Achille said:
So, I keep thinking about this contest suggestion, though my questions remain unanswered. I have been logging in to hive semi-frequently to see if there are any points of clarification or updates but all I see and feel are echoes of my eager curiosity. In light of this I drew up some suggestions in terms of how this may be made more feasible simply because I am bored and I hope that they may be useful.
First concerning the selection of heroes. For this suggestion I am going to be unoriginal and steal from the high IQ plotting of @FeelsGoodMan in the recent Arena Design contest. His idea, from what I understand, was to have contestants create custom arenas. After this he would run a later contest in which boss fights would be designed for the arenas. I think that such a two phase design could work quite swell in this suggested contest. The first contest could be a hero design contest, where the top entries are selected for the subsequent contest where an AI will be designed for the purpose of combatting in a tournament. Now there is the problem of garnering interest enough to design at least three competent entries. This suggestion remains of course a suggestion, and should it be opted too complicated then there is another substitute I would like to suggest:
Instead of creating an AI for a single hero, contestants may instead draft up a team of three default Warcraft III heroes of varying level brackets (4/5/6 is my suggestion). Then contestants must design an AI that can competently use their slated trio against an opposing team. This way there is a bit more fairness/stratagem to the planning other than designing a really basic Mountain King/Blademaster 1v1 AI. This of course leads in to my last suggestion/thought:
I do not believe the winner of the contest should be decided by this tournament alone. I love the tournament aspect of this contest suggestion and it plays a huge part of why I am so damninterested in the concept, but it just does not make sense to me as it is suggested. A much more sensible implementation would be in using the tournament solely as a substitute for the poll scoring which is usually around 30% of a project’s score. The remaining 70% would be made up by judges. My reasoning for this is that coding efficiency/originality absolutely should have at least some bearing on the scoring of the AI. The Arena forums are a factory of wonderful and engaging assets and maps, and I would hate to see an AI that leaks a location every time its given a simple move order.
These are my suggestions; I hope people will agree/disagree with me here because it would show interest in this contest that I still firmly believe holds real potential. My drive for rationalizing this contest suggestion is because I would love to see a streamed Hive event like the product of this contest, I can only see it being amazing for this awesome Warcraft III community of ours.
I want to share why I do not agree with splitting this idea into multiple contests, allowing multi-hero teams, or weighting the judging heavily toward subjective scoring over pure AI performance in the tournament.
First, keeping this as one contest with a single hero is the most practical approach. Requiring a first phase to design custom heroes, then a second phase to script an AI for them, only complicates the event. It extends the timeline significantly and risks losing momentum between phases. Many people are already pressed for time, and adding extra layers of preparation will likely discourage participation. A simpler format that anyone can join without months of prior setup is much more accessible.
Second, restricting each AI to one hero helps keep the competition fair and focused. When everyone is using a single hero at the same level bracket, the tournament is purely a test of how well the AI is coded to control that hero’s abilities. If you start allowing teams of three heroes, you introduce an extra dimension of hero synergy and composition strategy. At that point, the contest becomes partly about drafting combinations rather than just building the smartest AI logic. It also makes the matches harder to read and judge because there are many more moving parts. Simplicity in this context is a strength, not a weakness.
Third, having the tournament results be the main scoring factor is the clearest and most objective measure of success. The primary purpose of this contest is to see which AI performs best in real matches. If the tournament were worth only 30 percent of the score, it would be too easy for an AI that does not actually work well to still place highly based on code style or presentation. That would undermine the spirit of the event. People should win because their AI can consistently outmaneuver and outfight the others, not because it was accompanied by nice documentation or an original idea that did not translate into good performance.
Finally, keeping this contest focused on one hero and one phase makes it much easier to run a streamed event. Spectators can immediately understand what is happening when every match is a head-to-head test of the same type of AI. If every entry uses different heroes or combinations, the clarity of the format will suffer and the audience will have a harder time appreciating what makes each AI effective.
In short, a single contest, one hero per AI, and scoring that mainly reflects actual tournament performance is the best way to make this idea successful. It keeps the barrier to entry low, the judging transparent, and the event easy to follow. This contest already has strong potential without adding extra steps or complexity that could dilute participation and enthusiasm.
Previous attempt:
Hero AI Contest
