Symmetric Planets

I was recently talking to a PA buddy about the imbalance of spawning points and he had a great idea, but was kind of reluctant to post it here. So I'll do that for him:

We need symmetric maps. Otherwise there will never be even spawn points.

Greetings

I never understood what is so great about identical spawn points..makes for a boring game in my opinion. In my view a central part of strategy is analyzing your environment, reacting to unexpected conditions in a dynamic system in an optimal way and making the most out of what you are given. Even, or especially so, in so called high skill games. The gameplay mechanics should allow for viable strategies even if you are down on economy. Not that I'm opposed to having identical spawns as an option, I just think different but balanced spawns are more interesting.

It's very hard, if not impossible, to randomly generate balanced spawns that are different from eachother.
And any kind of imbalance between spawns giving one player an advantage over the other is clearly misplaced in a competitive RTS. It's annoying and unfair.

Undoubtedly it is hard, but not impossible. Mex points is one thing, but I'm waiting for more varied terrain, height differences and such.. if anything the maps are currently too uniform.

About imbalance.. I just find it goes against the whole idea of strategy to always require "balance". Uncertainty is a central concept when it comes to strategy. From Wikipedia: "Strategy (Greek "στρατηγία"—stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship") is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty."

The satisfaction of a good strategy is turning annoying and unfair into victory.

But anyway, nothing wrong with symmetrical maps either as an option.

That has no place in a competitive RTS, sorry.
Why don't we have random units for everybody? Makes it more uncertain.

It's ok if random spawns are an optional thing. But fair and balanced spawns are a must in more serious games like in tournaments or in ladder games.

With focus on a single unit roster, without different units for factions, and with focus on the E-Sports scene, this game shouldn't be inconsequential when it comes to spawn locations.

Random/customizable units is a great idea, would make scouting even more important.

In general, in strategy games, randomness, unpredictability and dynamic elements increase complexity, which makes for more creative and entertaining gameplay (ideally, at least).

I agree about competitive tournaments, but fair and balanced does not equal symmetrical. That certain other popular sci-fi RTS has different units for the different factions, because asymmetry makes things interesting. It also has symmetrical maps, which does make it more boring to watch and play in my opinion, especially when the maps are not even procedural but are always the same.

I know what you mean. But I don't see any other way than symmetrical maps, or at least symmetrical metal distribution. Asymmetry makes things interesting indeed, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing to have if it gives one player an advantage over another. The word competitive is key here. Because in competitions, optimally there is no imbalance. You don't see asymmetry in sports, do you?

Yes there is imbalance in real wars. And this game is about wars between robots. But it's still a game.

Edit: And btw, I wasn't talking about customizeable units, but random units. It would just make as much sense as random spawn points.

This is war, not sports. I guess it comes down to what one thinks strategic skill is. (which is what we are competing in in strategy games)

I see strategy as the ability to adapt, to forecast and handle complexity.

Symmetrical conditions makes the game more predictable and narrows the strategic thinking down to timing and build orders, especially so with identical units.

Ideally there would be no predefined spawn points at all, just leave the strategic decision of where to spawn on the planet up to the player. If one happens to spawn right next to your opponent, too bad.. adapt to the situation, that is what strategy is all about.

I think the obsession with balance just comes down to human obsessiveness and unwillingness to admit defeat. Easier to blame "imba". It's not like people are on even footing in sports either, some people are much more predisposed genetically to physical performance than others.

You seem to miss the point. This discussion isn't about strategy. Even if there would be even spawning locations, there would still be plenty of room for variation in strategy.

To be frank, if you like imbalanced starting conditions then you might be better off with single player games. The obsession with balance doesn't have anything to do with the human psyche, but with the nature of competitions. A competition without equal (or at least balanced) starting conditions is no competition.

Though this is something to ponder about. It would give both players equal starting conditions, and that's all I want.

Edit: But I see problems with it. I think that both players spawning right next to one another would happen more often than one would like. Because both players would always go for the spawn point that has the most metal around it.

But the ruleset always provides them with equal starting conditions.
That's like saying: "Some players are much more predisposed genetically to perform in PA than others." It doesn't have anything to do with spawn locations.

I see your point but I don't necessarily agree that symmetry is the only solution to the problem. Which is exactly why I am interested in PA, because it might offer something different.

But agreed, I am not that competitive by nature, I prefer creative gameplay over competitive. Mostly I play Civ V, which of course is a very different game, but I would certainly like to see more Civ-like elements in RTS games too, like procedural maps, different victory conditions, terrain affecting combat, unit synergy (=great generals giving bonuses to nearby units in civ), etc. More complexity, please!

Uber has stated though that they are not making this a competitive e-sport RTS game, but their focus is to give a fun experience that will be e-sport compatible, so first priority is to make the game fun then make it competition compatible.

Uber have already balanced the spawning points with regards to metal spawnpoints.
I believe Neutrino stated in another thread that Uber acknowledges a need for economic diversification which will foreseeably make the spawning point more "unbalanced" with regards to different energy production plants from your perspective.
That you state that aymmetric maps does not belong in competitive/e-sport RTS is just like your opinion dude, I would have to agree with abubaba that one of the fun things with this game is that it is dynamic, you have to analyze the terrain, availability of resources and make a new strategy based on factors of which you are not 100% prepared for unlike i.e Starcraft or Dawn of War.

This is one of the things that makes the game unique and will bring a new form of competitive e-sports, one of the things that in my opinion makes Dota2, LoL, SC2 etc etc tedious in the long run is the predetermined set of gameplays that binds and limits creativity and tactics to a handfull of plays because the game is symmetrical and every move on every map has been played which makes the first 10-20min a rock-paper-scissor game and only let the players show their true skill outside APM if the game goes over the first predetermined build queues into what could be called "the undiscovered country" where the players must make new on the spot strategies based on a new situation they have not been in before. Planetary Annhilation with asymmetric planets makes every game from the get go a undiscovered country.

That being said, I also are not against a option for symmetric planets, but what I don't want to see is a limited 5-10 pre determined competitive maps in every competition. In any case as far as balance go, the game we have now atm will be very different from the game we will be playing in a few months time.

Again, it's not that I don't see your point. I know the advantages of procedural map generation, but competitive
E-Sports is just not possible without equal start conditions. Nothing that is good about random spawns will ever change that.

That is only partially true. They gave us 5 fixed metal spots on every spawn location. But the possibility that one player spawns with only a handful of additional metal spots around those, while the other one gets 20+ still exists.

No competitive player will take an rts seriously if spawns are unfair. And no competitive player would like to win a tournament because they has better spawns. BCan you link where neutrino said about he doesn't want this to be a competitive e-sport game? I would for sure remember if I have seen it, and I have read a lot.

I remember him saying that it wasn't planned to make maps symmetric but the game is sandbox so we can make the maps we want ourselves. I think popular rts maps from TA faf and others could look and play great on a globe.

I understand the need to have fair spawns, but I'd rather we see if there was an alternative method to just a symmetrical map. We should at least see how fair Uber can get the balancing.

A symmetrical map would limit your potential spawn areas to half the map right? Presumably you also need identical spawn points to remain balanced? Surely your opponent would (probably) choose the same optimum spot as you right? In that case why even choose spawns at all?

Premade maps are nice, ladder and tournament maps could come from a handmade selection of fair maps. It's pretty uncommon but you can still have fair spawns with a map that isn't symmetrical and it would be nice to see players using completely different strategies based on wildly different spawns that are still fair.

It was not Neutrino who said it, but Jon Mavor stated it in one of the early livestreams in an answer to a question from the fans regarding e-sports.

I would agree that equal resource distribution at the spawn location is necessary for a serious RTS to be competitive, but as far as the need for maps to be symmetric for the game to be desirable as a e-sport game is not true as there has never been a game like PA before to offer that experience.

With regards to zaphodx posts, tournaments maps would probably have to be agreed upon in advance but as you stated that does not mean that they have to be symmetrical or old in order to be competitive.

If Uber finds a way to do that, then by all means they should do it. I personally would have no clue as how to do it. But I'm no dev

As you add more planets to a system and have multiple spawn points on each one, the chance that one player has a much better option than the other decreases. It can still happen, but it will be less likely and less significant.

I do expect people to create planets however they want though once there is a way to make your own planet. Maybe some tournaments will only use these custom planets.

You do in fact see a lot of asymmetry in sports. Factors like equipment quality (like racecars who all have different manufacturers) player skill, coaching skill, team budget, weather conditions, and home field ADVANTAGE all often create small to very large differences in the starting and playing conditions of the competetors. Do you ever see the Oakland Raiders (who never have snow conditions on their home field and have one of the smallest budgets in the league) quit a snow game against a better funded opponent from the North East and then complain about "fair"? No.

Life isnt fair. Sports is never fair. Etc.

Professional competition everywhere is about assembling the best team/gear/etc that you can afford, practising like crazy, and then praying that your efforts were good enough to beat the other guy ... with a solid helping of good luck as a requirement too. This is all part of businesses worth billions of dollars.

Please stop requesting "fair". Fair is boring and isnt how real competitions operate anyway.

But the ruleset and starting conditions are always the same for both sides. If for example in hockey one team would start with hockey sticks and the other side wouldn't, then it wouldn't be a sport nor a competition. It would just be silly.

Yes money can make a difference in sports, I just hope you don't expect the same in PA.
And player skill doesn't have anything to do with the ruleset and starting conditions.

Look, it's no coincidence that every competitive RTS up until now focussed on balance. It's in the very nature of competitions to be as balanced as possible.

This relates more to predefined maps and spawn points than symmetry, but I've been wondering about the fog of war in PA.. currently the player sees all of the map by default, unlike most other RTSes where it is blacked out, if you haven't scouted. I think this makes a big difference with procedural maps. Not knowing what the battlefield looks like makes a HUGE difference when it comes to strategic decision-making.

This is a big annoyance of mine with predefined maps. It makes it so much more boring when the players know beforehand what the map looks like, where the bottlenecks and good defensive spots are. It would make early scouting so much more meaningful and important if you didn't have that knowledge.

Not sure how "100% blind" fog of war would work visually in PA, but I'm sure it is possible. Maybe have clouds or something like in Civ. Not sure how choosing spawn points would work.. maybe one could see where the metal spots are, but not the terrain itself, to make it more interesting. (For example, it might turn out that that huge cluster of metal spots you see on the planet might be located in the middle of a sea...)

Also apologies if this has been discussed, tried search but it didn't work for some reason-