general. Do they have to be balanced? It's important to understand that it's a very big

地圖非得要是平衡的嗎？要知道這是個非常重要的議題

topic that everybody will have different opinions on, depending on why they play and follow

而人們因為各自玩CS:GO跟追隨遊戲動態的理由不同，也會有不同的看法

the CSGO scene. To demonstrate this, watch Thorin's video for a different perspective.

Thorin的影片就是個很好的例子，也為我們帶來了相當獨特的觀點

Firstly, what is the definition of 'balanced'? In his video, Thorin considers it a balance

首先，到底平衡的定義為何？ Thorin認為平衡與否要從可供選擇的地圖總體來看

of the map-pool as a whole, rather than of individual maps! He argues that since different

而非地圖個體來判斷 他的看法是既然職業隊伍各有其獨特的風格

professional teams have unique play-styles, balancing is more about having a variety of

既然職業隊伍各有獨特的風格 平衡的意義在於

different map styles to choose from and a fair way of picking them, so that each team

有各種地圖可供選擇 以及透過公平的方式來挑選地圖

can play to their strengths and their opponents' weaknesses.

如此一來兩隊都能展現各自的長處 也可以好好利用敵對的弱點

I wouldn't even have imagined it from this perspective! However, for this video I'm going

我作夢都想不到要從這個角度來想這個問題！ 然而在這部影片當中

to remain boring and consider it from a more traditional, 'per-map' basis where I consider

我會用比較無聊也比較傳統的”地圖個體”作為標準

'balanced' as having equal potential to be won on both CT and the T-side. Any match is

當兩個陣營都有同等的獲勝機會時 一個地圖才算是平衡

naturally balanced by switching teams half-time. This doesn't say anything about the map itself

有一說是半場換陣營使得每場比賽都很平衡 但這對探討地圖本身並沒有幫助

though, since using this logic, any layout is 'balanced'! To get around this, I see it

因為用這個邏輯來說的話 不論何種地圖的配置都會是”平衡”的

as a game of two halves and consider a very one-sided map to be wasting up to half of

我會從兩個半場的方式來看一場比賽 一面倒的地圖就是浪費了一半的潛能

its potential. When designing a map, I feel that the focus should be on designing a layout

地圖設計的焦點應該放在地圖的配置 使得選手的實力能夠嶄露無遺

that showcases the skill of the players, both as a team and individually. It feels horrible

不論是團隊合作還是個人戰技

to be cheaply killed by a sniper half a mile away, or from not looking the right way when

當我從半哩外被狙擊手輕鬆地做掉 或是進入龜點重重的炸彈區沒有看到對的地方遭伏擊而死

entering a bombsite with hundreds of corners. A map that I consider to be very balanced

我會很不爽 我認為Dust2(沙漠2)是個非常平衡的地圖

is Dust2. As a terrorist, when I die, it's generally because I was out-played by the

在玩恐怖分子時 我會死通常是因為我技不如人

other team. On Nuke, on the other hand, it's normally because the enemies are all camped

另外一個極端的Nuke 因為反恐小組全都躲在難以覺察的位置

out in obscure positions and there's no chance of a fair fight when up against similarly

面對實力相仿的對手時 恐怖分子面對的是一場不公平的戰鬥

skilled opponents. Each side has to bring value to a match. And

一場比賽中 兩個陣營都必須要有存在的價值

sure, everybody loves the easier side. People play CSGO, craving the next epic ace or situation

當然 大家都偏好比較輕鬆的一邊

where they single-handedly hold off an entire team until support arrives. This happens all-too-often

人們玩CS:GO求的是下一個經典五殺 或是單槍匹馬擋住敵隊直到援軍到來

on CT-side, where the enemies have to come to you.

這些狀況太常發生在反恐小組上 因為敵人必須衝著你來

But remember that for every kill you get, another player has died and has to sit out

請記得你的每一個擊殺 都代表著有另外一個人死了 必須枯等到下一回合

for the rest of the round. From his point of view, it's no fun if he did everything

如果他已竭盡所能做對所有能做的事 只因為地圖本身對他不利

right but the map itself was against him and instead he's reduced to being just a target

他就只能淪為敵方的賺分數賺錢的活靶 或是集錦影片的片段

to reward the other team with points, money and clips for frag-montages. Some people will

這樣對他來說一點都不好玩

point out that the beauty of a map like Nuke is that every victory for the terrorists means

有些人會說像Nuke(核彈)這樣的地圖 其美妙之處在於恐怖分子的每場勝利都意義重大！

something! Sure enough, it does. It often means that the CT side made a big mistake

沒有錯 那通常代表反恐小組犯了些重大的錯誤

or that some fluky, risky strategy paid off. That's not about skill! That's luck. Once

或是恐怖份子採取了僥倖成功的冒險策略 那不是技巧而是運氣！

the next round begins, even if the terrorists have enough money for everything they want

下一回合開始 因為地圖對反恐小組過於有利

to buy, the map is too CT-sided to make much of a difference. The outlook remains bleak

即便恐怖份子的荷包足以負擔所有東西也沒有甚麼差別 那一回合恐怖份子的前景仍然慘淡

for that round, even if it means that they'll probably win the game in 20 rounds' time.

就算這代表他們大概可以在二十個回合的時間裡贏得這場比賽也一樣

Add to this the unpredictable nature of the pistol rounds and you'll often see matches

再加上手槍局難以預測的特性

determined by how the first couple of rounds of each side play out. It's wasted potential

比賽的走向往往受制於每半場前幾個回合

and for every exciting match played on Nuke, there are a hundred more where it plays out

每當有一場刺激的nuke比賽存在 就代表還有另外一百場索然無味、容易預測的nuke比賽

in a predictable, boring fashion. Now I'm not saying that each game should have

我先澄清一下 這不是說我認為每個上半場都該以八比七結束

8-7 scores for each half. There will inevitably be matches where this doesn't happen. But

有的時候這種情況就是不會發生

I feel that if you average every game out, a good map should come to about 50-50. Here

但我認為平均下來 一張好地圖應該要有五五波的實力

are some graphs created by Valve from the data that they've collected from popular CSGO

這裡是Valve收集常見CSGO地圖資料 根據平衡性做排列所製成的圖表

maps. And here they are, ordered by balance. If you had to rank the maps from favourite

如果要你把最喜歡到最不喜歡的地圖排出表來

to least favourite, is it similar to this list? If so, you probably enjoy playing on

那張表是不是跟這張有些類似？ 如果是的話

balanced maps! But these findings are further complicated

那你應該更喜歡玩平衡的地圖！

by how different tiers of play result in different balances. For example, the highest skill levels

不過實際狀況會因為不同玩家水準而產生出不同的結果來

are most likely to win the first 3 rounds as terrorists, but are then less likely to

舉例來說 在技術水平高的比賽中 恐怖份子陣營比較容易贏前三場

win the remaining 12 rounds. From this you can conclude that the higher

但是比較不可能贏剩下來的十二場 你可以推導出的結論是

the skill level is, the more advantage CTs have once they've got enough money to defend

技術水準越高 在有足夠的錢時越能發揮反恐小組的防禦優勢

properly. Since the majority of the rounds are played out in this state, it's fascinating

在絕大多數的回合都處在這個階段時 不同技術水平的比賽

to see that the balance in this situation is closest for Dust2. In fact, it's only ever

在Dust2卻又是極為相近的平衡 這相當地耐人尋味

been beaten by Overpass for balance (and since then the map has become CT-sided), so Dust2

事實上 Dust2在平衡性上只有輸過Overpass(天橋)而已(之後就變成對CT有利了)

remains the most consistently balanced map for all skill-levels.

Dust2因而成為在不同技術水平下 均能維持穩定平衡的地圖

And remember that this data is collected from matchmaking. The pro-level teams will be above

請記得這是取自競技模式的資料 職業比賽不包含在內

this again and I would expect to have even more of an advantage on CT-side if the trends

但如果趨勢相同的話 能期待職業比賽中反恐小組會有更多的優勢

continue. Tactics will no doubt have more of a role to play as you move up into professional

相較於個人等級的比賽 職業比賽中策略成分的比重更大

tiered matches but on a personal level, they have a natural advantage when in a defensive

在採取守勢的反恐小組時握有天然的優勢

position. Thorin's arguments for one-sided maps made

在初看Thorin的影片時 他的論點我能理解

sense to me when I watched his video but, with hindsight, I don't see how the points

但我現在認為他的想法也能應用在平衡的地圖裡

don't also apply to balanced maps- if not more so! For example, he brings up the case

他的影片中提到了TSM對上NIP在Nuke的比賽

of TSM VS NIP on Nuke. They both have history of having a strong CT-side on the map and

兩隊過去在Nuke上均有著強勁的反恐小組表現

yet NIP managed to win the first 3 as terrorists. They lost the remaining 12 rounds of the half,

儘管NIP在玩恐怖份子時設法贏了前三回合 前半場的剩餘十二回合都輸掉了

only to then pull it back and win once they were on CT. He uses this as an example of

最後NIP在反恐小組時一口氣贏了回來 Thorin把這場比賽當作是個好例子

how two strong CT-sided teams should battle it out on a CT-sided map, where they display

在兩隊均為強勢的反恐小組 又在反恐小組具有絕對優勢的地圖上交戰時

their mastery on the stronger side by locking the map down and denying the other side most

他們就該緊握優勢 封鎖整張地圖 並把另外一隊給壓得死死的

of the rounds. It certainly makes the rounds where terrorists

這當然會讓身為恐怖份子時贏的那幾場更為刺激

manage to win more exciting. But I feel that it devalues the rest of them, both to play

不過這也讓其他回合的剩餘價值當然無存 玩的人難過 看的人也很難過

and to watch since it's usually filled with slaughters as the terrorist side fails one

因為輸掉的這幾回合恐怖份子通常都是在一次次的快攻下屍橫遍野

rush after another. I feel it's wrong for the outcome of a match to be determined by

比賽的結果受制於少少幾個回合 甚至是受隨機性極高的手槍局而定的

so few rounds- especially notoriously random pistol ones. Victory in CSGO should be a delicious

我認為這樣的情況是不對的 CSGO的勝利應該要像是一道精緻的餐點

and delicate combination of a number of factors, like skill, economy, team-work and so on,

由數個因素揉合而成 像是技巧、金錢控管、團隊合作等等

like a well-made meal. When a map is so one-sided I think it puts too much emphasis on one element.

當一個地圖是對某邊特別有利時 就過度偏重單一元素上了

If CS:GO is a roast meal then Nuke is a plate full of potatoes. Yes, they're nice, but you

如果CSGO是燒烤餐 那Nuke就是滿滿一盤的馬鈴薯

need to leave room for everything else. As T-side, even a strong team with a good economy

馬鈴薯是不錯 但你總該留點胃給其他東西 當你玩恐怖份子時

and tactics doesn't give them a good shot at winning the round! It's infuriating.

即便你有經濟優勢與好隊伍也不能確保勝利 這令人相當不爽

Compare this with balanced maps. Every round is equally important and winnable if the teams

在平衡的地圖上 每一回合都同樣重要 而且只要整隊都做對的事情 每回合都可以獲勝

do the right things, unlike Nuke where it's easy to see the outcome half an hour before

相較之下 Nuke這個地圖裡 比較結果很容易在三十分鐘前就預測出來

we reach it since victory is all-too-often decided from the random nature of the pistol

因為勝利過於依賴像是手槍局之類的隨機因素

rounds. When the map is balanced, it opens up a lot more opportunities for the teams

當一張地圖是平衡的 每個隊伍都有機會玩出自己的風格

to play in their own style, rather than sticking to an over-powered, tried and tested CT defence

而不是只能繼續依循著過度強大、久經考驗的反恐小組防守戰術

that you can't do much about, even if you're prepared for it. In fact, I'd argue that a

除此之外沒甚麼能做的 即便你是有備而來的也一樣

balanced map gives CT-sided teams MORE room to shine: surely that would be better testament

我認為一個平衡的地圖 反而讓擅長反恐小組的隊伍 有更多發光發亮的機會

to their ability than simply trouncing teams on a CT-sided map? 15-0 as CTs on Nuke? Well

這樣當然會比直接在對反恐小組有利的地圖上輾壓其他隊伍 更能測試它們的真功夫

done, you stuck to a tried-and-tested defence on the easier side. 15-0 on Dust2? Incredible!

用反恐小組在Nuke完封對面？在比較輕鬆的一邊用守舊的防禦玩法 不錯嘛

You successfully gauged your opponents' attacks and countered them.

在Dust2完封對面？ 屌爆了！你成功的摸清對面的策略並反制了他們

Balanced maps give teams more options, more counters and in my opinion, a higher skill-ceiling.

平衡的地圖給予隊伍更多的選擇 更多的反制策略 與更高的技術上限

It's about understanding the opponent and devising a counter-strategy, rather than just

比賽的重點該是了解你的對手並想出相應的策略

being good at CT-side and choosing CT-sided maps and losing on ones that aren't.

而非只會玩反恐小組 選擇對反恐小組有利的地圖 最後輸在沒有偏重任一陣營的地圖上

That's right. I think that balanced maps have the potential to have a higher skill-ceiling.

沒錯 我認為平衡性高的地圖有更高的技術上限

With one-sided maps, once the tactics, counter-tactics, counter-counter-tactics of the map are done,

以有單邊優勢的地圖來說 當策略、反制策略、反反制策略發展出來之後

what determines the winner boils down to the ability of the players and the map's natural

玩家能力與地圖的天然偏向將決定勝負

biases. If both teams are ridiculously talented then it's the positioning that plays a big

如果兩隊都非常的厲害 位置布局將會是影響勝負的關鍵

part in who will win. I see a biased map where one team has limited options as being like

我能想見當處在對某邊特別有利的地圖時 一隊的選擇將嚴重受限

a chess board where some pieces are missing from one of the sides. In low-level games,

就像棋盤上有一方少了幾顆棋子一樣 這在低水平的比賽裡頭不是很重要

this won't matter that much, but in higher ones, even a mere pawn can make a big difference.

但在較高水平的比賽中 即便少了顆卒子也有很大的不同

Let's look at the skill-ceiling in balanced maps instead. I still love the map but people

讓我們來看看平衡地圖裡的技術上限 雖然我還是很喜歡Dust2

are saying that Dust2 has become stale. Is that because it's too balanced? I don't think

但有人說Dust2開始變得有些無趣 這是因為Dust2太平衡的關係嗎？ 我不這麼認為

so. It just isn't complex enough. Just because a map's balanced, doesn't mean it's good!

那只是因為Dust2不夠複雜罷了 平衡的地圖不一定是好的！

Here's one that I made in 2 minutes. It's balanced. Doesn't mean it's fun to play. The

我花了兩分鐘做這張地圖 很平衡 但不代表玩起來很有趣

difficulty is that it becomes exponentially more difficult to balance maps as you add

地圖製作的困難之處在於隨著你加入越多東西 平衡的難度也指數型的成長

more to them. This isn't helped by tactics that may be thought up for the map in a week,

就算在之後幾周、幾月或是幾年後想出適用的戰術出來也是於事無補

month or years' time. What I don't like is people confusing complicated, one-sided maps

我不喜歡的是人們指著對某一邊特別有利的複雜地圖 說那是有著”高技術上限”

as 'having a high skill-ceiling'. It's just bad map design.

不是的 那樣只是單純很爛的地圖設計罷了

Enough of this, let's get to my conclusion. Ultimately, Valve chooses what happens. They

講了這麼多 讓我說說我的結論 Valve還是有最終決定權

have things of their own to balance: CSGO's success depends on pleasing a number of different

他們也有自己的事情必須平衡 CSGO成功與否在於他們是否能夠取悅各種不同的顧客

audiences, ranging from the newbies and case-openers, all the way to good players and professional

從新手、開箱者一直到很好的玩家跟職業選手們

leagues. And they, with their infinite wisdom, have decided to remove Nuke from the main

Valve經過審慎思考 決定將Nuke從主流地圖中移除

map pool. I suspect that they wanted to give their new

我想他們大概為了清一個空位好讓重製後的Train地圖試試水溫

Train map a chance to be tested and that they chose Nuke to go since it has consistently

在回合平衡當中穩定墊底

scored the lowest in terms of round outcome balance, has had the fewest successful bomb

所有地圖中擁有最少成功炸彈安裝數目

plants and more rounds with all terrorists being eliminated than any other map. And perhaps

以及所有地圖中恐怖份子最常被全殲的Nuke只得下台一鞠躬

these factors have knock-on effects, like fewer people being interested in the map and

也或許這些因素的連鎖效應 導致較少人願意玩這個地圖

therefore poorer spectator stats for Nuke matches and twitch streams. I know that I'm

使得更少有人願意觀賞NUKE的比賽或是Twitch串流

less likely to watch a totally one-sided match than, say, a close Inferno game where the

我知道比起一面倒的比賽 我會更想看 像是inferno這種優勢幾個回合就可能易手的緊湊對戰

balance tips every couple of rounds. So in conclusion, map balance is a touchy

總而言之 地圖平衡是一件敏感的話題

subject but I want more balanced maps and think that they benefit the game as a whole,

但我希望有更多平衡的地圖 不論是從玩家的角度或是觀者的角度

both to watch and to play.

我認為平衡的地圖對遊戲整體來說有益無害