Maps: Symmetric vs. Asymmetric

[NoQ]

Hmm. Couldn't find a button to make a poll; asking moderators to add one for me (: Thank you (:

Whatever, nvm. What do you think? Does warzone need more symmetric maps, or does it rather need more asymmetric maps?
(note: I'm not talking about "rectangular" vs. "well-rounded" maps).

Here is some common reasoning, as far as i understand it. Symmetric maps are usually considered to be less worthy just because there are no symmetric landscapes in the real world. But they have one important feature: they are fair. If you win a game on a symmetric map, the only possible reason for this is that you've played better, and no one can argue with it. Asymmetric maps are excelent for skirmish and challenges, since the teams are never equal in this kind of games anyway, and lack of symmetry creates some campaign-like atmosphere. They can also be deliberately made asymmetric, like this map, with the purpose of introducing "pro vs. noob" games. But making an asymmetrical map suitable for a fair multiplayer is very difficult. This usually requires a lot of human vs. human skills to properly test the map and make it fair despite being asymmetrical.

So the main question is: Would you prefer a symmetric map to an asymmetric map for multiplayer, even if a well-known "pro" claims that asymmetric map to be balanced?

[themousemaster]

Hmm. Couldn't find a button to make a poll; asking moderators to add one for me (:

Whatever, nvm. What do you think? Does warzone need more symmetric maps, or does it rather need more asymmetric maps?
(note: I'm not talking about "rectangular" vs. "well-rounded" maps).

Here is some common reasoning, as far as i understand it. Symmetric maps are usually considered to be less worthy just because there are no symmetric landscapes in the real world. But they have one important feature: they are fair. If you win a game on a symmetric map, the only possible reason for this is that you've played better, and no one can argue with it. Asymmetric maps are excelent for skirmish and challenges, since the teams are never equal in this kind of games anyway, and lack of symmetry creates some campaign-like atmosphere. They can also be deliberately made asymmetric, like this map, with the purpose of introducing "pro vs. noob" games. But making an asymmetrical map suitable for a fair multiplayer is very difficult. This usually requires a lot of human vs. human skills to properly test the map and make it fair despite being asymmetrical.

So the main question is: Would you prefer a symmetric map to an asymmetric map for multiplayer, even if a well-known "pro" claims that asymmetric map to be balanced?

IF a map is being "chosen", I prefer it to be symmetric.

That said, if there was a "random map generator" that could be used, which PREVENTS the players from knowing what a stage looks like before they, themselves, scout it, I'd be all for it. Intel and Recon is one of the most important aspects of any true military, though most RTS games these days don't bother with scouting beyond finding out if your opponent is going to rush zerglings.

[Mysteryem]

I've thrown up a poll, hopefully that's what you're after, if you're after something different then just ask.

I personally don't mind as long as the map doesn't have huge flat areas and the map varies quite a bit in texture and in geography as you move about the map. What I do dislike is the symmetrical maps where the creator has just made one quarter and then copied and mirrored the other quarters. If you're going to make a symmetrical map at least make the texturing slightly different in each quarter. For instance, the heights on cockpit and cockate are great imo, but the texturing is just lazy.

[KukY]

In multiplayer? Symmetric maps, for sure. All players are equal, and the only thing that matters is the skill and diffrences of playing styles. But in SP, I like to take on against the AI on one of beautiful asymmetric maps and try diffrent combinations of using the terrain features.

[3drts]

There are different levels of symmetry.

A basic reflection of half the map, can be somewhat boring.
A reflection along the X and Y axis is especially boring, and not needed for "balance" on team maps.

Rotational symmetry, can be a little more fun.
I just played a new-ish 4v4 map a few days ago that had rotational symmetry.

You could not draw a single line and get a plane of symmetry.
But you could draw a diagonal line and say if you rotated what was below the diagonal line by 180 degrees, you would get what you see above the diagonal line.

That was way more fun.
I vote for team maps with rotational symmetry, that do not have a plane of symmetry (whereas the map "the wheel" has bothe rotational symmetry and planes of symmetry)

[NoQ]

Nooooo0000zerozero!!!111oneoneone

I've just edited the first message to thank the moderators for making a poll ... and guess what ... the poll is destroyed ... Soooorry!! Could you please make it again? It was exactly what i wanted

[psychopompos]

any map can be fair.
its just easier to make it symetrical rather then the trial & error process of designing asymmetrical maps.

it really boils down to resource control.

[Dalton]

Nooooo0000zerozero!!!111oneoneone

I've just edited the first message to thank the moderators for making a poll ... and guess what ... the poll is destroyed ...

Ohh the irony!

[NoQ]

What I do dislike is the symmetrical maps where the creator has just made one quarter and then copied and mirrored the other quarters. If you're going to make a symmetrical map at least make the texturing slightly different in each quarter.

Ok, i have a question. Don't different textures have different speed adjustments? Or is it just about road/truck vs. no roads?

[lav_coyote25]

you should have added one more choice.