HC8 Design Judge Poll (PLEASE READ RULES)

[Kyrbi0]

ATTENTION ALL: Please only vote if you are currently (or plan to be (but seriously, <2weeks?)) a Contestant of the 8th Hero Contest (@PROXY, @Kyrbi0, @Direfury, @KILLCIDE, @Freddyk, @Cokemonkey11, @HappyCockroach, @Quilnez, @Stefan.K, @Rheiko, @A.R., @Tank-Commander, @Hayate, @Dat-C3). There will be a moderator checking at the end, we will find out. Please don't.

ATTENTION VOTERS: Please vote carefully for the one you think best suited to be our Design Judge for the 8th Hero Contest. This is a hidden-vote, single-vote Poll & you cannot change your vote, so choose carefully. Also, this Poll will close when the Contest ends (basically), so we should have a decision by then.

Due to a potential conflict of interest, I thought it in the Contest's best interest to turn this decision back to the Contestants. Arranged in alphabetical order in the Poll above are three individuals (Kam, Softmints & Veljkom) who have all volunteered in some capacity* to be Design Judge; I ask you to vote wisely.




*In order to make an informed decision, I feel it important to note that one of the choices (Softmints) has asked that, if he were to Judge, that the existing Contest Design Criteria be modified and that his specific concerns be enumerated in some fashion. He is concerned (at least in part) with the issues of Clarity (feeling that the existing Criteria are unclear, too open to interpretation, etc) and of Overlap (feeling that the existing Criteria evince some overlap in what they cover, thus allowing Judges to double-demerit you for one thing). Below is the latest version of what he intends (list included):

Softmints' Adjusted Design Criteria WIP2

Theme	Does this hero present a strong, cohesive aesthetic into which all its mechanics fit? Does it convey a sense of history, character, and belonging to the Warcraft universe? Examples of issues: The theme is bland or one-dimensional. The hero does not tie in with one of the non-primary factions. The theme includes sci-fi or other elements which break immersion. The hero has skills or graphics which its species normally doesn't, without explanation. Parts of the hero's graphics don't fit in with the rest. The hero's icons lack unity or don't match the theme. The theme is stretched over too many (4+) ideas. The voice set does not match the hero's personality/model.	/10
Structure/Complexity	Do this hero's skills form a well-rounded and complementary kit? Do they mirror the structure and complexity that is expected by a ladder player? Examples of issues: Skills are too complicated or have too many effects/sub-effects. The ultimate does not feel powerful enough. The hero's effectiveness is mostly concentrated into 1-2 of its skills. The hero's primary stat or base stats (movement speed, attack range) are a poor match for its skills. The hero is a swiss army knife, and has too many tools at its disposal. The hero's function is spread over too many active abilities (due to spellbooks, summons with active skills, etc.). There are several skills which do the same thing. Due to the hero's design, there is only one viable skill to take at level 1, or the hero has only one viable skill build. The hero does not have ordinary skill point progression (3/3/3/1, ultimate at 6).	/10
Integration/Balance	Does this hero fit with the game that Warcraft III ladder is? Examples of issues: The hero's numbers are too high/low, making it unbalanced. The hero does not need to integrate with the player's army, because its internal synergy is too strong, or it covers its own weaknesses. The hero is too much of a game-changer when picked. (It is healthy for a new hero to pivot the game somewhat, but picking a single hero should not invalidate the weight of other choices like tech and buildings.) The hero is a must-pick or a never-pick for more than one race. The hero offers mechanics that other neutral heroes already bring to the table. By design, a buff cannot be dispelled using standard abilities like Abolish Magic. By design, a skill does not respect magic immunity when similar abilities do. (etc.) (If it is too complicated to implement dispels/immunity, simply declaring the intended behaviour is enough.)	/15
User Experience	Does this hero communicate its mechanics properly to players? Is it easy to handle and use? Examples of issues: Tooltips which do not provide clear or accurate information. A skill/buff has no graphic, or re-uses a graphic that is already used similarly in War3 ladder. The hero model is hard to click due to improper collision spheres. Skills do not have appropriate targeting circles. A skill captures or demands the user's input in a way that interferes with controlling their army. Skill graphics do not match their area of effect. Attack animation/backswing is misaligned or projectile is tiny/invisible. Two skills have icons that are interchangable (creating confusion about which skill is which). Two skills use the same projectile or lightning graphic for different purposes. A buff icon does not match its skill icon. A skill graphic is too large and obstructs vision, or is too small and difficult to see. An aura or other passive skill does not convey its activation, or which units it is affecting.	/5
Creativity	Does this hero demonstrate innovation on behalf of its designers? Examples of issues: The theme is nothing special, or already exists in ladder. Abilities are taken from other sources with little/no modification. Two or more of the hero's skills have been used before in the same place, or with a similar theme. The hero doesn't create any new possibilities or interactions for ladder play.	/10
Overall		/50

 

[Softmints]

Hi all,

I proposed some changes to @Kyrbi0 regarding the design judging criteria, which you can now see above. If I'm judging, I'd like to use these changes because I think they're better for me and for you.

Here is why:

• They reduce overlap in the category definitions (easier, more accountable judging)
  
• They improve clarity by giving lots of specific examples in each category (easier to prepare for and mark each category)

If you'd like a longer explanation, here's two 'spoilers' covering that:

Spoiler: The overlap issues

Overlap is an problem because it means a contestant could lose marks for the same mistake twice. The main issue I identified was that both Balance and Role depend heavily on a hero's relationship with other units; it's not possible to assess Role in isolation (try to imagine the 'role' of a character in singleplayer Diablo).

• Solution: One category for the hero's relationship with other units (Integration/Balance), one for the skills/synergy in isolation (Structure/Complexity). Of the two, the /15 mark category will be Integration/Balance since it is more nuanced.

The other issue was that User Experience (UX) issues like bad targeting circles and confusing icons don't have a dedicated category, so they could drain marks from any of the other categories (or go completely unaddressed) depending on the judge. I'd prefer to see a hard limit on how much incomplete UX can affect a score.

• Solution: Allocate 5 marks from Theme to a new (sub-)category: User Experience.

Spoiler: Clarity and long checklists

Clarity is always a plus in contests like this, particularly in a joint contest where two contestants might interpret the categories slightly differently. I understand the lengthy checklists may be intimidating, but pointing out the common pitfalls so they can be avoided allows more of this contest to be decided on the good stuff.

The examples are not exhaustive, but should make it crystal clear what is assessed in each category and how to prepare for it.

This proposal arrives before you quite late due to some communication delays, but please give it consideration.

Even if you don't like/want these changes, you should be checking your entry against the lists of example pitfalls anyway!

(To be clear: I have no problem with any other judge using these criteria if they want; voting for a single judge wasn't in my proposal.)

 

[Kyrbi0]

Spoiler: The overlap issues

Overlap is an problem because it means a contestant could lose marks for the same mistake twice. The main issue I identified was that both Balance and Role depend heavily on a hero's relationship with other units; it's not possible to assess Role in isolation (try to imagine the 'role' of a character in singleplayer Diablo).

• Solution: One category for the hero's relationship with other units (Integration/Balance), one for the skills/synergy in isolation (Structure/Complexity). Of the two, the /15 mark category will be Integration/Balance since it is more nuanced.

The other issue was that User Experience (UX) issues like bad targeting circles and confusing icons don't have a dedicated category, so they could drain marks from any of the other categories (or go completely unaddressed) depending on the judge. I'd prefer to see a hard limit on how much incomplete UX can affect a score.

• Solution: Allocate 5 marks from Theme to a new (sub-)category: User Experience.

Hm. I am confused by what you label a problem. I would submit it's entirely possible to "assess Role in isolation (i.e. the character's in Diablo)"; one looks at what the character does in the game (in battle) and can determine it's "Role" or "Function" (e.g. Barbarian: melee tank/aggro/damage-dealer; Sorceress: ranged caster/disruptive/damage-dealer; etc)

I would go on, except your Solution literally describes it the way I see it & described it. The "Role" of the Hero is (essentially, since the skills are in large measure the sum total of the Hero) "the skills/synergy in isolation", specifically 'in isolation' because the "Balance/Integration" takes a look at "Role" (& "Theme") as it applies to the game as a whole (i.e. "is it well-integrated into the game"/"is it balanced in the game"/etc).

The attached image might help (not nearly as fancy as yours, unfortunately).

Spoiler: Clarity and long checklists

Clarity is always a plus in contests like this, particularly in a joint contest where two contestants might interpret the categories slightly differently. I understand the lengthy checklists may be intimidating, but pointing out the common pitfalls so they can be avoided allows more of this contest to be decided on the good stuff.

The examples are not exhaustive, but should make it crystal clear what is assessed in each category and how to prepare for it.

This proposal arrives before you quite late due to some communication delays, but please give it consideration.

Even if you don't like/want these changes, you should be checking your entry against the lists of example pitfalls anyway!

I'm a big fan of Clarity, and it's a shame you felt my existing Criteria lacked in it, as it's something I strove for. That being said, I think there's a balancing act between 'complete enumeration' and 'lack of enumeration'; I had hoped to strike that balance, but perhaps you feel more is required.

I actually agree with almost all of them (haven't had time to say so), so if only to avoid the visual clutter, we could throw all the en-tabled 'lists' into hidden tags.

I want to avoid being too specific with the 'pitfalls' list... But I'll speak on that more later.

(To be clear: I have no problem with any other judge using these criteria if they want; voting for a single judge wasn't in my proposal.)

Good to know. And no, voting for a single Judge wasn't a matter of proposals; there will be three Judges (one for each section); I simply felt it in the Contest's best interests to 'crowdsource' the decision (as aforementioned) for Design Judge.