What if there was random elements on each map we play? Randomly placed obstacles, changing spawn points, shuffled around objectives, occasional hazzards, randomized amount of objectives or objective types…
What do you think?
We don’t have mod tools available, so any further discussion is probably pointless.
It would be fun, I am sure. Maybe, who knows…
“Random” maps can not be balanced in objective type of game-play, unless they are predefined… which makes them just maps…
It is enough we already have some maps that clearly favoured one side or another in certain game modes.
Procedural maps could be fun for team battle and combat recon, but balancing hell for capture modes.
I would love procedural maps, It would make it so interesting.
Or maybe have 1 map that is newly generated every week.
I’m sure if devs tried hard enough, they could make a procedural map generator that does beacon modes in a balanced way. I mean, symmetry is an easy answer.
Sounds interesting, at the least.
“Random” maps can not be balanced in objective type of game-play, unless they are predefined… which makes them just maps…
It is enough we already have some maps that clearly favoured one side or another in certain game modes.
I don’t there is really a need for them to be perfectly balanced by the random elements. Players won’t know the exact layout of the map each new game so no perfect strategies can be devised. Basically who wins is who adapt to the map the fastest each time it’s generated.
I’m sure if devs tried hard enough, they could make a procedural map generator that does beacon modes in a balanced way. I mean, symmetry is an easy answer.
Sounds interesting, at the least.
Symetrical maps don’t ensure equal chance to win in a game where every players brings what they want and play them how they see fit. However as players learn maps they figure out optimal ways to play them and it’s then that balance becomes an issue. A randomized map don’t have that problem, players have to figure things out every time; there is no optimal strategies.
Symetrical maps don’t ensure equal chance to win in a game where every players brings what they want and play them how they see fit. However as players learn maps they figure out optimal ways to play them and it’s then that balance becomes an issue. A randomized map don’t have that problem, players have to figure things out every time; there is no optimal strategies.
Well, how players play has little to do with map balance. And I never said the symmetric maps were hand-made? Uh
Well, how players play has little to do with map balance. And I never said the symmetric maps were hand-made? Uh
How players play affect how matches turn out though, if some strategies ensure one side has a higher chance to win, then the map is considered unballanced. Having maps completely symetrical (be it designed or auto-generated) don’t make a map interesting IMO (just easier to figure out). Anyway, even if a generated map is found to be unballanced, it doesn’t matter as much because the flaws are less likely to be found out and abused during the match. It just depend how much of it is random and what parameters of randomness are used; if one side has an obvious advantage (ie visible by everyone in the match), it’s bad.
Symetrical maps don’t ensure equal chance to win in a game where every players brings what they want and play them how they see fit. However as players learn maps they figure out optimal ways to play them and it’s then that balance becomes an issue. A randomized map don’t have that problem, players have to figure things out every time; there is no optimal strategies.
symmetrical procedural generation would ensure both sides same chances. since the symmetry could be mirrored or not, and use different background assets, it does not have to look that way anyway.
it has nothing to do with boring. if you want fair asymmetrical maps, maps should be designed.
things don’t just happen randomly and become useful.
and yes, symmetrical maps ensure an equal chance to win.
symmetrical procedural generation would ensure both sides same chances. since the symmetry could be mirrored or not, and use different background assets, it does not have to look that way anyway.
it has nothing to do with boring. if you want fair asymmetrical maps, maps should be designed.
things don’t just happen randomly and become useful.
and yes, symmetrical maps ensure an equal chance to win.
Chances to win depend greatly on what the players bring to the fight. Like you have a large map with little cover, and one side has LRFs while the other don’t, one side will get stomped. Same thing happen on beacon maps if one side lack Interceptors or has an abundance of recons. What map needs to give both sides a good chance to win is to make it less dependant on the ship you play but how you use the map to your advantage. It’s also nice when both sides is left in the dark about the most optimal mean to win.
I don’t like when maps are symetrical because the other side just copycat what you are doing (and vice versa). I wish for a gamemode where adaptation is key, not using the best ship for it or relying on the same strategy over and over.
The random part (imo)is determined by what other players bring or how organized the other side is.
A random thing I have always wanted to see and has been suggested many times is randomized beacons in beacon hunt.
Chances to win depend greatly on what the players bring to the fight. Like you have a large map with little cover, and one side has LRFs while the other don’t, one side will get stomped. Same thing happen on beacon maps if one side lack Interceptors or has an abundance of recons. What map needs to give both sides a good chance to win is to make it less dependant on the ship you play but how you use the map to your advantage. It’s also nice when both sides is left in the dark about the most optimal mean to win.
I don’t like when maps are symetrical because the other side just copycat what you are doing (and vice versa). I wish for a gamemode where adaptation is key, not using the best ship for it or relying on the same strategy over and over.
Certain maps favouring certain classes is nothing new. I can’t remember the map names, so I can’t list them here, but there’s two maps I’m thinking of right now that favor LRF a ridiculous amount.
Also, if someone manages to find a good strategy on a randomly generated map, symmetric or not, they’re a very quick learner. Symmetry does not affect the ability to take advantage of a map. The point here is random, too, so it’s literally impossible for someone to take the same strategy over and over again to get the same results. Symmetry does not an exploit make.
Furthermore, there’s almost no chance that both teams will copycat each other given a randomly generated symmetric map. Given the sheer number of possible choices (What class? What ship? What build? What direction? Which objective? Who to kill?), it’s practically impossible to copycat in the first place. Also, there’s more kinds of symmetry than just reflectional. There’s rotational, radial, and glide symmetry as well, all of which would make it quite difficult to copycat.
Chances to win depend greatly on what the players bring to the fight. Like you have a large map with little cover, and one side has LRFs while the other don’t, one side will get stomped. Same thing happen on beacon maps if one side lack Interceptors or has an abundance of recons. What map needs to give both sides a good chance to win is to make it less dependant on the ship you play but how you use the map to your advantage. It’s also nice when both sides is left in the dark about the most optimal mean to win.
If we talk about “equal chances” by the gameplay, we assume all people are of same skill and equipment. therefore, a symmetrical map is always fair nd balanced in itself. i was only pointing out, that what you wrote earlier, is simply wrong. a perfectly symmetrical game-board gives you an equal chance, before you even enter it. (only game rules can skew that, like the rule of which side starts in chess)
you can have a mirrored or rotated symmetry, second allows the map to have different map stuff facing each other; and you can make access paths, or areas which can be used better by certain classes facing another; you would have the sense of asymmetry in a rotated symmetry, especially if it is also visual.
if you want a balanced map, that is completely asymmetrical, you have to design the map with roles and classes in mind to overcome certain pros and cons. but you simply cannot leave it to the generator, because it needs a bit of feeling and intuition, creativity and lots of manual refinement, or you need to teach the generator so many things, that by the time you are done, you might have created more maps by hand (or simplified the rules too much). there is just stuff, computers will never be really good at, because they are analytical serial machines, even in our age of parallel processing. the brain will always be faster, because it is built for pattern recognition and intuition. the flipside is, our brains will never be that fast in being analytical. thats why we love these boxes after all.
note the word balanced itself. it does not mean mathematical equality, in the strictest sense, but you can still measure it by testing the results or observing it with your brain.
if you love the multitude of tactical thinking, you actually tell me, you love your brain work, so i only have to tell you, if you want a fair map to be asymmetrical, it should not come from the random number generator, but from another brain; however the symmetrical map will always be mathematically equal, therefore, balanced.
Well, i don’t care so much about equal chances or perfect ballance; it matters for static maps because you see them over and over but on a random one either sides can wins even if it’s not perfect. Reason is players try to figure things out so they are not that efficient at winning the match thus the chance to win depend on how fast players adapt than how balanced the map actually is. Every match then is a lot more dynamic because there are not tried and true tactics like we see when players knows maps by heart with some oddballs that try new things (and usually fail). More fun that way in my opinion.
Well, i don’t care so much about equal chances or perfect ballance; it matters for static maps because you see them over and over but on a random one either sides can wins even if it’s not perfect. Reason is players try to figure things out so they are not that efficient at winning the match thus the chance to win depend on how fast players adapt than how balanced the map actually is. Every match then is a lot more dynamic because there are not tried and true tactics like we see when players knows maps by heart with some oddballs that try new things (and usually fail). More fun that way in my opinion.
This isn’t particularly true. Objects distributed around maps serve two purposes: Path obstruction and cover. It’s pretty easy to analyze the first in the 30 seconds before spawn, and extremely simple to analyze the seconds whenever you need to. Balance in maps is pretty darn important, then! If all the cover is on one team’s side, then there’s a ridiculously small chance that the other team will win.
This isn’t particularly true. Objects distributed around maps serve two purposes: Path obstruction and cover. It’s pretty easy to analyze the first in the 30 seconds before spawn, and extremely simple to analyze the seconds whenever you need to. Balance in maps is pretty darn important, then! If all the cover is on one team’s side, then there’s a ridiculously small chance that the other team will win.
Balance not being perfect doesn’t mean one side has an overbearring advantage. If it slightly advantage one side or the other it doesn’t matter, it’s only if there are obvious advantages to one side that it becomes unfair. Like a map could be a large debris field of various sizes and shapes; it would be hard to state who’s side gets more at first glance unless it’s clearly more dense on one side. But since no one knows the layout before hand (the map shown remain 2d), the odds players figure out the perfect camp spot or set up and effective kill zone is greatly diminished. But it’s hard discuss the pros and cons of such maps without actual examples to show…
Advantage, balance, odds…guys, war isnt always fair. PVP maps would require more tactics, thinking and skill (rather than just “point at the red stuff and click until its dead”) if they had randomly generated objects and events such as plasma storms or meteor showers. Maps are always the same and boring, they need something new to spice things up a bit.
Oh please spare us the “war isn’t fair” nonsense. This isn’t war, it’s digital sport, and sports are well known for seeking to eliminate anything resembling imbalance. Skill should determine victory, and for skill to be the deciding factor all other attributes need to be kept consistent between participants and matches.