In my opinion symmetrical maps are bland...

#21Sudsy86_Posted 5/21/2010 12:30:10 PM

CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

False Symmetry is more like what incog is trying to communicate.
It would be like... One side having a building, and the other having a bunker.


This sounds like a safe idea.
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

Instead of each side having the same thing, they have something that is different, but equivalent.


Why? Equivelance/ fairness/ balance has never yielded a better experience. It's the overcoming of hurdles that always make games great experiences. Why change the irrelevant looks of a function when, in terms of gameplay, it will do nothing to enhance it. It's not worth spending time to not deceive people into thinking something is better. We're not THAT stupid.
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

Each side would be calculated to have the exact same opportunities for sniping, camping, entry, escape, so on and so forth.


Why? . Reward people for using their imagination and figuring out how to use certain spots differently. All good players are good because they are resourceful and crafty. They aren't going to do any worse. The shiddy players are shiddy because they don't use their brains. There is no reason to say "we'll, gee. he died because someone knew that a certain spot was strong when he didn't. poor guy." Everyone getting a trophy does nothing for a sport.

Good game logistics aren't actually about "fairness", but about making sure you reveal who is smarter, stronger, and more determined.

Fairness/ balance results in people doing the same thing everytime(ie campy play) because there aren't quirks to successfully reward other paths.

#22incognito3Posted 5/21/2010 1:36:02 PM
the only reason i would want a completly identical map on both sides is for clan wars to see who is the best team given the same resources to work with.
I say 3-5 symetrical maps wouldnt hurt but the rest of the maps completly different for the crafty players of the game.
---
Are you picking up what i am putting down?The official bowgun user.Baroth armor ftw
Call me Incognito(3), Martian, Pwnage, or THE ranter, if you would please.
#23Valdimir_DregaPosted 5/21/2010 1:41:39 PM
Design should be similar to Uncharted 2's imperfect map symmetry, 'nuff said.
---
Uncharted 2 Machinima Voice Actor. Currently playing Sully and Lazarevic. Add me on PSN if you want to get involved: Geo_Chronic.
#24Sudsy86_Posted 5/22/2010 9:14:42 AM

incognito3 posted...
the only reason i would want a completly identical map on both sides is for clan wars to see who is the best team given the same resources to work with.
I say 3-5 symetrical maps wouldnt hurt but the rest of the maps completly different for the crafty players of the game.


Your reasoning is invalid. What you don't realize is that the opportunities of the map are the resources. When placed in the same plane, people ARE given the same resources.

If you want to figure out who's better based on objective realities, you're not going to learn much about subjective realities. Giving people EQUAL opportunities is what leads to camping, a watered-down experience.

#25incognito3Posted 5/22/2010 10:02:56 AM
i dont want camping, but i dont want one side to have a huge advantage and the other side doesnt have as much of an advantage becuase you dont see who the best team is.
most asymetrical maps, i have played at least, have uneven sides unfair for clan wars.
---
Are you picking up what i am putting down?The official bowgun user.Baroth armor ftw
Call me Incognito(3), Martian, Pwnage, or THE ranter, if you would please.
#26SA_X_Mk_IIPosted 5/22/2010 1:06:20 PM
Symmetrical maps are more balanced as they give no special advantage to one player or the other. In competitive gaming, this is what most want (why do you think the joke for Smash Bros games is always "No items, Final Destination"). While I do agree that completely symmetrical maps can become boring, slight touches can be made to ease the blandness of it and make it so the maps remain mostly symmetrical, but have some uniqueness to it.

For any that have played Unreal Tournament, I'll use CTF-Face for example. The map is completely symmetrical, it's designed to be a sniper heaven, yet it's still an amazingly fun map to play on. Is it a little bland that both sides are the exact same except with a color change? Yes. The could have easily used different textures for the terrain and buildings for both sides (something that wouldn't change the physical layout of the level) and it would have made a difference.

The problem with asymmetrical maps is, as others have put it, that it can offer major advantages to a particular side. Ask any WoW player that does Battlegrounds if they actually LIKE the asymmetry of AV (Alterac Valley). If they say yes, chances are they are on Alliance, while those that say no will most likely be on Horde. I know WoW is not an FPS, but that map in particular was badly designed with the asymmetry that it offers a major advantage to one side compared to the other, and it isn't fun to automatically start with a disadvantage that you can do nothing against. I've played very few maps in FPS games that were very asymmetrical and were balanced very well, but if they are done well they can be some of the best maps to play on.






I agree with you though that there should be a mix of symmetrical and asymmetrical maps being offered, so people with different tastes can play what they like. As long as the asymmetrical maps are well done, it won't be a big problem.



PS: I just want to note that I only think symmetrical maps are very important for team objective based modes. Deathmatch, Single ASE and even Team Deathmatch don't really require symmetrical maps to be 'balanced' and are often more fun with asymmetrical maps. Modes like CTF/ASE, however, can be annoying as hell to play if the map is asymmetrical and not done right.
---
.: Putting the laughter back in "slaughter" :.
.: The best thing you never knew you didn't want. (>^.(>O_O)> :.
#27CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 5/22/2010 10:48:55 PM
@Sudsy

I don't think you get it :p
We're talking team matches here mostly.
Balance and fairness refers to balance between bases/teams. Not balance between noobs and vetrans.

Fairness/balance is well known to make games better.
What fun is it if the outcome is decided by which base you happen to be placed in?
People don't want to overcome hurdles, they want to win.
and when they lose, people want it to be because of mistakes they made, not because of things that were out of their control.
#28Sudsy86_Posted 5/23/2010 10:10:56 AM

CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
@Sudsy
I don't think you get it :p
We're talking team matches here mostly.
Balance and fairness refers to balance between bases/teams. Not balance between noobs and vetrans.


Still, people are only going to use the best spot on each map and camp. You're not going to see who's the best, but who was the most patient in that particular game. If they're unsymmetrical, try to limit the useful spots for each type to as few as possible(ideally,only one for each, hopefully in the main area) and make them think. You're getting nothing but the generic, same-ole FPS experience without asymmetry.
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

Fairness/balance is well known to make games better.
What fun is it if the outcome is decided by which base you happen to be placed in?
People don't want to overcome hurdles, they want to win.
and when they lose, people want it to be because of mistakes they made, not because of things that were out of their control.


The best shooters I've played are Perfect Dark64, Goldeneye, and Tcon. The guns in that are unbalanced. Most weapon setups feature at least significantly strong weapon. The fun of those games is possessing and maintaining power. Without that as a goal, the game gets boring because everyone WILL do the same thing(camp). People play to win, and you will NOT avoid it unless you offer incentive to assert yourself for something in the open.

The same can go for the environment. If there's only one great, natural camping/ sniping spot, everyone will be fighting for it(fun) or end up avoiding it(justice). If you leave the rest of the map to imagination, people will be using all of the map because they have to and because the difference probably won't be as naturally significant as camping>everything else.

Without hurdles, the game is camping. How do you guys not notice it? In every game, people camp. Then, people **** or at least wish it wasn't as so. The OBVIOUS reality is that there is no reason to not camp in those games. You get rid of it by adding hurdles and narrowing the camping spot to one( which will render it less desirable. Otherwise, again, people will just camp. They won't use the other positions--just camp. You don't seem to be thinking of how gameplay and strategy affect the value of the environment.

Fairness=/=good/fun, because fairness will always produce camping.

You're thinking but not actually processing information.

#29Sudsy86_Posted 5/23/2010 10:11:42 AM

CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
@Sudsy
I don't think you get it :p
We're talking team matches here mostly.
Balance and fairness refers to balance between bases/teams. Not balance between noobs and vetrans.


Still, people are only going to use the best spot on each map and camp. You're not going to see who's the best, but who was the most patient in that particular game. If they're unsymmetrical, try to limit the useful spots for each type to as few as possible(ideally,only one for each, hopefully in the main area) and make them think. You're getting nothing but the generic, same-ole FPS experience without asymmetry.
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

Fairness/balance is well known to make games better.
What fun is it if the outcome is decided by which base you happen to be placed in?
People don't want to overcome hurdles, they want to win.
and when they lose, people want it to be because of mistakes they made, not because of things that were out of their control.


The best shooters I've played are Perfect Dark64, Goldeneye, and Tcon. The guns in that are unbalanced. Most weapon setups feature at least significantly strong weapon. The fun of those games is possessing and maintaining power. Without that as a goal, the game gets boring because everyone WILL do the same thing(camp). People play to win, and you will NOT avoid it unless you offer incentive to assert yourself for something in the open.

The same can go for the environment. If there's only one great, natural camping/ sniping spot, everyone will be fighting for it(fun) or end up avoiding it(justice). If you leave the rest of the map to imagination, people will be using all of the map because they have to and because the difference probably won't be as naturally significant as camping>everything else.

Without hurdles, the game is camping. How do you guys not notice it? In every game, people camp. Then, people **** or at least wish it wasn't as so. The OBVIOUS reality is that there is no reason to not camp in those games. You get rid of it by adding hurdles and narrowing the camping spot to one( which will render it less desirable. Otherwise, again, people will just camp. They won't use the other positions--just camp. You don't seem to be thinking of how gameplay and strategy affect the value of the environment.

Fairness=/=good/fun, because fairness will always produce camping.

You're thinking but not actually processing information.