Maps and game balancing

Starcraft uses completely different metrics to keep balance. Map design is one of them. Each faction can secure different advantages based on different sizes and styles of maps. These advantages are unavoidable traits of the factions. So things are kept neutral by keeping things symmetric, by using the defender's high ground advantage, and by haviving carefully calculated distances and key locations on the map.

Since PA aims for a single faction, perfect map design is handy but not that important. If a land feature can be overcome by a special unit, then the solution is to use that unit. EZPZ.

Yes, I missed that part. I don't think you can choose the competitive players like that.

The competitive games are about skill so both players should have 50:50 changes of winning.

Hard to say anything about Command and Conquer or Age of Empires because I've never played them. I've tried some C&C games, but I never liked them.

In the end competitive players will decide which maps they'll use. They will most probably use symmetrical maps to ensure the balance.

If 'competitve' is 'games / matches about skill', then those are 99% of all games played...?

Anyway, isn't part of this skill the ability to adapt? To be able to function on assymetric maps? Symmetry really doesn't matter that much when you come to think of it, and you can't just say 'this is an assymetric map, starting location X is the best'.

... Actually, do we even need starting locations? Why don't we just select a random spot on the map, instead of a fixed starting location?

i think a "competitive" game is one that is fun for all parties when played competitively. monopoly for example would make for an awful competitive game. basketball on the other hand is even more fun when its played competitively

paradox games would also make for poor competitive games or anything in the 4X genre for that matter.

it would be nice if PA focused on keeping the game fun even when it's played competitively. And I do think that is their intention as they plan on mitigating obstacles to competitive play like economic complexity, necessary build orders, and micro which are problems with previous RTS/TA-clones. I would argue that SupCom is a poor competitive game because it is not very approachable for the aforementioned reasons.

It should also be noted that macro and micro don't explicitly refer to economy and military the way these terms are used in starcraft. economic micromanagement like supcom adjacency-building or build orders are obstacles to competitive play. while macro tactics like feigning, flanking, stalling, etc involve military units but are strategic.

being able to dodge projectiles or gain units veterancy on the other hand encourage unit micro. these things don't have to be removed though, they can simply be made less significant. dodging projectiles for instance would be less important if it takes 30 projectiles to lose your unit. veterancy in supcom was only so significant because of how powerful T3 and experimental units already were, a flat tech trees like what PA will have mitigates that entirely.

No, the guys organising the tournaments will decide that. The competetive players just decide whether or not they will show up. If they don't, someone else will, and then that guy will be considered a competetive player while the no-show will be considered a scrub

The guy hosting the tournaments always sets the ground rules and the players have to accept them. The worst thing that can happen is that the tournament doesn't draw in enough players. But the competetive players don't really make the rules.

idk bud the competitive scene usually has the ultimate say on what the competitive ruleset will be

I assume they will probably add symmetric maps eventually. Sins didnt have symmetric maps until rebellion. Took the Sins devs long enough(3 expansions) to figure out that map imbalance does affect competitive play.

luckily symmetric terrain doesn't mean boring terrain. i'm hoping terrain is much more important in PA