Techtree Contest #9 - Poll #2!

[Kingz]

Yeah but then the poll process and judging. How often it happened to have techtree contest two times per year. Still the creation part would be over... probably what you meant anyway. Well hopefully next time will be better organized (from the very start there was no organization here) and any philosophical talks will be moved away (that is if those happen ever again, my money is on no).

We had contests start before the previous one was judged before afaik tho.

 

[Sunreaver]

I vote for this

 

[Vinz]

For what? o.o

 

[Sunreaver]

For this contest to be approve

 

[VeljkoM]

Does it even work that way? Anyway is there at all chance to salvage this or should it start from scratch?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

I'm considering of joining this contest if school gives me time enough

So I can use vJass as much as I want?

12 units and 4 heroes + buildings is so much... I hope there's lot of time for this, 1-2 months let's say.

 

[VeljkoM]

Yes you can use vJass, there was never any limit there.

The numbers aren't really that high, it is no different from standard warcraft race. Bigger problem for people was that limit exist at all. And yeah limit should be naturally long 1 month with extra time if needed.

 

[Vinz]

I was hoping for the mini race. :< That would be so interesting compared to a battalion of casters, flying units and micro stuff.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Anyway is there at all chance to salvage this or should it start from scratch?

I think there is, though we might want to consider a few new "Submission" threads for the various ideas. I'm still working on my responses, but things have gotten busy again (esp. with the Hero Contest going now), so no fear.

 

[Kyrbi0]

DOUBLE-POST WHOOP WHOOP

Alright, everyone. Sorry it took me so long; had a lot going on. I recognize that many of you may have given up on this discussion/thread, or may not care about my response to your posts, or whatever. Still, felt it needed to be said/carried on.

TL;DR, I hope to get this thread moved & renamed as a "philosophical/contest ideal debate" thread so that proper "contest submission" threads may be posted.

I've responded to several people; my comments generally apply to all, but in particular:

• GhostThruster
• Velkjom
• Kingz
• Eagle XI
• Footman16
• BlackKnightTGS
• Mythic
• Jondrean

...Well hopefully next time will be better organized (from the very start there was no organization here) and any philosophical talks will be moved away (that is if those happen ever again, my money is on no).

Well I for one certainly hope they do; these things need to be talked about. But yeah, not on threads primarily for 'starting' the Contest.

Has any techtree contest hosted a partial race?

One on the Hive, and both of the ones at Wc3C. And hopefully another here in the future.

There was only one contest with campaign race only theme. Rest were all pretty much what ever you want as long as it was balanced (i really am sad for people who have to judge that.)

QFT.

...12 units and 4 heroes + buildings is so much...

I agree (see entire thread) .

I was hoping for the mini race. :< That would be so interesting compared to a battalion of casters, flying units and micro stuff.

Well, perhaps in a future Contest. Make your voice heard! I've been pretty alone on this point so far.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/pastebin.php?id=jwjk72
there is noparse enabled, so if u decide to use it as a template/copy text then it's easily done. to view it, copy it into a reply box or something

Not bad, but wouldn't mind a parsed version (even if simply in Hidden tags) so we can look at it in all it's splendor.

i dont want to undermine kyrbi0's efforts, and certainly have tried to stick with what has been decided so far. i simply want to help speed up the contest's start (still not joining tho). the changes i made:
- streamlined, got rid of a whole lot of waffle
- removed 'defense' and 'shop' as structure necessities to provide a little more freedom in design. e.g. allowing something like in Power of corruption where a unit summons shops. or even a tower-shop!
- my own criteria. it is essentially the same as kyrbi0's, except with less confusing names/definitions and less overlap. adherence to the contest theme should be considered in every category but balance. nonetheless, if everyone prefers kyrbi0s then that is up to you to change.

I appreciate it.
- "Waffle"? I'm not sure what you mean. I do have a tendency to wax verbose at times, but I didn't feel that this was one of them... Most of the time I prefer "more/better explanation" to "less/none" (especially when it comes to Criteria; good & bad examples are really important IMO).
- Umm... We can have Shops & Defense as a necessity (structure or not) and they can still be creative; a Tower-Shop is cool with me (well, not really, but it'd be interesting ).
As for the "PoC Unit Shop"... That's an interesting idea, but not fitting to Warcraft's main 4. For an "altered melee/different-from-Warcraft"-version of the Techtree Contest, sure (see above/below post).
- Eh... I'm still a bit iffy on that. Most of all I'd like to see some solid examples (good & bad) in each of the Criteria, so it's clear what you are talking about & so all the 'angles' are covered

A good example

...Would be the idea of "aesthetics" (though it doesn't play as big a part in a Contest like this). Not only is it important to not have buggy or defective artwork (badly clipping models, icons with no DISBTNs, sloppy crudely-drawn textures, poor UVWrapping, etc), but also to not have too much of any one thing (too much color, too many angles, too few highlights, etc), nor too much variance in quality (i.e. one Jigrael model amidst a sea of geomerges? Ehh).

Therefore "Good" and "Bad" Aesthetics is an example of something that needs some clear & multi-headed guidelines to help give direction. I believe this to be true for all the Criteria, though

Though I do think lizardmen could fit desert. Plenty of lizards live in dry hot areas across the world.

Yeah, while I approve of providing examples of "fitting" and "unfitting" (like, as I said above, "good" and "bad"), it would make sense for the examples to be universally true... Lizardmen, while often associated with Warhammer (jungles) or the Naga (oceans), are just as easily seen/associated with Deserts. It can be wet or dry, but it has to be hot (cold-blooded).

Anyway, bit of a semantic, but still.

You shouldn't say what is and what isn't possible inside a biome.

If you can create a creative race that others find plausible to live in a forest/desert you did well.

I agree, but only generally. I think it helps to have at least some direction, so people aren't floundering. However, like how things are going in the Hero Contest, we're not telling people exactly what they can & cannot do... We're just hoping it's obvious & telling them "the judges will be grading on 'how well it fits', so keep that in mind".

However, I'll be honest; I'll be a little sad/miffed if I lose to someone who connives their way into making, say, a Demon hero for the Night Elves.

I think putting hard constraints would limit creativity. For example my last contest submission was a demon race which had more than a normal amount of units because during it's research tree you could choose one of the 3 cults.
Choosing a cult then opened different upgrades/units but disabled the other cult upgrades/units for the end of the game.

With a strict rule of 12 units that kind of thing would not be possible.

(Not necessarily: as long as only 12 units were "available for play" at any given time (e.g. 1 worker, 11 units-per-cult-tree), I don't see a problem with that)

I want to make it clear that neither of us are arguing for the extremes of "No Constraints" or "All Constraints"; between "Make a Thing!" and "Sculpt a #8 Cue Ball with Red Clay". The only 'difference of opinion' here is merely an issue of 'degrees'... Some people flourish with more constraints, others with less.

I wouldn't mind continuing to argue that the Constraints I have indicated are not too 'hard' that they limit creativity (and in fact, for me, induce creativity). Perhaps others do not see that the same way.

Well there were no such limits in that contest, someone could have made 20 units if he wanted to.
More units just makes it harder to balance since your force is more likely to be composed of different units.

Well yeah. Each element (unit, building, Hero, item, ability, etc) must be Balanced both to itself & the rest of the race (& technically the rest of the game); therefore each additional element one's race has, the more physical time one will spend balancing it. Makes sense.

I suppose that's part of the issue, then. For Contests I feel some things (like "the approximate amount of work involved") should be about equal. For example, I wouldn't want to see a "mini-race" with 6 units competing against a 'mega-race' of 20 units; it would be a problematic disconnect with the amount of effort that had gone into each race (assuming relatively-equal amounts of polish & innovation & what-not)

I was under the impression that when you create a new race you want to make a new kind of gameplay, not just emulate WC3 races.

Well, though, it has been my understanding that these "Techtree Contests" were Contests meant to test our skill in creating Warcraft-style races, ones that could 'fit in' with Warcraft 3... So while certain kinds of "new gameplay" is OK (certain abilities or concepts, like "using corpses" for the Undead or "thriving at Night" for the Night Elves), many others are not (i.e. it is my opinion (see MegaPost) that the Warcraft races are a lot more... 'homogenous' than, say, Starcraft or Age of Mythology. But it's a very fine line, to be sure.

More to the point, that's yet another viewpoint on "what these Contests stand for". I won't say you're wrong (though I don't entirely agree), but instead I'll say "let's figure that out"; I'd like to set up a big "Contest Philosophy" Poll with a series of Polled questions of that nature.

The former are the kind of Contests I like to see & participate in. If need be, perhaps (see above) we can consider a "splitting" of Contests by ideal: keep this "Techtree" Contest as it has been run (roughly), encouraging greater innovation in terms of gameplay (at the cost of "it not fitting well in Wc3")... And a "Race-Building" Contest, emphasizing "creating 5th race additions" which encourage creativity (at the cost of "not as much gameplay innovation").

As far as I know there were never any real limits and even if there were I don't think anyone ever got removed from contest. Honestly what Kyrib0 is trying to do now should have been done when they were making the very first contest, I just don't have willpower to talk now about clear rules.

Understandable. And yeah, it would've been ideal to have this all clear from the start... But alas, I wasn't even around for the first one, and some people just prefer "doing things" to "taking the time to make it better".

For me it is more logical since we are on wc3 gaming site, making tech-tree specifically for warcraft 3 gameplay that in the end race should fit the warcraft 3 gameplay. It isn't that limiting unless you want to make something completely alien. Now if the contest name was Gameplay then it would be logical to do what ever you want.

Exactly. See above.

But that is me and I don't really see the current conditions limiting that much as you can use morphs and summons to bypass the unit count if it is that big deal. Besides the approximate unit number there really is no other big demand.

Well, I disagree with the Summons & Morphs (already gone over that) & "approximate", but you get the idea.

As far as i understand techtree contests:

- You balance your race to wc3 gameplay (that is existing races)
- You make the gameplay creative (whether it is smart adaption of wc3 components or creating something out of the box)
- You try to make the race feel warcraftish (graphics and sounds)

I for one do not like the uniformity suggested, if you can balance your race versus other races it's a good submission imo.

But I am probably alone in thinking this way in this discussion.

What? Not really... People are generally agreeing with you. Or at least disagreeing with *me* (aside from Veljkom, now); I would've said I feel alone in this discussion. :<

Your understanding of Techtree Contests is important, and highlights (most of) the important stuff I feel as well. I suppose there is simply a difference in how we approach those issues. For example/for one, in my case, I consider a race "balanced" with Wc3 races/gameplay only if it conforms to the Unit limit. If the Wc3 races had widely varying unit-counts (6-20), then I couldn't make any statement like that/draw any precedent. However, with exactly 12 per race (or, considering Veljkom's opinion, 11-13 (?)), I can't help but think that was intentional; that for 'balance' (as well as for 'workload' & other concerns), Blizzard decided on limiting some aspect of each race & bringing them into conformity with each other.

Same with all sorts of other issues; why don't Undead literally use Corpses as a third resource with Gold & Wood, rather than just a tertiary "pseudo-resource"? Why don't Orcs focus on MASS ONLY GROUND UNITS WAAAAAAGH, and where are those Elves with their 'hiding-in-trees'? Why don't the Undead have tons of Summons (i.e. an entire faction of summons)? etc etc... The answer (to me) is that there is a certain level of "standardization" between the races that, intentionally or unintentionally, Blizzard incorporated.

~

So anyway, I believe in 'balancing to wc3 gameplay' (though that definition may differ) as well. I believe in 'creative gameplay' (though some things go too far, where you might wish for more) as well. I believe in making the race "feel warcraftish" (though personal tastes generally differ) as well.

Tech-tree contest 3 wasn't archived because it has wrong name. It had requirements but hey it resurrected this type of contest after the failure of contest #2 that had just 2 finished entries. As you can see it had 32 applied contestants though just 18 finished but hey still more successful than any other we had.

Hey, that's way cool; many thanks. Yeah, I'm a little surprised that something as simple as a "different name" would make it un-archived; it appears to have been not only a really popular Contest (as you pointed out) but for me, a Contest more in line with what I was looking for in a Techtree Contest (not surprising, since it appears the Contest creator had the same idea I had in patterning it after Wc3C's...).

In short, I prefer GhostThursters version. Mostly because of judging* criteria, they are simple, clear and cower everything (at least I* believe so) and his requirements are less strict (min 3 heroes vs 4* only, approximation of 12 units vs strict 12 units).*

Oh and vote for the philosophical thread be moved and be aimed for winter contest (or when ever next one is) and not this one. I am sure everyone can agree to this.

I think I've already responded to the "covering everything" and the "requirements" issues.

Yeah, this thread has definitely become more of a "philosophy" thread & while useful, should not be left in a place to confuse people looking purely for "Contest Submissions".* I agree with moving/renaming it.

Well, guy above has a point.
Now im wondering if your contests have been always this slow to begin with and what is the average pace with contests are held throughout hive ?

I don't know about all past Contests (you can go skimming the Archives/Library for an idea), but no, generally the ideas are submitted soon prior to the starting of the Contest.

I intentionally started these (this & Hero Contest) "idea/proposal submission" topics a while back, while things were slow, so people had time to think about it (due to all the changes I suggested) & so I had 'seniority' of idea. : )

Whatever man, this will start next year by this pace.

I am quitting this one.
Next time i want to participate a tech tree contest i will organize it myself, and not wait months for one to start.
And you can damn be sure it would start a week after the poll ended.

Thanks for the positive attitude.* I'm sorry that things didn't progress the way you wanted them to; I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting things to take as long either.

But I am still of the belief, as I was from the beginning, that this conversation needed to happen.* Call it "philosophy" if you want, call it out on being "mislabelled" as a "Techtree Contest Starter Thread" (well it was, I have a "submission write-up", but it turned into this), but don't call it 'useless'; I still believe this is important.* Don't call it 'dead'; it was never a Contest to begin with (merely a submission of one that became an ardent discussion).

It is clear this is just being used to discuss things and not actually make a contest. Do you really think people who voted over a month ago will still want to participate at this point? Do you?

It is my hope that by rationally discussing these matters, we could make this (this being the originally submitted idea) a Contest, and (hopefully) a successful one.

Yes and no.* People change, but people stay the same.* Personally, while my availability has waxed & waned over the last (few) month(s) (currently in the "waning" phase), my excitement for a good ol'fashioned Techtree Contest has not.* I'm sure many of the people who voted would still be interested; look at the Hero Contest!* I've been amazed at how many people have come out of the woodwork (people who didn't even vote on the idea) to join.

As i said before we could have actually already hosted one contest, ended it and start hosting another one by this point.

I'm not so sure about that.* These things take at least 1.5 to 3 months to do right, in my experience.* (maybe by now, as of the time of this post, though).

Not to mention these things we are discussing should have been in the damn poll to begin with, or should have been part of a separate discussion and agreed upon before even starting the contest.
I am not blaming anyone but it is obvious that this contest turned from a contest to a discussion on personal subjective opinions.

Tl; dr; This discussion is going nowhere, aka in circles.

You make a good point, but consider this:* I had no idea there was so much divergence of opinion on the matter, and in fact couldn't have known what to put on such a poll if I did.

Now that this discussion has been had, I look forward to throwing together a better, more complete "Techtree Contest Discussion/Philosophy" Thread, with a better, more comprehensive Poll.* I wouldn't mind discussing it if you (or others) wanna weigh in.* Things like "full vs. 3/4 vs. 1/2-mini", as well as the "definition of 'full' ", "what setting (thematically, aesthetically & mechanically) the races should be built in", the "number of imports (all - some/limited - none)"...* Heck, most importantly whether we should just create separate Contests since the divide seems so wide (i.e. "Techtree" vs. "Race-building" or something...* "Faction-Builders"?* "Race-Makers"?* etc.).* All important questions.

- I do understand your biome idea don't get me wrong (I didn't before) but I do believe that people will always try and take the easy (preferred) option in anything and so a forest vs death (barren) will see Tree/ancients race(s), Undead races, maybe a centaur race but people will not put too much effort/thought into making their option. With a selective biome idea it allows anyone and everyone to get into it without the fear of repetition.

I dunno, since I intended it to be "races that fit in the Biome" rather than "races that signify/represent/are the Biome, I never saw that as an issue. Sure, a few uninspired people will re-create Ancients & Treants a few times... But the rest of us will use our brains & come up with cool & interesting races (and as I pointed out, there are plenty of races in either "tileset" option).

(That's not to say "ancients" or "treants" are dumb or un-creative... Just obvious)

- About the whole "I wanted a Warcraft 3/lore race" then that should've been exactly what the contest was from the start:
Lordaeron, Azeroth, Northrend, Ashenvale, Kalimdor (or whatever (sub)continent) Race making competition

Well that was an idea ("Continental" or "Sub-Continental"), though it came up too late for the Poll. I believe it was Veljkom's... I rather liked it.

But more importantly, the whole "Warcraft 3/lore race" thing can happen regardless of Theme. To me, it should be just "the way these Contests are run", in general. If enough people disagree (see above), perhaps splitting Contests is in order (also see above).

- I apologize if the sentiment behind the statement became rude but the point was that this thread wasn't exactly sticking within it's purpose and burning time for a contest that was still behind the starting block.

I understand the frustration, and apologize if people felt led on. I'm not offended. To be honest I didn't expect this to take the time that it did, either; I started this thread thinking we'd hammer a few things out in the Poll & be on our way. That being said, I still think it's an important discussion to have had (& to continue having).

... Also, I wouldn't spend hours into posts, it can end up just being frustrating to the writer, one of the reasons I prefer actual conversations: I can actually be bothered to say what I mean and get a point across more easily. So keep things succinct for everyone's benefit, it also stops the whole TL;DR scenario.

It's more frustrating to me to have little/no thoughtful reply to my posts (especially when those posts are long-ish); that's not been a major problem here, actually. : )

It's funny; I prefer online convo's to real conversations for the opposite reason. See for me, IRL convo's have the benefit of body language, vocal inflections (easier for sarcasm & stuff), and I can smile to smooth things over (in it's place, you have the oft-overused smiley's in my posts, as in the line directly before this one). However I always struggle in RL convo's, trying to have a solid debate with someone (establishing base-lines, positing arguments, providing support, discussing said supports... analyzing opponents' argument, dissecting their support, etc...), because
1) I can never have a fully-realized argument. I say "A" and have supports "A1" through "A5", but when I bring up "A1" and they rebuttal "B1", we get into that and by the time we're out, I've forgotten "A2-5". :<
2) I can never keep track of everything at once (poor memory). Especially when dealing with real issues, remembering what other people said, remembering what happened (in the past), remembering what the other person said... heck, remembering what I said, in that very debate.

Online convo's solve all those problems (and others), while I can generally take care of the things it doesn't do (italics & *other* 'marks' for inflection, smileys for smoothing, etc). First of all I can take the time to frame my argument & list all of the support in a logical manner; then, when people respond, I can respond individually (even word-by-word) to their response, all while still maintaining focus on the topic-at-hand. Secondly, by the very nature of a forum, everything we say is kept track of (not only that, but Quotable, Searchable, etc), so I never truly "forget" & can call back whatever I need (from whatever side).

But yeah. Whatever floats your goat. : )

If the rules for structures would have “required one for each role” instead of “required number”, wouldn’t it make sense for the same to be applied to units? (ie, at least 1 worker, detector, melee/close-range unit, ranged unit, siege unit, defensive spellcaster, etc)

Yeah, I suppose. Are you saying that as an 'addition' to the rules, or a 'modification'? Because I'm not sure how many people would accept an 'addition'; according to some I have made too many rules/restrictions/parameters already. :<

Though, I think there should be a required minimum number of structures/units too, otherwise, a “full” race could be made with all roles fulfilled but have only 2 buildings and 3 units while another would have 1 building/unit for each, for example. But wouldn’t that rule also ‘limit’ creativity? Say, a user wants to skip on having spellcasters or artillery in their race, but make up for it by having something to makes up for it/something special?

See above (& MegaPost) for "limiting" creativity.

If we're making "any-kind" of races (see above), then sure. But if we're making "warcraft-style" races (as I hope for this, or perhaps a separate kind of Contest), then I would argue that would be game-breakingly problematic (e.g. no spellcasters means all of TFT's "anti-caster" unit additions would be useless... no artillery makes siege and anti-turtling impossible (actually would be curious to see how you'd make that work...)... etc), not to mention 'without precedent'.

As for “approximately 12 units”, I suppose the best range would be -2/+2, min 10 and max 14 units, while 12 is recommended.

Meh, I guess I could agree to that (if we ended up with 'full-race'). Still prefer uniformity to not (i.e. strict 12), and prefer Mini-Races to Full in general.

I like how this contest is slowly getting nowhere.
This is what happens when you try to satisfy everyone wishes.
...

Seeing as Kyrib0 is hosting the #7 hero contest might as well archive this now.

I get it, I recognize the issue with "trying to satisfy everyone's wishes", and know that you can't please everybody... But do you seriously think I should've just barreled on ahead with my idea & forced everyone to comply? Personally I hate that from other people; I'd never want to do it myself. :<

And yes, I'm hosting the Hero Contest (almost by accident), but I would still like to discuss this, & more importantly start it (sometime in the future, of course).

 

[VeljkoM]

I would like if we could just clear up what is needed exactly for this particular contest to start. As far as I see the main things were decided by vote such as theme "Biome: Forest vs Desert", race size "full" (details were always on poll), imports "unlimited". As for judging for now best use the same judging that was used up till now. If you want you can remove "legion". You can dig up somewhere my old comment showing that kyrib0 suggestions for judging are cowered by them just don't share names and it is to late to talk now about. I don't see anything else to talk about.

Philosophy Section, skip unless you care

First I fully support it being moved to independent thread and not slow down any contests. Also I suggest this contest not to be effected by the thread and instead decisions to be applied to some future contest to avoid ever again situation like this. Only when it is done should be applied to contest but until then contests should work as usual.There I would suggest to consider creating 3 templates for teachtree sub-contests:

Mini-Teachtree for micro races.
Full-Teachtree for full Warcraft races.
Free-Teachtree for what ever you want.

Then for each we design the rules and judging criteria and be safe forever. So anytime someone wants to hold a contest he just selects one of the 3 templates and the end.

Idea is to avoid dragging people that don't care, avoid sabotage for any future contest and it will damn more efficient.

 

[Kingz]

Now that this discussion has been had, I look forward to throwing together a better, more complete "Techtree Contest Discussion/Philosophy" Thread, with a better, more comprehensive Poll.* I wouldn't mind discussing it if you (or others) wanna weigh in.* Things like "full vs. 3/4 vs. 1/2-mini", as well as the "definition of 'full' ", "what setting (thematically, aesthetically & mechanically) the races should be built in", the "number of imports (all - some/limited - none)"...* Heck, most importantly whether we should just create separate Contests since the divide seems so wide (i.e. "Techtree" vs. "Race-building" or something...* "Faction-Builders"?* "Race-Makers"?* etc.).* All important questions.

Ok, i am gonna say this because no one else did so far.
You are OVER THINKING THIS.
Really, all everyone wanted is to participate in a contest, have fun and submit an entry. See other entries, be creative and have fun.

You are making it sound way too serious, and to be honest it's not meant to be so serious. We aren't having money rewards or actual prizes for winning a contest so there is no need to think about every single little thing.

Don't call it 'dead'; it was never a Contest to begin with (merely a submission of one that became an ardent discussion).

What? Are you serious?
When you start a poll on the contest theme that is the first stage of starting the contest.
And you led people to think it is actually starting by doing so, and instead of handling these "issues" you see before the next contest you decided it's okay to postpone this one for who knows when until they are resolved effectively wasting the time and effort some of the participants put into maybe theory crafting and waiting for this thing to start.

Which was the wrong thing to do in my opinion, the contest should have started following the template and rules of previous contest and then you should have moved the discussion of the possibility to reform the judging/criteria of future techtree contest in a separate thread.

Well, though, it has been my understanding that these "Techtree Contests" were Contests meant to test our skill in creating Warcraft-style races, ones that could 'fit in' with Warcraft 3... So while certain kinds of "new gameplay" is OK (certain abilities or concepts, like "using corpses" for the Undead or "thriving at Night" for the Night Elves), many others are not (i.e. it is my opinion (see MegaPost) that the Warcraft races are a lot more... 'homogenous' than, say, Starcraft or Age of Mythology. But it's a very fine line, to be sure.

You do not decide where the line is. The players who test entries and judges do that, it is not up to you or me.
If you do a complex gameplay that somehow works great or whether you did a simplistic one shouldn't matter at all.
By your idea of techtree contest a Hero Contest and Zephyr shouldn't ever produce a say futuristic hero because it doesn't fit into warcraft.

Which is really a bad way of perceiving contest, just because the given platform is based on warcraft, creativity SHOULDN'T be bound to it.
We have maps that are nothing like warcraft gameplay, spells that draw inspiration from animes, models/skins/icons that don't relate to warcraft universe at all.
Just because it's a warcraft community doesn't mean everything is warcraft based.

If a techtree should follow the vanila warcraft techtree/gameplay it should be set inside the theme, not by default for every single techtree out there.

But do you seriously think I should've just barreled on ahead with my idea & forced everyone to comply?

If you couldn't have decided you should have followed the template others set before you, since they probably put as much and if not more effort in it anyway.

Am i pissed off? Yes i am, this is not a professional way to handle reforms of the scale you are suggesting should be made to the techtree contest or contests in general.
I feel like you are at this point just hiding behind philosophical talk trying to push things and ideas you think are right, which you might just do if no one opposes you on them. I however refuse to be a part of it from now on.

You say you didn't know there would be such a divergence in opinions which is just too naive. When you host any kind of contest a divergence in opinions on some matter is bound to happen, you settle it by sticking to what worked in the past or going by the majority vote.


I am not spending a second longer in these discussions, you guys can have at it as long as you want.
I was under the impression that a contest was to be held not that i have to rationalize with others on what is and what isn't a techtree contest.

If anyone finds himself offended by my observations or opinions you are free to act upon it, i however make no apologies for anything i said and stand firmly behind it.


All that being said, i feel sad for anyone who was led to belive this would actually start in a reasonable time frame.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I would like if we could just clear up what is needed exactly for this particular contest to start. As far as I see the main things were decided by vote such as theme "Biome: Forest vs Desert", race size "full" (details were always on poll), imports "unlimited". As for judging for now best use the same judging that was used up till now. If you want you can remove "legion". You can dig up somewhere my old comment showing that kyrib0 suggestions for judging are cowered by them just don't share names and it is to late to talk now about. I don't see anything else to talk about.

I suppose I'm with you, though I'd really prefer mine or GhostThruster's Criteria to what we had before. Also, I don't mind seeing "full race" on there... But despite the fact that it was on the Poll, this topic is proof enough that we'll still have contention about that small detail. :<

Philosophy Section, skip unless you care

First I fully support it being moved to independent thread and not slow down any contests. Also I suggest this contest not to be effected by the thread and instead decisions to be applied to some future contest to avoid ever again situation like this. Only when it is done should be applied to contest but until then contests should work as usual.There I would suggest to consider creating 3 templates for teachtree sub-contests:

Mini-Teachtree for micro races.
Full-Teachtree for full Warcraft races.
Free-Teachtree for what ever you want.

Then for each we design the rules and judging criteria and be safe forever. So anytime someone wants to hold a contest he just selects one of the 3 templates and the end.

Idea is to avoid dragging people that don't care, avoid sabotage for any future contest and it will damn more efficient.

I agree, except it's more like a table:

vSIZE // SETTING>	Warcraft	Other
MINI (6-8)	A	B
FULL (10-14)	C	D

Response to Kingz

What? Are you serious?
When you start a poll on the contest theme that is the first stage of starting the contest.
And you led people to think it is actually starting by doing so, and instead of handling these "issues" you see before the next contest you decided it's okay to postpone this one for who knows when until they are resolved effectively wasting the time and effort some of the participants put into maybe theory crafting and waiting for this thing to start.

I have realized my error; for this I need to apologize. I misspoke in my earlier post (something I realized later, after reading through it). Part of the issue was that I typed up my response to the first few messages, then came back later to do so for the rest, so I approached different people's questions with a different mindset & answered 2 similar questions in different ways.

Case in point: this. I was wrong, I did start this Contest expecting it to become a real Contest in a timely manner (well, after some hearty discussion perhaps, but still nothing like the months this has gone on for). However, once the discussion began ramping up & became more involved, I did embrace the dialogue & essentially put "starting" the contest 'on the backburner'.

I apologize for the apparent hypocrisy of my statements.

Ok, i am gonna say this because no one else did so far.
You are OVER THINKING THIS.
Really, all everyone wanted is to participate in a contest, have fun and submit an entry. See other entries, be creative and have fun.

You are making it sound way too serious, and to be honest it's not meant to be so serious. We aren't having money rewards or actual prizes for winning a contest so there is no need to think about every single little thing.

I suppose this is where we disagree; while I think Contests are good for having fun & creating resources, I also think Contests are there to be true 'tests of skill'... Or at least, they could be.

Since there are people on both sides, this leads to my argument of "lets hold different kinds of Contests: one for "just-for-fun-ers" and one for "srs bsns test of skill-ers". " More importantly, it'll be one of the questions on my "Contest Philosophy" thread's Poll: "What do you think Contests should be about", and "What do you think Contests actually are about".

Which was the wrong thing to do in my opinion, the contest should have started following the template and rules of previous contest and then you should have moved the discussion of the possibility to reform the judging/criteria of future techtree contest in a separate thread.

I have found that people rarely like to see the status quo changed, and people rarely take the time to thoughtfully read & respond to big things or Rules. If I made a thread like that & just keep making Contests go the way they've gone, that would directly conflict with my belief that things can be done better, and can be made so from the ground-up.

More importantly, I also realized that simply whining & griping in the Contest's thread after the Contest has started was A: not getting anywhere and B: annoying people. So instead I "took matters into my own tentacles hands" and simply drafted up a proposition, a version that resolved many of the issues I'd seen & complained about. The "proposition" took the form of an actual Contest that, ostensibly, could be hosted & run just like any other.

You do not decide where the line is. The players who test entries and judges do that, it is not up to you or me.
If you do a complex gameplay that somehow works great or whether you did a simplistic one shouldn't matter at all.
By your idea of techtree contest a Hero Contest and Zephyr shouldn't ever produce a say futuristic hero because it doesn't fit into warcraft.

Personally? You're exactly right. I love SciFi & I love cross-overs, but I'm not particularly partial to seeing it in Warcraft (hence why you didn't see me competing in the 5th Hero Contest).

Impersonally? That depends entirely on the Contest. I'm trying to separate "Role" (i.e. Mechanics; how a Contest is run, what parameters & guidelines, what manner of proceedings, etc) and "Theme" (in this case not so much "aesthetics" as the "Concept" behind a given Contest; "Sci-Fi", "Ancient", "Steampunk", "Russian", "Ocean-based", etc) here. If the Contest's "Theme" is chosen to be Sci-Fi, then sure. But if it's chosen to be something else (say, "Warcraft: Faction Altar/Melee" style), then yes, I'd say a futuristic hero wouldn't make sense. (for a Hero Contest; transpose my comments for other kinds)

But again, that's something the Judges would really decide (as we've said for several other users: as long as it doesn't directly contradict the Rules you can do it... But recognize that a poorly thought-out Thematic decision might cost you in the Voting/Judging).

Which is really a bad way of perceiving contest, just because the given platform is based on warcraft, creativity SHOULDN'T be bound to it.
We have maps that are nothing like warcraft gameplay, spells that draw inspiration from animes, models/skins/icons that don't relate to warcraft universe at all.
Just because it's a warcraft community doesn't mean everything is warcraft based.

See above. You're right, not all of it does... But this one is. It's specifically "make a Faction for Warcraft"; the closer an entrant gets to tricking people into thinking Blizzard put out a new Patch, the better. : ) (this is more true for the Hero Contest; this one had a Theme I was not anticipating. My "submission"/additions here were more of the "Role" variety (rules, guidelines, parameters, etc). Still, I was personally expecting Warcraft-styled races; "styled" in both Role (how the race works) and Theme (how the race looks/is set).

Again, this is not a coincidence; it's a personal preference of mine & a Contest Theme I haven't seen done (at least not 'explicitly') here before. Each time around people submit ideas & we talk or vote on them; this time it came to this.

If a techtree should follow the vanila warcraft techtree/gameplay it should be set inside the theme, not by default for every single techtree out there.

I'm... not quite sure what you mean here.

If you couldn't have decided you should have followed the template others set before you, since they probably put as much and if not more effort in it anyway.

It appears you mistake me for someone who couldn't decide. I was clear on what I was looking for in a Contest (aside from a few minor issues/questions about a couple of the Rules); however there was plenty of indecision presented by the great clamor of divergent opinions.

I appreciate your assumption as to how much work I put into this. :< Needless to say, "following the template", as stated above, would entirely defeat the purpose of me even creating the thread/contest/submission/etc in the first place. I made it not simply to see 'yet another Techtree Contest' happen, but to fundamentally improve them.

Am i pissed off? Yes i am, this is not a professional way to handle reforms of the scale you are suggesting should be made to the techtree contest or contests in general.

I'm sorry you're angry; know that I never meant to cause that to anyone. However, what exactly would be more 'professional' in your opinion? Instead of whining or backbiting or tricking people, I put up my opinion & idealized submission in the form of this thread, with (eventually) a link to a honest-to-goodness write-up that you all could go through & dissect (and did). I didn't intend to slow things to a crawl.

I feel like you are at this point just hiding behind philosophical talk trying to push things and ideas you think are right, which you might just do if no one opposes you on them. I however refuse to be a part of it from now on.

I'm not sure how I'm 'hiding'... But again, sorry to hear that you feel that way.

You say you didn't know there would be such a divergence in opinions which is just too naive. When you host any kind of contest a divergence in opinions on some matter is bound to happen, you settle it by sticking to what worked in the past or going by the majority vote.

Naive? Alright. I've been called worse.

And really? Are those the only two options? Appealing to tradition or popularity? What happened to the scientific method: form a hypothesis, test it out in a variety of ways to confirm whether it holds true or not. In the fields of interpersonal communication, this takes the form of "have an idea: try it out. Discuss with people the pros & cons". In the field of Contests, this takes the form of "try something new: if it works/makes things better, keep it! If not, discard it".

I am not spending a second longer in these discussions, you guys can have at it as long as you want.
I was under the impression that a contest was to be held not that i have to rationalize with others on what is and what isn't a techtree contest.

If anyone finds himself offended by my observations or opinions you are free to act upon it, i however make no apologies for anything i said and stand firmly behind it.

All that being said, i feel sad for anyone who was led to belive this would actually start in a reasonable time frame.

Again, I'm sorry if you choose to withdraw from either conversation (now or future) or this Contest. I hope you know that's not what I'm looking for; you've proven ingenuitive (<- made-up ) & dedicated in previous Contests, and it'll be a shame to lose some good competition.

 

[VeljkoM]

Look, Ghost criterias are "Gameplay, Balance, Concept, Presentation" while old criterias are "Gameplay, Balance, Originality, Appearance and Legion". He just removed legion and gave Originality and Appearance different names and better definition. Honestly deciding between criteria is just names at this point. For simplicity either don't change or go with Ghosts minor changes. Anyway its all the same.

For Full race simplest would to just go what poll said. True people will be unhappy but there is no possible way to make everyone happy. Majority couldn't care less anyway, just look how many people are bothering to post more then few times. Normally I am for compromises and making everyone satisfied but that is impossible given the situation and I have this thread to prove it. Most efficient and logical thing to do is use what was voted ( Full Factions: 4 heroes, 12 units, 3 tiers) since any other option won't give any results. This will effect only this contest so consider it as part of challenge for this contest alone. Contests are supposed to be challenging and to require an effort.

If you have any complaints save it for independent thread like "what does full race really mean" or "Should techtree contest be about making wc3 techtrees" and don't dare to talk about anymore here. It is the only way to salvage this... let say mess. And yes I am idiot for wanting to salvage this and no I won't be surprised if I fail but I have nothing better to do on this site at the moment.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I will post the final criteria and what needs to be removed and this will get the contest started. Please, avoid extensive argumentation, I have a headache from reading the lengthy posts of this thread.

(see below for map-size constraints)
All imported content may be no larger than 500kb.
Submitted maps may be no larger than 4MB.

Second and third line make no sense together.

These are to be removed. Designing of the race also incorporates models, sounds, textures, (potentially UI,) and icons. There is a reason why we have a database of submitted art, thus, we have to take advantage of it.
I find it interestingly contradicting how unlimited imports are allowed with a constraint on the overall size of the imported content.
Finally, the maps' size for Battle.net is 8MB.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patch 1.24b -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PC WORLD EDITOR CHANGES - Increased max map file size from 4 MB to 8 MB.

Each vote must be accompanied by a post detailing the reasons behind the post; missing posts or insufficient reasons will result in your vote not being counted! (At the discretion of the Host and/or Moderators)

You cannot force someone to write a detailed analysis on their vote. They are not offered anything for their vote, so it's not like a reciprocal act to care as much as we want them to.

• Full-Race was chosen for this Contest, so:
  • 3 tiers per submitted race.
  • 4 heroes per submitted race.
  • 12 units per submitted race.
  • 10-11 structures per submitted race, fulfilling the classic roles:
    • Town Hall
    • Food Supply
    • Hero Altar
    • Troop Production
    • Defense (i.e. Towers)
    • Research
    • Item Purchase

This is the default number, but it should not be a rule. Contestants are free to create as many of those as they want; they are the ones to hold the sole responsibility for their race to be balanced. If the design of their race is (by their own reasoning) balanced, then it will be judged this way (but won't make it unqualified). We are not here to impose opinions.

No submission may violate the Hiveworkshop Rules.

...and Map Rules (Race-building Contests are subject to those).

Gameplay:

How well the various elements of the Faction work together to achieve the tactical synergy & gameplay style the Faction has, as well as how efficiently each element performs its particular function. Strategic systems that endow an identity to the Faction, comprehensive & well-though-out roles which complement a cohesive Faction will be graded well; ill-considered, insufficient or over-compensating roles will lose points.

20

Basically renamed Role into Gameplay, raised points to 20 and added systems in the mix (how else would you be able to fashion an intricate gameplay? - rhetorical question). I will quote Wrathling's here (regarding the points), because he sums up my opinion pretty well:

One, I'm personally not too fond of the same amount of points allocated for each section. If I am allowed the wanton freedom to award points, I'd allocate up to 25 pts for Gameplay, while the remaining sections are each allocated between 5 to 10 pts. That is because in my opinion, Gameplay is the main essence of every race, more so when the theme of the day is 'Innovation'. With a distinctive Gameplay, your race could provide an exceptional playing experience. Without Gameplay, the race would just be a smattering of model swapping and some simple edits of unit stats & abilities.

Awesomeness:

The most subjective of all grading criteria. This attempts to quantify exactly how awesome a Faction's overall design feels. This is the "subjective elbow room" for people to talk about how "cool" or "nifty" or "rad" the Faction is.

5

This will be removed. What you have described there as "Awesomeness" is already part of what Theme, Gameplay and Creativity stand for.

And.. that's about it. Gonna start the contest today.

Finally, is this paired? Why is it that you've been overusing the word "teams"?

 

[Bannar]

I will post the final criteria and what needs to be removed and this will get the contest started. Please, avoid extensive argumentation, I have a headache from reading the lengthy posts of this thread.

Although I respect time some ppl put into writing posts and explanations, it's painful to read monologues.

 

[VeljkoM]

I am totally surprised and did not expect this fast reaction. Oh and as for the strange low MB limit that was an accident. And no I don't remember anything about pairs.

Well at least I can offer my apology for my behavior here.

EDIT: By the way #9 Contest, The Seal was #8.