Ladders

Random maps are unfair for a number of reasons. In competitive play you want as little randomness as possible. Winning in a competitive game should be completely dependent on player skill, rather than situational advantages that come with randomly generated maps. Though I would be fine with a symmetric layout even if it was randomly generated.

Well you wouldn't play on your own maps in ranked anyway.

I think randomized maps would be very good to have in ranked. It just suits the game. But I disagree that the number of planets should vary too much in ranked, for example I think there should be an option to play only on one celestial body systems. I don't think I would play anything else in ranked at all. Then you could maybe have an option for games with 3-5. And maybe at a later time, if there would be enough players for this kind of ranked option to be feasible, in larger systems.

And about "unfair" advantage coming from random maps, this can be reduced by better metal spot generation algorythms and more fair starting placement. Tournaments can use predetermined maps, this is where people may potentially start playing for money anyway. They are completely separate from ladder.

I'd say it is the opposite. Map knowledge has little meaning in PA for various reasons and a crazy importance in FA.

Asymetric maps are unfair. Random is fine - as long as it's randomly the exact same for everyone playing at the time.

A mirror map can be random.

No mirror maps.

A map can be balanced without symmetry. The races in Starcraft are balanced even though they are not symmetrical. It is really the same thing. However the race balance breaks down unless the maps follow a very strict formula. Since players in PA will have the same options, planets and systems can have much more diversity, much more asymmetry, as both players can pick the right tools for the right situation.

Even Starcraft games can be determined by randomness or luck if you want to call it that. The different builds and cheese can have a very Rock-Paper-Scissors relationship. Now in a tournament the mindgames and knowing your opponent can greatly help you to counter the build of your enemy but in a random game against someone you don't know it might just as well be a blind guess.

I challange you on that.

I thought it was pretty clear that some randomness can not be avoided, but in order to create a competitive environment you still want to reduce this as much as possible.

No, you don't.

Strategy means dealing with uncertainty and if something is completely uncertain it might as well be random.
Ingame you can trade uncertainty for certainty by scouting but your scouting costs resources so you have to chose if you can expect your opponents move or if you need to scout your opponent so you can counter his/her moves.
A good strategy game should always have elements of uncertainty which if left unknown makes the player face a random threat.

According to you, reducing randomness does not matter. So let me put it like this, if you're generating a planet, and one guy spawns with a ton of metal at his disposal, where as the other guy spawns with very few.
Then who do you think will win?

The point of reducing randomness is to create a leveled playing field. By establishing certain rules that decrease the possibility that one spawns with an overwhelming advantage or disadvantage you can reduce the amount of external factors that can influence the outcome of the game.

I didn't say that. I said that a good strategy game should have "elements of uncertainty".

I pretty much agree with this.
However I think that PA should strive for a design where the players have enough tools that they can adapt to any situation and still compete with their opponent from vastly different starting conditions.
Lets say 1 player start in the sea while the other player start on land. Can that be balanced? Of course it can.

Symmetric maps are simply a cop out.

The only reason that the asymmetry in sc2 works is because the races are not randomly generated. Randomness is unbalanced by definition. Limiting randomness tends toward balance.

Its not like we are removing randomness from the game, just limiting it so that players get fair starting positions.

Even with a perfect mex spread (number, distance and directions), asymetric maps would still get some balance problem. As you said the games would be "viable", but still not balanced.

However i really like this idea of random symetric maps!
Also we could diversify the symmetry aspect by sometimes getting a symmetry plane, sometimes a symetry center.

Don't confuse the meaning of balance in competitive games with symmetrical balance.

But we are removing a whole myriad of asymmetric fair starting positions and that is in my opinion is completely unnecessary. Like a sea start versus a land start.
Saying that something might be imbalanced even though we don't know it is means that we remove variety and viable options.

First you must name those imbalances. Otherwise it's just empty words.

empty words?
Sure i can put names about those future problems :
some rocks will slow an army, a random water area will allow a player to use navy to shot a base, a craters will make your base easier to defend.

All those situations are interesting ingame of course, as long as they stay the same for each player.

Is this a defensive or offensive advantage?

This is something to consider when choosing starting position. Maybe the player with this lake can take it and place structures that can't be raided. Maybe the other player can attack with amphibious units unexpectedly from there. It isn't clear who gets the advantage from this "random" lake.

It will also limit the amount of space this player has to build his base in. It might require him to make more anti-nukes lategame as his base gets more spread out. If it's both an early game advantage and a lategame disadvantage, is it still an imbalance?

no need to argue like that my friend, i was just giving my point of view.
I'm just telling you this concern (yes one more) i have about the future of pa.

If we are to address imbalances in asymmetric map/planet generation we need to define those imbalances. Those imbalances can then be tweaked by changing planet generation or unit balance for example.
Why should we give up and say that it is impossible to have asymmetric starting conditions that are balanced?

I completely agree. Throw the planned, stale, static, symmetrical maps out. This game has so much diversity and cool procedural planet / system creation we need to let that be its strength not throw out all the innovation for what we have already seen and are some what tired of (even if we don't realize we are). Strategy is about being able to make choices that mitigate luck. I think multiple starting location that you can pick from partly fixes this problem of the whine that the other player had a better start you both get to pick. To me this totally revolutionizes strategy games. You don't know the map you are about to play. You have to improvise. There is no ponder over the map for hours coming up with the best way to exploit this or that. Each game is fresh and you don't know what the next game will bring. This is what the PA engine can bring us. There will be no one strategy that will always get you a win, instead it will be about taking what you have and figuring out how to best use those to your advantage through building units that fit your situation.

I don't see why you couldn't randomly build half a planet, then copy+pasta it onto the other side too. People get new, unique, maps to play on every game. People aren't inconvenienced by an unusually fortuitous terrain feature given to the opposition. The only person that doesn't benefit here is my friend @SleepWarz .