Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:48 am Post subject:
Vote on your favorite Generals, C&C3 and RA3 maps.
Subject description: EA needs to produce more asymmetrical maps, don't you think?
EA_CIRE has started some new topics at the Official C&C Forums to figure out which C&C maps fans prefer. Here's his words on it:
EA_CIRE wrote:
Hello Commanders!
Probably everyone here knows that we’re working on a new Command & Conquer PC game. We had a discussion about map design a couple of days ago where I got challenged by the team. They said that I can’t name two out of the three most loved maps from Generals, Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3. I really don’t know why I accepted this challenge – maybe it was due to the hot weather which caused some malfunctions. But hey, let’s prove them wrong!
Tell me what your favorite map from C&C Generals, C&C3 Tiberium Wars and C&C Red Alert 3 is. You can choose multiple maps for each game. If you want to justify your choice just go ahead and tell us why you've selected your maps.
Now make your decision and spread the word about this thread! I will keep you all updated on how well I did!
But the neutrality of this news post stops here. We are a fan site, not a news center. So, yea, they are producing a new C&C game and that's the point of the development of the game that fan input may have a serious influence in the development of the game. So, our voice is extremely important now. Since Generals, EA has been reducing the amount of asymmetrical maps in the game. I think C&C4 doesn't have any asymmetrical maps at all. So, this site proposes everyone to vote in their favorite maps and the asymmetrical maps.
But why symmetrical maps sucks so much? Here's our list of reasons:
-> Symmetrical maps is more predictable and, consequently, battles are more mechanic.
If you can view how the entrance points of the enemy base look like by just looking at your own base, you don't need to scout to plan attacks. It is also easier predict all its movements towards base expansion, tech buildings. Also, players in areas with similar characteristics do have a higher tendency to follow similar tactics in early game, if they are using the same faction.
-> If you scout half of the map or a quarter of the map, you know the whole map.
Of course, you still need to scout your enemy. But you can already predict all the base entrances of your enemy even if you scout the enemy using only one.
-> It is not realistic at all. Real world is never like that. The immersion depth of the game is lower with symmetrical maps.
I am aware that the game is a fiction and that realism in the game is limited, but symmetrical maps makes it feel even more artificial.
-> Tournament players does not play more than 12 different maps.
Check GameReplays.org if you have any doubts about that. They tend to play 3 or 4 different maps of each kind (1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 or 8 player maps)
So, there might be more, but it's kinda late here. But the surprise factor is always a good thing to twist the battle and maps with symmetry does not motivate it. In PPM, we've been trying to fight against this plague for a couple of years. The highlight of our actions was the Open Map Competitions 3 and 4, which EA sponsored, and we've forced map makers to not produce symmetrical maps. However, so far, it was worthless. C&C4 has no asymmetrical maps and I think that the tendency is that future C&C games will no longer have asymmetrical maps, because EA seems to think that maps must be symmetrical to ballance the game, which is a quite naive thought.
Anyway, it is your chance to help us, vote in your favorite maps and voice against symmetrical maps, if you hate it as well. Here are the links to the topics where you can vote in your favorite maps:
I've never understood the issue with symmetrical maps. The most successful series in the RTS world, Starcraft 2, has symmetrical maps and it's never been an issue for them. You find better battles in pinch points, and you still have to scout to know what your enemy is going to tech up to. QUICK_EDIT
I think they're just boring. With a symmetrical map you end up playing the same sort of game every time, with the enemy in one of a set of easily identifiable locations, a set of pinch points between you and them, and maybe something capturable for good measure.
With an asymmetrical map, the choice of where and how you fight a battle is much more varied and much more interesting. It gives you more variety in selecting locations to defend and places to ignore, and gives the player a less intrusive experience. The thing I find about symmetrical maps is that they tend to have a sort of "Do *this* over *here*!" setup, inherent in the design which isn't as apparent in a more naturally shaped map. QUICK_EDIT
Agreed with Orac. Well done symmetrical maps are also as balanced as asymmetrical maps, but simply much more varied and interesting to play. IMO WW did some pretty good asymmetrical maps (by layout and gameplay, their detailing always sucked), but they're asking favourite maps only for games which don't really have any asymmetrical maps to vote for (C&C3 has only one without Kane edition's bonuses).
Quote:
The most successful series in the RTS world, Starcraft 2, has symmetrical maps
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject:
When people say boring, do they mean it's boring appearance-wise or boring with regards to the gameplay? They're not necessarily the prettiest maps, but both symmetrical and asymmetrical maps can have bad gameplay. If people can predict the tactics on a symmetrical map, then the map isn't that brilliantly designed, is it? An asymmetrical map can have certain routes that people will take over others, making it just as predictable. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Thank you, Clazzy. Some maps may also put an advantage over another site or only promote one way to get to the opponent... All of one type of a map is a bad move for C&C _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
RA 2 did a good job on having a few symmetric tournament maps and on the other hand having asymmetrycal maps, wich MAY give one player an advantage but on the other hand gives the other plaqyer knowledge of the advantage making him think of ALTERNATE methods to come by these threats.
these kinds of maps forced players to utilize every possible asset regarding for a certain tactic to eradicate another player. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:26 pm Post subject:
RA2's Hammer & Sickle was a fantastic map, as was Siberian Wastes (my favorite map to play against human players), Lake Blitzen, South Pacific, Wild Animal Park, A Path Beyond II... all of them were fantastic.
South Pacific is roughly symmetrical with the dog-bone shape, but each of the player locations is pretty unique. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
This, Canyon Fodder and Heck Freezes Over and maybe a path beyond, the best maps, sometimes, it isn't all about strategy, like making an map that's equal to each side, we need difference, thats what makes good maps. (Yeah trying to make no player have DIRECT difference between each other is also an factor tough...) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:23 pm Post subject:
Shadow Hunter wrote:
we need difference, thats what makes good maps.
Yes. That's one of the reasons I get bored with RA3 skirmishes so very quickly- the maps lack difference, and I can't try different map locations for different battle layout...
I think that more asymmetrical maps would make my gaming experience much more pleasant in the long run. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Hard to say what my favorites are, I definitly like the bigger 6-8 player maps. So if I had to pick one I guess it would be Heck Freezes Over. _________________
The enemy shall be injected with toxic poison - Venom QUICK_EDIT
I think the solution to the symetrical versus asymterical argument is glaringly obvious, include both map styles, thus giving you the advantages of all of them, allowing you to accomodate for those who want predictable tournament-esque maps and those who prefer to play with a more random factor based on their starting locations and map layout. Both have pros and cons, but it makes more sense to include both for variety and to accomodate more gameplay styles, choosing just one style will limit the entire skirmish and online gameplay. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:52 am Post subject:
The main "problem" with the asymmetrical maps is the assumption that if a rock is placed in a way that it might slightly impede the movement of player's units, then the player is in disadvantage.
This entire issue is solved by the player who uses fewer units, flying/naval/whatever-no-on-ground units, or through sending out large groups of units in small groups through such obstacles. But guess what - the people who can't tank rush a giant army as efficiently as the other guy, will bitch and moan about this single rock, like it raped their house, burned their dog, and kicked their family.
The people need to be able to fit a strategy not just on a map-to-map, but to a spawn location basis as well. But no, people rather have it the easy way, and whine instead. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:15 am Post subject:
m7 wrote:
The most successful series in the RTS world, Starcraft 2, has symmetrical maps and it's never been an issue for them.
The most successful series in the RTS world, Starcraft 2, has a brillant campaign and that's what makes most people buy the game. If the rest is an issue or not, we'll never know. I'm personally not fan of playing SC2's skirmish. But other people may enjoy it. But the campaign alone is worth the game.
m7 wrote:
You find better battles in pinch points, and you still have to scout to know what your enemy is going to tech up to.
Better battles in pinch points is questionable. It depends more on other factors of the map than its symmetry.
Clazzy wrote:
When people say boring, do they mean it's boring appearance-wise or boring with regards to the gameplay? They're not necessarily the prettiest maps, but both symmetrical and asymmetrical maps can have bad gameplay. If people can predict the tactics on a symmetrical map, then the map isn't that brilliantly designed, is it? An asymmetrical map can have certain routes that people will take over others, making it just as predictable.
If you play the same map over a hundred of times, it becomes more predictable. But an asymmetrical map still has an advantage in that situation, because in a symmetrical map all starting points plays in the same way. So, it takes more time to get bored of the same map, if it is not as symmetrical as the ones created by EA.
Volgin wrote:
Some maps may also put an advantage over another site or only promote one way to get to the opponent...
This problem is called 'bad map design'. It's not an issue with symmetry itself.
Volgin wrote:
Re-make grand canyon
Awesome idea
Morpher wrote:
I think the solution to the symetrical versus asymterical argument is glaringly obvious, include both map styles, thus giving you the advantages of all of them, allowing you to accomodate for those who want predictable tournament-esque maps and those who prefer to play with a more random factor based on their starting locations and map layout. Both have pros and cons, but it makes more sense to include both for variety and to accomodate more gameplay styles, choosing just one style will limit the entire skirmish and online gameplay.
I really wish EA could do that, Morpher. Unfortunately, they seem to ignore the non-competitive user.
gufu wrote:
The main "problem" with the asymmetrical maps is the assumption that if a rock is placed in a way that it might slightly impede the movement of player's units, then the player is in disadvantage.
This entire issue is solved by the player who uses fewer units, flying/naval/whatever-no-on-ground units, or through sending out large groups of units in small groups through such obstacles. But guess what - the people who can't tank rush a giant army as efficiently as the other guy, will bitch and moan about this single rock, like it raped their house, burned their dog, and kicked their family.
The people need to be able to fit a strategy not just on a map-to-map, but to a spawn location basis as well. But no, people rather have it the easy way, and whine instead.
People need to stop being lame. That's all . QUICK_EDIT
THats really a thing I do miss in SC II. Assymmetrical maps... But, on the other hand, the rest of that game is awesome (including the custom maps ), and therefor its acceptable _________________
Think of me as Nordos, 'cause Banshee wouldn't rename me QUICK_EDIT
People here hate competition, that's the real reason half of you don't like symmetrical maps. Just admit it. _________________ Discord: princess_marisa
Steam QUICK_EDIT
The symmetrical maps in SC2 have never been boring to play on, or to watch players on. Then again, you have a significantly larger amount of strategy in StarCraft 2 over Command and Conquer. Instead of the number of tanks you build and how fast you can get out a War Factory, you have to build up a particular mix of forces (which are why population caps add such a better experience for strategy games IMO) and be ready for whatever else the player might have built in counter.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that you can have beautiful symmetrical maps. Just because EA doesn't do anything more than some cliffs and flat land doesn't mean it has to be like that. Seen plenty of awesome symmetrical maps in many RTS games that supercede the look and gameplay of the best CnC asymmetrical maps.
Quote:
The thing I find about symmetrical maps is that they tend to have a sort of "Do *this* over *here*!" setup, inherent in the design which isn't as apparent in a more naturally shaped map.
Not true in SC2. And it's not really true all the way, considering that in asymmetrical maps the expansion areas are all pre-placed, meaning you have to "Do *this* over *here*!"
Quote:
That's one of the reasons I probably will never get that most succesful modern RTS game in the world.
Your loss, especially if it's over maps that have perfect balance.
Buuuuut, maybe I'm just too far grown out of the old Command and Conquer and too far grown into the ways of StarCraft 2. I'll end my involvement in this post here, just to prevent any massive post wars that I have no time to participate in. QUICK_EDIT
People here hate competition, that's the real reason half of you don't like symmetrical maps. Just admit it.
I love competition but still dislike symmetrical maps. In my opinion there should be both asymmetrical and symmetrical maps in an RTS though.
Quote:
Instead of the number of tanks you build and how fast you can get out a War Factory
This always makes it sound so oversimplified. Try spamming only 1 tank in for example TI against its staff members and you'll lose pretty surely. You have to mix units, and use them well, and to win you usually need to have more units too (which again requires better economy handling). _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | Vinifera | World-Altering Editor (WAE)
Three words: Random Map Generator. They could have a large selection of preset maps for tournaments and the like, and with the generator you have a virtually unlimited number of asymmetrical (and completely unpredictable) maps. Of course, that would require the effort of making a random map generator that isn't as pathetic as the TS/RA2 ones (oh, the glitches...). Using individual seeds or by saving the map, people could play the same map repeatedly if they really wanted to. _________________ Dawn of the Tiberium Age staff member QUICK_EDIT
Three words: Random Map Generator. They could have a large selection of preset maps for tournaments and the like, and with the generator you have a virtually unlimited number of asymmetrical (and completely unpredictable) maps. Of course, that would require the effort of making a random map generator that isn't as pathetic as the TS/RA2 ones (oh, the glitches...). Using individual seeds or by saving the map, people could play the same map repeatedly if they really wanted to.
This, this, this!!!!
RMG is awesome, loved it in TS even with the glitches QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:59 am Post subject:
I agree with Banshee, the campaign was the selling point for me. I find the skirmish incredibly boring, it's the same as Warcraft 3's skirmishes. WAY to slow in my opinion and I enjoy commanding massive numbers of forces. Age of Kings by far was my favourite RTS. _________________ Beta Tester for Mental Omega 3.0
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Vote on your favorite Generals, C&C3 and RA3 maps.
), and therefor its acceptable
