Current work update - 11/5/14

Make ranked 2v2 3v3 etc faster pls! Cant get a friend to play with me without ranked 2v2, cause cusotm 2v2s are not that great...

We need to see if 1v1 works first. The queue time for ranked 2v2 and 3v3 etc will be MUCH higher.

Is there any chance, perhaps with the ability to generate symmetrical planets, that we can have a "1v1 ranked match, randomly generated map" mode?

One thing I typically dislike about ranked gameplay in RTSs is that a lot of the meta is determined by knowledge of the map (and the spawn locations). Eventually everyone memorizes the maps and that part of the strategy becomes set in stone and mundane.

I feel like we're throwing away a good thing by making 1v1 ranked matches head down the path of manually tweaked maps.

If we can have a N/S symmetrical map, randomly generated, with both sides getting the same metal spots and same spawn options on their respective hemisphere, maybe we can have a perfectly fair random map 1v1.

Your random maps will also have their own set of dominant strategies (only undiscovered) so i don't see what the big fuss is about.

Would you rather play blindly and pray that you chose a good strategy for the map, or would you rather know that same strategy you chose is infact a good strategy for that map.

Seriously, this is the same as saying all unit stats should be randomised but symmetrical. Because everyone would memorise how the units interact with each other and figure out good build orders. Pretty silly.

How about an improved UI. We currently lack the ability to remove waypoints from a queue and having a SupCom-style draggable system would be nice. It would make it an awful lot easier to manage the battlefield, especially given the scope of the game.

Well the point is.. First of all since you have a symetrical map.. and thus the spawns are the same.. you allready know where the enemy is going to spawn. Than you check what the map is about, size/choke points etc.. which all can be viewed within 2 minutes. When you play enough you know when you need to go tank heavy or bot heavy due to the analysis you did within those 2 minutes. It will be the same like the ladder pool we have now only with a fair distribution of mex and an even easier to see spawn location of your enemy.

That is why I LOVE Uber for building a fully customizable system editor. Procedurally Generated map do not incorporate game flow. They just throw random stuff at random places within certain parameters. Custom made maps, Good ones that is, DO incorporate game flow and thus will lead into much more interesting maps than procedural generated ones.

They are not in any way the same. If the map is set, it's all about who can execute the same strat better than the other person. Just take a look at Starcraft.

Symmetrical maps completely nullify any of the reasons to have set maps. Why are you opposed to this?

PCG maps probably won't make better maps than Player Created maps. What PCG maps have over PC maps is simple:

They aren't predictable (aside from symmetry). You have to adapt.

Now, the first pass isn't going to be perfect. But that's not to say it can't adjusted to be made much, much better. That's no reason to throw out the idea of a PCG symmetrical map system.

FFA Ladder? XD

YES. @jables pls.

Edit: joking

The amount you need to adapt is really limited. certain builds work for certain terrain types. you can see what the terrain is within your spawn timer and adapt to it accodingly. The only way you learn this is through experience. such maps maybe very interesting for casual play or for the average players. For the top players it won't mean anything. They know what they have to do on those maps even before they build their first factory.

If you have players make great maps which all take into mind a certain game flow, like what option do you give players, where do you let them expand, etc etc.. and a diffrence in map sizes. Now make a map pool of 20 of those diffrent maps that play out much diffrent than another.. only than the real best players will start to shine.

lol this guy. yep, non-random map must only have one viable strat, while random map would totally not have only one viable strat /sarcasm.

You know what, why dont you infact go look at star craft. You might be surprised how reality is different from the fantasy world in your head.

It's not a fantasy world, Elodea. You are still trying one of X different strats and testing who can execute them better, faster, stronger. it's boring and doesn't encourage creativity and thought.

The amount you need to adapt isn't as finite as you seem to think. I can guarantee you it's more than on a set map.

BattleBear, I'll throw your statement some help here:

Only the best players and those that memorized the maps will start to shine.

I'm not saying that PCG maps are better than PC maps - I'm saying that the benefits of having random maps outweighs the benefits of having player maps, and that gap will continue to expand as they improve the PCG system.

The thing is, finding out what is the best strategy on a map as you go takes more skill than learning a well known strategy and exploiting it to it's best.

Random maps FTW

"Different skill" I would argue.

Let me give you a run down for a Symmetrical random map:

- I spawn here.. So that means the enemy spawns there.
- Are the spawns close? yes go mixed dox with tanks, no? go heavy on the dox with a later transition into tanks
- Is the planet huge? Get a lot of air.
- Is there a lot of water? Yes? go dox heavy No? see above
- My spawn is here, his spawn is there so this is the shortest route to each others base. That mean these, these and these choke points are the most important. This mex field will be most contested and I can safely expand into that direction.
- I should watch that and that flank for possible raiding attempts.

there you go, I just give you a run down of every single random PCG map which all can be done in the 2 minutes before spawning into the game.

The reason why I advocate PC maps is because they purposely guide players to do certain strats. I'ts not because players use the same strat with one beating up another better/faster. But because you trigger players to try and find ways to overcome/surprise their opponent.

You can argue the same point for either side...

It's not that simple and we both know it. Yes, in general that works well. Against better players, however, you cannot use those generalities to win consistently. It's a practice thing you learn over time.

Also, that fourth point is a hilariously fantastic pointer to how bad naval play is - when you look at a lake, you don't say OH! I can build some naval and wage a sea war and bombard his coastline.

I noticed you didn't play during Beta. Please, feel free to take a look into the deep past and watch some of Zaphod's videos of that era. That might show you just how amazing the gameplay on PA can be in 1v1s - all over the place. It's not the shortest route that matters the most - that's only for raiding. Rather, it matters where he set up his proxies and if you can stop them in time. Or if you can get near-perfect intel with air or orbital without sacrificing too much on your ground game. Did he go early T2? Time for some serious aggression. Super early Dox? Get up some radar. Etc. etc. Was it perfect? Not at all. But that sort of *the whole planet matters* thinking is what needs to be encouraged. It emphasizes the things PA does well, while mitigating its weaknesses.

I think we can all agree that so long as jables keeps posting, well be alright.

This....

So much this.

It's like last night, in Starmade. Some guy threw up a bounty on my head, and one of my buddies murdered me in the middle of a trade without letting me know ahead of time.

It was depressing. I got really mad. Then I came back and explained (calmly and politely) that if he had let me know, I would have let him kill me for the money anyway, so long as we completed the trade first.

LESSON OF THE EVENING: COMMUNICATE.