[Suggestion] Random Symmetrical Maps for Ranked Games

The whole point of competitive play is how fair it is compared to the random, chaotic games that are usually played. For example, the maps are almost always mirrored or flipped, and for most older RTS games, spawns were usually limited.

This is the middle of the second decade of the 21st Century, people. Let's move on from this idea, shall we? Set maps play to the strengths of folks who can memorize and research the best build orders. Why should we limit PA to that standard? The developers certainly didn't when they made the maps spheres, or when they gave you, the player, the power to shape the map in the course of a match. Let's raise the bar here.

I propose that Ranked matches of all kinds use a random Symmetrical generator for systems.

This PCG could have the following characteristics:

Pole spawns only (like we have now), or random spawn locations throughout the map (traditional). Either way has pros and cons, and while I have favor the latter for the sake of adaptation, I do realize how easy it would be to find the enemy spawn immediately upon seeing your own. Thus, I don't think this matters quite as much as it used to.

Size 550->850 planets with Zero->Two moons and the possibility for a gas giant.
Zero->Two Halleys per moon, with each moon's launch cost being proportional to its size.

The PCG could, ofc, be written in such a way as to fit with the balance of the current patch - water level priority, for example (if this algorithm were written today, it would set the water level lower than normal due to naval just sucking).

Uber - do you think this would be worth the cost in labor and time?

Community Forum Warriors - what do you think of this? Polls are half-measures - let's see what you have to say, hm?

I would agree with this. I don't like memorizing build orders per map, I want to adapt to situations that change each time I play. @jables pls.

although the current ones that we do have are kinda cool.....which u dont see alot in random gen. maps, then again there could be 1 that does very unexpected results for very interesting gameplay that will give the feeling of "Never going to see that again" sorta thing

If we are going to implement randomly generated systems, then also add the ability after the game to "save system" for any systems u liked and want to use later.

This is something I've actually heard rather frequently. And it's something I'd love to see implemented for replays. You just save the system from the replay, or have it linked, or something. But that's a completely different feature.

Part of this though, I'm not sure I understand.

As in, they are crafted for interesting gameplay? Or for structured and specific games?

Because I only see the latter. Yes, player created maps may have some extra zing to them - but they usually force one to play a certain style for the map. For example, DUAT, the desert planet in the ranked maps, is based around zone control and air. FORGE, the lava planet, is based around rushing and *whoever hath more tanks/air shall claim the victory.* This is all well and good, but it is also something to get away from, and for a simple reason: it promotes build order play instead of actual thought into *where should I send my tanks/air/bots/commander.*

Build order play is the reason I stopped playing StarCraft. It get's old really fast and memorising and executing build orders isn't what I would call fun. Random maps are so critical to promoting dynamic gameplay. Even randomising the number and location of metal spots, even if they are still place symetrically on the map would go a long way towards promoting dynamic play.

I posted this somewhere else but it is definitely relevant to the topic:

I think, at the current stage of development, custom-made maps should be the primary component of the map pool (someone having thought and designed these maps with a precise idea of the kind of strategies are favoured for it, hence ensuring diversity) but, at the same time, I believe having one random map in the pool (being symmetrical and of varying radius and number of mex within some reasonable limits) will content the majority of players. In this way given a pool of N maps (arguably N must be around something like 8-14 for each competitive season) the probability of playing in a randomised (but fair) map is 1/N. If, on top of this, we add a 1-map-veto system we could have the ideal map pool, in my opinion.

High level players (including myself) would still memorize the 15 or so maps you interchange every six months. It would still be the go-to strategy because we play WAY more than 15 games in a week, much less a month or longer.

A good idea, but it just isn't going to cover it. As @cola_colin said to me yesterday, let the computer do the work for you

I agree PA should push the boundaries of competitive RTS and I agree symmetrical random maps are a very nice way to add variety and depth to the game. Also being able to manage a good ranked 2v2 system, for example, will also be quite unique. But I think is in the interest of popularity and "steady growth" that set maps are a significant fraction of the map pool.

If there are enough 1v1 maps I'd rather not play on random maps since it's impossible to make them "good" and don't have the authenticity of pre-made maps with love inside.

A random map won't care if you have enough space to build factories.

Which is why you put in checks for that sort of thing in the algorithm. It really isn't that difficult - just four lines of code, probably less.

On that note, I'd love for people to stop assuming this is just some glorified random number generator. It's not. It would be a somewhat sophisticated algorithm that builds a planet within some set parameters. Some of those parameters would be *stupid* checks, to make sure the game doesn't break itself by making a planet full of mountains.

EDIT:

Also, what defines enough? It's a really, really bad way to quantify something, especially when that something involves dedicated competitive players.

I don't think it's that easy.

The only thing that I see that uses these types of logical functions is the AI, which is highly structured off other things. I don't know much about programming but I doubt it's easy to do this and would not be a pseudorandom generator.

cant we like...have an option to select between random and user maps? because the community makes some pretty cool ones....

It would of course be best to have this in vanilla, but for now I can add it to System Sharing. I will start now.

That's freaking awesome. Youdaman.

As a programmer-in-training:

Nothing is easy.

It's just easier.

It's not a *logical* function, per se. You are not letting the computer figure out the best choice - you are telling the computer the best choice as a predetermined range of parameters. It takes tons less work, afaik.

If they could do this and prove that it works well nearly every time, I would be in favor of it. I'm skeptical, but I would be happy to be proven wrong by seeing the results.

When you go to the system editor and set CSG and metal to symmetrical, it seems alright.

Creating something like this is basically creating another AI since it would have to act based on factors which are only understood by humans.

For example, the AI checks the planet for enemies to increase chances of it building a nuke. If there are no enemies there will be a higher chance of it making a nuke.

For maps, something would have to check spawns and make sure they are not clustered, like an AI does when thinking about building a factory next to metal.

Idk i'm just going to agree with the concept rather than how it works because I think it's a great idea if it works

The AI has a *fluid* set of decision making - not as fluid as you or I, but much, much more flexible than the average application you run on your computer.

Here's the solution to making sure they aren't super close:

*Pseudocode*

Code:

getDistanceBetweenSpawns

is Distance < VALUE
   yes
     reroll
   no
     continue function

That VALUE could be anything from a set number to a number relative to the planet size to a value range.

6 lines

but rly

There would need to be FAR more functions in there besides spawnDistance to make it a "Good" map.

The only people that can know for sure how hard it would be are the developers. My guess is it would be a lot of work and they would never get it perfect.