cosmicat

Reputation (+5):
(Post) (+5) Hero Contest #7 - Classic - Participant

Reputation (+3):
(Post) Thank you for voting in the Hero Contest #7. : )

Reputation (+2):
(Post) Thanks for the review, it seems like you were able to effectively use my hero's design intentions etc but maybe that's just because you put me 1st

----------
You do claim to know, though, because you have stated a belief that the game is improved by adding a very different hero role to an existing race, instead of merely providing an alternate to existing ones. I actually deliberately avoided the concept of an "assassin" hero for the Humans because, even if such a thing can be balanced, I would not be up to the task.
----------
Yes, because I think doing nothing at all is more powerful than making a hero whose role already exists. For that reason the Blood Mage is an arguable addition to the human faction, although I'm not convinced he wasn't interesting.

There are many roles you could have filled. Besides, mountain king is an assassin, as far as wc3 is concerned.


----------
I did not set out to remake Warcraft III in my image; I set out to add a single hero to its existing design, in a way that would not disrupt the design choices made by the developers.
----------
As a developer yourself it's more powerful to reason about how an addition improves design, not about how an addition doesn't make things worse. Think of it this way: It's more the case that you failed to be awarded bonus points, rather than you received an infraction.


----------
Consider the design of the original StarCraft, with abilities like Dark Swarm and Stasis Field. The first StarCraft game had several powerful area-effect abilities that were used and abused in high-level play and required almost inhuman micromanagement and fast calculation speeds (including trivia knowledge, i.e. Swarm's radius doesn't actually match its art) to use effectively (not Calculus, though; I'm a mathematician and I know what Calculus is). Warcraft III has fewer of these, and a slower overall pace, but it is still not entirely free of these things.
----------
Sure, you're talking about small calculations which players experienced. You can't argue that the game wouldn't be improved if the effect animation matched the real radius (!)

And indeed, differential equations are sometimes necessary to calculate the most optimal response to a context - not that your hero falls in this category, but it exists.


----------
A trigger response to EVENT_UNIT_ATTACKED can be abused by players because it applies when a unit begins its attack, not when the attack "resolves" (i.e. before damage or a "miss" is calculated and guaranteed, whether or not a missile animation delays the action). This is not a reason to never use EVENT_UNIT_ATTACKED; it is a reason to use it carefully and, perhaps, sparingly.
----------
Indeed, but in this case your choice to use EVENT_UNIT_ATTACKED was unarguably the wrong one. The usual terminology in software design for this is marker vs event; in this case EVENT_UNIT_ATTACKED is more of a marker (Consider that "correct" uses of it treat it as a marker, not an event)

Reputation (+2):
(Post) way to go

(Part 3 / 3)


----------
Fortunately, the fact that Charged Bolt is much easier to use than Chain Lightning or Forked Lightning (having a more predictable path and more even damage distribution than the former, and better overall range than the latter) and the "cast-and-forget" nature of Lightning Spire each contribute a small quality-of-life improvement to the hero's overall utility.
----------
Actually, I didn't take the time to realize that charged bolt was intended to be different than chain lightning, I thought you just re-implemented it for fun.

I do think lightning spire is interesting, just not interesting enough to award you any points due to its simplicity.

Consider that if the only thing necessary is good design, I could essentially copy your hero with a different theme and be competitive. In other words, a hero ultimate that summons a static structure with a basic attack and a chance to stun isn't really interesting after 12 years of modding wc3.


----------
If you feel up to the task, I would recommend you study more than one design philosophy
----------
I would love to, but I don't know of any. I'm limited to my own case studies, a few select blogs, and the design of games I trust like LoL and sc2.


----------
perhaps run some of your own tests until you understand what the specific problems are with using certain Jass natives in certain contexts. I think you would find there is a bit more nuance than merely a list of "never"s.
----------
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Jass natives are the common.j functions that are used to interface with wc3 native code (object editor doesn't provide natives)

I also don't know what you're implying about a list of nevers.

(Part 2 / 3)


----------
Existing spells such as Flame Strike, Mana Shield, Banish, Spirit Link, and Stone Form can often backfire on players who use them when the best move is not clear. They can also turn the tide of a battle that might otherwise be lost. Units firing uphill have a chance to miss that is not documented anywhere in the gameplay itself, yet everyone must know what that chance is; an entire volley of uphill attacks may do nothing—or they may destroy an enemy force regardless. Arbitrary risks and rewards, chance, obfuscation, frustration, and overall what I would normally insist is bad design seems to have been intentionally reinforced through several of Warcraft III's core mechanics.
----------
Many of these things are intentionally reinforced, and yet Warcraft IV will almost certainly not have any of these mechanics - take a look at world of warcraft, for instance, where many themes from warcraft lore had to be toned down in a game that's largely PvE. Starcraft 2 is an even bigger indicator.

Still, no one is claiming that flame strike's design is strictly bad in warcraft 3, and for the record, I think banish and spirit link are fairly good design.


----------
Is this an excuse for poor design choices? Not on its own, no. However, it is worth considering that sometimes the balance of an ability (and the ability to balance that ability without having to completely remake the hero concept) depends not only on what the player can do with it, but what an opposing player can do against it.
----------
Abilities that have means of counterplay for opposing players is perfectly reasonable, but that should be a side-effect of the ability's use, rather than an unclear optimization. In other words, it's better to take advantage of a player who used an ability properly, than to take advantage of a player who used an ability improperly.

Players shouldn't need a calculator to decide if their option is the right one. It should be intuitive -- the ability should aid the player in their goal, not convolve it.


----------
Yes, an ability like Static Shield makes it difficult to spontaneously compute whether its use is "optimal" during an active skirmish, especially when the stresses of micromanaging other units pile up. It is also difficult for an opponent to micromanage units against such an ability, and similar stresses pile up on that side.
----------
Are you saying that an ability that requires a calculator for the player and the opponent to optimize is reasonable? That kind of implies that players who can do calculus in their head deserve an inherent advantage, don't you think?

(Part 1 / 3)


----------
If I was making a unit for a better-designed game than WC3, I would have made a very different unit. As would we all, I hope. I like straightforward designs that are easy to use and to play against, letting players make meaningful choices without having to consider detailed information in the moment. I like diversity in function, and giving everyone a wide variety of strategic and tactical choices at all times.
----------
This kind of thing is perfectly possible with heroes that have a high level of synergy. The Paladin, for example, makes all kinds of meaningful choices without being forced to give up a playstyle. If you like diversity that's just another level up the design chain past playstyle. Playstyle comes first, diversity is more difficult.

Do note, as Footman16 also seems to have gotten stuck on this, that hero design was only one component of my review. As a programmer, I will always consider my ability to judge quality programs higher than my ability to judge quality designs.


----------
For the most part, I do approve of the design axioms LoL is founded on. Zileas' ideas provide a good baseline of heuristic measures and targets, especially when creating a fresh system.
----------
Do note that Zileas was not always the design director at Riot, and didn't start his career there. His list of anti-patterns in the lol forums are a more general list of no-no's from his experience working in game design, including on world of warcraft, than a list of axioms on which to build league of legends. Put another way, there are many concepts that will never be in league of legends that can't be pinned to a particular design anti-pattern, and equally, even new league of legends heroes will occasionally go against those patterns.


----------
However, the design of Warcraft III tends to emphasize racial themes over diversity: each race has a radically different distribution of hero types, regeneration mechanics, macro, and unit composition. Tier systems and unit roles are consistent enough across races, but there are still outliers—Spell Breakers and Faerie Dragons do not have identical roles in gameplay, nor do Banshees and Sorceresses have very much in common at all, outside of the "secondary caster" descriptor. The Undead and Night Elves have answers to Tauren and Knight units, but not equivalents. The Undead have exactly one siege unit, while each other race has two. Need I go on?
----------
I don't really see your point. Sure, the races aren't identical, and of course there are intentionally gaps left unfilled in each race's design options. This creates stress in matchups, which I don't claim to know is a good or bad thing.

cosmicat,

"Who's Online", eh? Don't worry, I'll respond... eventually.

Reputation (+3):
(Post) Mailing you my firstborn. Diapers not included.

Lulz.

Hello, cat, I know you're not active since some weeks ago, but I'll say hello no matter what

Reputation (+6):
(Post) Thanks for more bug reports!

Reputation (+6):
(Post) lolololololo