Ladders

I'm not sure how that would work. Where ever you blend the two halves together would form something different, and then depending on starting location it might not seem symmetrical nor could you be sure with out some careful calculations that each side got the halves that are symmetrical. I really think people are trying hard to take 2D last gen map ideas and make them work in a next gen system because it is what they know and trust.

ON top of all that you just spent time making the tech that would do what you purposed which while partially cool as an exercise seems like a poor use of time given all the things that aren't finished and that are far more important than a symmetrical map.

You have symmetrical units isn't that enough?

multiple starting positions would be one way, a relatively straight-forward approach to address those issues.

Another way might be to incorporate the choosing of a landing site / initial base part of actual game flow. Give the player some options to pre scout the planet or the system as a whole and let him choose a planet and local site. It would give a trade off between time and perfect spot, a long search for a really good place vs. the first choice and a little head-start in terms of time. That might also be fun in team games where different starting positions could address different objectives. Obviously, this way needs a bit more work than just offering enough starting site variations per planet to allow for a fair game.

no symmetry in ladder, on your custum games fine, but they didn't make the procedural engine for nothing, this is the way it's meant to be played on ladder.

don't pretend other games are perfectly, perfectly even. Starcraft has little latecy issues that cause varying results with the engagements, LoL has champions that are massively unbalanced on day one.

i agree that the randomness should be to some extent of course, each ladder would have it's own set of max and mins.

but going back to memorising maps on PA is a sad, sad feat.
no permanent maps!

take your pikes and protest! no permanent maps!

You beating neptunio gives the outcome of that, but you get my point. memorized maps = bad.

It's a sandbox game, I want you guys to be able to play it how you want. Seems like some people want fixed maps and others don't. Why not do both?

Personally I think random maps is more of a big boy game than fixed. More random variables means you need to be a better overall strategist.

As long as it's pretty fair I think it's fine. I would prefer random generation that forces you to play a more freestyle dynamic game.

hey can you make something like
1v1 Ladder
2v2 Ladder
3v3 Ladder...
20v20 Ladder.

I agree it ZaphodX, radom Gen planets, you would need to adapt to the planet, not make a strat for a certan map like Setons

Fixed map for tourney play makes a lot of sense.
RTS is like an infinitely more complex game of chess.
Which side of the map you are on might make a huge difference.

Again, this is a bit of knowledge the hardcore competitive players will be able to test out.


I'm really curious to see how Uber balances the starting locations.
- X-number of metal spots within the starting area, but placement could be random?
- Egg?

If those work out really well, ladder won't need fixed maps.

It would allow for more interesting gameplay due to not knowing what exactly is there. You have to think on your feet because you simply don't know what the map look like beforehand.

added to that, the spawn point choice actually becomes a choice.

There are other features I would rather see than to have you guys spend time on fixed maps.

gentlemans rules. Use the ladder type we are using. Obviously there will need to be reporting and someone monitoring it.

I thought the idea behind symmetric maps is that they are still random? nobody is asking for a set amount of systems that will be played over and over, we are just asking for symetric maps so that each player has an equal choice to the kind of terrain bonus they can get.

While I think Uber has the technology around to do it now (unlike PC MNC) I would appreciate a matchmaker (not necessarily ladder) for up to 4v4.

If it's symmetric and all players have an equal choice. How can it be random? Each one has the equal amount of resources to begin with? wouldn't the random nature give terrain bonuses? Just confused.

Because it's boring. Can't you find some more interesting symmetric designs?
I'll give you one. A tennisball.

Just make the pink patch. Then duplicate it and patch the ball together.
Anyone got a degree in symmetry in spheres?

For 2v2, 3v3 and more, it would be good to be possible to choose between random team and arranged team.

Its random because from game to game, the system you play in is different. This stops people from 'learning the map' like you are all trying to avoid, and keeps balance.

ahahahaha no.

"gentlemans's rules" were made because of the game's unfinished state. It was for that reason originially that the matches happened on memorized maps (maps that had the least amount of buggy mass points, for fairness).
under "gentleman's rules" you play one one planet. that's a big no right there (in my idea if the radom number for planets ends up being one, then yea).

there's no need for rules once the game is balanced and contains no exploits.

In my sandbox I will be making symmetric mass clumps of different sizes around the map. I don't mind the biome or any of that.

Is it possible to have player A choose his start position, the player B is given choices based on player A's decision. This could maybe sort some of the balancing issues.

So the community has been busting for teamplay ladders again.

is this something on the list, @jables ?