Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
makeitstop

Idea for Slayer on Asymmetric Maps

Recommended Posts

So I'm not sure how much thought you guys have given this before, but do you think it would be a good idea to split team slayer into 2 rounds on asymmetrical maps?

 

Basically the problem of course with asymmetric maps is that they tend to give one team a slight to drastic advantage off of the initial spawn based on where your team will spawn.  In order to balance this more, it could be split into two rounds- each round to 25 kills- and each round having the teams switch initial spawning position.

 

At the end of both rounds and thus the game, the kills will be tallied up (as they are automatically) and whoever got the most kills from both rounds combined will win.

 

In the case of a tie (for example:  round 1:  Team A- 25 kills  Team B- 14 kills, round 2: Team A- 14 kills   Team B: 25 kills)  it can be decided based upon one of two ways:  whoever got the most kills the first round (or second),  or (and this would be better because it could be- in very rare circumstances- that they simply tied both rounds and ran out of time or both got to 25 kills at the exact same time) simply have a third round for 5 mins or something where one team (red team) is given that slight advantage off of spawn.

 

These tie breakers would of course give 1 team that slight advantage- but it would only happen if they do indeed tie, which already is a very rare thing for slayer.

 

 

tl;dr this idea would reduce the imbalance caused by asymmetrical maps to only occurring in the case of a tie- as opposed to occurring every single game as it stands now.

 

What do you think?  Am I missing something why this wasn't tried before (I'm sure it has been discussed)?

 

 

edit:

 

A good analogy that I just realized (and posted below) would be comparing this idea to what is already being done in sports like soccer.  At halftime they switch sides to account for the very slight asymmetric imbalances of the field.

 

Since maps like guardian and even abandon are much more asymmetric than soccer fields or basketball courts, why not adopt their mentality and "switch sides" at halftime?

 

tl;dr:

 

By using rounds to switch initial spawns after one team reaches 25 kills, we can remove imbalances caused by asymmetric maps while still utilizing the awesome features of asymmetric maps such as power positions and reacting to your imbalanced predicament off of the spawn. (In fact- now you get 2 chances to react off of the spawn!)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting idea, it could work but on maps like Abandon, I feel like there's not really an advantage being on Red or Blue team due to the initial spawns and the placement of Sniper/OS.

 

I guess it's dependant on where power weapons/ups are placed.

 

Btw, your tags doe.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have thought about this idea before, and I have thought on the situation for a long time.

 

Well, the thing is that the way tournament brackets are designed already is meant to correct this imbalance.

 

The winning team is made Red team. This was done in Halo 2 in order to give the advantage on Beaver creek to the team that previously did well (I.E, Higher seeded) EDIT: On second thought I think it was just a lucky coincidence because they did the higher red and lower blue thing since CE

 

Therefore, any small advantage is given because it was earned in the past. Halo 3 didn't have this because it randomly decided which team spawned on which side (Red or Blue team could spawn elbow on guardian). 

 

As for making it more balanced by doing this, you have to keep something in mind: It would work, but even then it is still unbalanced. 

 

The reason for this is that the team that gets the good side first, has an advantage in the beginning of the game. Because of this, if they dominate, then the other team will play less well because you play worse when you feel outmatched. Therefore, when it does switch, the team that had the advantage will feel inproportionally worse, than they would have otherwise.

 

On the inverse, if they win on the "bad side" then the team that had the good side will feel like there is less hope, meaning that when they get the bad side, they will feel worse than the other team did when they had the bad side.

 

Also there is another imbalance: Both teams know more about the other team in the second round, meaning they would play differently than if they were given that side in the first round.

 

Ultimately, these asymmetries are insignificant and wouldn't actually have any meaningful effect, but you can just as easily argue that the starting spawns on an asymmetrical map are insignificant so long as one team doesn't have an obvious advantage. 

 

Also, asymmetric starts can be perfectly balanced. For example, in Halo 3, one person Gathered all the data from the aired matches on construct for the entire 2009 season to see if one side had an advantage. They recorded the starting spawn and the final game score. 

 

It ended up being almost exactly 50-50 (there were an odd number of games so one side had a one game advantage. 

 

They did the same thing with guardian ball to see if one spawn had an advantage over the other. On guardian you would think there would be a very clear advantage on one side, but they found that elbow spawn won about 52% of the time, meaning it only had a 4% advantage. 

 

Another factor showing that asymmetric =/= unbalanced is asymmetric games such as starcraft or fighters. In starcraft, even though there are three races, all of them have about the same winrates. There is no best race in starcraft and when there is, it usually doesn't last long due to meta shifts. 

 

Likewise in fighters, while one or two characters will sometimes pop up as being overpowered, usually many of the characters are viable and balanced with some of the better fighters having most of the characters be viable to use.

 

So long as one team doesn't spawn in a power position while the other team spawns on the bottom of the map (Zanzibar/Highground), it is balanced enough that it doesn't really matter. Unless it is determined that Red wins >55% of the time, I don't think it really matters all that much, and even if that were to happen, due to seeding, you can still argue that the Red team earned that advantage.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Red team gets "better" spawn, blue team gets host.

 

If you could set up the game to do this automatically, I would approve of it online where you cant choose who gets host, but I think it's unnecessary for tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post

I have thought about this idea before, and I have thought on the situation for a long time.

 

Well, the thing is that the way tournament brackets are designed already is meant to correct this imbalance.

good point

The winning team is made Red team. This was done in Halo 2 in order to give the advantage on Beaver creek to the team that previously did well (I.E, Higher seeded) EDIT: On second thought I think it was just a lucky coincidence because they did the higher red and lower blue thing since CE

 

Therefore, any small advantage is given because it was earned in the past. Halo 3 didn't have this because it randomly decided which team spawned on which side (Red or Blue team could spawn elbow on guardian). 

 

As for making it more balanced by doing this, you have to keep something in mind: It would work, but even then it is still unbalanced. 

 

The reason for this is that the team that gets the good side first, has an advantage in the beginning of the game. Because of this, if they dominate, then the other team will play less well because you play worse when you feel outmatched. Therefore, when it does switch, the team that had the advantage will feel inproportionally worse, than they would have otherwise.

I don't feel that this is a legitimate reason for it being unbalanced at all.  That's all mental and has nothing to do with the actual game mechanics.  If you get the good spawn but do poorly- that's all on you and has everything to do with your team's mentality/ nothing to do with the game itself being unbalanced.  If the mental aspect gets to one team more than the other- that simply means that that one team is doing worse.

 

 the team that had the good side will feel like there is less hope, meaning that when they get the bad side, they will feel worse than the other team did when they had the bad side.

 

Also there is another imbalance: Both teams know more about the other team in the second round, meaning they would play differently than if they were given that side in the first round.

that's not an imbalance either- that's just adjusting playstyle based on what they have learned about the other team- which happens regardless of whether or not there are rounds.

 

Ultimately, these asymmetries are insignificant and wouldn't actually have any meaningful effect, but you can just as easily argue that the starting spawns on an asymmetrical map are insignificant so long as one team doesn't have an obvious advantage. 

 

Also, asymmetric starts can be perfectly balanced. For example, in Halo 3, one person Gathered all the data from the aired matches on construct for the entire 2009 season to see if one side had an advantage. They recorded the starting spawn and the final game score. 

 

It ended up being almost exactly 50-50 (there were an odd number of games so one side had a one game advantage. 

 

They did the same thing with guardian ball to see if one spawn had an advantage over the other. On guardian you would think there would be a very clear advantage on one side, but they found that elbow spawn won about 52% of the time, meaning it only had a 4% advantage. 

 

While it is true that the imbalance of asymmetrical maps is only very slight- as these statistics seem to correlate with- and pretty much every other aspect about individual/team skill is going to matter tremendously more than just the asymmetric nature of the maps- would the round nature not make it even more balanced?  In other words- would not be even better, even if the change is only slight?  And what harm does having rounds bring?  Is the reset required a bigger deal than I think it is?

 

Another factor showing that asymmetric =/= unbalanced is asymmetric games such as starcraft or fighters. In starcraft, even though there are three races, all of them have about the same winrates. There is no best race in starcraft and when there is, it usually doesn't last long due to meta shifts. 

 

Likewise in fighters, while one or two characters will sometimes pop up as being overpowered, usually many of the characters are viable and balanced with some of the better fighters having most of the characters be viable to use.

 

So long as one team doesn't spawn in a power position while the other team spawns on the bottom of the map (Zanzibar/Highground), it is balanced enough that it doesn't really matter. Unless it is determined that Red wins >55% of the time, I don't think it really matters all that much, and even if that were to happen, due to seeding, you can still argue that the Red team earned that advantage.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Red team gets "better" spawn, blue team gets host.

 

If you could set up the game to do this automatically, I would approve of it online where you cant choose who gets host, but I think it's unnecessary for tournaments.

I suppose that's somewhat fair as well.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have thought about this idea before, and I have thought on the situation for a long time.

 

Well, the thing is that the way tournament brackets are designed already is meant to correct this imbalance.

good point

The winning team is made Red team. This was done in Halo 2 in order to give the advantage on Beaver creek to the team that previously did well (I.E, Higher seeded) EDIT: On second thought I think it was just a lucky coincidence because they did the higher red and lower blue thing since CE

 

Therefore, any small advantage is given because it was earned in the past. Halo 3 didn't have this because it randomly decided which team spawned on which side (Red or Blue team could spawn elbow on guardian). 

 

As for making it more balanced by doing this, you have to keep something in mind: It would work, but even then it is still unbalanced. 

 

The reason for this is that the team that gets the good side first, has an advantage in the beginning of the game. Because of this, if they dominate, then the other team will play less well because you play worse when you feel outmatched. Therefore, when it does switch, the team that had the advantage will feel inproportionally worse, than they would have otherwise.

I don't feel that this is a legitimate reason for it being unbalanced at all.  That's all mental and has nothing to do with the actual game mechanics.  If you get the good spawn but do poorly- that's all on you and has everything to do with your team's mentality/ nothing to do with the game itself being unbalanced.  If the mental aspect gets to one team more than the other- that simply means that that one team is doing worse.

 

 the team that had the good side will feel like there is less hope, meaning that when they get the bad side, they will feel worse than the other team did when they had the bad side.

 

Also there is another imbalance: Both teams know more about the other team in the second round, meaning they would play differently than if they were given that side in the first round.

that's not an imbalance either- that's just adjusting playstyle based on what they have learned about the other team- which happens regardless of whether or not there are rounds.

 

Ultimately, these asymmetries are insignificant and wouldn't actually have any meaningful effect, but you can just as easily argue that the starting spawns on an asymmetrical map are insignificant so long as one team doesn't have an obvious advantage. 

 

Also, asymmetric starts can be perfectly balanced. For example, in Halo 3, one person Gathered all the data from the aired matches on construct for the entire 2009 season to see if one side had an advantage. They recorded the starting spawn and the final game score. 

 

It ended up being almost exactly 50-50 (there were an odd number of games so one side had a one game advantage. 

 

They did the same thing with guardian ball to see if one spawn had an advantage over the other. On guardian you would think there would be a very clear advantage on one side, but they found that elbow spawn won about 52% of the time, meaning it only had a 4% advantage. 

 

While it is true that the imbalance of asymmetrical maps is only very slight- as these statistics seem to correlate with- and pretty much every other aspect about individual/team skill is going to matter tremendously more than just the asymmetric nature of the maps- would the round nature not make it even more balanced?  In other words- would not be even better, even if the change is only slight?  And what harm does having rounds bring?  Is the reset required a bigger deal than I think it is?

 

Another factor showing that asymmetric =/= unbalanced is asymmetric games such as starcraft or fighters. In starcraft, even though there are three races, all of them have about the same winrates. There is no best race in starcraft and when there is, it usually doesn't last long due to meta shifts. 

 

Likewise in fighters, while one or two characters will sometimes pop up as being overpowered, usually many of the characters are viable and balanced with some of the better fighters having most of the characters be viable to use.

 

So long as one team doesn't spawn in a power position while the other team spawns on the bottom of the map (Zanzibar/Highground), it is balanced enough that it doesn't really matter. Unless it is determined that Red wins >55% of the time, I don't think it really matters all that much, and even if that were to happen, due to seeding, you can still argue that the Red team earned that advantage.

 

It would be more balanced, you are correct. 

 

I think then the question is how will the game play differently with a 2 round structure? 

 

I will give that some thought today and get back to this thread. 

 

I still think it is balanced enough that it doesn't really matter, but that is just my personal viewpoint so ignore me. 

Share this post


Link to post

It would be more balanced, you are correct. 

 

I think then the question is how will the game play differently with a 2 round structure? 

 

I will give that some thought today and get back to this thread. 

 

I still think it is balanced enough that it doesn't really matter, but that is just my personal viewpoint so ignore me. 

no I agree with you especially once you brought those statistics up (assuming they are true).   It really does not matter that much.  Really I just have OCD and would like to minimize even ridiculously tiny imbalances/randomnes.

Share this post


Link to post

no I agree with you especially once you brought those statistics up (assuming they are true).   It really does not matter that much.  Really I just have OCD and would like to minimize even ridiculously tiny imbalances/randomnes.

Bro, I completely understand. 

 

Back on the MLGpro days I was OCD about not allowing for even a 0.1% margin of randomness or imbalance if possible, but other games have taught me that asymmetrical =/= imbalanced necessarily. 

 

Granted, they can. 

Share this post


Link to post

The best way to make assymmetric maps work is to play them with assymmetric game types.

 

You know what, a new Assault mod just game out...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is a slippery slope argument that just leads to symmetrical maps. Differential starting spawns are a part of asymmetrical maps, no way around it.

 

Good discussion though...

Share this post


Link to post

This is a slippery slope argument that just leads to symmetrical maps. Differential starting spawns are a part of asymmetrical maps, no way around it.

 

Good discussion though...

The way that I described it is precisely a way around it.  Did you not even read it?

Share this post


Link to post

Bro, I completely understand. 

 

Back on the MLGpro days I was OCD about not allowing for even a 0.1% margin of randomness or imbalance if possible, but other games have taught me that asymmetrical =/= imbalanced necessarily. 

 

Granted, they can. 

In my mind asymmetrical maps *do* unequivocally create an imbalance, since by definition they will have players spawn into differing circumstances.  

 

 

 

However, those imbalances may be too slight to affect the outcome of a game.- and although they are imbalanced it is possible that they don't give one team even a marginal edge over the other- although what is probably much more likely is that they give 1 team an unnoticeably slight advantage, and other factors simply take over in determining who will win.

 

In other words, while asymmetry does lead to imbalances, it is important to note that imbalances do not necessarily create advantages.

 

On some maps though, I would imagine (like lockout) that it is not so slight of an advantage.

 

I'm still surprised by the statistics you brought up about guardian- although I believe you.  Constructs asymmetry I can understand not affecting outcomes since it was very slight compared to guardian.

 

Needless to say, at least this is good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't doing this kind of defeat the purpose of a map being asymmetric in the first place? In a good asymm neither team would have a notable advantage at the start of the game, they'd just have different options and have to play according to the options they're given. The skill in asymms comes from seeing how teams adapt to the start of the game and then transition into controlling it for the duration. Cutting a game short at the midgame and then starting fresh after swapping sides would do much more harm than good to the mid-late game stage.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't doing this kind of defeat the purpose of a map being asymmetric in the first place? In a good asymm neither team would have a notable advantage at the start of the game, they'd just have different options and have to play according to the options they're given. The skill in asymms comes from seeing how teams adapt to the start of the game and then transition into controlling it for the duration. Cutting a game short at the midgame and then starting fresh after swapping sides would do much more harm than good to the mid-late game stage.

If the skill of playing on an asymmetric map comes from seeing how teams start on it, then wouldn't having two separate starts where they get to trade places to see if one team is better than the other at both starts be better?

 

Also, I'm not sure why it would hurt more than say, switching halves for halftime in soccer or something. - it seems to be a common occurrence in sports do to slight asymmetrical variations, so why not halo?

 

After all, surely Abandon is more asymmetrical than a basketball court.

Share this post


Link to post

In my mind asymmetrical maps *do* unequivocally create an imbalance, since by definition they will have players spawn into differing circumstances.  

 

 

 

However, those imbalances may be too slight to affect the outcome of a game.- and although they are imbalanced it is possible that they don't give one team even a marginal edge over the other- although what is probably much more likely is that they give 1 team an unnoticeably slight advantage, and other factors simply take over in determining who will win.

 

In other words, while asymmetry does lead to imbalances, it is important to note that imbalances do not necessarily create advantages.

 

On some maps though, I would imagine (like lockout) that it is not so slight of an advantage.

 

I'm still surprised by the statistics you brought up about guardian- although I believe you.  Constructs asymmetry I can understand not affecting outcomes since it was very slight compared to guardian.

 

Needless to say, at least this is good discussion.

Here is how I look at it.

 

Say you have a scale. If You put an apple on one side, and an equal sized apple on the other side, then the scale will be balanced. This is what happens on Symmetric maps.

 

However, you can put other things on the other side as long as the two weigh the same. For example, you can put an orange on the other side so long as it is the same size as the apple and the two will be balanced. This is what happens on Asymmetric maps that are perfectly balanced.

 

It is possible to make it where neither side has an advantage at all if the map is created good enough. Like on construct, one side gets an apple and the other gets an orange. Neither side has an advantage even though the two are not symmetric. 

 

A map like Highground on the other hand has it where one team gets a Rasin and the other team gets a sack of Potatos. This means that one side gets an advantage.

 

Something can be asymmetric an yet perfectly balanced. It is hard to make it this way, but it is true. 

 

Usually anything that is off balance can be fixed in forge. For example, Constructs default starting spawns had one team spawning Main hill out in the open next to fusion coils, while the other team spawned near gold. Forge allowed this to be balanced out. 

 

I think that if there were to be a map that could not easily be balanced in forge, then the 2-round idea would work out great for it, and I would be interested in trying it. It would also make it possible to play slayer with side specific spawns. 

 

 

One main appeal of asymmetric maps is that the games have more variation and you have to learn more. Imagine starcraft, where the only race you could play in tournaments is Terran. It would be perfectly balanced, but it wouldn't be a better game. It would kind of suck tbh. Because you can have other races that are asymmetrical, but balanced, the game is more deep. 

 

Truly interesting design comes when you add asymmetries to the game, just as long as both teams have an equal percentage chance of winning. It is why Halo would suck if all it was were to be BR starts only on a grifball court. 

 

Being able to put yourself in advantageous positions, or get more powerful weapons in the game causes asymmetry throughout the game that makes the game good. As long as both teams have an equal shot of winning, it doesn't matter.

 

On a map where it isn't equal, the 2 round system could work. 

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting idea, it could work but on maps like Abandon, I feel like there's not really an advantage being on Red or Blue team due to the initial spawns and the placement of Sniper/OS.

 

I guess it's dependant on where power weapons/ups are placed.

 

Btw, your tags doe.

I would argue that while the advantage may be extremely slight, and is certainly outweighed by other factors such as simply which team has better shots, there is slight imbalances nontheless that could be completely removed with this system.  (kind of like how in sports they switch halves even though the asymmetries are practically nonexistent.)

Share this post


Link to post

I would argue that while the advantage may be extremely slight, and is certainly outweighed by other factors such as simply which team has better shots, there is slight imbalances nontheless that could be completely removed with this system.  (kind of like how in sports they switch halves even though the asymmetries are practically nonexistent.)

Yeah, true. I definitely wouldn't be opposed to it being a thing for Halo 5, but I'd rather they concentrated on getting the main things right first, then bringing back all of our old gametypes to their original state (CTF, Assault etc) before they start looking at these finer things. 

Share this post


Link to post

Here is how I look at it.

 

Say you have a scale. If You put an apple on one side, and an equal sized apple on the other side, then the scale will be balanced. This is what happens on Symmetric maps.

 

However, you can put other things on the other side as long as the two weigh the same. For example, you can put an orange on the other side so long as it is the same size as the apple and the two will be balanced. This is what happens on Asymmetric maps that are perfectly balanced.

 

It is possible to make it where neither side has an advantage at all if the map is created good enough. Like on construct, one side gets an apple and the other gets an orange. Neither side has an advantage even though the two are not symmetric. 

 

A map like Highground on the other hand has it where one team gets a Rasin and the other team gets a sack of Potatos. This means that one side gets an advantage.

 

Yep, I agree completely with this.

 

Something can be asymmetric an yet perfectly balanced. It is hard to make it this way, but it is true. 

 

Usually anything that is off balance can be fixed in forge. For example, Constructs default starting spawns had one team spawning Main hill out in the open next to fusion coils, while the other team spawned near gold. Forge allowed this to be balanced out. 

 

I think that if there were to be a map that could not easily be balanced in forge, then the 2-round idea would work out great for it, and I would be interested in trying it. It would also make it possible to play slayer with side specific spawns. 

 

 

One main appeal of asymmetric maps is that the games have more variation and you have to learn more. Imagine starcraft, where the only race you could play in tournaments is Terran. It would be perfectly balanced, but it wouldn't be a better game. It would kind of suck tbh. Because you can have other races that are asymmetrical, but balanced, the game is more deep. 

 

Truly interesting design comes when you add asymmetries to the game, just as long as both teams have an equal percentage chance of winning. It is why Halo would suck if all it was were to be BR starts only on a grifball court. 

 

Being able to put yourself in advantageous positions, or get more powerful weapons in the game causes asymmetry throughout the game that makes the game good. As long as both teams have an equal shot of winning, it doesn't matter.

 

On a map where it isn't equal, the 2 round system could work. 

 

In regards to the first half of your post- basically we agree completely, but we are arguing semantics.

 

I am differentiating the terms "imbalance" and "advantage"  whereas you are equating the two terms.

 

In other words, I believe that you can have an imbalance (on one side of the scale there are 10 apples, but on the other there is a watermelon), while still maintaing that there is no advantage (the 10 apples weigh the same as the watermelon).

 

Whereas you are using the more literal definition of "imbalance" where the 10 apples and the watermelon are not "imbalanced" but rather perfectly balanced.

 

 

Basically we are using different terminology to describe the same exact thing (which often happens).

 

 

On the second part of your comment, where you mention highground, you actually just made me realize that this 2 round idea *could* make maps like highground actually playable, in the same way that 1 flag makes these maps playable.  So at least it's useful for something even if people would rather not have it be used for say, Abandon.

 

 

 

I just find it really hard to objectively quantify the imbalances/advantages that asymmetric maps give:  (how do we know that the fusion coils on construct perfectly balance that spawn?  Is it possible that one team still has a slight theoretical advantage assuming both teams use best play?)   So for that reason I'd still like to see a 2-round system used even with maps that are asymmetric but do not noticeably give one team an advantage, such as abandon.  Simply because I don't see a downside and only the upside that now it is perfectly balanced (using my definition of the word where imbalances ≠ advantages).

Share this post


Link to post

As for how a 2 round game would play differently:

 

-The starting rush would be more important to the game as it would happen twice

 

-If a team doesn't have map control and there is only a minute or so left in the first round, they may just run the timer out so that the other team loses map control. The other team wouldn't have the ability to do this as well since when they have that side of the map, running the time out would be a game over. This means that there is an asymmetrical advantage that favors the team that doesn't have control near halftime. 

 

-The team would have a chance to do both opening strats in the same game, which means that if they are better at one than the other, they get to do both.

 

-Aggression may be more favored than it is now due to what I stated in the second paragraph (for the losing team or the team with map control).

 

-There will be one more rocket spawn than normal (given both halfs are 7 min)

 

-The game may be decided in the first half (given both halfs are 7 min) since slayer already goes fast, meaning whoever gets the good side first has an asymmetric advantage.

 

-If you don't do a time limit, and have it based on kills with both rounds being 25, then there is no time limit, meaning that games could stretch on much longer than they would normally, which is bad for tournament play.

 

-If you did, the 25 kill round thing AND a 7 minute round time limit, then the team leading at the half has an asymmetric advantage because they will play the second half differently than they would have played it if they got it the first half. Same as if they are losing. 

 

-Stalling will be more prevalent if a team is down, or if they don't have map control.

 

That is all I can think of for now. Might post more if I can think of any differences. As it is, 25 kill and 7-8 min round together is probably the best way to do it.  

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I just find it really hard to objectively quantify the imbalances/advantages that asymmetric maps give:  (how do we know that the fusion coils on construct perfectly balance that spawn?  Is it possible that one team still has a slight theoretical advantage assuming both teams use best play?)   So for that reason I'd still like to see a 2-round system used even with maps that are asymmetric but do not noticeably give one team an advantage, such as abandon.  Simply because I don't see a downside and only the upside that now it is perfectly balanced (using my definition of the word where imbalances ≠ advantages).

 

I was saying the fusion coils made one spawn imbalanced, but I understand what you are saying. 

 

The Halo 3 Forge forum actually had a gametype called Asym flag. 

 

We played MLG 5 flag on asymmetric maps, with a few changes:

 

-2 round

-max 3 caps per round

-max 8 min per round

-sudden death was a third round where first cap won. 

 

It was actually pretty awesome so this idea is not completely new. You would be surprised how well some of the asym forged maps played this gametype. 

Share this post


Link to post

The way that I described it is precisely a way around it. Did you not even read it?

Yea but what is the point?

 

Beaver Creek slayer one team gets rockets and the other gets sniper. Throughout the match the teams will switch sides giving up the advantage of being on rocket spawn. The beauty of this imbalance is the control of the map that one team must have over the other. Rockets spawn five times where as snipe spawns seven relevant times. 8 if the game is still close at 0:10 mark.

 

This is pretty much how every asymmetrical slayer game works. There is only an initial advantage and sometimes its not even an initial advantage because a team is able to take the advantage with nades, positioning, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea but what is the point?

 

Beaver Creek slayer one team gets rockets and the other gets sniper. Throughout the match the teams will switch sides giving up the advantage of being on rocket spawn. The beauty of this imbalance is the control of the map that one team must have over the other. Rockets spawn five times where as snipe spawns seven relevant times. 8 if the game is still close at 0:10 mark.

 

This is pretty much how every asymmetrical slayer game works. There is only an initial advantage and sometimes its not even an initial advantage because a team is able to take the advantage with nades, positioning, etc.

Yes, I know how slayer works.

 

Point still stands thought that the above method completely removes the initial advantage (with the exception of a tie) whilst still keeping all of those positive attributes that you talked about.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I know how slayer works.

 

Point still stands thought that the above method completely removes the initial advantage (with the exception of a tie) whilst still keeping all of those positive attributes that you talked about.

Yes but why? What is the point of that? If control is the point of how to win asymmetric maps you are taking that aspect a way. If a round lasts to twenty five kills or seven minutes and thirty seconds then any advantage you would have gained within that time frame would reset.

 

You could lose your power weapons/ power ups/ map positioning and any momentum you had. What if you were on the team who just grabbed rockets and bam you just lost the advantage that you worked for because either a) time is up b) your team went over the kill limit or c) your team mate died sending the other team over the kill limit. You just created something I would consider unfair by trying to make an asymmetric map play symmetrically. And why so everyone has their chance to spawn on red?

 

This gametype would also play extremely slow because your essentially creating two different points where the game ends.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.