Hunger Games

This question doesn't make sense.

You could say that the US vs. Japan in WW2 was somewhat similar if i was to make assumptions about the perameters of your question.  Sins is far different then this confrontation was.  Comparing countries to planets in a tactical sense in an effort to convey similarities demonstrates a poor understanding of their differences. 

Correction, I believe that there can be multiple types of "pro" Tis not a black and white thing. 

I think you are missing the point...

I dunno, even if you took a freeze frame of our solar system it wouldn't be a very balanced map. That's life.

I'm not sure why 'pros' require pre-made maps. If you're pro at all, you can adapt to the random maps. Radically symetric maps are boring, ugly, remove the need to scout and adapt to your environment. More importantly, they remove every suspension of disbelieve.

Come to think of it, I'm actually happy there is no 'pro scene' as StarCraft has as SCII has been straightjacketed very much to suite this and is far from as innovative as it could be.

I know people can't watch it live, but we do have recorded replays. If people would just take those and upload them, sharing them with the community, people can watch and, despite someone starting in an inferior position, be able to judge how 'pro' they are from what they do with what they have. Robert E. Lee was considered a great commander although he had dick to work with and ultimately lost. Even men of his time, such as Grant, saw that.

As for ladder purposes, I agree with Grubnessul that it would become a stale, elitist system that would have people going in knowing who should come out on top. It would dissuade new players from trying the ladder.

Its because if they are not symmetrical they are not balanced. There is nothing pro about getting stomped by someone because they just so happened to have a bill gates economy and had less militia on their planets. And the point of scouting has nothing to do with finding your opponent, it has to do with analyzing their fleet composition and tech path. It has nothing to do with finding your opponent at all unless it is on a 4v4 or above map which then you will have to scout out your opponent.

You dont adapt to your opponent getting a better eco then you. Or having an unfair advantage, your guys definition of pro are very skewed. It all comes down to you will not have a competitive scene if maps are not balanced, that is just how it is not matter how much arguing and debating we do. No matter what you think constitutes a pro, there will be not competitive scene if it is not balanced.

Draakjacht you need to stop comparing persons in real life to a video game it is different dude :/

Well, I did also suggest people actually use their noggins when observing battles, but if you want to go the mindless route of counting wins and losses, then just ask the devs for perfectly symmetrical maps to add to the current variety. I'm sure they can make it happen. Then the few that care can go and find out who's the 'best'.

Alot of the premade maps are symmetrical as far as I know all of them are, the problem is militia count, unfair advantage by planet upgrades, and extractor count. Just because you started on a harder part of the map then your opponent does not mean you are using your noggin.

I shall defer to my original statement:

I really dont see how im missing a point, you cant compare real life to a video game. I know what point is being made, but it is a flawed point.

So I've decided to do what other people should have. I have put up a request to the devs for said maps to be included in Rebellion, rather than buried the idea within another, rambling post, such as this.

Here is my post.

Although I have asked for a response from the devs, I imagine it'll be something like their response here.

Now no one can really argue the subject, as the devs will either give you what you want or squash any such hope.

And actually you did miss my latter point. I get that you want a science experiment with controlled factors. Good for you. Since it hasn't happened, what you need are people who can make intelligent observations (see, my latter post wasn't about the player) concerning the turn of events.

Besides, without replays, even I can say I beat Aquia, whether it be true or not, and there's little room for refutation.

It is not flawed...superior players can lose because they have an awful start (or an awful team) and inferior players can win because they have a fantastic start (or a strong team)...great strategists have lost to inferior commanders because of terrain, numerical inferiority, economics, or just bad luck...the principle behind why a great general like Lee or Hannibal can lose and the reason why a tier 1 pro can lose to a tier 2 pro is no different...

Alright but that is what I was saying the whole time. I thought you were disagreeing with me.

He WAS disagreeing with you, from what I can tell.

Because you're saying this is a bad thing, and he's saying it's acceptable.

But thats wrong... Because this is a video game and not real life. This is not acceptable in any competitive game because a person should not lose because of a map imbalance.

In all honesty, I enjoy many aspects of the imbalance. I like not knowing what I'm going to find, whether it sucks for me or not, as it makes the game INTERESTING. That all being said I'm not a big fan of 'symmetrical maps with equal resources go go go' as I find the boring ... sure it would be nice to have a home planet and attached roid that are all equal for all players but outside of that ... screwed or otherwise I enjoy the imbalance in random maps (yes, even for multiplayer LAN with friends).

Life isn't fair. Deal with it. A true pro should be able to adapt to a situation.

Adaptation is the key to success.  Those who can adapt to changing circumstances are fundamentally better in so many ways than those who prefer perfectly symmetrical maps.  Make no mistake, i have no problem with some of the premades such as Gateway, but the symmetrical maps have nothing desirable to them.  Pros should base their skill on reaction time,  unorthodox tactics, and their ability to take advantage of the situation, not their premade strategies for beating others on a specific symmetrical map.

adapt to this. your homeplanet is connected only to a magnetic cloud.

That magnetic cloud is attached to only another magnetic cloud.

That magnetic cloud is attached only to the pirate base.

 Your enemy got 3 deserts and 5 roids all with minimum militia.  and 2 plasma clouds with 3 crystal extractors each.

I've played sins at the highest skill level, back when you could have 100% mirrored maps (There used to be resource setting).  And when you got a match vs same race, I tell you, the game was just not fun.  Imagine trading with an enemy on Close Encounters where you both have identical fleets, the guy who wins the game is the one who can retreat his assailants the second he detects they are being targeted.  So the guy who can retreat more damaged assailants to repair bay in adjacent gravwell wins the game.  There is nothing more to it, cause your income is identical. 

At certain skill level this game is just no longer fun.  I've had matches where bot sides had fleets of flak, carriers with bombers & fighters, and HC.  You know how those fights go? Your HC focuses his HC, while his HC focuses your HC, simply cause if you focus anything else you lose the fight.  When you notice your HC is getting hit, you start to retreat it.  He notices you retreating he undocks his bombers... that's right, you have to keep your bombers docked otherwise his fighters will kill them.  You notice him undocking his bombers, you launch your fighters... that's right you have to dock your fighters too because otherwise flak will kill them.  Now you try to snipe his bombers while he is sniping your HC.  He won't launch his fighters of course. He needs to keep those for when you launch your bombers to snipe his HC... 

Now imagine half an hour of these shenanigans.  One person will win eventually.  Probably the guy who got an extra roid before your two fleets met.  If not, then the guy who got the population upgrade tech for his terran. Or maybe the guy who managed to bring an even fleet but one extra cap.  Or some other very small thing that over the course of a half hour can snowball.

I don't enjoy playing a game so seriously, and I don't do it anymore.  It's just too nerve wrecking and requires too much attention to details, and not enough enjoyment.

People adapting is not an excuse for imbalance. You can 'adapt' all you want it still does not change the fact that you are at a disadvantage.

@Astax: Mirror matches are not supposed to be fun. Have you ever played starcraft and gone PvP(protoss). Even with changed environments that does not change mirror matches.

Video games are not life. Your point is invalid. Deal with it.

As I stated before, the dis-advantage or advantage and uneven maps 90% of the time I find to be INTERESTING instead of boring. I do not play this game for 'symmetrical' maps and as such seldom end up playing the pre-constructed maps. I get bored.

You're point is not all encompassing, deal with it. Some of us (I would argue many of the people that play sins, perhaps even the majority) have no problem with the map imbalance as it adds a sense of adventure, gratitude, or direness to every new maps that we end up playing on against other humans, AI, or a mix of both.

That would really really suck PB, but that is not  the norm from my perspective and has only happened about five or six times in the 500+ games I've played on LAN and 40+ I've played on ICO.