- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,141
It's not about that. I'd be fun to win theme poll (i.e my concept) ^)^
*sniff* Someone noticed!Veljkom said:Oh and for Poll we really should count votes that have comments as explanation for vote to avoid popularity and pretty race votes. Or any of the suggestions Kyrib0 has been proposing for years.
What an idea.What about using one of the Warcraft continents as Biome selection pool? Instead of just 1 biome or unlimited selection we get Kalimdor which gives you limited choice? So Kalimdor equals = Forest (Ashenvale), Corrupt (Feelwood), Jungle (Ungoro, Ferelas), Desert (Barrens or Tannaris), Snow (Winterspring).
I'd say we can just count up the "psuedo-votes" here in the posts; I don't want to bother with another whole Poll for "1 Biome vs. All Biomes vs 1 Continent", etc.But anyway will we get some info about contest start date?
More or less, though please weigh in on whether you would prefer "1 Biome vs. All Biomes vs 1 Continent".So it's an unlimited imports, biome themed full size race, yes?
If i want to make shadow elves which biome should i choose?
Thank you for your vote & reasoning.I choosed biome, full and limited.
Biome because it looks cool.
Full because they're better and more balanced.
Limited because I don't want them to get stuck with the normal models, but don't want them to overdo custom models too.
My logic is merely one of "trying". I'm not saying "Because rice is so popular in China, it must be as popular in Norway!". I'm saying "Because (one Wc3-modding site) ran contests this way & it worked splendidly, perhaps we can try that way at this (wc3-modding site) and see if it is also successful!"It's a different community, not in a bad way, just different. By that logic if something is popular in one country it should be popular in every other country.
That is my opinion on the matter, lets not make a big discussion over it.
One thing I would suggest is make it 3 heroes instead of four. Four can be such a pain to be inventive with. In most of my maps I make three custom heroes and leave one original melee hero or add three and then when I feel like it add a fourth.
Yeah we already discussed this as being reasonable. 3 heroes should be enough to count as a full race.
Whaat? Where was that discussed?
Au contraire, mon ami.People have spoken. There is not much to talk about. Let it start!
Think we should ask when was that discussion since this time we only had partial vs full discussions. We didn't really talk about what counts as full race and the poll itself says 4 heroes.
Well yeah. With you guys getting all crazy-defensive about "full race or bust", I figured that's what you meant, a "Full Race", & so that's what I wrote on the Poll. Each Faction in Wc3 has (in terms of metrics) 3 Tiers with 4 Heroes, 12 units, 10-11 buildings, 8-9 items, and (in terms of gameplay) workers, gatherers, melee, ranged, casters, fliers, anti-turtling, anti-casters, detection, scouting, etc...if it were up to me, an entry shud be able to have any number of heroes allowed.
a techtree is an end product made of several components including (but not limited to) no. of heroes and unit roles. in a techtree contest, we shud be judging the end product, not the ingredients.
You make a good point (see my response to Kingz below) about the Heroes. However, my response to the other point, while not as harsh as "hypocrite", is of that tenor, and is essentially that to GhostThruster (also below):Veljkom said:But anyway call me a hypocrite but I don't see problem with 3 heroes since hero making limit is 3 so you aren't at disadvantage, just less choices. Also no need for 12 units, that should be limit not requirement.
Ok, but when you say "judging the end product", what exactly are we judging and to what are we judging against? Since many of you answered the first with (primarily) "balance" and the second (primarily) with "against the existing 4 races", and stated essentially that "anything less than a full-race would be too hard to balance against the existing 4 races..."GhostThruster said:a techtree is an end product made of several components including (but not limited to) no. of heroes and unit roles. in a techtree contest, we shud be judging the end product, not the ingredients.
Hey, just curious. To be fair, I'm not really that against it (though many times, it's hard to only come up with 3 Hero ideas xD), and it would certainly make things easier on us (also easier to test, since as you point out, you can only have 3; 4 means having to play the Race twice (HEAVEN FORBID!Jesus man i can't really bother to go through this thread and the one before.
But we did say that 3 heroes is just as fine for a full race since heroes take the most time (not to mention vanila WC3 had 3 heroes per tier anyway).
In fact it might be even you yourself who agreed with me on that matter, but feel free to scour the threads for that discussion.
Well, while I would argue that "imports != quality", I'll agree that 750kb is too small (I'm a little nonchalant about KBs, personally; I rarely pay attention/realize how large/small things are). I think I copy-pasted that from a different contest. 3-5MB sounds reasonable.750kb per map!? Are you kidding me? That's rubbish in my opinion. 3-5MB should be max I think.
Sorry if that came off a bit brusque but if you want a map with some quality in it's imports then there needs to be some room to work. Look at any of my custom races and see how much room they take.
we should judge a race in a holistic manner, not based off an arbitrary numerical requirement. we should judge it against the default races in terms of overall balance, not in terms of whether they fit into the cookie cutter mould.Ok, but when you say "judging the end product", what exactly are we judging and to what are we judging against? Since many of you answered the first with (primarily) "balance" and the second (primarily) with "against the existing 4 races", and stated essentially that "anything less than a full-race would be too hard to balance against the existing 4 races..."
point has been missedWell yes end product is what it is judged but when you judge a races you judge it by testing its units and heroes and see how the components work with each other. Wouldn't it suck if race would in the end need just 1 unit spammed to win while making rest obsolete? You can't have the end product without the components after all.
so much fluff... i especially hate the judging (or 'design' criteria as you've labelled it for some reason) because 'role coherence' seems so stupid, meaningless, redundant, and filled with buzzwords much like 'the legion' criteria was in prior contests. i urge you to consider my more streamlined model, where each criteria includes everything and none overlap:please check out this Pastebin link for the proposed Contest thread. Give me some thoughts & critique; especially about the Criteria & the Judging/Polling methods; one thing I hadn't considered was to have the Poll merely used to pick the "top 3" (or 5 or whatever) for the Judges to then grade (meaning the Poll would have nothing to do with the score, technically).
Alright, I too believe in 'holistics' (though that's a tricky word to throw around). I would disagree that (these) 'numerical requirements' are necessarily arbitrary, though.we should judge a race in a holistic manner, not based off an arbitrary numerical requirement. we should judge it against the default races in terms of overall balance, not in terms of whether they fit into the cookie cutter mould.
I am not sure I agree.GhostThruster said:we should not prohibit an entry with only 8 units and 2 heroes. we should not prohibit an entry with 20 units and 10 heroes. we should not prohibit an entry with 30 heroes and no units or buildings. the size and shape of a techtree should not be a restriction, because all you're doing is restricting innovation. they're risking balance for the reward of more originality and fun, and i think there is nothing wrong with that so long as each judging criteria is equal. like, what the fuck is the point other than to enforce monotony on entries?
Lol, so where were you when I was all alone defending the fact that Balance isn't nearly as affected by Faction-size as everyone seemed to think? : ) Glad to see I'm not alone.GhostThruster said:so if you guys still don't get what i'm saying;
there shouldn't even be a requirement for either full or partial race, because it doesn't achieve anything other than discouraging techtree creativity. it doesn't discourage imbalance; that's what the 'balance' judging criteria is there for. if you're worried that an entry with 8 units will beat your 'full race' of 12, then that's fucking fine. because if they manage to change up their unit roles while still maintaining balance, that means they've put more effort and skill into making a race than you have and you should be ashamed of that. all a full or partial race requirement does is discourage entrants from diverging from a cookie cutter model.
Hey now. I appreciate that you have concerns/critiques, raise them, and (even better, since so few do) offer alternatives. But no need to get huffy about it. : )GhostThruster said:so much fluff... i especially hate the judging (or 'design' criteria as you've labelled it for some reason) because 'role coherence' seems so stupid, meaningless, redundant, and filled with buzzwords much like 'the legion' criteria was in prior contests.
50 Points: Nice even number (could be lower, perhaps. Meh.)[10] Originality & Creativity:
How original the design of the Faction is in terms of creative ideas, clever implementations, or new concepts.
[10] Theme Coherence:
How well the various elements of the Faction (including aesthetics & design) fit together in a thematic manner such that they feel like they are representative of the given Faction (i.e. yes elves with bows, no demons using Divine magic, etc), as well as that of the chosen Contest Theme.
[10] Role Coherence:
How well the various elements of the Faction work together to achieve the tactical synergy & gameplay style the Faction has (i.e. melee-focused, hit-and-run, glass-cannon, etc).
[10] Melee Design Consideration:
Includes how well the Faction's Theme, Role & Originality fit into the melee environment in terms of balance, theme, style, complicatedness, and so forth.
[10] Awesomeness:
The most subjective of all grading criteria. This attempts to quantify exactly how awesome a Faction's overall design feels.
Hm, interesting model.GhostThruster said:i urge you to consider my more streamlined model, where each criteria includes everything and none overlap:
[10] Gameplay - fun factor (enjoyability) & polish (how finalised it feels)
[10] Balance - relative single unit power (e.g. comparing grunt to headhunter, or grunt to footman) & overall race balance (measured against default races)
[10] Presentation - aesthetic (how good it looks) & accessibility (how intuitive it is)
[10] Concept - creativity & compliance with contest theme
Well, while I would argue that "imports != quality", I'll agree that 750kb is too small (I'm a little nonchalant about KBs, personally; I rarely pay attention/realize how large/small things are). I think I copy-pasted that from a different contest. 3-5MB sounds reasonable.
Appreciate the apology, but no big deal. : ) Just glad people are looking & critiquing. Anything else (anyone)?
there are certain existing conventions, and that's absolutely fine. but 'parameters' are something you, the contest host, are artificially imposing via 'legion' criterias, 'faction requirements', or the like. and the reasoning that 'all the melee races had it therefore entries must follow a certain convention too' is not sufficient justification.I too think that some numbers don't matter so much as to whether it's balanced or not (i.e. a mini-race can be balanced against a full-race, etc)... But if we're talking about making Races, and we're comparing them to what exists, well, there are certain parameters, I believe.
creativity/originality/innovation in this context, pertain to their dictionary definitions. i am in agreement with you in that originality != making this out of scratch, but i don't see how this is relevant.First and foremost: What is "creativity" to you? Similarly, what is "originality" and "innovation"? Defining these would help me understand what you're talking about.
More importantly, though, is this: Can we agree that constraints allow creativity to thrive?
[...]
I believe there can be too many Constraints, or the wrong ones... But based on what we're looking at here, I don't think this is the case. I don't think Constraints make anyone "cookie cutter" or anything, though it may feel like it.
well i noe ur joking but i actually was inactive for a bit, and still only have time for 1 (lengthy) post per day or 2, and did not see that.Lol, so where were you when I was all alone defending the fact that Balance isn't nearly as affected by Faction-size as everyone seemed to think? : ) Glad to see I'm not alone.
apologies, i do not mean to get 'huffy' but i can be blunt at times.Hey now. I appreciate that you have concerns/critiques, raise them, and (even better, since so few do) offer alternatives. But no need to get huffy about it. : )
[...]
Let me see if I can break it down a little more plainly, since I feel pretty good about it (though I am open to suggestions, see below):
my criteria covers everything relevant to a techtree, without 'fluff'. no confusion, no complexity, it's easy for both judges and contestants to understand. for comparison's sake (the following is all imo);As stated above, many of your elements appear to be encapsulated within my own (and I'm sure you could say the same about mine, lol). But just looking over it, I think it's pretty good... Although I'm curious how "polish" is different from "presentation" (could they be combined?). And 10 points for "Concept"? If it's essentially "did they follow the Contest theme" or not, it seems more like a "yes/no" or "yes/kinda/not really". :<
what i meant by a balance on a unit-by-unit basis is if a particular unit is relatively OP. a perfect example is undead. at the top level, every 1v1 racial match-up has roughly 50%. that shows overall balance. but watch a few replays, and you'll see that nearly every undead goes death knight + fiends, with minor variants along the way. play a few games, and you'll know why (hint: it's because dk is op, and so are fiends. they have much more utility than any other hero & t1 ranged respectively). to shift singular unit balance whilst keeping overall balance consistent, for every unit nerf you make you must also make another buff for another unit. for example, if i were blizzard i wud nerf dk move speed to 300, reduce death coil range by 100, whilst buffing crypt lord speed to 300 and shrinking the mana cost of the dreadlord's 'carrion swarm' to 95.Balance on a unit-by-unit basis might be difficult if there aren't some constraints for, say, units; if there is no "basic melee" unit, how would that compare to the Grunt/Footman? Or do you mean "comparing it if it exists"?
the way i interpret it, 'role' is a means to achieving fun gameplay (and balance to an extent). it serves as a guideline in making decisions as to what mechanics to include, but 'role' itself is not so much a characteristic so much as what i have called it before, a by-product or intermediary. role is an intermediary in the process of achieving gameplay (which is a characteristic); it is a tool. and when it is not, it is a by-product of the design process. for the purposes of balance, if i decided my race should have strong siege capabilities but weak archers, i've just inadvertently created an 'artillery' role. it's not something i consider intellectual or significant enough to warrant praise for deliberately designing a race/unit/mechanic with role in mind.More importantly, though, my long experience modding has convinced me that "Theme" and "Role" (call them what you will ('aesthetics & style', 'presentation & gameplay', etc)... the names may change but they are essentially as I've described earlier) are two of the most important characteristics to any creation (Hero, Techtree, Spell, Unit, etc). I've made greatly "Themed" heroes for a while now (wasn't always the case...), but it wasn't until I started paying attention to "Role" as well that my hero/faction designs really took off & made sense. Somehow putting that more explicitly in your Criteria is something I would look for.
it should be assumed by judges that we are talking about originality in the context of wc3 maps. if a contestant decides to steal a spell from 'dawn of war' i'd still award it a mark for originality if few other maps have done so. it's very hard nowadays to come up with a completely original idea.***Just had the thought: by my very definition, "Originality & Creativity" as a Criteria can't possibly exist "in a vacuum", or in isolation; when determining that score, one has to compare to something. So there, that's at least 1 issue with my criteria that should be addressed.
i am sorry i missed the fact that you were making the point i was making, but i am busy man. in fact this'll probably be my last post for a while (it is frickin' huge tho).I am sorry I missed the point you were making but I will point out that I did spend the other part of my post showing why arbitrary minimal limits make no sense. There is no imaginary 12 man requirement, there is no building numerical requirement (there are roles that must be covered) nor do all units have to share roles as other races. I think I have shown that main races are all unique and there really aren't that many hard rules shared by all 4 races especially regarding unit numbers and rolles. As you have pointed out judge the end product because what matters is how the product works not if it follows imaginary rules.
I will still say that 3 heroes should be minimal as heroes are one of the key gameplay features for warcrarft 3. We are still making teach-tree for warcraft gameplay not for whole new game so some things should be kept such as hero number, tiers, gold/lumber resource existence. We do seem to have a problem to agree what each of us sees as key feature that shouldn't be changed.
Oh and I do think unit number effects balance but also to many units risk that many units will share roles or be overshadowed by better units. Too many units lose point when you have really low unit limit and can't use most of them. If you can make 20 units that have reason to be used, great I salute you. On the other hand if you have too few units you limit tactical choices.
People are drawn to nice things, as always.
It holds true for all contests, spells/techtree/hero/icon/model/skin and even maps that eyecandy will draw in a lot of votes on the poll.
Since poll is gonna be a minority of the score and eyecandy is also but a fraction of a judge score it allows for users to gain up on other fields.
Yes, different skills arent equal but it would be dumb to limit creativity still imo. Its not like someone will make a dozen of HQ models.
Also id say that judges might even appreciate smart use of WC3 resources more as in creativity.
Veljkom said:Oh and I don't think we should not allow people to make their resource if they want. Yeah they get model/texture advantage but looks shouldn't be that important factor when judging a race. Its the gameplay and balance I would place far more important role. I am sorry but cosmetic imports like Models, Icons, Skins aren't the key factor in this contest. Oh and don't get wrong idea I am not saying they aren't important but they are less important then other factors.
I dunno, I didn't have that hard a time of it.you do realize that the decision to create a mini-race has its own risks that balance itself against its potential benefits. what i'm saying is a good mini-race entry requires as much input/effort as a good full-race entry, albeit in different areas. eg) while it's easier & quicker to complete a mini-race & find suitable assets, it's much harder & strenuous to introduce innovative mechanics while maintaining balance.
GhostThruster said:it would be unfair if resourcefulness wasn't a legitimate and relevant skill in regards to techtree contests. a techtree designer must accommodate to his available resources.
furthermore, having no imports is forced equality. it restricts everyone's choices while still allowing the central 'problem' (being a 'problem' only if you consider resourcefulness to not be a relevant skill) to persist; certain races/themes have more abundant sources of assets than others. case in point, compare the number of night elf models to draenei models within wc3.
edit: forgot to mention that we already had the 'no imports' theme chosen before. and, at least for me, it was a pretty shitty contest to be involved in.
not really, historically at least. check out the innovation comp in particular. dio's 'cabal' race had some legit-ass models n shit but the best he got out if it is a high 'presentation' (or whatever. yes i judged, no i dont have perfect memory) rating. 67chrome's drow also looked insanely good, but it wudn't have saved his race if the gameplay criteria was stupidly given emphasis on (meaning entrants were rewarded for flashy gimmicks but not for how well-balanced said gimmicks were).
you will never lose to an entrant with sexy tailor-made models but a poor race, even if all you have are ideas (... and the several thousand assets available on this website).
Hrm. Well I suppose it goes back to what I & RulerOfIron were saying... It's not so much that "resourcefulness" isn't an applicable/comparable skill. (#1, it's unfortunately not easily comparable to the masses (eye-candy >>> ideas), though hopefully weakening the Poll will help that). It's more a question of "what are we testing?" This is a Contest to test our mettle, our skills... But what skills? Not our artistic skills, I'd say, or (strictly) our coding skills... Primarily our Design & Resourcefulness skills.I think any level of "resourcefulness" should be allowed.
Remember, a model or icon is just as much a resource as a trigger system. If we restrict model usage to only the models in the database, for the sake of fairness we'd have to do the same with trigger systems, because coding is another skill that not everyone has. Making a race without being allowed to code my own spells and systems would be incredibly boring.
Still have yet to finish my PM to you about this... But this is pertinent for the purposes of this conversation, so yeah.rulerofiron99 said:The argument of competitiveness also came up in the MMC thread a few weeks ago. Here's my personal ranking of what's important in a contest:
- Having fun
- The community acquiring quality resources
- Bragging rights aka winning/competing
If another contestant has a skill that I don't, e.g. model making, that affects my chance of 3. Winning. But 1. and 2. remain unaffected. I'll still be having fun, and the community will get some nice resources. It's nice to win, but I think we should prioritise having fun.
That's a really interesting point... I had never really considered the "power spikes" element to the design.Kingz said:I am again gonna have to argue it isn't. A footman is balanced against another footman because the winner will be Footman A in 50% of the cases and Footman B in other 50% coming down to which footman started his animation first.
You can disagree with me, it is your right, however for a mini race to be balanced with other races you have to make sure power spikes happen at around the same time as do other races. This will inevitably come to pseudo tiers gated by unit research and/or buildings.
Picture this scenario:
You have 10-12 melee units and 5-6 range units of your T1. To compete with enemies you have to research. Now lets say there are 2 researches which work as a pseudo tiers unlocking your unit strength to battle vs higher tier enemies. We face a problem because of the way a research works, once it completes you will experience a HUGE power spike compared to the enemy who just upgraded to T2 because your units are affected instantly. This power spike would fluctuate way too much depending on how many units you had already built before the research (aka pseudo tier).
This means in order to balance the race one would have to do some math and calculate the average number of units built before research and balance the unit upgrades with that in mind to prevent big fluctuations in power spikes.
... Yeah, that was a major problem with my "Steamwheedle Cartel" Goblins in that first Wc3C Race-Building Contest. I realize I'm pretty bad at actually play-testing & any balancing beyond "theory-crafting". :< Lol, those "Saboteurs" and "Dirtdiggers" were (apparently) killer...Veljkom said:@GhostThirster
Well yes end product is what it is judged but when you judge a races you judge it by testing its units and heroes and see how the components work with each other. Wouldn't it suck if race would in the end need just 1 unit spammed to win while making rest obsolete? You can't have the end product without the components after all.
Just out of curiosity; what exactly do you think is meant by "Heavy"? Is that "Heavy" like "big", or "powerful/damaging" (but could be fragile/weak in constitution), or "heavy-duty", or "high HP"?...
Tier 3
- Heavy unit.
Alright... Now we're stepping onto terrain that I've been treading for a while. I think a post I'm writing to GhostThruster will be pertinent to this discussion, but for the mean-time, I'll try to respond.Veljkom said:@Kyrib0
I didn't call myself hypocrite regarding unit number. I wouldn't say partial race because number of units is not really set for all races. It seems like they have 12 units but undead have less units then others, night elves have more thanks to druid morphing and also summon units push the limit even further. And not all races have all unit roles (though I don't relay know what is anti turtling role, you mean long ranged siege?). Here are some examples:
Examples
Orcs for example have 3 casters with usual caster upgrades while other races have 2 casters. Orcs lack dedicated anti caster they just have purge and disenchant abilities on their regular casters while other races have anti-casters. Orcs also lack heavy air unit and have instead medium air unit and they also have suicide/flying siege unit while other races have 3 flyers (Heavy Air, Anti Air and Scout (Gyrocopter) or Anti Magic (Fairy Dragon, Destroyer)). Their tier melee is their ultimate unit while other races ultimate unit is flyer. Orcs are also the only race with Aura unit.
Undead have just 1 siege unit while other races have melee(ish) siege unit. Undead also use units to harvest, have dedicated scout only unit and dedicated heal/mana restore unit.
Night Elves lack early melee units and have huntress instead. They have pure tank unit and tier 3 melee unit, they have two dedicated anti casters and as I already said more units then other races thanks to druid morphing and have 4 air units if we count archer-hippo combo. Even more with buildings walking.
Humans are sort of jack of all trades and it is usually their teach-tree that is default version of full race, the only really unique units are siege engine Anti air/anti building unit and Gyrocopter that is reduced to scouting yet still has combat upgrades. Heck most of the time custom races that I have sen use orc/human system of resource harvest and building construction.
So the most common thing in all races are tier 1 melee (elves disagree) and tier 3 melee, 1 basic ranged unit (elves laugh at me now), 2 casters, anti-caster, Heavy and Light Air unit (orcs disagree with last 3 examples) and long ranged siege and close siege (undead disagree). Then you add units to fill the gaps and add flavor. But all this is not a rule but rather a guideline as you can find units that have more unique roles or several roles even. So in short I don't think 12 is unit number that must be reached as there is no such thing in the races we consider full.
What is the real true factor is that all races must have 3 tiers and the most basic upgrades, buildings and units (number of each not a factor) and that race must be able to win and lose against the standard 4 races. Full Teach-trees are flexible you have a lot of room for imagination.
1 | Peasant | Peon | Acolyte | Wisp |
2 | Footman | Grunt | Ghoul | Archer |
3 | Rifleman | Troll Headhunter/Berserker | Crypt Fiend | Huntress |
4 | Knight | Demolisher | Gargoyle | Glaive Thrower |
5 | Priest | Shaman | Necromancer | Dryad |
6 | Sorceress | Troll Witch Doctor | Banshee | Druid of the Claw |
7 | Spell Breaker | Spirit Walker | Meat Wagon | Mountain Giant |
8 | Flying Machine | Raider | Abomination | Hippogryph |
9 | Mortar Team | Wind Rider | Obsidian Statue | -> Hippogryph Rider |
10 | Siege Engine | Kodo Beast | -> Destroyer | Druid of the Talon |
11 | Dragonhawk Rider | Troll Batrider | Shade | Faerie Dragon |
12 | Gryphon Rider | Tauren | Frost Wyrm | Chimera |
I have further comment on the idea of "cookie-cutter"-ness.GhostThruster said:...something about "cookie cutter"...
The bolded statement above is a great example of what I'm talking about.I will still say that 3 heroes should be minimal as heroes are one of the key gameplay features for warcraft 3. We are still making teach-tree for warcraft gameplay not for whole new game so some things should be kept such as hero number, tiers, gold/lumber resource existence. We do seem to have a problem to agree what each of us sees as key feature that shouldn't be changed.
Excellent point.VeljkoM said:Oh and I do think unit number effects balance but also to many units risk that many units will share roles or be overshadowed by better units. Too many units lose point when you have really low unit limit and can't use most of them. If you can make 20 units that have reason to be used, great I salute you. On the other hand if you have too few units you limit tactical choices.
Good question.Veljkom said:Also what does "Role" mean, things like hit'n'run race, swarm race, defensive?
Yeah, we've already discussed that the limit is too low; I'll try to change it when I get the chance.Veljkom said:Submission rules are nice but I would add also makers name in case two guys make trolls for example (lets be honest there will be trolls). The mb or rather kb limit is laughable I think coding alone will break it, like others said at least 3-5mbs.
That's a really good point. I copy/pasted that from Wc3C's Hero Contest, a place where I actually trust the Polling process... But yeah, now that I look at it, that's silly. I'll take care of that.Veljkom said:Am I the only one who is not ok with polls being able to kick all entries besides 5 most voted one? Even with all those measures implemented I think all entries should be given equal chance to be judged by official judge. I just have 0 trust in polls.
Not only am I OK with deviating from the judging standards of the past, I in fact think it would be wise to make them better.Veljkom said:As for judging criteria well I am against definition of "Theme Coherence" and existence of "Awesomeness". How do you quantify and objectively judge if something is awesome (even more funny when we consider what that definition of awesome really is). One is Lore criteria and the other can't be objective. Think GhostThruster simple balance/gameplay/presentation/creativity cowers things nicely.
Creativity = Originality & Creativity;
Gameplay = Role Coherence;
Balance = Melee Design Consideration;
Presentation = Theme Coherence;
Doesn't fit exactly but I think that is fair comparing with some liberties taken and GTs names are more clear. Also would stay in spirit with former contests minus the legion criteria. Weren't all recent contests judged by these standards?
Sorry to hear about your network (that has happened to me waaaay too often), but LOL! That's hilarious to hear. : )Veljkom said:----------------------------------------------------------------------
Argh there just had to be a post while I was making mine. You are making me write more then I talk in a day. Heck my net even disconnected as I was writing this. I'll try to be as short as I can for last part. Feel free to skip to end part.
This contest is about whatever we decide it's about, really... And I would like to decide with everyone that it's about both Gameplay & Story/Lore (i.e. Role & Theme), as they are both equally important to Design, in my mind.VeljkoM said:Kyrb0 you are overthinking gameplay creativity and for some reason merging it with story and lore. I think you are putting far bigger role of lore when this is contest is about gameplay. I honesty see no reason for no divine demons (those would be angels I say ) or elves that don't use bows (ugly stereotype and simplification of elves actually, only wood/sylvan elves really are that connected to bows) or dwarves turning in to snakes. I ask what is key definition that all elves in all mediums share besides ears (and even that was never said in Lotr books that made elves popular)? For you I believe it maters because it gives you guidelines for what your race features will be. But that doesn't mean you can judge someones interpretation of lore he is basing his race. Perhaps he created his own story and wishes to make race based of it and not the warcraft lore.
Hm. So much to say, so little time.Veljkom said:But that is all irrelevant and rambling, what maters is your point "constraint creates creativity". For some constraints suffocate, for some it guides their creative thinking. I picked Biome as it had interesting constraint while the others had mandatory features. I prefer cleaner sheet of paper. So key is to find that nice line between creativity that guides and constraints that suffocate. I do find it ironic though that you own theme is least constraining as it allows freedom to make what ever feature you want while others had demanding features that had to be included.
TLR
I have no idea anymore what I was saying...I believe something about moderation in everything is key. I just want us all to agree what biome and start already not argue about "creativity vs constrictions".
See above. It is, but only if that's what we have decided upon as the "point" or "setting" for this Contest (i.e. "5th-race-addition to Wc3, compatible & comparable & equivalent to the existing 4"). If we instead go for something else (creating things like the aforementioned Kalimdor Raiders, Femme Fatales, or Magic race) in our Contest, then sure, yeah, that's not sufficient reasoning.there are certain existing conventions, and that's absolutely fine. but 'parameters' are something you, the contest host, are artificially imposing via 'legion' criterias, 'faction requirements', or the like. and the reasoning that 'all the melee races had it therefore entries must follow a certain convention too' is not sufficient justification.
I kinda agree (GhostThruster said:i am of the stance that we should neither encourage, discourage, enforce, or prohibit 'factions with 6-8 units, direct damage abilities, and heroes with >6 attribute spreads', because that means more freedom and room for creativity for the contestant. whereas all i'm getting is that you want to explicitly prohibit divergent features simply because they are divergent from the norm. let the entrants put in what they want, let the judges decide if it works or not.
It's very pertinent, and I'm glad to hear you agree.GhostThruster said:creativity/originality/innovation in this context, pertain to their dictionary definitions. i am in agreement with you in that originality != making this out of scratch, but i don't see how this is relevant.
Hm. That's ironic, because Wc3C ran their 2nd big "Race-Building Contest" with the exact same theme, after I had already left on my mission for 2 years... It came from Dusk, who I implicitly trust in matters of 'design', but I'm not sure I would've been a big fan of it (and actually, I don't know how successful it was. I think it was reasonably successful).GhostThruster said:i am definitely in agreement that constraints can allow creativity to thrive. just not the ones you've imposed for both historical and logical reasons.
historical: you should check out the 'super unit' contest, was kind of a polar opposite to the enforcement of a 'full race', in that it explicitly enforced a foreign mechanic onto the three fabulous entrants. wazzz, who suggested the theme, argued that by forcing entries to have a super unit (ie. an artificial non-aesthetic constraint), that it encourages creativity within the design of the unit. i argued that's retarded because you are not giving more options, you are taking them away. if there was no 'super unit' requirement, an entry can still opt to implement a super unit. the reverse is not true. anyways, the contest was kind of horrible so yeah.
logical: generally, for a constraint to promote creativity you want that constraint to force an individual to think outside the box. the 'super unit' idea is an example of this, but it was too far outside. constraints of '12 units, 3 heroes etc.' are so deep inside the box not a single ray of light can reach it. and again, even without that restriction the majority of entries will (at least in the past) follow the general outline, but with the added bonus of allowing contestants to be more experimental if they desire.
Maybe that's the issue; are you saying that you believe any given Contest with less in terms of 'options' is intrinsically less open to creativity/originality/innovation and is instead too Constrained? Because I would disagree.GhostThruster said:i argued that's retarded because you are not giving more options, you are taking them away. if there was no 'super unit' requirement, an entry can still opt to implement a super unit. the reverse is not true.
Sorry to hear that. :< I too have issues getting on & posting sometimes.GhostThruster said:well i noe ur joking but i actually was inactive for a bit, and still only have time for 1 (lengthy) post per day or 2, and did not see that.
secondly, soz lel u r alone. faction-size substantially influences the process of balancing, but i believe we should encourage people to be more ingenius in not only their gameplay mechanics and faction-size, but how they balance this. but as i said; "that's what the 'balance' judging criteria is there for". we shouldn't prohibit certain ideas merely because they have the potential for imbalance (relative to default wc3), but we should definitely mark an entry down if it is actually imbalanced.
Apology accepted. : )GhostThruster said:apologies, i do not mean to get 'huffy' but i can be blunt at times.
That's good to hear, and I'm glad you clarified that (overlapping, not not covering enough).GhostThruster said:it's not that your categories don't sufficiently cover everything (tho i just noticed you've entirely excluded a presentation/aesthetics/looks criteria), it's that they possibly cover too much redundancies, and definitely overlap in a few places. plus, the names are kind of complex for no reason. 'role coherence' and 'melee coherence' definitely bugs me;
- role coherence is particularly problematic because it is your awesomeness criteria, but made to look sophisticated with buzzwords like 'tactical synergy & gameplay style'. the one (false) differentiation is that it also judges 'gameplay theme' (e.g. as you say hit 'n' run, melee-focused etc.). we really should not assign ANY marks to an individual who can simplify his race into conforming with 1 or 2 attributes (if anything we should assign marks to more complex races that can't be defined as just 'glass cannon'). but the underlying issue is that 'role' is just a means to an end, the end being fun/enjoyability/awesomeness (and you can argue balance as well)! it's the same argument i am making for the faction-size requirement, but re-purposed. we should not give significance to the means, but measure moreso the effectiveness of the end.
- melee design consideration; the name itself inherently implies that the closer a techtree resembles the default races in 'balance, theme, style, complicatedness, and so forth' the more marks it deserves. no, the only thing that matters is balance relative to melee races.
As aforementioned in my big "definition/examples" bit about Role & Theme, I think those two are important enough to (any) Design-related Contest to be considered part of the criteria. After that, sure, maybe a few more criteria, but not many (I agree in not having too many to not confuse people).GhostThruster said:my criteria covers everything relevant to a techtree, without 'fluff'. no confusion, no complexity, it's easy for both judges and contestants to understand. for comparison's sake (the following is all imo);
-gameplay = awesomeness, which 'role' is an intermediary (or at most an irrelevant by-product) for, + a little bit of theme coherence
-balance = melee design consideration
-presentation = ??? + a little bit of theme coherence
-concept = originality & creativity + theme coherence
"Mechanically & Aesthetically", perfect. That's "Role & Theme" right there. : )GhostThruster said:polish = smoothness of gameplay(though you've made me realise 'accessibility' is a more apt term for this). presentation = looks of the race. i agree with your swap. with the swap in mind, example of a presentation factor: not only good looking icons, but whether said icons have proper DISBTN (polish). example of a gameplay factor: not only a fun and unique spell, but one with a functioning hotkey (accessibility).
concept = 'did they follow the theme + did they introduce unique ideas, mechanically and aesthetically?"
Hm. Ok, I see what you're saying. While that would be the ideal (make every unit useful in different situations; minimize the "one-godmode-unit strategy" situation), I must admit that aside from ballpark balancing & theorycrafting, there's really no way to assure that. In fact, it may not be possible at all; we always talk about Starcraft (the original) as "dah best!", but aren't there certain unit combinations that are just plain 'n' simple better than any other?GhostThruster said:what i meant by a balance on a unit-by-unit basis is if a particular unit is relatively OP. a perfect example is undead. at the top level, every 1v1 racial match-up has roughly 50%. that shows overall balance. but watch a few replays, and you'll see that nearly every undead goes death knight + fiends, with minor variants along the way. play a few games, and you'll know why (hint: it's because dk is op, and so are fiends. they have much more utility than any other hero & t1 ranged respectively). to shift singular unit balance whilst keeping overall balance consistent, for every unit nerf you make you must also make another buff for another unit. for example, if i were blizzard i wud nerf dk move speed to 300, reduce death coil range by 100, whilst buffing crypt lord speed to 300 and shrinking the mana cost of the dreadlord's 'carrion swarm' to 95.
Hum. Well, having read my definition above, I hope you can see that I would heartily disagree with you. "Role" is just as intrinsic to good design as "Theme" (perhaps even moreso, since it affects the way the game is played). Maybe we're calling it by different names and what I call "Role" you call something else ("gameplay", etc). But yeah.GhostThruster said:the way i interpret it, 'role' is a means to achieving fun gameplay (and balance to an extent). it serves as a guideline in making decisions as to what mechanics to include, but 'role' itself is not so much a characteristic so much as what i have called it before, a by-product or intermediary. role is an intermediary in the process of achieving gameplay (which is a characteristic); it is a tool. and when it is not, it is a by-product of the design process. for the purposes of balance, if i decided my race should have strong siege capabilities but weak archers, i've just inadvertently created an 'artillery' role. it's not something i consider intellectual or significant enough to warrant praise for deliberately designing a race/unit/mechanic with role in mind.
Exactly, it's "original" for Wc3 but not for Dawn of War. But that's ok, because (ostensibly) we're making this for & to fit into Warcraft 3. See above.GhostThruster said:it should be assumed by judges that we are talking about originality in the context of wc3 maps. if a contestant decides to steal a spell from 'dawn of war' i'd still award it a mark for originality if few other maps have done so. it's very hard nowadays to come up with a completely original idea.
Awwwww man. Again, sorry to hear that. I am grateful for the large posts, believe it or not; nothing frustrates me more than to have people refuse to defend their position (*cough*), or provide support (*cough*), or respond to my attempts to do so (*cough*).GhostThruster said:i am sorry i missed the fact that you were making the point i was making, but i am busy man. in fact this'll probably be my last post for a while (it is frickin' huge tho).
Alright, so that's 2 votes towards "warcraft 3 gameplay-based techtree" (assuming you mean in the style of a "5th-race-addition").Veljkom said:I too prefer to stick to the more blizzard look then to go far with changes. I think that I agree with you after reading that evil post of yours and would say all of this serves as guidelines that we should follow but not strict rules with no compromise. We are making warcraft 3 gameplay based teach-tree.
Lol, same here. I believe I already "voted" on that, so I'll try and 'collect the data', see where we stand.Veljkom said:So I ask all just to select biome from where to pick our races and then finally start. At this point I don't even care what wins I just want to participate before I am so busy I won't see daylight again.
Well, I would argue that this stuff is important to determine how our Contest will be run. I don't want what has been happening in Contests all over the site for too long; heck, even just today in the Icon Contest someone got upset that they couldn't use their own custom brushes for the contest (a rule which was unstated but apparently "obvious"). Same deal with (if you really read my whole postVeljkom said:But I would rather if we would return to the main topic. Sure all this is interesting but it is not getting us near finally starting this competition. If I have to talk about philosophy regarding race making I would rather go to the PMs. I mean come on we are month overdue and honestly I am no longer convinced I'll have time to participate.
Ahhhhh... That would explain the confusion. I'm sorry, I tried to be pretty clear when I wrote up the idea (but it was an idea "off the top of my head", so meh)...Veljkom said:I would like though to share more about why I have chosen biome. When I first saw biome I though it was great change from making political or ethnic faction and instead making incarnation of environment. But I was wrong the theme is to make a faction that happens to live on selected biome. So lets say forest gets picked if it was how I imagined it would be race that represent incarnation of forest itself when instead we are allowed to make any race that happens to live in forest. Like example Forest Trolls who besides having forest in their name aren't really representing forest and most will concentrate on their mayoincatec nature. I honestly wanted to make desert/swarm race that embraced the sand/wind/heat/death and had desert creatures as units. This is why for me same biome for all is illogical because I missed the point which I thought was more unique then just using biome as way to select a race and make it.
Lol.... laconic way ... I don't even like to use words that aren't used in everyday speech if i can help it.
I guess we'll just have to disagree there.Veljkom said:- I still feel that there aren't 12 units exactly. Summon units although don't cost food are instead limited differently with timer, and morphing druids are at least to me completely different units. Both summoning and morphs can be used to cheat the limit. And honestly some units I just never use so they feel like they exist just to fill the gap to reach 12 number and I really hate units with no use or have role that is already covered.
"MINIMUM" means "at least"... So yeah, that fits every faction. Not sure I understand. :?Veljkom said:-Min. 2 flyers yet only one race has two flyers and that is orcs and both can be made at tier 2 with latest patch. Also the only thing that flyers share between all 4 races is that one unit has anti-turtling ability (I sort of would call it siege role really). Orcs have medium flyer and (weak) siege/aa flyer; humans get scout, heavy flyer and AA/anti-turtlinlg; undead get heavy flyer, light flyer (high AA damage and low ground damage) and anti magic flyer (why is Destroyer 5 food anyway he isn't that good); and elves get melee pure AA light flyer that can combine to be light air unit, heavy anti-ground (magic attack eats units really)/building only flyer (Corrosive breath adds siege damage), anti magic flyer and caster flyer.
It's kinda like Siege, yes... But "siege" is, in particular, "good vs. structures", whereas "anti-turtling" is specifically "good vs./@ disabling towers". Cloud & Freezing Breath, for example, aren't "siege abilities". Even Liquid Fire & Corrosive Breath barely are. But they all "disable enemy tower attacking", which is the big problem (turtling = millions of towers as your only defense).Veljkom said:Also the only thing that flyers share between all 4 races is that one unit has anti-turtling ability (I sort of would call it siege role really).
Check.Veljkom said:- Always long siege no questions there, but the secondary siege is lacking for undead. All have flyers with siege/anti turtling abilities though
Good point.Veljkom said:- Anti-casting comes in two flavors. Dispel and caster killing. Orcs have dispel but no dedicated caster hunter besides regular ranged units. Undead tried to compensate with Anti-magic shell but wasn't enough and they got Destroyer who eats buffs. Humans used to be special with priest dispel that now most have and got most dedicated anti-caster who counters enemy buffs, summons and even eats mana. Night Elves cower buff dispelling with dryad while fairy dragon punishes caster who dare to cast.
Yes, there's some mixing, but not too much.Veljkom said:- Casters we could say offensive and support (I know I have) but orc shaman has offensive lightning and witch doctor healing is supportive. Undead both casters are alo a mix but both are more oriented to causing harm to enemy rather then agument their own troops. It seems casters are more complicated then on first look. Unsure why orcs of all got 3rd caster but disenchant had to be main balance reason as purge can't be enough (if it was auto cast maybe).
Totally!Veljkom said:- Its those slots that I think actually add flavor to races as they are unique.
With that in mind, you might be interested in thisVeljkom said:- Hm always 2 auras that is good observation. I would say orcs still get better deal with Endurance Aura and Drums, add bloodlust and scroll of speed and watch brute might of the orcs. Humans anyway have high armor while thorns and vampire aura aren't really that great (really low values and only effect melee attacks both?).
Good point (though I'm not sure why you're 'skeptical' about NE's only healing at night... It's true, it's in the Editor. Also, Moon Wells only regenerate mana at night, too. Part of the coolness)Veljkom said:- Healing and protection is also an important feature and before RoC undead were at big disadvantage and orcs too at early game. Humans have early heal item and hero for early healing and mid game they get caster with heal and Inner Flames; Night Elves have Moon Well and it seems to be enough, I am sceptically that night reg works only at night. works as intended; Orcs recived Hero with heal and early heal item to compensate for the former heal handicap they had (healing wards were at tier3); Undead only had blight (skeptical about this) and Hero abilities but received Statue/destroyer to fill healing/anti-buff role.
That's very true, and something I'd love to try & avoid (the whole "HU/OR build scheme" thing). Granted, it's hard for some people to come up with new building/resource schemes, but it's totally doable; just look to some other games, or stretch out your mind.Veljkom said:Also regarding cookiecutter thing I though point was that many custom races end up being based of humans (or sometimes the other 3 races) with zero creativity and just model and stat changes. Perhaps they don't appear on contests but there are to many of them because many people think imports make a race. Not that giant story regarding history of RTS games.
It's funny you should say that; if you check my uploaded Excel spreadsheet (on the mega-post), I keep track of everything that's gotten at Tier 3.As tier 3 heavy i meant that powerfull unit of tier 3 in every race
-Humans : Knight
-Undead - Pudge(that meatbag)/Frostwyrm
-Horde: Tauren
-Night Elf: Chimera
Those are all tier 3 units which could be described as heavy. So their proportions would be over 200 gold , over 50 wood units, 4-10 food cost, level 4-10, over 30 dmg.
Alright, so that's 2 votes towards "warcraft 3 gameplay-based techtree" (assuming you mean in the style of a "5th-race-addition").
*sniff* You really read it? All of it?I'm so gratified..
Lol, same here. I believe I already "voted" on that, so I'll try and 'collect the data', see where we stand.
Well, I would argue that this stuff is important to determine how our Contest will be run. I don't want what has been happening in Contests all over the site for too long; heck, even just today in the Icon Contest someone got upset that they couldn't use their own custom brushes for the contest (a rule which was unstated but apparently "obvious"). Same deal with (if you really read my whole post) the last Hero Contest.
I don't really even care so much anymore whether we do "5th-race-addition" or "new-Role-race" or "new-Theme-race" or both or whatever. (alright, I do care, wanting the former, but if I don't get it I'd still try to participate). But I do not want us to not have that decided for this Contest & thus have too many non-comparable entries (like the Hero Contest).
Ahhhhh... That would explain the confusion. I'm sorry, I tried to be pretty clear when I wrote up the idea (but it was an idea "off the top of my head", so meh)...
Yeah, "Forest" means anything that you can rationalize lives in the Forest: (Blood/High/Wood Elves, Forest Trolls, Furbolgs, Nature-creatures, Druids, etc... heck, Goblins cutting down trees, or demon-corrupted ancients (& satyrs), or even grassy furbolgs.). Same for "Desert", "Mountain", "Ice-World", "Island (sea & land)", etc.
Lol.Had to look that up for a reminder.
I guess we'll just have to disagree there.
But more importantly, who's fault is it if a race-creator makes a race & people don't play with all 12 units? Happens all the time to Blizzard... And it's not their fault people don't use, say, Gargoyles or whatever.
"MINIMUM" means "at least"... So yeah, that fits every faction. Not sure I understand. :?
HU & UD have 3, NE have 4-5, sure, but minimum 2.
I just don't consider minimum a pattern when everyone has different number of air units and not same roles.
It's kinda like Siege, yes... But "siege" is, in particular, "good vs. structures", whereas "anti-turtling" is specifically "good vs./@ disabling towers". Cloud & Freezing Breath, for example, aren't "siege abilities". Even Liquid Fire & Corrosive Breath barely are. But they all "disable enemy tower attacking", which is the big problem (turtling = millions of towers as your only defense).
Well "siege" for me is any act against enemy fortifications not just pure attack. Ok siege literally is surrounding enemy town/fort/castle. Corrosive breath adding siege attack well counts as siege by your definition right? Liquid fire slows tower attacks but makes any building unrepeatable... also sometimes I wonder why there are towers in the first place anyway, I mean wc3 focuses on small limited armies lead by a hero where do unlimited towers fit there.
Yes, there's some mixing, but not too much.
- Priest is pure Support - Sorceress is pure Offense (aside from Invisibility) - Spirit Walker is mostly all Support.
- Shaman is pure support (Lightning Shield is a defensive, not an offensive ability; it isn't really used to deal damage but to keep enemies away from the target, or to disrupt enemy lines (cast on enemy & they have to move things around to avoid damage). But you don't use it to deal damage. - Witch Doctor is nearly pure Support... Stasis Trap does Stun enemies, but that can be considered Defensive (giving your troops time to run or whatever).
- Necromancer is a good mix (summon-support-offense) - Banshee is the same (offense-support-utility)
- DotC is pure Support - DotT is pure Offense.
Yeah, it's not always 100%, but it's a pretty good start to designing the 2-minimum casters.
I see disrupting enemy lines as offensive maneuver. For me support are abilities that empower your own units. And really none caster should ever deal direct damage that's why you have all other units (best way to annoy me is to give hero ability to spamable caster). Casters should disrupt enemy and support allies. Guess summons are middle ground. So Lightning Shield I count as offensive as you disrupt enemy lines and indirectly hurt them. .Would still say that there are support, offensive and mix casters with bigger importance being what race needs then to fit caster role. Probably why orcs get two support(ish) casters that increase effectiveness of their army (guess tauren mage hunter would just be silly anyway)... so yeah I agree with you in the end.
Good point (though I'm not sure why you're 'skeptical' about NE's only healing at night... It's true, it's in the Editor. Also, Moon Wells only regenerate mana at night, too. Part of the coolness)
Because to me it seems that undead and nightelves both regenerate hp when they shouldn't (outside of blight and during day just not as fast) but maybe I am wrong. Editor says many things like flying machines have AoE against air, or glave-throwers upgrade that causes line damage (what does it do really, add tree as targets and bigger splash behind unit that got hit?).
I want to add another pattern and that is that food buildings double as defense. UD and Orcs food buildings attack (burrow is scariest tower ever, with upgrade it is the only tower with building armor) and night elves have moon well. Humans get cheep walls but they shouldn't complain they also have 3 towers. And then there is Call to Arms, Spikes, Ancients punching and UD main building attack (nerfed to 15 damage of cold attack... scary!). I add this because people in most cases only remember towers and they often get as generic as possible.
That's very true, and something I'd love to try & avoid (the whole "HU/OR build scheme" thing). Granted, it's hard for some people to come up with new building/resource schemes, but it's totally doable; just look to some other games, or stretch out your mind.![]()
I counted it up and got this:Veljkom said:Think I did collect it in some post. To me it seems forest won if we count jokemasters shadow elves as "forest". Or Desert won as it was the only other type with several votes... Compensate and have Forest vs Desert, life vs death? Forests are used to combat deserts anyway.
So these people voted for Biome, but only those with no question mark specified which Biome.eubz - ?
kyrbi0 - forest
veljkom - desert/forest
blackknightgs - desert
retera - ?
Kingz - jungle/desert/forest
hiphop4eva - ?
JokeMaster - forest/duskwood/underground (something for Shadow Elves)
Footman16 - ?
Eagle XI - ?
GhostThruster - ?
Yeeeeesss!!! That's kinda been the entire tenor of our discussion so far!Wait, wait, wait, so for biome we'll all be making a race for one biome? Or can we choose any biome and make a race for that one, because that's my understanding of it? It's also the option I'd prefer.
Cool, I agree. I'm curious as to what GhostThruster thinks, though (forecast: the opposite of me. xD)Yeah my vote goes there, the 5th race addition. I thought anyway that was the point of making a race for warcraft 3.
Of course, of course. Same thing happened to myself a few times (since I obviously reviewed it a few times before posting). I'm just gratified you even tried. : )Veljkom said:I did read it but at same time I lose track of what I read so I had to reread parts again careful and to avoid confusion. I might have missed some still mostly the parts directed at ghostthruster...
Well, I'm working to change that. Let's do so together.Veljkom said:I don't know guess I am just worried at the moment that we won't start until mid of August or September so I am little rushing things. I am unsure if there was a lot of confusion in previous contests but if I recall correctly there weren't ever any problems about what not to do and what to do. People made races, poll would be made where most famous/best eye candy wins (I might be lil cruel here) and then we wait several months until someone judges. I always thought this was the most ignored contest ever, didn't even saw notification like all other contests had. Also at the moment you can make me agree to make race with only WoW heroes as units with quest givers giving quests for resources.
So true, and a great example: So no Unit has an ability like a Hero ability (no Direct Damage). The closest they get is Master-lvl abilities, many of which are "disables" (Cyclone, Polymorph, Cripple, Possession, etc) (the importance being in a squad-based, soft-counter game like Warcraft, disables have a lot of utility & are really devastating); those could, with some tweaks, become Hero abilities, but really the Master-lvl spell is the closest they get.Velkjom said:Still nothing compoared to my hatred of units having unbalanced hero abilities.
Hm. Well, they shouldn't.Veljkom said:Because to me it seems that undead and nightelves both regenerate hp when they shouldn't (outside of blight and during day just not as fast) but maybe I am wrong. Editor says many things like flying machines have AoE against air, or glave-throwers upgrade that causes line damage (what does it do really, add tree as targets and bigger splash behind unit that got hit?).
That's an excellent point, though I'll modify it slightly to say "Each Food-Building has a secondary effect", whether it be Defense (OR Burrows & UD Ziggurats being (pseudo-)Towers) or Support (NE Moon Wells healing/regen-ing)... HU Farms seem the odd one out, but remember that they are cheaper & faster to build than any of the others, and are commonly used as 'expendable walls' around buildings you actually care about. So again, Support/Defense.Veljkom said:I want to add another pattern and that is that food buildings double as defense. UD and Orcs food buildings attack (burrow is scariest tower ever, with upgrade it is the only tower with building armor) and night elves have moon well. Humans get cheep walls but they shouldn't complain they also have 3 towers. And then there is Call to Arms, Spikes, Ancients punching and UD main building attack (nerfed to 15 damage of cold attack... scary!). I add this because people in most cases only remember towers and they often get as generic as possible.
I counted it up and got this:
So these people voted for Biome, but only those with no question mark specified which Biome.
*sigh*
It looks pretty tied between Forest & Desert, somewhat... Y'know, even though I still think 1 Biome is enough, you're "Life & Death" (Forest vs. Desert) idea sounds pretty rad, and hopefully roomy enough of a Theme for everyone to agree on.
So what say ye: is the Biome-inspired "Forest vs. Desert" aka "Life vs. Death" Theme acceptable to all? Those who didn't specify which Biome in your initial vote, vote here. Those who already voted, vote again.![]()
Yeeeeesss!!! That's kinda been the entire tenor of our discussion so far!
I wouldn't sound so frustrated, except I explicitly wrote out the Poll to contain this information, and it's what we've been discussing for a while now. :<
So true, and a great example: So no Unit has an ability like a Hero ability (no Direct Damage). The closest they get is Master-lvl abilities, many of which are "disables" (Cyclone, Polymorph, Cripple, Possession, etc) (the importance being in a squad-based, soft-counter game like Warcraft, disables have a lot of utility & are really devastating); those could, with some tweaks, become Hero abilities, but really the Master-lvl spell is the closest they get.
Now it could be argued that "just because Blizzard didn't do it, doesn't mean we shouldn't", saying that "it's creative! it's something that doesn't already exist!" I think that's true for some things... But I would argue that Blizzard made many decisions like this for a reason, usually for balance (something they're waaaay better at than me). So instead of 'breaking the mold" on an issue like that, I take a look at the existing precedents & say "Ok, so avoid DirectDamage & otherwise-too-Heroic abilities on Units, check."
Hm. Well, they shouldn't.
And yeah, some of that stuff is pretty tricky to tease out (whether/how it works at all). Check Mojo Stormstout's "classic.battle.net/war3" guide for a lot of really good information about that kinda stuff & how it works. But yeah, technically it totally does; the Glaive Thrower's attack punches through the first target to deal damage behind it (trees & otherwise); the Gyrocopter gains a dinky little "machine gun" attack with that upgrade, and the Attack is already set up as having an AoE effect (like artillery siege, but in the air with bullets), however useful that is...
Well I say defensive since it is all aimed to make your base survive longer either by attacking enemy (UD and Orcs) or making units last longer (NE) or defend other buildings (cheep wall + wide selection of tower choices). Heh I myself once added for skeletal race graves that raised dead. Good as offense and unfair advantage at creeping (like when humans use militia). But yeah in the end just make sure building isn't pure food only.That's an excellent point, though I'll modify it slightly to say "Each Food-Building has a secondary effect", whether it be Defense (OR Burrows & UD Ziggurats being (pseudo-)Towers) or Support (NE Moon Wells healing/regen-ing)... HU Farms seem the odd one out, but remember that they are cheaper & faster to build than any of the others, and are commonly used as 'expendable walls' around buildings you actually care about. So again, Support/Defense.
The only one that hasn't been done yet is "Offensive", and of course some interesting ideas could be discovered that are "Supportive" or "Defensive". But yeah, each "Farm"-building should be involved more in the Faction.
Yeeeeesss!!! That's kinda been the entire tenor of our discussion so far!
I wouldn't sound so frustrated, except I explicitly wrote out the Poll to contain this information, and it's what we've been discussing for a while now. :<
No the poll wasn't that explicit, it says Biome (Pick one blah blah blah) which I thought meant everyone would pick any one biome and make a race about it, which in my opinion is the best choice and doesn't constrain people in regards to options.
Limiting it to one biome, let's take forest for starters, will lead to a lot of races repeating each other. In Warcraft 3 Forest could only ever refer to NE, Trolls, Spiders (?), Ancients in my opinion and that is just too short a list. I say that you make biome mean any biome and people entering the competition have to pick one before they start and then make a race around it. This could result in everyone picking different biomes or everyone picking the same rendering my point moot but it still gives the greater diversity.
Also, I haven't been reading through all the discussions only the latest one which only mentioned it sparingly hence my question to clarify.
. But yeah I don't think anyone figured it (including me) when poll started so barely anyone picked a biome until we were reminded we should do so."Biome" would be too broad for one contest, but a particular Biome for each contest could work, I think.
I was about to get a little frustrated; you "blah-blah-blah"ed out the important part. However, upon reading it a few times, I can see how it could be construed that way.No the poll wasn't that explicit, it says Biome (Pick one blah blah blah) which I thought meant everyone would pick any one biome and make a race about it, which in my opinion is the best choice and doesn't constrain people in regards to options.
I disagree. Earlier (for Forest alone) I came up with no less than 8-10 different races that could live in the Forest Biome, and I would wager that several more could be determined.Footman16 said:Limiting it to one biome, let's take forest for starters, will lead to a lot of races repeating each other. In Warcraft 3 Forest could only ever refer to NE, Trolls, Spiders (?), Ancients in my opinion and that is just too short a list. I say that you make biome mean any biome and people entering the competition have to pick one before they start and then make a race around it. This could result in everyone picking different biomes or everyone picking the same rendering my point moot but it still gives the greater diversity.
Lol... I try & I try... Well what can you do.I can clarify that. Did you press Biome? Key part in that post was:
. But yeah I don't think anyone figured it (including me) when poll started so barely anyone picked a biome until we were reminded we should do so.
Exactly. The entire point of a Thematic restriction is to, well, restrict the choices. Not unduly (i.e. "everyone make a spider race!" or "everyone make a purple race!"), but enough to actually make things interesting.Veljkom said:Forest has also furbolgs, satyrs but can also be gnolls or worgen. And well we never said it has to be warraft only based race? Problem is that "biome race" apparently means "race that lives in biome". So if all biomes are allowed then all races are allowed and that means that theme is pointless and we could call it Free Theme as there is no requirements at all. I too also don't like the idea of just 1 biome and I kept suggesting that we have a continent and pick biome from there, suggested my own interpretation of biome and as last chance the Forest vs Desert.
Well, the whole reason I'm putting all this fuss up, taking tons of time to write up these posts & Contest threads... It's all because I too am not content with how these Contests are conducted.Ok, ok I don't agree with how this contest is being conducted in some ways but I do want to play along and enter, so I'm throwing my hat in for snow Biome and I am grateful for Kyrbi0 organizing this.
I don't know about decided, but the basic "point of discussion", the last thing that needs deciding is found at the top of this post; basically just hammer down a Theme.Whoa those posts were huge, talk about testing the hive character limit xD
I am still to go through all the posts so if someone could sumarize in a few sentences what has been agreed on and what is still being discussed that would be great.