this. But the mountains of evidence I've showered at you point to the fact that it's highly unlikely. You are ignoring this evidence and seem to think there is some undiscovered terrain construct that would both affect gameplay but not the balance. Your chess example is flawed because SC is not chess, and there is still no proof that some tiny but hard-to-notice imbalance doesn't exist from white moving first.

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.

No, you're switching the burden of proof for no apparent reason. My example is not more extreme as I have already made it clear that I can't know every possible permutation of a map out there, but even if my position was more extreme, I have provided empirical evidence, so the burden of proof is back on you. Empirical evidence always beats idle theorycrafting. You are postulating the existence of something that is remarkable and for which no evidence exists, and which opposes the established status quo. The burden of proof is on you. Valid "theoretical reasons" for your position would be an idea for a terrain construct that would meaningfully affect gameplay yet somehow not lead to imbalance. You have not provided this. You merely keep repeating that it's not impossible for an asymmetrical perfectly balanced map to exist. You're the particle physicist who discovered the particle that nothing can interact with.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but you really should read this article: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/...n-of-proof.htm

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.

It was tried in Brood War as Tychus said. It has long become obvious to people who were in the scene that balancing such maps was a futile act. Given the state of StarCraft 2 where all-ins can be so powerful, you seem to think you can do better? How?

no, it doesn't. you're deliberately comparing my theory to other ridiculous things.

Well you're making it quite easy for me. You've been saying "prove that it's not possible" all thread long as if that's supposed to be a valid debate tactic.

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

I suppose that sums up my position well enough. But I also believe that any meaningful terrain construct that affects the gameplay will also affect the balance if one side has it but the other side doesn't.

mine is more like:

1) there may exist balanced asymm maps if people figured out how to make them

So you think the burden of proof is not on you just because you used the non-committal word "may"? God may exist. But until someone can provide solid evidence, I'm not going to care. When I said that every possible asymmetrical map could not be positionally balanced, it was a general statement. Just like how I think Santa or God are not possible since we haven't seen any evidence. Santa is not logically precluded from existing, but pointing out this fact is extremely pedantic. If semantics is the only argument you can make, then this debate isn't really worthwhile. You've basically backpedaled to this argument since you don't seem to be able to prove that there can be balanced asymmetrical maps.

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

The winner is the person who took advantage of the more important imbalance, such as the notch for cannon rushing on scrap station as opposed to whatever imbalances the other base had.

(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:

I linked that article to explain the pillars of StarCraft so that you could better understand my example. Why am I not surprised that your response to it was that "you can't prove that tech > economy".

I was giving you a specific PvP game where a player could normally punish another player for fast expanding, but not in that instance because a player spawned in a favorable position for no reason, as per your example of an asymmetrical map. Apparently your example of a hideously flawed hypothetical asymmetric map was supposed to count as "theoretical evidence" of your position.

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.

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.

Those were jokes. Figured I'd approach this from a humorous angle since a logical one wasn't getting us anywhere.

Again, if your only argument is that I can't prove that an asymmetrical perfectly balanced map can't exist, then we should just agree on that & be done. I'd be content with the knowledge that your position had zero real evidence and was as likely as mythical creatures existing.

They should atleast try. I mean come on is that really so hard? All they have to do is make a map, place some locations, then look at the statistics of that map to see if it's balanced and where they could improve. They already have all these capabilities on Battle.net.

Why do you object to them even trying to make an asymmetrical map?

I don't object at all. I think it would be a waste of time for Blizzard to work on it, as I consider battle.net upgrades more important than imbalanced asymmetrical maps, but there's no reason the community can't experiment if they want to.

Here's a nice discussion on asymmetrical maps though: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=179151 (I was right, the guy got temp-banned for even posting a topic like this, hahaha)

[TheEconomist]

Let us pray,

I'd be content with the knowledge that your position had zero real evidence and was as likely as mythical creatures existing.

Amen.

i'm sure it's not impossible, but clearly you and everyone else contributing to this thread so far have not figured out how.

Do you have ANY idea how much you just sounded like a religious zealot right there?

-- I just read the website you linked, Gradius. Ghetto's broken every single rule on there. Doesn't that basically mean he should be disqualified from the debate, assuming we don't want to make a mockery of the whole process.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

okay, with all due respect, when it comes to logic, neither of you seem to be approaching this with any careful application of it.

one recurring point you both keep ignoring is that i have provided some theoretical basis for why a balanced asymm map might exist, so please stop insisting that i have provided no evidence, OR directly debunk my evidence. again, i don't have any empirical examples because i'm not a map maker myeslf and i'm clearly not as invested as either of you in knowing what else is out there (which alone, unfortunately for you, doesn't really disqualify the points i've brought up which you have still failed to address).

If your only argument is that I can't prove that an asymmetrical map can't exist, then we should just agree on that & be done with this.

actually, that's not even my PRIMARY argument. but i'm still down for agreeing on this point. i'm also down for agreeing to disagree about the original topic because it is very theoretical and at this point it seems like we've mostly exhausted everything we have to say, and at this point we're just picking at one another's methods rather than the actual topic.

But the mountains of evidence I've showered at you point to the fact that it's highly unlikely. You are ignoring this evidence and seem to think there is some undiscovered terrain construct that would both affect gameplay but not the balance.

actually, if you go back i'm sure you'll find that i'm not ignoring your evidence. i think i've been pretty fair in addressing it, but the point is that evidence alone doesn't really prove non-existence (keep reading i'll get to that in a sec)

Your chess example is flawed because SC is not chess, and there is still no proof that some tiny but hard-to-notice imbalance doesn't exist from white moving first.

it's not my chess example. you brought it up first. and it's true, we can't mathematically prove balance in chess unless one day we "solve" the game (logically, the game must either be a won game for white, or for black, or it's a tie like tic-tac-toe), but functionally, even at the highest levels, it plays like a balanced game, despite both players playing fundamentally different sides. SC doesn't have to = chess for this principle to apply. the principle being that it can be possible for two fundamentally different sides to have fair chances of winning. if chess is solved and shown to be a tie game, then that makes chess an example of this. or regardless of that, tic-tac-toe is already a solved example of a tie game despite different sides. granted, it's a mundane example but there's no reason why the principle couldn't be applied to more interesting pursuits such as SC.

You merely keep repeating that it's not impossible for an asymmetrical perfectly balanced map to exist. You're the particle physicist who discovered the particle that nothing can interact with.

-sigh- once again, no. i'm not saying that "yes, indeed it's true that something exists, and we should all believe it until you prove it wrong". but what i am saying is that "who knows, it might exist. maybe those who are curious should try to discover it." i have never claimed to discover the particle that nothing can interact with. that's a stupid example anyway.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but you really should read this article: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/...n-of-proof.htm

i'm not trying to be condescending either, but i think YOU should read that. particularly everything about the unprovability of non-existence. look for "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence...", "So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims...". but thank you for finding this URL; you've saved me the trouble. and before you go on to cite stuff like "Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?" to go for the straw man, once again please note that i haven't blindly asserted that a balanced asymm map necessarily exists.

It was tried in Brood War as Tychus said. It has long become obvious to people who were in the scene that balancing such maps was a futile act.

right, and i was actually trying to help you guys strengthen this point by asking you guys to clarify the specifics about this, to enlighten non-elitist players like myself, right? i'm not just blindly going to take your word for it. elaborate.

I suppose that sums up my position well enough. But I also believe that any meaningful terrain construct that affects the gameplay will also affect the balance if one side has it but the other side doesn't.

then i'm glad i understand you. and i agree with the point right here ^.

The winner is the person who took advantage of the more important imbalance, such as the notch for cannon rushing on scrap station as opposed to whatever imbalances the other base had.

but once again, expanding on that point, if two people have DIFFERENT advantages, how do you know the different advantages also necessarily carry DIFFERENT weights? you don't. but there are theoretical reasons why it might be possible for one to easily tweak those advantages to carry the same weight.

So you think the burden of proof is not on you just because you used the non-committal word "may"? God may exist. But until someone can provide solid evidence, I'm not going to care.

i don't claim to be able to prove anything. if you don't care, then that's fine; i never asked you to. it's a forum for everybody. and in my opinion, you're making it into one that doesn't seem to encourage any kind of lateral outside-the-box thinking whatsoever.

I linked that article to explain the pillars of StarCraft so that you could better understand my example.

i don't see how that article as a whole supports your example. you gave me a specific PvP game where a player punishes another for fast expanding, but in an asymm map let's say that can't happen. so that means the game is broken right? because on this one map one P can't punish another P for doing X by responding with Y? and if you can't do that one specific thing then it's not worth exploring other avenues and the game is broken? if you're playing bball 1v1 and you normally like to drive the ball in, but suddenly you're facing a big slow guy you can't drive around, you would mod your strategy to go for more long shots. the game isn't broken. you might be interested in a course in game theory.

Those were jokes. Figured I'd approach this from a humorous angle since a logical one wasn't getting us anywhere.

ironic.

Here's a nice discussion on asymmetrical maps though: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=179151

not sure where you're trying to go with this. seems to me the debate over there is largely inconclusive as well.

You're not a map maker. You're not balance tester. You've never tried your idea. It's just a fantasy in your head that has never been put to the test. Therefore, the "argument from ignorance" statement is highly valid. If you had experience, you would know. It takes a map maker to accurate analyze this, not some average Blizzard fan.

sure, having a little experience might win you a little extra authority, but it's for nothing unless you can give concrete explanations to the rest of us "average" forum goers why you hold the views that you do. again, i was actually trying to help your argument by asking you to expand on this point which you still haven't done yet. i don't buy the argument "people have tried it before and failed". tell me WHY they failed.

Basically, you have faith that these things can be done and, luckily for you, there's no way to prove you wrong.

no, i don't believe there is no way to prove this wrong. but you clearly haven't found it.

There's just too many complications that come from the human element as well as inherent game play imbalances for this to be possible, even if we had a perfect formula to plug numbers in to.

this sounds like more like a religious mantra than anything else i've seen on this thread. why should we be force-fed this conclusion? doesn't the same apply to just races (not even maps)?

@gradius: actually, since you have such a pessimistic view on the balance between races, then that means you believe one race to be better than another. care to comment on this? also, doesn't this mean that if in a 1v1 game both player pick random and one draws the better race than the other, then that entire thing is broken too, just like on an asymm map?

Because, you see, the difference between you and I is that I have experience. Years of experience. I doubt you have any.

i'm really, really happy for you.

I just read the website you linked, Gradius. Ghetto's broken every single rule on there. Doesn't that basically mean he should be disqualified from the debate, assuming we don't want to make a mockery of the whole process.

lol? but i haven't broken a single one?

you can use your admin powers to DQ me from the debate if you like. but i don't see anything i did wrong whatsoever? =/ so that would be the real mockery of this whole process.

@gradius: i've found most of your links pretty useful throughout this whole thing though so i am appreciative of that.

[Gradius]

the principle being that it can be possible for two fundamentally different sides to have fair chances of winning.

Like different races, yes. But you realize that the rock-paper-scissors relationship of build orders is a problem with the game? It's sad to see coin-flip builds appearing in SC2, but you suggest adding another coin flip: where the player spawns.

granted, it's a mundane example but there's no reason why the principle couldn't be applied to more interesting pursuits such as SC.

How about random factors such as human input and spawn location? Even if I mentioned chess first, I'd rather appreciate it if we stopped comparing chess to SC, as it has no timings and the other aforementioned things.

-sigh- once again, no. i'm not saying that "yes, indeed it's true that something exists, and we should all believe it until you prove it wrong". but what i am saying is that "who knows, it might exist. maybe those who are curious should try to discover it."

It might exist? You're basically saying nothing here. You can't just backpedal your position to something extremely defensible. That's not how debates work. I am arguing that the points of your summary are highly unlikely and/or irrelevant:

Hidden Content:

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.

i'm not trying to be condescending either, but i think YOU should read that. particularly everything about the unprovability of non-existence. look for "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence...", "So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims...".

I hate quoting myself:

Again, I admit that I can't prove that a perfectly balanced asymmetrical map can exist.

When I said that every possible asymmetrical map could not be positionally balanced, it was a general statement. Just like how I think Santa or God are not possible since we haven't seen any evidence. Santa is not logically precluded from existing, but pointing out this fact is extremely pedantic. If semantics is the only argument you can make, then this debate isn't really worthwhile. You've basically backpedaled to this argument since you don't seem to be able to prove that there can be balanced asymmetrical maps.

I'd appreciate it if you would actually read what I write and not just knee-jerk throw back whatever I say at me. That'd be great. Wonder how long it will take before we establish that the burden of proof lies with the position of least evidence.

right, and i was actually trying to help you guys strengthen this point by asking you guys to clarify the specifics about this, to enlighten non-elitist players like myself, right? i'm not just blindly going to take your word for it. elaborate.

one recurring point you both keep ignoring is that i have provided some theoretical basis for why a balanced asymm map might exist, so please stop insisting that i have provided no evidence, OR directly debunk my evidence.

The chess example wasn't relevant and your example where one player had more resources and the other had more chokes was refuted by my pvp example. What other evidence did you have? Because again, the only valid evidence you could present is a terrain construct that affects gameplay but not balance. You have not provided this and I'll be sure to keep repeating the fact.

But in case you seek evidence that the asymmetrical maps in SC were failures, here are some TL posts:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...ost_id=4348713

Yes, Fantasy and Fantasy II we're tried a few seasons ago. Map sucked imo, most MU's being a complete tossup.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...c_id=179151#10

No, assymetrical maps suck. They ruin balance for little benifit. In SC1, there were 3 assymetrical maps I can remember. Baekmagoji, which was minor differences in each side so there was a horse image in the middle. Un'goro crater, which had most of the map mirrored and had a varied center, and Fantasy, which was a combination of 4 different maps.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...c_id=106614#10

Terran got slaughtered on that map [fantasy] according to the stats, so I don't think that's correct.

This guy has been working on asymmetrical maps in SC2, but has largely failed:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...ost_id=8452674

Testbug is an interesting map because it has rotational symmetry if not reflectional symmetry, but the game is still new. And as is the case with most of the debates I get into, I'm the only one providing evidence for anything.

but there are theoretical reasons why it might be possible for one to easily tweak those advantages to carry the same weight.

But in a game like SC even if you did tweak the advantages to carry the same weight, they won't always be the same at every point in time. They won't also be the same at identical times in different games, due to the human factor & random spawns. Randomness leads to imbalance. Imbalance leads to the dark side.

i don't claim to be able to prove anything. if you don't care, then that's fine; i never asked you to. it's a forum for everybody. and in my opinion, you're making it into one that doesn't seem to encourage any kind of lateral outside-the-box thinking whatsoever.

Outside the box thinking isn't very impressive when it doesn't yield anything useful.

you gave me a specific PvP game where a player punishes another for fast expanding, but in an asymm map let's say that can't happen. so that means the game is broken right? because on this one map one P can't punish another P for doing X by responding with Y? and if you can't do that one specific thing then it's not worth exploring other avenues and the game is broken?

I never said broken, I said one player has an advantage. You don't seem to understand the difference between coin-flip gameplay and strategic decision making.

If two players spawn in close air positions they have to worry about air units. If two players spawn in cross positions, they can choose to macro up or exploit the fact that their opponent will try to do something similar. Is this imbalanced? No, because both players have the same problem.

If a player can't scout a terran because he walled in too early, is this imbalanced? No, because he could have done the same thing and he can rule out what strategies the player could be doing by walling in so early (if we ignore racial differences, like in tvz). These last 2 examples were of strategical thinking.

If a player can't push on a position because he spawned in the wrong spot, and has to go for different strategies to compensate for this, is this imbalanced? Yes. Because the other player can push on him, especially if it's a mirror matchup. It is not remotely about whether the other player can compensate for this with out-of-the-box thinking. It's about the fact that he is at a disadvantage because of a coin-flip that could have been controlled in the first place.

if you're playing bball 1v1 and you normally like to drive the ball in, but suddenly you're facing a big slow guy you can't drive around, you would mod your strategy to go for more long shots. the game isn't broken. you might be interested in a course in game theory.

Please, no more non-starcraft strawman examples. There are disadvantages everywhere, but the goal of any sport is to achieve fair balanced play whenever possible, like it IS possible to do with SC maps, not the members of a basketball team. If you pit the Lakers vs. an 8th grade basketball team, would you tell the 8th graders to explore new avenues of play? No you wouldn't do that in the first place because you're trying to control for balance by keeping people in their own skill leagues.

@gradius: actually, since you have such a pessimistic view on the balance between races, then that means you believe one race to be better than another. care to comment on this? also, doesn't this mean that if in a 1v1 game both player pick random and one draws the better race than the other, then that entire thing is broken too, just like on an asymm map?

Yes, the races are in fact different and these differences can be exploited at different points in time. Unfair situations abound in SC2. A solid terran all-in can reach a toss on xel'naga with 5 marines and his SCVs before the first gateway is even up. A DT rush vs. Zerg before they have lair up gives the toss free reign on their base. If players pick random then the opponent has to scout on 9 supply instead of 12. I never said any of these things couldn't be accounted for though. I only said that imbalances on maps shouldn't have to be accounted for by one player but not the other. Maps are for fostering balance, not butchering it.

[TheEconomist]

it's for nothing unless you can give concrete explanations to the rest of us "average" forum goers why you hold the views that you do.

DAMNIT! Got me again. Another one of you damn posters that ignore points simply because you can't counter them. Sadly, since I'm not next to you, I can't force your face to look at the parts of my post that do exactly this. I can't even quote it because you'll just ignore them some more. I've wasted too much of my life running in circles around people who act as if they missed my points. I know now that they didn't miss them, they just won't accept them.

Your kind is the most annoying and impossible to argue with. As long as there is logic in the debate, I can work with it. When you start getting into emotions, as you are, the whole thing crumbles.

no, i don't believe there is no way to prove this wrong. but you clearly haven't found it.

It is impossible to prove you wrong. The only way to do so would be to be a perfect map making genius and then spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to make a map. If I fail, then you are proven wrong. However, since I am neither perfect nor willing to spend a large amount of time on this, there's no way to prove you wrong. Even if I came up with some perfect map equation, you'd still deny it and assume there's something I didn't take into consideration.

this sounds like more like a religious mantra than anything else i've seen on this thread.

Your thinking process astounds me. I'm guessing you just got emotional here and wanted to throw a "religious zealot"-esque insult at me but couldn't find a logical reason to so you resorted to this childish outburst. It's a shame you can't see how devoid of substance your comment here is.

i'm really, really happy for you.

'K

Could you also acknowledge that I am more qualified to judge than you and that, maybe, the fact I disagree with you so adamantly, is because, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about? Gradius is also a map maker and he was one far more recently than I was. I made maps mostly some time before 2001, Gradius had a top popularity map out during the beta. So, basically, people who are qualified to debate on this topic disagree with you. While people who aren't qualified agree with you.

Doesn't look good for your argument, does it?

lol? but i haven't broken a single one?

Either you didn't read the rules, you won't admit your failure to yourself, or you simply can't understand them. Either, *facepalm*

What you have been doing is, verbatim, the epitome of a "Proof of a Negative Claim"

As quoted from the site,

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question.

Also,

You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

These are rules given to a debate team from some university or other education institutional. If you employ these, you are disqualified. These are pretty standard as I have herd the same thing and I've never even been on a debate team. That's why I said, technically, you should be disqualified because your pseudo-argument is a mockery of the whole process.

I wasn't actually saying Gradius should use any of his moderating capabilities.

if you're playing bball 1v1 and you normally like to drive the ball in, but suddenly you're facing a big slow guy you can't drive around, you would mod your strategy to go for more long shots. the game isn't broken. you might be interested in a course in game theory.

I can't help but notice all of your examples have been, as Gradius said, "non-starcraft strawman" examples. Come up with a valid example of a "balanced disadvantage" and then we'll continue this form there. Until then, I'm done with this because the only thing keeping this going is your own illogical meandering. There's nothing I can do to make an illogical person suddenly be logical so I won't even bother with any more arguments.

[RODTHEGOD]

ok this is getting rediculous. I keep reading nonsense. It's all theoretical. All of it. None of it is based on maps that were made to BE asymmetrical. Gradius has given a few examples of how certian starcraft 1 asymmetrical maps were percieved to be unbalanced by players. Yes that's true but from the links he has provided there were also comments that those same maps happened to create some of the most memorable matches out there.

Blizzard should be aiming for memorable matches, not perfect balance.

Even if all asymmetrical maps were unbalanced, that it would be unfair to 2 roughly equal players, then why not embrace that? why not have maps where one player is at a deliberate disadvantage? And the match ups would have someone from a higher level take the bad position. I think that would be interesting. a better player with minimal resources against a normal player with a whole bunch. Would that not be a way of training players in different aspects? And even just havie some fun?

Hell you could take it another step further, where you have a really good player in a bad position against several bad players.



The point is that asymmetrical maps were not even tried out, and some people(myself included) are bored of all the symmetry, blizzard should include asymmetrical maps and alteast try to make it balanced. The only thing they would be wasting is time (and it's not even any of our time, hell we don't even have to play the dam maps) but if the maps make some fun games I don't think it's time wasted.

So I ask again, Why do you object to them even trying to make asymmetrical maps?

I really don't think it's that unreasonable to let them try.

[TheEconomist]

Blizzard should be aiming for memorable matches, not perfect balance.

What league are you?

Clearly, you don't play StarCraft for the competition, therefore, ladder isn't for you, therefore, custom games is your best bet and, there, you can find all the imbalanced asymmetrical fun you want. Why even start this debate to begin with?

why not have maps where one player is at a deliberate disadvantage? And the match ups would have someone from a higher level take the bad position. I think that would be interesting. a better player with minimal resources against a normal player with a whole bunch. Would that not be a way of training players in different aspects? And even just havie some fun?

That's what custom maps are for.

Ladder is for . . . laddering. i.e. serious competition.

99.999% of the population would hate your idea if implemented. I played SCBW for thirteen years and I had the misfortune of experiencing what you propose. I hated it, when I wanted to be serious. It was something that bothered pretty much everyone. There's a reason they invented match making to improve upon SCBW.

Again, however, sometimes I wanted to play Blizz maps for fun. Yes, they were more fun, but, that really has nothing to do with serious competition. When you want to be serious, ladder. When you want to have fun, play custom games. Simple as fuck. Your whole stance is completely unnecessary.

(On a side note, your belief that being at an advantage/disadvantage is training for anyone screams bronzer from you. The only way to train is to have everything as close to balanced as possible and have the opponent be the variable; not the map.)

if the maps make some fun games I don't think it's time wasted.

Consider what else they could have done with that time. Now, kick yourself in the ass.

I really don't think it's that unreasonable to let them try.

They have already tried. They tried for years. Were you even around during SCBW's early days? That's even ignoring that Blizzard didn't experiment with asymmetry in the early builds. In addition, 100000000s of other map makers, probably more skilled than them, tried. They failed. Blizzard would fail. Anyone would fail. Think what you say through or else its the equivalent of a childish outburst and it serves no purpose other than to make asses of everyone. Your whole post is laughable. It's got desperation written all over it. I can't even find the words to express how i*something* it is at the moment. Maybe, when I come back later, I can be a bit more eloquent. But, honestly, nothing annoys me more than emotional, illogical bullshit, and I've been overloaded with it in this thread.