Staredit Network

Why is everyone so anal about symmetrical maps, every wgtour map I've ever played has been symmetrical (be it horizontal, vertical or diagonal symmetry). My defense for symmetrical maps is that with the large number of maps being played it's too much of a hassel to memorize every little start location and expansion for scouting purposes, asymmetry is fine for new players who wouldn't scout anyway but lets face it, this game is 8 years old, the only new people will be playing money maps...

Any thoughts? Virtues of asymmetry? I'm open to opinion and I'm just curious what you guys think about this.

Cheers,

PsychoTemplar

I used to play WGTour back in the day and from what I've seen, NO map was symmetrical. You probably got the concepts wrong.

Symmetrical: If you turn the map 180° it will still be the same.
If you fold the map vertically or horizontally by the middle the two halves will perfectly overlap.

Asymetrical: When it's not symmetrical it's asymetrical.

Show me 1 map of WGTour thats symetrical.

From what we can see, that map isn't very good at all.
There aren't any ramps to the numerous cliffs, so this means that Terrans will have a very easy time sieging the hell out of the other players. Protoss will have a very easy time protecting the fairly large chokepoints and Zerg doesn't have any clear distinct advantage appart from rushing or using gaurdians late in the game. They won't make much use of overlord transport sine hydras don't have that big of a range.

The diagonal line of symetry should be place more slanted to the right I would say.

And also that map is not completely symetrical because look at the ramps int he main base and their angles. One ramp points directly to the expansion and the other doesn't.
This is a good example of different strategies which could be used in the different ramps.

If you should make a Melee map, try aiming towards somthing of similar symetry to the second map and the first map is a clear example of what you shouldn't do.

In my own personal opinion, I don't like symmetry because of lack of strategy. Not that symmetrical map won't have strategy, but that both players(considering they have the same race), will have the same type and number of strategy available to them, so it's very posible that the game will be a mirror game where both players do similar types of things.

With assymetrical it's much different and strategic. Terrain is different for both players so each player has a different set of strategies available to them making the game much more interesting.

I think the reason why everyone makes maps somewhat symmetrical is because they want to balance it. It is much easier to balance a map if its symmetrical because everyone has the same advanteges/disadvantages. But in a asymetrical map, someone could say "Oh, that expo is closer to one base than another so it's unbalanced, and that guy blah blah blah.." and then the mapmaker tries to balance it but just ends up making it symmetrical instead.

i wouldnt say people get anal about symmetrical maps, its just i dont like them very much, they look bad, they are too easy to make and there is no variety. too balance a map, it doesnt have to be symmetrical, you just have to have expansions for each base, about the same distance away, about the same size, shap has nothing to do with it.

By teh way, would you call my map below symmetrical?

I would call your map symmetrical pekkel

umm that map is neo-gullitine(sp) and its actually a really good map, if you need some examples. really good game of testie vs 3wd.christan on it from the KOTH finals, also a great game of mondragon vs suker from a KOTH series. i think it was one of PGtours map of week dealies too.

Just my 2 cents...
I agree that symmetrical maps DO have less complaints about balancing issues.
How can you argue about inbalancing if EVERYONE has the exact same thing? (Except dif. races may be better at that map).

I mean you have Big Game Hunters which is probably the second or most popular map on Starcraft, which is NOT symmetrical. Yea areas are similar, but EACH spot is different.

It's EXTREMELY difficult to balance a non-symmetrical map, but it doesn't have to be perfect, just reasonable.

Test out Balancing on this for me:
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=11605
(Yea, I'm on my way to relocating top right's ramp to be more exposed)

even the slightest inequalty can give a huge dis/advantage. According to the map makers. Personally, I like symmetrcal maps, more then assymetrical maps.

Also, I think it is actually quite hard to symmetry a map.. anyone tell me how to do this? or is there a program that lets you?

I think that if a map existed that had 0 unbalances it would be rather boring. While unbalanced maps die quickly, I think symmetrical maps fall just as fast. I really can't think of too many "pro" symetrical maps that exist. Yes, symmetry helps balance maps, but it also has many disadvantages:

Cosmetics aside, the variety of play will be limited because there is only one "uniform" theme. New players will be robbed of the fun of "learning" this map. Heck once you've explored your base and the surrounding vacinity just "fold the map" and you've got it.

Probably the biggest complaint about a perfect map from me would be the lack of a very very important thing in the "competitive world"...and that is a small amount of LUCK

In any competive environment this one "home field" advantage should be present in some sort of subtle way as it greatly adds to the thrill.

"shudders at the thought of some of the fa$te$t paper-folded maps I've seen"

You are the first person I have heard to say that Neo Guilliotine is very biased tvz...

Sorry I didn't mean to restart a "dead" topic. Though I really don't understand how a "general" topic could ever be dead? You're absolutely right about symmetry in regards to strategy. I read this topic wrong and thought you were referring to terrain/ base placement my bad. And you are also right on the money in reference to ppl playing Scraft because it is balanced and involves little luck. I can't think of another comp game that has accomplished this so well.

Starcraft compared to chess however is something ppl need to stop doing. Chess is a game of deep thought. While a lot of "quick" thinking is helpful in Starcraft the bottom line is that it really isn't. If thinking was really important in Starcraft then intellects should be able to beat Boxer, Nada, Midas etc. The fact is they can't. How many ppl over the age of say 50 do you think could be any good at Starcraft? How many ppl over the age of 50 are GrandMasters at chess? Do you think "mouse speed" vs thinking has anything to do with this? If starcraft were "turn" based then maybe just maybe Starcraft could be compared to chess.

Yes again you are right that starcraft is a superb game that has incredible depth. I love it , you love it. Symmetry is very important. And I guess you could argue that a chess board for instance is perfectly symmetrical and yet the game play is very dynamic.

So after all this babbling I should really just shut up and answer this topic.

Symmetry is important, but not necessary. Symmetry can lead to boring "looking" maps, but not necessarily boring "play". Balance does not require symmetry. Thnx for all your thoughts.

My reason for having an opposing viewpoint to symmetrical maps is that, no plot of land anywhere on our green earth is symmetrical—no battlefield has no twists. There should be different variations in the terrain and not just a predictable battlefield.

In war, for example, armies must adapt to their surroundings and use strategy to defeat their foe.

Symmetrical maps are just unrealistic.

In respnse to templar and baja, Chess is a strategy game which requires patience and intellect. Starcraft is the same thing (not so much patience is needed, unless training to get better), the only difference is it is a REAL TIME strategy. They both require thinking and taking of opportunities but SC requires it right when it arises.

OK... I have a thought...

Starcraft is like "SPEED" Chess! You gotta be brilliant and fast! Snooze and you loose! Take too long thinking about your next move and your flag is down! Game over!

So I guess starcraft can be compared to chess afterall... thnx for helping me discover my new way of thinking.

Asymmetry is better because it's more natural.

Symmetrical terrain is ok if it's out of a melee map.

I always find myself filling the whole damn page whenever I post something. I'm trying to learn how to be more "concise", but this time guess it kinda backfired.




what I meant to say was..... thnx psychoTemplar for helping me realize that starcraft is similar to 30second/move chess. This is a new way of thinking for me.

I really don't think it matters what the terrain is like, as long as it is fair and balanced. So what if the terrain is the same if you fold it in half? It doesn't mean your strategy or anything will change, because you still have to play on it. Knowing that the map is symmetrical doesn't really tell you anything except for maybe where all the expos and stuff are located, but in asymmetrical maps you would already know the map after you've played it once. I think this topic is pointless, because symmetrical or asymmetrical it doesnt really matter. It's like the stupid argument of "which race is better". Unless you play PERFECTLY which no one does, then they are balanced. Its all about your skill.

I actually did read all the posts above. And I don't think my post was dumb. Btw, the post above mine was dated MARCH 26.

As long as it is still relavent, it doesn't matter how old a post is. Would you rather a new topic be made?

EDIT: I'm just wondering beause I know on some froums they would rather you do that.