Techtree Contest #15 Theme Discussion

[Wazzz]

With the conclusion of Techtree Contest #14, which had a commendable following, it is time to strike while the iron is hot and discuss what the next contest theme will be.

So far we have a few ideas that have been considered and toyed around with, but will require further fleshing out. As ever, the option of suggesting alternative ideas is also available.

The themes that have been considered so far are:

- Co-op Commanders: Pick a character from Warcraft to build a techtree similar in style to Starcraft's Co-op Commanders.
- Forced Conglomeration: Pick two factions/sub-factions within Warcraft 3 and combine their themes together.


For the Co-op Commanders theme, the primary concern that comes to mind so far is how this would come into play with heroes. This area is definitely open to suggestions, although so far, it is being considered that, for example, the chosen commander does not have to be a hero for the techtree, so long as it makes sense and the available hero options to the entry similarly make sense. This might be harder to fit into a melee game, but it could be a fun theme worth exploring.

In regards to Forced Conglomeration, you could, for example, combine Blood Elves with Naga for an Illidari theme, or you could combine Tauren with Undead, or something along those lines. In many ways, it's a sort of a different light of the previous contest theme, with wildly different options available to contestants.

Now, without further ado, it is time to open up the discussion and see what ideas we can come up with, and what we can iron out.

 

[Spellbound]

the Co-op theme would actually work really well with the current minimum requirements for Techtree contests in terms of units, buildings, and heroes, given that sc2 co-op commander factions are smaller in size. It's also the perfect excuse why there is need for only need 1 hero, although it could be argued that the chosen 'commander' could have sub-commanders or heroes working under them, giving participants a reason to have more than 1 hero.

Of course, I don't imagine that theme expects the commanders to fulfill the same roles as they do in sc2, that is to say, working together to fight an overpowered AI force, with objectives to do. While this would be cool to do, it would require heavy modification of the base wc3 gameplay to fit that style, and the relevance of many fundamental mecahnics like items, creeping, upkeep, etc, come into question. IMO, the theme should be: take a hero, create a faction around them, and make that work within the current gameplay framework.

My 2c

 

[Wazzz]

Yeah, something like that could work, and be interesting to see what people come up with. It would also be a nice excuse to step a bit outside of the current framework of the Warcraft 3 base game, although that is the game that it will need to be compared against. I think in many ways it's like some of the more experimental theme ideas that have occurred in past, where we could see some real creativity from the contestants. I'd love to see what people come up with for it.

 

[Daffa]

Forced Conglomeration is a tricky one I'd say. I'd vouch more onto Co-op Commanders personally.

 

[MyPad]

Without a concrete idea on what each theme exemplifies, I'd go in blind and vouch for Co-op Commanders too.

 

[Wazzz]

I think Forced Conglomeration is simple enough, but I might be explaining it wrong. With that in mind, I too am more in favor of the Co-op Commanders idea so far. It could produce some very interesting and whacky ideas, which I love.

 

[Barorque]

Hmm, the SC2-like co-op would actually justify bringing in major lore characters as the faction leaders.
Some people asked "where's Jaina" in the Kul Tiras entry... completely forgetting the power level of that character could destroy entire armies and ruin any chance of balance.

On that note, how would balancing even work for a co-op?
I would say a pre-modded map with a specific enemy and bonus objectives would achieve that (sort of a campaign mission). So the contestants would need to work with that in mind.

And finally a unique opportunity to combine multiple entries and release the map as a Hive creation would arise.
Since a co-op won't require so much work on creating a completely new faction. But rather a few tweaks on a faction and a very well thought out Commander and their special abilities + units.
Therefore the file sizes wont be at 150 MB for Reforged entries ^^

 

[Footman16]

Could someone explain how the co-op commanders system would work and what a basic example of it would be?

 

[Wazzz]

I think when it comes to the balancing for it, a lot of it would be up to the contestants on how they can balance it out. There would likely be a degree of flexibility to it, so long as it plays well against the melee factions.

 

[Barorque]

Could someone explain how the co-op commanders system would work and what a basic example of it would be?

I guess they are basically missions, that CAN by played as a co-op. You and potentially another friendly player can choose between multiple commanders and fight together against an AI:

Here's also an example of a commander. As you'll see the main race of the hero isn't completely changed, rather augmented by his presence:

 

[Xelos]

Forced Conglomeration: Pick two factions/sub-factions within Warcraft 3 and combine their themes together.

I'd rather have vote for this, then coop commander, cuz i dont understand too much. and force conglomeration is more fun like take together orc and humans, or dragons and undeads ......

 

[Barorque]

I'd rather have vote for this, then coop commander, cuz i dont understand too much. and force conglomeration is more fun like take together orc and humans, or dragons and undeads ......

Sure it's all suggestions for now.
However a co-op style contest would be very transformative and fresh (not sure if it's even a good thing).

Let's say someone goes for an Undead faction as the Ebon Blade (semi-neutral DK faction in WoW).
The contestant would alter the faction slightly to fit more with their theme, but not a completely new one.
At the battle you would have 1 overpowered commander Darion Mograine (2nd in command after Lich King Bolvar).
This commander would have powerful hero abilities, as well as some special abilities, perhaps unlocked by a third resource.
There could also be powerful death knight units or perhaps even heroes that require said resource and should be used strategically.

Having all this in mind the contest map must be already prepared for somewhat overpowered players with a special AI.
Let's say the first gold expansion will be already defended by a small enemy base, powerful creeps etc.
Also an option for the actual co-op where the enemy is stronger if two players are working together (it's PvE entirely).

So yes, it requires some work from the contest creator, but would result in an amazing experience...
Plus like I said, there is even an opportunity to merge all the entries (HD with HD, Classic with Classic) and release it as a Hive map... might even get some popularity!

 

[Wazzz]

I admittedly think of something a little simpler that doesn't require such a map, where the techtree is just designed with the chosen theme in mind, but @Spellbound may have more detail on the idea as it originated from him.

Forced Conglomeration was a nice suggestion by @Kyrbi0 from a while back, too, although I don't think Dragon would be an available option for the merging. But that is the general idea of it.

 

[MyPad]

@Moonman

In the case of merging all the entries, what would be the primary scripting language? (vJASS/JASS/GUI, Lua, Wurst, or Zinc)

 

[Wazzz]

That is a terrifying concept in and of itself - beyond the potential for mismatched versions, whether the entry is done in HD or SD, there are script languages that are just downright incompatible with each other as well.

Unfortunately, I think that idea in and of itself may be a bit of a fantasy, as while it would be nice to see everything merged in, people would have to adhere to the same parameters across the board. Which I suppose could be doable if it was decided upon beforehand.

 

[Barorque]

Unfortunately, I think that idea in and of itself may be a bit of a fantasy ...

What do you mean fantasy =((

 

[Yours Truly]

I probably won't be joining. Burnt out, and after that disaster in the recent contest, I'm left unmotivated to participate.
Will be lurking around to see how things goes though.

 

[Wazzz]

I think, at present, designing an entry with the Co-op Commanders theme would be closer to designing something more like a campaign faction, which will have a bit more leniency with balance and gameplay mechanics, while more traditional techtrees would be quite a bit more regimented.

So, for example, you could do a Knights Of The Ebon Blade following whoever the commander for that would be as the theme - and it could play out properly, the commander doesn't necessarily have to be a hero available for them, but if you do present a commander that is a hero that's more powerful than usual, you can also consider things like how to balance it out. Sort of gives more leeway for creativity.

The map used will be a rather simple template map, but do we want it to be one with a Tavern? I'm inclined to say yes, we should ideally have a map with most of the Neutral Passive structures available to allow users to get creative with those, which has been nice to see in some entries so far. It's certainly not a requirement to use them, but it is a good option.

 

[Spellbound]

To further clarify what I think co-op commanders could look like as a theme, I don't think we should be modifying the map to alter the base gameplay so that it becomes like Starcraft 2's own co-op commander. I don't think there should be objectives to fulfill or the need to team up and face off against a continuously attacking AI force. It's literally "pick a warcraft hero, identify the overall themes that they embody, and create a faction from those ideas."

For example:

Commander: Kel'thuzad

Themes: Undead, Necromancy, Frost Magic, Lich King General, Naxxramas

Faction idea: Focus on raising the dead. necromantic pylons instead of ziggurats, skeletons are raised on pretty much any occasion to defend/attack. mobile barracks that can spawn skeletons. timed life on skeletons to prevent overcrowding. Kel'thuzad potentially the only hero, and Sapphiron as a secondary hero only recruitable at tier 2 (or is an Ult summon for Kel.). Units balanced for vanilla gameplay. Nothing else is changed.

EDIT: Just waned to add that a commander doesn't have to follow the lore to the T. You can ignore WoW altogether (which I'm sure plenty here will do gladly) and sort of come up with your own interpretation of what kind of faction would arise from a particular hero. For instance, if Thrall is your chosen hero, he doesn't necessarily need to command the Horde - you can focus more on his shamanistic aspect and have a faction that's more geared with powerful spellcasters and elemental units/totems/etc. Commander factions, after all, aren't as large as regular factions.

 

[Wazzz]

@Spellbound that is downright spooky as I was saying just the same thing to you. Love it.

Could totally do Skeleton Peasants as the worker unit, then Acolyte could be your tier 1 attack unit that can raise dead to facilitate your armies, tier 1.5 could be Obsidian Statue support.

That's just a basic idea, although I would personally make a Frost Wyrm hero Tier 3 accessible, but no matter which way you slice it, it would be radically different, and ideally a lot of fun.

 

[Footman16]

Yeah my interpretation of the Co-op Commanders theme would be that you pick a hero, character etc from lore or from Warcraft and re-create/create faction around their theme. So for example if you picked the Paladin from the Humans you could create an Argent Crusade/Scarlet Crusade faction based on the Humans or if you picked Cenarius you could create a Dryad/keeper/Ancient inspired army.

If that's the case I'd love to see something that. The hybrid race also seems very interesting with lots of possibilities Blood Elf/Wretched Blood Elf/Naga, Human/Dwarf, Demon/Fel Orc, Goblin/Ogre, Syndicate/Argus Wake, Vrykul/Undead, High Elf/Human, Troll/Beast, Dwarf/Gnome.

So I'm split between the two, I've got some nice ideas for Hybrid but would also love the idea of creating a faction based around a single Hero/character.

 

[Wazzz]

I think both are going to be very good themes for future contests, and both are likely to be done in future.
Since there seems to be a lot of popular opinion regarding the Co-op theme so far, I think we'll go with that first - then we can do the Conglomeration/Hybridization after, with some established ground rules for what combinations are allowed and the likes.

For the Co-op gameplay style, it will still be played in the melee game, but it will be open to a lot of creative input as to how contestants design their techtree.

 

[The_Silent]

Something that departs from the classic wc3 techtree design philosophy would be cool. No tiered townhalls, lumber and goldmine harvesting, etc. Something that is not made to fit in wc3, but something that stands more on its own.

 

[Footman16]

Something that departs from the classic wc3 techtree design philosophy would be cool. No tiered townhalls, lumber and goldmine harvesting, etc. Something that is not made to fit in wc3, but something that stands more on its own.

I've never been the biggest fan of things that are too outlandish. I feel like any faction/tech-tree/race created should be able to stand alongside the 4 regular races but that's just me. And not to say that any custom race can't have unique mechanics but I think they need to be balanced.

 

[The_Silent]

Yeah, what I'm suggesting is the opposite of what you want then, haha

 

[Barorque]

I like that there are already very many different approaches.

Would be nice to allow an alteration of the enemy and the map to some degree, to balance against that, instead of simply regular situation.

If I will participate, I'll probably go for 1 OP hero, and remove others as a balance.
As well as make the enemy have a rebuilt base and strong creeps around the map.

One thing that needs to be clarified is whether it's a PvE only map?

 

[Wazzz]

It's going to be a traditional melee map for the template, with degrees of leniency for alteration.

I also like the ideas that could be associated with this.
For example, Alexstrasza as a commander could have a bonus for all dragons hired at Dragon Roosts. She could even start the match off with one near her base.

Snarlmane the Gnoll Commander could do some unusual mechanics with creeps, such as sending creep waves or luring existing creeps on the map.

Sylvanus could do something similar, wherein she converts Mercenary Camps into unit spawners or something to that effect, similar to how she converted the Bandits and Ogres to her cause in the campaign.

But this will be geared more towards a PvP style of gameplay, at least for the contest portion - of course, if somebody has the time to make their own ai to play PvE against, and give you the full experience, I'll allow it. A template map for that sort of thing, unfortunately, has a lot of variables and aspects that wouldn't work, such as the code used in it potentially not being compatible with the language the contestant wants to use, or version mismatches.

 

[Footman16]

It's going to be a traditional melee map for the template, with degrees of leniency for alteration.

I also like the ideas that could be associated with this.
For example, Alexstrasza as a commander could have a bonus for all dragons hired at Dragon Roosts. She could even start the match off with one near her base.

Snarlmane the Gnoll Commander could do some unusual mechanics with creeps, such as sending creep waves or luring existing creeps on the map.

Sylvanus could do something similar, wherein she converts Mercenary Camps into unit spawners or something to that effect, similar to how she converted the Bandits and Ogres to her cause in the campaign.

But this will be geared more towards a PvP style of gameplay, at least for the contest portion - of course, if somebody has the time to make their own ai to play PvE against, and give you the full experience, I'll allow it. A template map for that sort of thing, unfortunately, has a lot of variables and aspects that wouldn't work, such as the code used in it potentially not being compatible with the language the contestant wants to use, or version mismatches.

IMHO something with as so wide a remit as this would be almost impossible to judge fairly as I think people would interpret and misinterpret the aims of the contest very easily. Some people would create an altered melee map to stand alongside the standard 4 races other people would create a race geared towards a PvE strategy map.

And at the end of the day with something like this I think flash would win out over substance and you'd merely see the most ambitious PvE scenario winning. To me that seems like a very different type of contest to a tech-tree contest which at it's heart is about creating a 5th Warcraft Race.

Not to say I'm completely opposed to the idea but it would require a very clearly defined set-up and goal. For example, the Judge or Contest creator creates a PvE map with certain mechanics that the entrants have to create a tech-tree/race to play through it with, therefore ensuring a level playing field.

TL;DR there's a reason you're not allowed to edit the map in tech-tree contests.

 

[Wazzz]

Maps have been allowed to be edited in techtree contests for quite a while.

Any map's features except its terrain may be edited. Editing the map's Marketplaces, Item Shops, and Taverns is allowed, too.

As for flash winning over substance, as far as the judging is concerned, that is the exact opposite of what I judge towards. Some ideas are better on paper than they are in execution, and the execution as well as the integration is what counts.

As for the Judge of Contest Creator making a PVE map with the mechanics set, I stated a couple of the numerous complications regarding that previously. Version conflicts and coding conflicts are likely to be the biggest issues. That and developing an AI and the likes.

It would be an option presented to contestants, one that they don't have to go with, and in many cases it might be advisable not to do it - there has been one instance that I know of where an AI was developed for a Techtree Contest, and that was me - I did it because I had the time available for it, and the AI was relatively basic but serviceable enough. In most cases, it's a challenge enough to complete the techtree itself, but if somebody feels they can make a compelling techtree /and/ demonstrate it in a PvE environment, I'm not all that inclined to stop them. I would advise they make sure they can manage their time accordingly, however.

 

[Footman16]

Maps have been allowed to be edited in techtree contests for quite a while.

I mean, the terrain is arguably the largest part of any map and it's most defining feature.

 

[Wazzz]

That is where the terrain was said to not be allowed to be edited, as specified in the extract.

 

[Footman16]

That is where the terrain was said to not be allowed to be edited, as specified in the extract.

Which is exactly my point. Whatever map is chosen for this contest will be from the standard Blizzard maps which are geared towards multiplayer and PvP therefore without being able to edit the terrain itself making a PvE map from one of these imo seems like a difficult task but if someone were to do it, it would give them a distinct advantage.

At that point this would become a map contest and not a tech-tree one.

 

[Wazzz]

Theoretically, if anybody is able to figure out a way to accomplish something difficult that performs well and is done within the rules of the contest, they would inherently attain some degree of advantage.

Ultimately, it is the Techtree itself that is going to be judged, and points are awarded to those who put in extra effort towards representing the idea to the best of their abilities. However, sometimes those extra miles taken can be effort put into the wrong areas.

My advice would be to forgo the optional aspects, certainly for now - and if you decide to, for example, put in some code that sets up the AI to function as an overarching enemy, and you manage to pull that off well, by all means, go for it. Otherwise it's really not necessary.

 

[Footman16]

I understand your points, however at the end of the day I'd argue that a tech-tree contest should be confined to editing and creating a tech-tree but that's just my opinion and I suppose we'll agree to disagree

 

[Wazzz]

Oh absolutely, and for my own entries I tend to stick to a very similar style to what you seem to be more geared towards - I absolutely prefer techtrees to fit well within the melee game, and if something is done a little more outside of the box, I like it to fit well within the game itself.

I'm more so presenting options for people who might want to try something a little less conventional, but I don't want you to worry too much about your own style being overshadowed, least of all in the judging. It sounds like you aim for a pretty solid foundation for a techtree, which is something I definitely advocate and could score very nicely if executed well.

 

[Spellbound]

Out of curiosity, how many of you would want the next contest to start immediately as opposed to waiting a week or two... or more?

 

[Kyrbi0]

Maps have been allowed to be edited in techtree contests for quite a while.

Not when I was helping to run them... At least not much more than bare minimum stuff. The more one opens the door to "changing the map" the less the Contest becomes about the Techtrees. It's inescapable.

Out of curiosity, how many of you would want the next contest to start immediately as opposed to waiting a week or two... or more?

Well, according to the New Rules we can't start without two Judges already appointed, so... good luck?

IMHO something with as so wide a remit as this would be almost impossible to judge fairly as I think people would interpret and misinterpret the aims of the contest very easily. Some people would create an altered melee map to stand alongside the standard 4 races other people would create a race geared towards a PvE strategy map.

And at the end of the day with something like this I think flash would win out over substance and you'd merely see the most ambitious PvE scenario winning.
...

Not to say I'm completely opposed to the idea but it would require a very clearly defined set-up and goal. For example, the Judge or Contest creator creates a PvE map with certain mechanics that the entrants have to create a tech-tree/race to play through it with, therefore ensuring a level playing field.

TL;DR there's a reason you're not allowed to edit the map in tech-tree contests.

You're right, but not necessarily for the right reasons. The "flash vs. substance" issue can happen in any Contest; the Rules & Criteria have to be clear that all that extra stuff (fancy presentations, loading screens, changes to the map, cinematics, etc) are not allowed; then the Contest will be about the substance, the actual factions & their design. (as you said at the end there).

To me that seems like a very different type of contest to a tech-tree contest which at it's heart is about creating a 5th Warcraft Race.

Here's the thing: Not Necessarily. Yes that's what most have been about in the past; yes it's my personal favorite (and ostensibly yours)... But the only "at it's heart" that exists is the one we make of it (see below).

Something that departs from the classic wc3 techtree design philosophy would be cool. No tiered townhalls, lumber and goldmine harvesting, etc. Something that is not made to fit in wc3, but something that stands more on its own.

ANATHEMA!!

No but seriously, now's the time to set that up. A Contest is whatever you guys & the Host decide it is. I've said it before, when I realized how many opinions there were about Contests & how to Run them: make whatever kind of Contest people will join. There's no objective 'right' or 'wrong' for so many of the decisions... As long as you are crystal clear on what the Ultimate Goal of your particular Contest is. If the Contest is mostly for Fun rather than being Serious/Test of Skill, that will change a lot of how it should be set up & run (& vice versa).

Would I participate in a "not-classic wc3 techtree design" Contest? No way. But that doesn't make it wrong. : )

 

[Wazzz]

I think the new rules allow for one judge if it is deemed necessary, but the judging can be handled accordingly I suppose.

I don't think you participate in Techtree Contests fullstop for the most part, do you?
I am not sure why the rules changed for Techtree Contests to allow for editing features outside of the Techtree itself, but I think it's so that, for example, if you wanted to try and integrate it so that your techtree got access to a new Tavern hero, or was able to get a discount on them, you can do that. It gives a bit more creative flexibility, but when it deviates away from what the Techtree is, I think that can get mediated accordingly by the judging, if that makes sense.

Basically, people have a certain degree of agency to make whatever decisions they want regarding their entries, they just might not be good decisions.

I totally want to see a Snarlmane Commander, though, leading the Axis Of Awful.

 

[Footman16]

You're right, but not necessarily for the right reasons. The "flash vs. substance" issue can happen in any Contest; the Rules & Criteria have to be clear that all that extra stuff (fancy presentations, loading screens, changes to the map, cinematics, etc) are not allowed; then the Contest will be about the substance, the actual factions & their design. (as you said at the end there).

Haha, tbf some contests ARE entirely about flash (see mapping art contests or modelling contests). I'm not against custom loading screens and stuff like that if anything i think it adds to the overall polish of the map but i think its naive to think that by banning these things youve dealt with the problem. A custom techtree that uses custom resources that are all cohesive and well made will always look superior to one using random ones and that is flash.

Ill give an example from a hero contest i entered ages ago. When the contest first began and when people were just starting their ideas someone picked the elven ranger and outlined their abilities. I predicted theyd win from that moment and true enough they did. Now the hero was interesting the abilities were interesting and the coding was truly impressive however, the hero was broken as all hell in regular melee and really deserved a 1 maybe 2 in balance yet the judges seemed to ignore that for the flash of how the abilities looked and the coding which admittedly was very well done. Only one person i believe pointed out the glaring flaws and if the hero hadnt been marked highly for a balance that wasnt there then it wouldnt have won.

TL;DR its not an issue thats easy to solve nor will it be. The best we can do is structure and set rules for the contests to limit its prevalence.

Here's the thing: Not Necessarily. Yes that's what most have been about in the past; yes it's my personal favorite (and ostensibly yours)... But the only "at it's heart" that exists is the one we make of it (see below).

The problem with that is how do you argue and grade balance for a race designed to be completely outside of the standard gameplay of warcraft? If somethings not a 5th race then what is it? A standalone 1v1 mirror creation? Im sure you realise that balance judging for a techtree outside the regular scope would be incredibly difficult if not inevitably unfair.

 

[Wazzz]

A custom techtree that uses custom resources that are all cohesive and well made will always look superior to one using random ones and that is flash.

I'm just going to go ahead and give this all of my yes - quite a few entries in Techtree Contests, historically, have put a heavy emphasis on custom resources while not producing the most compelling ideas. Others have produced compelling ideas, without the production of custom resources. Someone who does both can theoretically gather an advantage, as not only do they have a compelling idea, but they also have a lot more flexibility in how they can convey it.

The same could be said for someone who does a lot of code work. If you look at someone like @Spellbound, the systems and mechanics he produces have been so consistently groundbreaking that it can put pressure on some contestants into thinking they have to try and match up with him on that front. And I can tell you right now, as soon as you get into the mentality of trying to play catch up against somebody like that, you have already lost.

The reason it works for Spellbound is he's doing his own style, and is using it to convey compelling ideas. The same can be said for someone like @Moonman, who designed a respectable techtree that played nicely, and had a phenomenal overarching theme attached to it thanks to the custom resources he produced. Should these areas be limited, since they rely on skills that aren't, strictly speaking, to do with the techtree? I am of the opinion that they should not be, as it is but another medium in which you can convey the techtree.

Ultimately, if there was to be a contest that was purely about the techtree, without any degree of flash, it would probably be broken down to people writing down their ideas for a techtree, and submitting that without anything playable. And even then, some people might have better ways of presenting their techtree, perhaps with calligraphy and background art, even concept art attached to it.

The true nature of the beast that is Techtree Contests, from my perspective, can be broken down like this:

- It is a compilation of a multitude of skills designed to portray a compelling idea. If you have skills that can be of use, contestants should absolutely feel free to go ahead and use them, even if it doesn't seem all that relevant to the contest itself.

- If your skills are lacking in one area, there are ways of getting around it. For example, someone who is not capable of modelling or doing their own textures can either learn through tutorials, download existing content, or even go so far as to request new content. This can be a bit of a wild card, and you should absolutely plan accordingly for any of this to go wrong, but the payoff can be worth it. Similarly, if you are a poor coder, you may want to try and find ideas that are within your capability of producing, or you can also download existing spells and systems and try to use those. In many respects, simplicity done right is best, depending upon what you are capable of and how much time you have left to do it in.

- Don't be afraid to pair up - this is yet another optional feature, and in many respects it can be considered an advantage to work in a team rather than flying solo. To that same end, there can be drawbacks to trying to work as part of a pair that is inherently dysfunctional, and it does add another element to the development process. However, if you have compensating skills that can cover each other's weaker areas, this may absolutely prove worthwhile.

- With every alternate skill that can be employed towards producing a valid final entry, none of it matters if the core idea is dog shit and the gameplay is naught but a cure for insomnia. This is undoubtedly the most critical aspect. You can make the most phenomenal models and textures, but if your entry is just a reskinned Orc race, it is not going to score well. Well... not with the judges, anyway. Public polls are a whole different beast. Similarly, you can design the most intricate and complicated systems, but if it doesn't really do much to add to the gameplay, it's really more garnish than anything else, and similarly is unlikely to score well.

The essential part is to focus on what you can do, but also don't be afraid to think outside the box. Bring it all back to the way the game is meant to be played, absolutely, but at the same time explore pushing those outer limits to new previously unexplored areas.

 

[Daffa]

- It is a compilation of a multitude of skills designed to portray a compelling idea. If you have skills that can be of use, contestants should absolutely feel free to go ahead and use them, even if it doesn't seem all that relevant to the contest itself.

If the said skill can be valuable to the final result despite being not pretty relevant, like say, music, and sound sets, it can be worthwhile.

- If your skills are lacking in one area, there are ways of getting around it. For example, someone who is not capable of modelling or doing their own textures can either learn through tutorials, download existing content, or even go so far as to request new content. This can be a bit of a wild card, and you should absolutely plan accordingly for any of this to go wrong, but the payoff can be worth it. Similarly, if you are a poor coder, you may want to try and find ideas that are within your capability of producing, or you can also download existing spells and systems and try to use those. In many respects, simplicity done right is best, depending upon what you are capable of and how much time you have left to do it in.

I agree with this point. In short, do things that are within the scope of one capability is the way to go.

- Don't be afraid to pair up - this is yet another optional feature, and in many respects it can be considered an advantage to work in a team rather than flying solo. To that same end, there can be drawbacks to trying to work as part of a pair that is inherently dysfunctional, and it does add another element to the development process. However, if you have compensating skills that can cover each other's weaker areas, this may absolutely prove worthwhile.

Teamwork adds another layer of probable halts and such. This however becomes extremely valuable when it covers the weak spot of each contestant well. As a contestant who does teamwork in the previous contest, it is highly recommended that both members of the team can cover the weakness of each other. For example, my weakness is art blind where I cannot see cohesion well, which is covered by my teammate who has eyes for aesthetics.

- With every alternate skill that can be employed towards producing a valid final entry, none of it matters if the core idea is dog shit and the gameplay is naught but a cure for insomnia. This is undoubtedly the most critical aspect. You can make the most phenomenal models and textures, but if your entry is just a reskinned Orc race, it is not going to score well. Well... not with the judges, anyway. Public polls are a whole different beast. Similarly, you can design the most intricate and complicated systems, but if it doesn't really do much to add to the gameplay, it's really more garnish than anything else, and similarly is unlikely to score well.

I think the poll of previous contest shows pretty well that creative beasts tend to not fare well in polls. A new layer of complexity tends to deter players from properly trying the entry. Also, the scope of availability influences the probability of getting polls, with entries at higher patch might get limited potential due to patch restrictions. Then again, when it comes to judging and score well, it would be best to not add too much which yields in unnecessary complexity while being unique enough to not look similar with original races.

 

[Wazzz]

Exactly, you nailed every point there

The other issue with public polls is most of the people who vote in it have not played all the entries. In some cases, like Leods, they openly admit to not playing any of them and voting purely based off of screenshots. Admittedly, I do not understand why somebody who participates in these contests would actively vote like that, but there isn't anything prohibiting that, either.

Personally I don't exactly care for the public polls aspect for a contest like this, but it also does help gather attention, I suppose. That might be a bit optimistic of me there, though.

 

[Barorque]

@Wazzz well said, regarding everything really.
As you pointed out someone who can do only the most basic spells (temp point and dummy ability), is very limited on any new units and abilities.
I had to work on the aesthetic stuff to offer at least some thing fresh. Of course I tried to make interesting enough abilities, but honestly was just scared the map would break again, so I limited myself even more...
(I will definitely try to work with someone competent in triggers/code next time)

Regarding the tech-tree contest as a whole... of course it's not just the actual tech-tree itself that matters... the contest supposed to create a new race/faction, as fun if not more than Blizzards classics.
And what are the aspects that make them so? Well the theme if obviously the first thing you notice:

- Are you an edgy 16yo and listen to Marilyn Manson?
You'll probably like the Undead regardless of how they play.

- Do you like hiking in the nature or are fascinated by old European lore?
You'll probably enjoy Night Elves and their druidism.

But yes, the gameplay itself is very relevant, so the contest tries to create fresh ideas.
So in summary every aspect is important, and those that combine the best of two worlds are going to score well, seems pretty obvious.

If the said skill can be valuable to the final result despite being not pretty relevant, like say, music, and sound sets, it can be worthwhile.

This! Music and sounds are very relevant and immersive. Do not forget that every WoW sound can be downloaded from wowhead's sound database... you can basically get unit quotes and spell effects like that.

 

[Xelos]

issue with public polls is most of the people who vote in it have not played all the entries

thats the reason why i not vote, cuz i cant play all races,

 

[Daffa]

Exactly, you nailed every point there

The other issue with public polls is most of the people who vote in it have not played all the entries. In some cases, like Leods, they openly admit to not playing any of them and voting purely based off of screenshots. Admittedly, I do not understand why somebody who participates in these contests would actively vote like that, but there isn't anything prohibiting that, either.

Personally I don't exactly care for the public polls aspect for a contest like this, but it also does help gather attention, I suppose. That might be a bit optimistic of me there, though.

The fact that users can vote without playing all entries kinda becoming a big deterrent in terms of public polling. This is also the exact reason we have the 70:30 value, because public poll is not that reliable, unless we do it the hard way but that would discourage many voters.

 

[Yours Truly]

thats the reason why i not vote, cuz i cant play all races,

Same here. I returned MyPad's vote to himself,though. I can't play maps that are above 1.31, which the version I'm using.

 

[Wazzz]

A part of the reason why your entry worked, too, @Moonman, was it didn't go overly ambitious in the wrong areas. Instead, you stuck to what you could do, and still found ways to shift things around that played rather nicely. I've seen quite a few instances where contestants seem to think they /have/ to design a custom training mechanic, and they /have/ to design a new way of harvesting gold and lumber. The fact is, you don't have to do any of that. If you can do it, then sure, why not - but it has to be user-friendly. As soon as it over-complicates such a core component of any faction's playability, it diminishes any value that could have been accomplished by using it.

And I mean, realistically, when it comes to Public Polls, there's going to be people who vote for their friends. There's also going to be people who voted for the only one that they did play because they were just that gosh darn excited to play something they hadn't seen before. The public is a very fickle beast, and it can be near impossible to determine what will perform well in the polls.

I am a little curious - would it be worth exploring a contest without public polls? Or should we keep the scaling the way it is? I think the scaling has been provably good so far, and there are rules designed to zero in on rampant poll manipulation. Of course, the polls can still have some degree of impact in the final score.

 

[Daffa]

And I mean, realistically, when it comes to Public Polls, there's going to be people who vote for their friends. There's also going to be people who voted for the only one that they did play because they were just that gosh darn excited to play something they hadn't seen before. The public is a very fickle beast, and it can be near impossible to determine what will perform well in the polls.

I am a little curious - would it be worth exploring a contest without public polls? Or should we keep the scaling the way it is? I think the scaling has been provably good so far, and there are rules designed to zero in on rampant poll manipulation. Of course, the polls can still have some degree of impact in the final score.

You cannot completely control the masses. That's a thing we could agree on I hope.

When we talk about poll-less contest, it can result in a judge bias, which is as bad as a full-vote contest. Only time I have seen judge only contest, if memory serves right, is Zwiel's contest.

 

[Wazzz]

I'm not sure what Zwiel's contest was, but I feel the same. The public poll itself can more than often lead to very unusual outcomes, but the potential for judge bias is arguably worse, especially since the public polls are weighted so lightly.

I think we'll be ready to start a new contest soon, but how soon would people like it?

 

[Footman16]

I think we'll be ready to start a new contest soon, but how soon would people like it?

I'm tempted to join so sooner it does the sooner I've got something to do in lockdown lol.