That is an opinion Jasan.
It’s a bit more than an opinion. When it comes to competitive play, asymmetric games are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority, particularly the ones that have survived for centuries, are built around symmetry. Even some of the ones that aren’t, like hnefatafl encourage you to play multiple times per session and swap roles, meaning that the asymmetry is still balanced out.
Games like Star Conflict succeed because players get to test their individual skill against other players in a solo or team environment. StarCraft, DoTA and the like would die very quickly if skill did not provide the overwhelming majority of factors toward victory.
It’s a bit more than an opinion. When it comes to competitive play, asymmetric games are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority, particularly the ones that have survived for centuries, are built around symmetry. Even some of the ones that aren’t, like hnefatafl encourage you to play multiple times per session and swap roles, meaning that the asymmetry is still balanced out.
Games like Star Conflict succeed because players get to test their individual skill against other players in a solo or team environment. StarCraft, DoTA and the like would die very quickly if skill did not provide the overwhelming majority of factors toward victory.
The biggest problem with the century old games is that they are enjoyable only by the newbies and the pros. Why? Because the newbie gets to try things out while learning the basics of the games, but once he gets the grasp of what the game is about the newbie has to sludge through all the knowledge that has been gathered about the game just to remain competitive. It’s only when you get expert at the game that you get to enjoy discovering new things again, but the older the game is the less likely it happen (everything been figured out by the legions of previous players).
Let me ask: If your team and the enemy team get thrown into an unknown map (random, not symetric, team battle) and get to play that map only once, can anyone complain about the other team having an unfair advantage? You don’t know the map, you have no pre-set strategies, no ships are set up for the map and the lineup you have may or may not be suited for it and you don’t know what your foes will do or what they have brought. If one team wins, have they proven they are more skilled (or most adaptable)?
Let me ask: If your team and the enemy team get thrown into an unknown map (random, not symetric, team battle) and get to play that map only once, can anyone complain about the other team having an unfair advantage? You don’t know the map, you have no pre-set strategies, no ships are set up for the map and the lineup you have may or may not be suited for it and you don’t know what your foes will do or what they have brought. If one team wins, have they proven they are more skilled (or most adaptable)?
… Yes, yes you can. If one team has more cover, that’s an advantage, plain and simple. If one team has the map set up perfectly to flank the other, then that’s an advantage, plain and simple. Just because the map is random does not mean balance is not an issue. Just because the map is symmetrical does not mean that it is boring.
It’s a bit more than an opinion. When it comes to competitive play, asymmetric games are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority, particularly the ones that have survived for centuries, are built around symmetry. Even some of the ones that aren’t, like hnefatafl encourage you to play multiple times per session and swap roles, meaning that the asymmetry is still balanced out.
Games like Star Conflict succeed because players get to test their individual skill against other players in a solo or team environment. StarCraft, DoTA and the like would die very quickly if skill did not provide the overwhelming majority of factors toward victory.
Wow I never thought I’d find someone who knows about hnefatafl here! I love it, and the reason I love it is because it is asymetrical. There is a defender and an attacker. But in a game like Star Conflict, asymetrical maps cannot really work, and the attacker/defender system would require an altogether new game mode, whose mechanics would be hard to balance I think.
That doesn’t mean we can’t have more randomisation in the game though. For example an anomaly that can spawn anywhere along a line equidistant from the spawns, and at random moments in the game. This would give neither team an advantage, and would make matches more interesting and lively. That’s why I actually enjoyed the random biomorph spawns in PVP a couple of months ago, although their mechanics could have been improved (for example not following a single person back to his spawn, but regularly changing targets).
Then again I can see peoples’ point of view that PVP is where only skill and modules should matter, or to a large degree anyhow. If I want random dangers appearing when I least expect it, I should go to Invasion shouldn’t I…
For example an anomaly that can spawn anywhere along a line equidistant from the spawns, and at random moments in the game. This would give neither team an advantage, and would make matches more interesting and lively. That’s why I actually enjoyed the random biomorph spawns in PVP a couple of months ago, although their mechanics could have been improved (for example not following a single person back to his spawn, but regularly changing targets).
Well, it’s nice to know I wasnt the only one that actualy liked biomorphs in pvp games! Yes they were broken but they made both teams plan several steps ahead which was intresting, to say at least.
Now about those anomalies you mentioned.
Lets say, in the middle of the match you hear beeping sound and see big red letters saying: “WARNING: METEOR SHOWER INCOMING”. ~10 seconds later meteors start tearing the map apart, dealing huge damage upon impact. You could either stay in cover until the whole thing ends…or if you are dumb/crazy/brave enough you could try to move around the map (while everybody is hiding) to get to better position or to even blow up the enemy captain when he really dosent expect that to happen. If you dont like the idea about meteors there could be something like plasma storm - a voitile gas cloud that could implode, tearing up shields and equipment on the ships in its radius or something like ion storm - ionised cloud that would shut down radars and targeting systems. There are many more ideas…
When people talk about skill, they always mention classic stuff about being able to single handedly cap and defend a beacon or blow up the enemy captain (and his buddies) in first try, but being able to fly with shields and modules turned off or flying blind, with no radar/targeting system or flying through place that is constantly hit by 100 tons heavy chunks of rock that fly at 1500 m/s and doing something that just might make your team win, that, ladies and gentlemen, is skill.
… Yes, yes you can. If one team has more cover, that’s an advantage, plain and simple. If one team has the map set up perfectly to flank the other, then that’s an advantage, plain and simple. Just because the map is random does not mean balance is not an issue. Just because the map is symmetrical does not mean that it is boring.
But you forget the part about not knowing the map beforehand; whatever advantage one team may have is useless if they don’t know they have it. By the time they figure it out, the match may be over thus the imballance didn’t matter.
Edit: The crux of it; people complain about imballance when they have to face it over and over (like a pre-made map that clearly favor one side and overyone knows about it, or a module / ship that clearly outperform the rest). On a random map that spawn only once, you have to notice the imballance and make use of it; if you don’t see it or you don’t have the players, ships or modules to abuse it, it does nothing to the outcome of the match. Whoever wins then is a matter of skills and adaptability, not about knowing the map by heart.
Not at first… but after 300 battles in that same map?
That’s my main reason to propose randomized maps; doing maps over and over becomes routine and at some point we can see a pathern in what players do when they want to win (and not grind). Random maps would get rid of the routine and most likely bring back some spice into the game.
In a randomly generated map, any imballance become part of the fun; you don’t know who gets it nor if they will make any use of it. It’s not any different than having random players with random ships when it comes to the chance to win.
But you forget the part about not knowing the map beforehand; whatever advantage one team may have is useless if they don’t know they have it. By the time they figure it out, the match may be over thus the imballance didn’t matter.
Edit: The crux of it; people complain about imballance when they have to face it over and over (like a pre-made map that clearly favor one side and overyone knows about it, or a module / ship that clearly outperform the rest). On a random map that spawn only once, you have to notice the imballance and make use of it; if you don’t see it or you don’t have the players, ships or modules to abuse it, it does nothing to the outcome of the match. Whoever wins then is a matter of skills and adaptability, not about knowing the map by heart.
It doesn’t take a tactical genius to take advantage of cover.
Why don’t we just have an empty map. A map with asteroids or buildings. Just deep space. Horrible map for frigates. But easier to notice oncoming enemies.
Or maybe fighting within a nebula. So no tangible objects but stardust sometimes blocking the view of players
It doesn’t take a tactical genius to take advantage of cover.
So? You can hide behind a rock, doesn’t mean it gives you an awsome vantage point to shoot from, or that the enemy can’t get you. Finding that great spot that gives you more than a temporary advantage does take some brain (when you have just a few minutes to finds it).
Just… NEVER STAY IN ONE PLACE and don’t fly in da open, that’s it
Rocks are very useful! You can hit into them when you need to remove spy drones, get behind them to break line of site modules, and just generally hide from people shooting at you
Just… NEVER STAY IN ONE PLACE and don’t fly in da open, that’s it
I should remember that more often :P.
Rocks are very useful! You can hit into them when you need to remove spy drones, get behind them to break line of site modules, and just generally hide from people shooting at you
That’s not limited to rocks, any debris or odd contraption will do. They can be quite annoying when you keep bumping on them though (sometimes i find it hard to guess how close i am from all the scrap i’m flying around).
Now about those anomalies you mentioned.
Lets say, in the middle of the match you hear beeping sound and see big red letters saying: “WARNING: METEOR SHOWER INCOMING”. ~10 seconds later meteors start tearing the map apart, dealing huge damage upon impact. You could either stay in cover until the whole thing ends…or if you are dumb/crazy/brave enough you could try to move around the map (while everybody is hiding) to get to better position or to even blow up the enemy captain when he really dosent expect that to happen. If you dont like the idea about meteors there could be something like plasma storm - a voitile gas cloud that could implode, tearing up shields and equipment on the ships in its radius or something like ion storm - ionised cloud that would shut down radars and targeting systems. There are many more ideas…
When people talk about skill, they always mention classic stuff about being able to single handedly cap and defend a beacon or blow up the enemy captain (and his buddies) in first try, but being able to fly with shields and modules turned off or flying blind, with no radar/targeting system or flying through place that is constantly hit by 100 tons heavy chunks of rock that fly at 1500 m/s and doing something that just might make your team win, that, ladies and gentlemen, is skill.
Well, there are plenty more things we could have on maps; moving cruisers / cargo ships, asteriods passing by, battleships shooting at each others, a pirate station with guns… There could also be stuff triggered by players, like an exploding station, debris thrown around by shooting or colliding with them, exploding barrels or giant fuel tanks leaking. There are lots of possibilities.
Of course, it would be wise not to have too many of them, some players will be turned off if the outcome of matches becomes too random or if they die too often to the environment rather than other players.
Again, static is successful. Where ‘randomness’ occurs, it is almost exclusively down to the player. Take card games; the hand you draw is random, but the playing field is not.
Same here in Star Conflict. The random factor is down to what your team brings. Good players adjust their ships and tactics to best fit the team. Squads artificially boost their strength by knowing the ships they’ll bring ahead of time, eliminating some of the randomness. But the maps remain static.
There are areas that could be improved by a little randomness - like the activation order of beacons in Beacon Capture - but I suspect there’s a good reason why very few really successful games put a lot of randomness into the playing field.
Again, static is successful. Where ‘randomness’ occurs, it is almost exclusively down to the player. Take card games; the hand you draw is random, but the playing field is not.
Same here in Star Conflict. The random factor is down to what your team brings. Good players adjust their ships and tactics to best fit the team. Squads artificially boost their strength by knowing the ships they’ll bring ahead of time, eliminating some of the randomness. But the maps remain static.
There are areas that could be improved by a little randomness - like the activation order of beacons in Beacon Capture - but I suspect there’s a good reason why very few really successful games put a lot of randomness into the playing field.
I don’t think it’s been in the mind of many game developpers to put randomness of playing fields as a feature of their game… Well, strategy games often have it, but shooters rarely do. Shooters value fast paced action above anything else, randomizing the arena or adding random events to it is rather an unseen feature. I don’t think the problem is the potential gameplay it would have but rather the time it would take to make that feature works; lots of assets to make, lots of code to debug, ballancing… Too much work for little return for the developper.
shooters usually come with map editors, if they want to survive longer. this ensures more maps overall. as i already stated (we are going in circles here), some stuff cannot be procedurally generated that well.
in an abstract sense, minecraft is a shooter, which allows you to change your map. 
you can see that e.g. with 7 days to die or rust… or cube…
and there are a lot of procedural generated games in the coming, some of them are clearly focused on being shooters;
it may be true what you say for a developer, but not a game designer; you either are an artist, or you are not; does not make you worse in working on games, sometimes you need both elements to be successful; but the artist would rather starve than not try to get all his ideas into a game, including “randomness”. sometimes not all of these ideas are even good ideas.
I disagree G4. Based on my own experience, anywhere from half to 90% of maps are all but wasted if the community dictates map choice. Back in MGS4 it was Midtown Madness or Urban Ultimatum; Communities latch onto certain maps and all but abandon the rest. We saw it happen with the old pve system, where Blackwood queues were short but other maps never launched.
Far more important than randomness or new content is finding why players are attracted to certain maps and avoid others. I would rather have four maps I love than ten that are merely tolerable.
I disagree G4. Based on my own experience, anywhere from half to 90% of maps are all but wasted if the community dictates map choice.
I don’t know what you are disagreeing with. I did not state anything contrary about what you write.
It does not mean, the maps are played, but usually, if a game wants to survive, map editors ensure that. That is true for every bigger shooter title, which were usually box sold. It is clear, that some maps prevail over time; that is also true for other games, like strategy.
It does not mean however, over time new maps do not come up.
It also has to do with the simple fact, that not all maps are good.
It is a crazy fact, but the “possibility” of many maps is still a factor, even if the actual usage of the maps stays different. Take away the ability to play your favourite maps again and again, or the ability to create new ones again and again, and your title will have a shorter half-life. pun intended. 
Also, it’s g4b, if.