Symmetric Planets

Certainly possible? I bet that nobody even has a clue on how to do that without making metal distribution symmetric.
That's why I'm still having the opinion that symmetry is probably the only way.

So what is your criteria for judging unfairness, if both players have equal amounts of metal points around them, just not at the exact same spots? I think metal distribution doesn't really have to be equally spread out at all beyond starting spots, because the game should offer equally effective ways to react to different situations.

Fact is symmetrical maps have lots of problems gameplaywise, which outbalance the gains in apparent fairness.

And sure if you take even distribution to the extreme, it probably means a symmetrical layout, but the question is at what point does unevenness start to give a noticeable advantage to one player?

I'm pretty sure PA is too far along in dev to make major changes but I have a couple ideas of how to incorporate balanced spawns into procedurally generated landscapes:

1. As visually depicted earlier in this thread, slice the planet based on number of players. The planets will look weird sometimes, however each slice would be identical and provide balanced spawn points for competitive play. There is a negative to this approach as it allows players to have a decent idea of where their opponent is from the start. I don't see this as a huge problem as scout planes can have the opponent identified within minutes of start.

2. Set a certain radius around one spawn point to be replicated for each spawn point. This way each player has an identical starting area even though the majority of the planet is procedural. Even if topography was still randomized, just having the mexes balanced within radius x at start would be a nearly balanced situation.


I also like the idea of free choice in choosing spawn point. Not every match would be "pick the highest mex density" as players would assume their opponent will take that and instead choose a secondary but viable spawn if they prefer "build up" over "rush" strategy.

But without metal, strategy is meaningless. I think you're confusing something.
The game can't provide options for you to adapt to a situation where you have no metal, because metal is what you need to be able to use strategies in the first place.

And to answer your question on when unevenness becomes noticeable:
At the highest level of play, a single metal spot advantage can make the difference between winning and losing.

No metal? Where did that come from?

If a single metal spot consistently decides matches, then there is something wrong with the game mechanics.

I mean, if one player gets only 10 metal spots around their base, while the other player get 30+, then it's not so much a question of how the player at a disadvantage will adapt to his situation, because it is impossible for him to catch up if both players have the same skill level. That's just fact. You can talk about strategy all you want, but it's not about strategy, it's about ressource distribution.

And I didn't say that one metal spot consistently decides matches, but that it can.
And there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, and as Godde said, you can fix the planet generator to prevent such things (30 metal spots over 10) from happening at such drastic scale.

Though I would still argue that it should be possible to survive such a situation by good thinking, for example by air transporting fabbers (I know there is no way to do this in early game yet) quickly to another metal spot field further away. That investment shouldn't make you lose the game.

@arachnis , you should not take the arguments here literally. Arguments here are often about identity, not about specific facts. Many people want a game that is a "macro-based simulation", whatever that means, and if presented with two options: one sensible option that improves the gameplay but that seemingly compromises on the 'feeling' of the game, and one ridiculous option that sabotages the gameplay but that can be construed as improving the vastness of the game, then many here will pick the second option. You can make the specific suggestions as ridiculous as possible, the same people will still keep defending it.

And here we are again. Imo every bit of imbalance, and let it be a single metal spot, makes the game incompatible with competitive gameplay. Even if that imbalance is not "drastic", it's still severe.

And my question from before is still unanswered: How exactly would you fix the planet generator to prevent that?

Drastic = dras·tic (drstk)adj.1. Severe or radical in nature; extreme

What do you mean how? You want me to write an algorithm or what?

Yes, how else are you gonna prove that it's possible?

Well if that is how it is going to be, let us not waste time and get all epistemological, lol.

I think you just have an extremely unforgiving mathematical view of fairness.

Even though the game is about map control and controlling the economy, I would say the game is badly designed if some minor differences in economy always determine the outcome.

Maybe the ships superior range can make up for their higher energy cost? Actually I'd argue that no mobile land units stand a chance against ships. Ships have so long range and are fast enough to avoid slow artillery projectiles. Only stationary land artillery can beat that but then ships basically get a mobile Catapult in the advanced Missile Ship, Stingray.
Maybe the sea player should have less metal spots in order to keep the game balanced between a sea and a land start?

Lets make a simple example.
Lets say we have 2 factions with the same units where faction A:s Warriors does 20% more damage than faction B:s Warriors.
Is the factions unbalanced? Yes, it is easy to make the argument that faction A is simply better than faction B.
Now lets say that we buff factions B:s Knights to give them 20% more damage.
Is the game balanced?
We can't really say because we have to look at the interaction between faction A and faction B over the entire span of the game.
Maybe Knights are a useless unit that never gets used, then a 20% buff doesn't really change the balance of the game.
Maybe the Knights come later in the game and dominate the battlefield while Warriors are used earlier in the game so faction A have an early game advantage while faction B have a late game advantage. Is the game balanced in this case? We can't really know without further analysing the progression from the early game to the lategame.

Lets say we have an almost symmetrical map where the only difference is that player One starts with 1 more metal spot next to them.
Is the map unbalanced? Yes, it is easy to make the argument that player One simply got a better start.
Now lets say we give the other player 2 additional metal spots placed, not next to their start but a bit away from the start.
Is the map balanced? It is hard to say because we have to look at the expansion of the players, how the raiding affects expansion, how easy it is expand and how it translates into the lategame.
Maybe player One can take advantage by the starts by raiding player Twos' expansions to deny the additional metal spot.
Maybe player Two can take advantage by the start by playing conservatively and controlling the additional metal spot to gain an economical advantage.
Maybe the differences between the starting positions are insignificant during the game.

This is an interesting question. Who got the burden of proof?
If you strive for "perfect balance" then there cannot be any asymmetry because how are you gonna prove that it is "perfectly balanced"? Math, logic, algorithms, statistics, voting, player opinions, expert player opinions?
How are you going to judge things as local imbalances which include such things as situational imbalances, lategame or early game disadvantages. Some reading about local imbalance here.

If you settle for fairly balanced, the burden of proof is on the one who claims it to be unbalanced. You have to look at different strategies, late game and early game advantages and other local imbalances on the map in question.
If the number of metal spots are uneven between the players and there aren't any significant terrain differences it is fairly easy to say that the map/planet is unbalanced.
However if you look as such diverse starting conditions as sea start versus a land start you can't say its' unbalanced just because one player got more metal spots in close proximity.
A sea start could be an early game advantage if they control sea and bombard inland mexes while the lategame could favor the land player as he can make nukes and orbital units more easily.
When you look at map/planet balance you have to look at possible starting locations, their possible starting location "match-ups" and possible strategies.
Even if you lose against a location specific strategy you have to rule out that there isn't any counter-strategies to claim that the location match-up is unbalanced.