Asymmetry vs. Symmetry

I personally find asymmetrical better in terms of gameplay, but only if it is balanced. Reason being is if each side of the map is not mirrored same goes for gameplay. This makes gameplay more diverse and different, but this comes with a consequence, balancing sides. In this aspect several asymmetrical maps fail. For this same reason I usually respect asymmetrical maps (good ones) more than a symmetric map.

 

Do you mean asymmetrical? If so I believe the crucial part is height elevation. No matter how balanced the weapon set is elevation must be equal for both sides. The simple fact is, if there is high ground with cover it will be camped or at least attempted. If you give the power site to only one side of the map you have effectively ruined flow on your map.

 

I can't agree in every case. Flow wasn't ruined on High Ground, and a lot of 1 flag maps are made great by the fact that one team has high ground. For non-1 sided maps I agree, but with maps like High Ground and Last Resort one team should have the height advantage.

 

I do agree with what you say height elevation is great for objective based maps such as Last Resort and High Ground, but flow on those maps is hardly existent(only referring to objective NOT slayer). People usually never stray far from the objective as camping(defending) is the most effective method of winning. Of course you can also make enjoyable asymmetrical maps without team sided height elevation one example being Valhalla. Yes it did have height elevation in the middle, but it was easily contestable by either side.

 

I have never found a single game on Sword Base enjoyable, that might just be opinion. Most games on sword base end up like this, camping up near green(i think, it might be yellow) lift and securing that entire floor the entire game. Now some people find sword base enjoyable because they are never on the receiving side of the camping. While both sides do share equal height elevation that lift room is not easily contestable. Frags and DMR's are next to useless when up against people in green lift. Your only other answer are power weapons, which the campers usually have. This leads to frustration and rage-quitting.

Keeping height elevation equal is important, but it should not govern your map. Still build it like any good map just keep height elevation in mind. Now I am not saying you can't build a good map that has a one sided height advantage, but making either side overpowered is a harder task.

 

Asymm is better if designed correctly. Mainly because player orientation is much easier. Also they're more interesting in terms of aesthetics. If you can make a balanced asymmetrical map, and make it pretty, you might as well have the best type of map ever.

 

Oh man, there's a lot to inform towards the pros and cons. Personally, there can be a lot of good things about symmetrical maps that people really do not understand. The layout is very easy to recognize, weapon placement is simple, spawn zones are more balanced as well. They are also much easier to build which is a huge advantage. It is a much easier experience in gameplay and balancing the map and creating a lot less confusion to players.

On the other hand, many players want to be impressed rather than dulled out by maps, symmetrical maps have that intention to become dull since it feels like you're in a mirror transition. Also with symmetrical maps, the middle becomes an extremely common killing center and it has a tendency to not spread out well or will eventually have a point where all the action occurs and everywhere else ends up acting like a easy walk through.

With asymmetrical maps, a lot of pros have been stated already but I also like how they end up becoming very creative with no need of mirroring the other side. There is also a nice stance for one-objective types such as one bomb and FFA gametypes also become better with asymmetrical maps.

Some cons not stated would be that asymmetrical maps need tons of testing since there is always bound to be more unbalanced problems and spawning issues compared to symmetrical maps. People also, for god only knows how, often end up lost or do not recognize power weapon spawns. That;s just where I stand towards both. I love symmetrical maps but I have been working with asymmetrical maps for some time now. I prefer either way.

 

I want to add a comment here to compliment/contrast Sugar's view point on the matter. Not that he is wrong, but that you might want to consider the following.

The larger the map, the more asymmetrical you will need to make it. There comes a point that with the map size getting larger you simply cannot make it symmetrical.

Symmetrical maps (AKA mirrored maps) by definition are unrealistic. Asymmetrical maps provide you with more artistic opportunity to make a more realistic environment, though I wonder how you can do that with Reach's palette of Forerunner blocks if you do not intend to make a Forerunner theme.

i do disagree with Sugar about this one point. Asymmetrical maps are far easier to orientate players on. Symmetrical maps provide a mirror, which without something to differentiate can lead to confusion as to which base is red or blue. Asymmetrical if done half way decently never suffers from this problem.

Smaller maps tend to get better traction with the community. Don't ask me why, I don't know.

Asymmetrical maps require better skill at forging, since it is far more difficult to decide when you achieve balance. In some cases, you don't try to achieve balance of experience, but balance of achievement.

If you are building an asymmetrical map with the hopes of getting it into MM, then consider that most if not all cartographers will tend to want the map to support a variety of game types to give it utility. They know 343i will not want to spend a lot of time on a map that they can only use in one niche playlist. This can be more difficult for asymmetrical maps than it is for symmetrical maps (for obvious reasons).

Generally, it comes down to how much work you want to put into it. I never thought I would be making a symmetrical map on the Quarry, but I am. And I am fine with that. But the asymmetrical maps are more difficult to do right. They simply take more time and effort both at forging and at testing.

 

Just basically repeating what a few others have already said here, but symmetrical maps are a lot easier to create than asymmetrical maps. Obviously, because you can just take what you have already done and mirror it on the other side, whereas asym maps take a lot more dedication to try and come up with some interesting designs.

I have only done one asym map that I have posted here, and it was very unbalanced I found out, once RH got to it. Finding that perfect balance is a must, and is not always easy. In essence though, building an asym map with perfect balance is nearly the same as building a symmetrical map.

I will eventually get around to making another asym map, but it won't be for a while. Coming up with decent ideas to build them on takes chutzpah I currently don't possess.

 

I prefer symmetrical maps simply because of the fact that they are a lot more balanced and usually a lot more fun competitively in nature.

 

Would you mind elaborating on this point, specifically the difference between the two?

 

In a symmetrical map, the experience is mirrored. Each team can see the same power weapons in an identical fashion, but as though through a mirror from the other team. They have identical experience.

In an asymmetrical map, this is not possible. Take High Ground for example. You MIGHT argue that both teams have nearly identical distance to the rockets, but they certainly do not have identical distance to anything else. So their experience is not anything of the same.

But what is critical is that their achievements are very similar. That is, in any fire fight, they have nearly identical opportunity to win - or at least they feel that they do. They may have vastly different weapons, but those weapons must not be so unbalanced in the fire fight that the achievement of winning the fire fights becomes unbalanced in a blatant fashion.

Taking this one step further, in an asymmetrical game type, like one bomb or one flag, the defender team can have a completely different set of weapons geared toward close quarter combat, where the attacking team can have a set of weapons that are geared toward troop movement across the map. But when they eventually meet, the weapons that they hold must not make one side feel they never had a chance.

Rockets have a particularly nasty way of making a fire fight quick and unbalanced. Swords and shotguns are great defender weapons in close proximity of the objective, but can be defeated by a team that has longer range weapons as they approach the objective if they take the time to position themselves for kill shots before entering the mission zone.

Now let me say that some of this is my opinion and I am not one to say this is how it should always be done. but I offer this as something to consider. For me, as I said in another post somewhere, asymmetrical maps are just too difficult to try to get a truly symmetrical game to play on it. In many cases, I just won't bother. instead of trying to balance the experience, I try to balance the achievements of the fire fight, which after all is what FPS is all about.

 

This, although some of the best (competitive) maps are asymmetrical aswell.
Guardian, Construct, Lock out are undisputed in this category.
Personally i liked High ground and zanzibar/last resort alot aswell for both slayer and objective.
For slayer it just gives a reason to push up on an enemy and get that good side of the map and switch to defensive gameplay.

Sword base is also one of my favorite maps and i don't camp yellow lift at all.
There is also a big difference between camping and a set up.

 

I hate Sword Base with a passion. The way you win is stay on top and wait for the opponents. That's not great map design. Neither is making the gold lift exit so closed off.

 

Roger. Thanks for explaining - I was pretty sure I knew what you meant, but I've never really heard it described in that terminology. I personally find asymmetric weapon placement to be much more interesting, but it can be a ***** to properly balance.

 

Jetpack and/or nades are the key to breaking the opponents set up.
If they're on yellow, go red, if they're on red, walk up, if they're on both, push as a team.
The opening rush is also very important on sword base, maybe why i like it so much.
Even when you spawn blue side you can get to the shotgun/nade launcher faster then red team.
Only the sniper is hard to get as blue team but not impossible.
I guess its just a map that you either hate or love.

But its no different from asylum/sanctuary really.
You set up on ring, their snipe hut and the walk ways and spawn trap them in their rocks/ their base side.
That is actually much harder to break then sword base imo.