My impression of the map design in the beta until now has been that melee maps are mostly symmetric. This makes sense from a balancing point of view, as it is essentially "easy" to make a balanced symmetric map. There are, of course considerations to make in order to make races relatively balanced with regards to terrain and expansions and rush capabilities, but for a proficient map designer these are things possible to tweak.
The question is whether it is possible or not to make an asymmetric map that is balanced in such a way that it is possible to use for high-level competitive play as well as for casual ones. I believe it is possible and that it would open for new and interesting strategies for the different races. Suppose, for instance a starting location with only one gas, but with one or two gold patches. For a 1v1 map, the other starting location would have to compensate with terrain or expansion placement or resources within the main.
Naturally, balancing such a map would be more difficult than for the symmetric case. For one - race vs. same race would not automatically be balanced, and it would be more things to tweak in order to balance an initially unbalanced map, but I believe it could be worth the effort if done correctly.
how asymmetric do you want it? because most maps aren't perfectly symmetric in terms of terrain as it is. Resource wise its perfectly symmetric simply because it would be to hard on players themselves to make up different build orders this early on to account for difference in gas
I think it would be possible for certain matchups; like an asymmetric map that is balanced for PvZ or something. But i think it is almost impossible to get a asymmetric map that is balanced for all matchups and all constellations. Some map features that may be balanced for one matchup will always be imbalanced for other matchups (for example two entries to your base in scbw was heavily favoring zerg, while it was kinda ok for mirrors and PvT).
Also, even if you were to create the perfect asymmetric map, no one would be able to prove that it is balanced right now, because sc2 is just not as figured out yet...
Edit: This should not discourage you from creating asymmetric meelee maps! I love the idea, i just think it's really really hard to get a good and balanced asymmetric map.
There can definitely be balance in asymmetry. In fact asymmetry is precisely what makes race selection so fun: all the races are balanced yet they play very differently from eachother. The problem with assymetrical maps however is the lack of choice on the player's part. Especially if their start location is random. And even if it isn't random player 2 can't pick the same start location as player 1.
It might be balanced to say, give 1 person the the high ground advantage and another person additional resources at their main, but if the player doesn't get to choose which they prefer (as they do with race) then it's very easy for them to claim that the map was unfair.
Of course there's all sorts of different things you can do if you make the map UMS instead of melee. You could have a two round match where the players swap start locations after the first map for instance. (or, if it's even possible, it'd be interesting to have some sort of map where each player gets to choose what "their half of the map" looks like - I'm not sure you can change cliff height on the fly tho...)
Basically I think it's the lack of choice moreso than balance that posses a problem with asymmetrical maps (assuming you plan on making a melee map). There's certainly a niche that would enjoy that kind of map, probably the same niche that enjoys playing random over any specific race, and I'm all for thinking creatively and outside the box, and want to encourage you to experiment with map creation. :)
Geometric symmetry does not necessarily make a map balanced; that's why the Korean pro leagues track race matchup stats on each map, for example.
That being said, it's possible to make a reasonably balanced and fun asymmetrical melee map, but don't expect it to see any use in high level tournaments or pro games.
@ErrorAsh I think it should be possible for all matchups, but it obviously is much more difficult to do it for only two races instead of all three (two additional matchups need to be considered by having three races instead of two)
@nateZinger I like the idea of being able to change terrain at startup. It is certainly something to consider for skilled map makers. It bears resemblance to some tabletop turn-based strategy games I have played at some point. My initial thought is for melee, but the idea of UMS with user supplied initial terrain is a very good one.
@RileyStarcraft I would not expect people to use asymmetric maps in pro leagues and such - it is far too controversial for that. But one would hope that in time, provided that some people find asymmetric maps fun and their balance proven, that organisers of tournaments, leagues, etc. would not be so conservative as not to allow them?
I will start developing some asymmetric maps as soon as SC2 is out. Do you have any ideas as to statistics to balance of map? These are of course only guidelines, testing is the only way to properly balance such things.
I have some ideas (each apply to each starting location vs. the others):
- Tiles needed to make a choke
- Distance from main to choke
- Initial minerals per minute (assuming, for instance 1 gold patch)
- Rush distance air/ground (I don't know if there is a standard for this)
- High ground to low ground jump spots (isolation by water or space would be better for defence)
- Distance from main to natural
- Is natural on high ground
- Expansion clustering (some measure to determine total distance between possible expansions)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Melee maps - need they be symmetric?
My impression of the map design in the beta until now has been that melee maps are mostly symmetric. This makes sense from a balancing point of view, as it is essentially "easy" to make a balanced symmetric map. There are, of course considerations to make in order to make races relatively balanced with regards to terrain and expansions and rush capabilities, but for a proficient map designer these are things possible to tweak.
The question is whether it is possible or not to make an asymmetric map that is balanced in such a way that it is possible to use for high-level competitive play as well as for casual ones. I believe it is possible and that it would open for new and interesting strategies for the different races. Suppose, for instance a starting location with only one gas, but with one or two gold patches. For a 1v1 map, the other starting location would have to compensate with terrain or expansion placement or resources within the main.
Naturally, balancing such a map would be more difficult than for the symmetric case. For one - race vs. same race would not automatically be balanced, and it would be more things to tweak in order to balance an initially unbalanced map, but I believe it could be worth the effort if done correctly.
What do other people think?
@ErlendA: Go
how asymmetric do you want it? because most maps aren't perfectly symmetric in terms of terrain as it is. Resource wise its perfectly symmetric simply because it would be to hard on players themselves to make up different build orders this early on to account for difference in gas
I think it would be possible for certain matchups; like an asymmetric map that is balanced for PvZ or something. But i think it is almost impossible to get a asymmetric map that is balanced for all matchups and all constellations. Some map features that may be balanced for one matchup will always be imbalanced for other matchups (for example two entries to your base in scbw was heavily favoring zerg, while it was kinda ok for mirrors and PvT).
Also, even if you were to create the perfect asymmetric map, no one would be able to prove that it is balanced right now, because sc2 is just not as figured out yet...
Edit: This should not discourage you from creating asymmetric meelee maps! I love the idea, i just think it's really really hard to get a good and balanced asymmetric map.
There can definitely be balance in asymmetry. In fact asymmetry is precisely what makes race selection so fun: all the races are balanced yet they play very differently from eachother. The problem with assymetrical maps however is the lack of choice on the player's part. Especially if their start location is random. And even if it isn't random player 2 can't pick the same start location as player 1.
It might be balanced to say, give 1 person the the high ground advantage and another person additional resources at their main, but if the player doesn't get to choose which they prefer (as they do with race) then it's very easy for them to claim that the map was unfair.
Of course there's all sorts of different things you can do if you make the map UMS instead of melee. You could have a two round match where the players swap start locations after the first map for instance. (or, if it's even possible, it'd be interesting to have some sort of map where each player gets to choose what "their half of the map" looks like - I'm not sure you can change cliff height on the fly tho...)
Basically I think it's the lack of choice moreso than balance that posses a problem with asymmetrical maps (assuming you plan on making a melee map). There's certainly a niche that would enjoy that kind of map, probably the same niche that enjoys playing random over any specific race, and I'm all for thinking creatively and outside the box, and want to encourage you to experiment with map creation. :)
Geometric symmetry does not necessarily make a map balanced; that's why the Korean pro leagues track race matchup stats on each map, for example.
That being said, it's possible to make a reasonably balanced and fun asymmetrical melee map, but don't expect it to see any use in high level tournaments or pro games.
@ErrorAsh I think it should be possible for all matchups, but it obviously is much more difficult to do it for only two races instead of all three (two additional matchups need to be considered by having three races instead of two)
@nateZinger I like the idea of being able to change terrain at startup. It is certainly something to consider for skilled map makers. It bears resemblance to some tabletop turn-based strategy games I have played at some point. My initial thought is for melee, but the idea of UMS with user supplied initial terrain is a very good one.
@RileyStarcraft I would not expect people to use asymmetric maps in pro leagues and such - it is far too controversial for that. But one would hope that in time, provided that some people find asymmetric maps fun and their balance proven, that organisers of tournaments, leagues, etc. would not be so conservative as not to allow them?
I will start developing some asymmetric maps as soon as SC2 is out. Do you have any ideas as to statistics to balance of map? These are of course only guidelines, testing is the only way to properly balance such things.
I have some ideas (each apply to each starting location vs. the others): - Tiles needed to make a choke - Distance from main to choke - Initial minerals per minute (assuming, for instance 1 gold patch) - Rush distance air/ground (I don't know if there is a standard for this) - High ground to low ground jump spots (isolation by water or space would be better for defence) - Distance from main to natural - Is natural on high ground - Expansion clustering (some measure to determine total distance between possible expansions)