GitP WarCraft 3: The Frozen Throne group (thread II)

[Inhuman Bot]

Ah a thread get bumped even if you delete the last post? That's strange...

No, it makes sense. It gets bumped from the new post, but why would it go back? There WAS a new post after all.

[Winterwind]

Good news: I've decided to go to my parents tomorrow in the morning, rather than today evening, so I will be at the custom map session after all!

Alternatively, if you don't want the strangeness involving having EDITs in a post that hasn't been edited and so on, you can simply edit your last post as normal, then post again and immediately delete the new post. The thread will remain bumped.

Just tested it; this variant doesn't seem to work.

No, it makes sense. It gets bumped from the new post, but why would it go back? There WAS a new post after all.

Because it doesn't save whether there was a new post or not, all it does is sorting the threads by the date of the latest post they contain.

[The Orange Zergling]

Good news: I've decided to go to my parents tomorrow in the morning, rather than today evening, so I will be at the custom map session after all!

Yay!

Just tested it; this variant doesn't seem to work.

Because it doesn't save whether there was a new post or not, all it does is sorting the threads by the date of the latest post they contain.

Buh...

The software must have changed since the last time I used that technique, then. I know for sure it used to work...

[Winterwind]

Sounds like the most likely explanation, Bane.

Reminder: Tomorrow is our next melee session. I hope to see you all there!

[742]

you can always copy the old post, delete it, then paste it into a new post.

[Winterwind]

And another week has gone by, and another session is looming on the horizon! Reminder: Tomorrow is our next custom map session. Hope to see you all there.

EDIT: And reminder once again: The melee session awaits us tomorrow! Hope to see you all there, once again.

EDIT(October 21st): Reminder again: Custom map session tomorrow! Hope to - oh, you know the drill.

EDIT(October 23rd): Reminder: Tomorrow is our next melee session. Hope to crush you all there.

EDIT(October 28th): Reminder: Tomorrow is our next custom map session. I'm not entirely sure whether I'll make it, but I hope I will.

[nooblade]

And again, I won't make it to this one. Lappy is borked and it looks like it needs either a new video card or some RAM. Eh, I've got stuff to study for anyway. Repair might even be delayed to winter.

[Winterwind]

But... I know nothing about laptop repair...



In any case, sorry to hear that, Nooblade.

Also, reminder: Tomorrow is our next melee session!
Alas, for once, I won't be able to make it; Monday's a holiday, so I'll be staying at my parents till then.

[The Orange Zergling]

I'll also be late or may not even show up at all tomorrow, as it's Halloween and I'm a little foggy on precisely how committed to other things I'll be that day or for how long.

My apologies for giving such short notice, but I'd thought it was still a couple days away.

[nooblade]

You know how I always have the best ideas for game stuff when I'm (supposed to be) studying? It's true, imagination is cruel. There's something that has to be done with the arena of fire map, and it'll also have to wait until repair this winter.

Someone tell the monsters deep under the sea to stop putting things into my head which don't belong, kaythx.

[Winterwind]

repair this winter.

Hey, what's with the tone of commandment? And, what's with people wanting me to repair stuff lately?

Someone tell the monsters deep under the sea to stop putting things into my head which don't belong, kaythx.

Awww, but it's so much fun!


So, reminder: Tomorrow is our next custom map session.

I am not quite sure yet whether I will make it - I'll be off for a business trip till Wednesday (so I will miss the melee session... again ), and I'm not certain whether I will be leaving tomorrow or on Saturday.

For the same reason, no reminder PMs today, I'm... kinda short on time.

[The Orange Zergling]

I'll also be gone from the 8th to the 16th due to a family trip, so I'll miss the custom and melee sessions on the 12th and 14th, respectively. Though, due to daylight saving's time ending, a shift of about 5-6 hours in time zones, transit time and possible delays associated with aircraft, airports and travel in general, I may or may not be a day or two late; hard to tell at this point.

Unfortunately, this means that I will be busy preparing and packing and so forth, so I'm going to have to skip the melee session this Sunday as well.

[Winterwind]

And reminder, tomorrow is our next custom map session. Hope to see you there.

Please forgive me for not sending out any PMs today, but I'm really, really tired.

EDIT (13th November): And reminder again, tomorrow is our next melee session. Hope to see you there as well.

[742]

well im going to have to join the "announcing my absence" crowd for tomorrow/today/whenever it/that is

[Winterwind]

Sorry for the late post and lack of reminders, but I was gone for a conference for the entire week and just got home. Also, dying of exhaustion.

Even so, reminder: Today is our next custom map session. I hope to see you in about three hours.

EDIT (20th November): And reminder again, tomorrow is our next melee session. Hope to see you all there!
EDIT(21st): Alas, seems I won't be able to show up after all. Pretty severe private matters have arisen that will definitely occupy me today and tomorrow. Sorry for that.

EDIT (26th November): Ah, dang, forgot to send out the reminders. Oh well, I'm sick, I have an excuse.
In any case, yeah, custom map session tomorrow. Hope to see you all there.

[The Orange Zergling]

So, uh, this is pretty embarrassing, but I'm taking Defense of the Ancients off of my veto list.

Essentially what triggered this was a several-month long debate I had with Winterwind via PM, and towards the end of it he decided that it would be a good idea to go through the entire list of heroes (all 101 of them) and review them all between ourselves to see how many of them were well-designed and fun.

After we had completed this long, long task, I crunched the numbers and determined that literally over 50% of the entire hero population could be removed entirely and it would actually improve the map, due to removing potential "land mines" that newbies would pick without knowing any better and making the Random function worth using because no matter what you would be getting at the very least a decent hero. However, that 50% of the population left over was still perfectly viable, and in fact 25% were of high enough quality that I felt they could be added to Desert of Exile (which is by far my favorite AoS, due to the fact that even the absolute worst-designed heroes on the map are still markedly above-average for AoS heroes - the balance needs a ton of work, sure, but the hero design itself is for the most part top-notch) with the only modifications being those necessary to make them comply with DoE's condition system.
Winterwind's reviews came up with similar results, though slightly moreso in DotA's favor.

What all of this means is that now that I am aware of which 52 heroes to avoid specifically due to either their incredibly low quality (which, to me, results in very little to no fun) or their poisonous effect on the game around them, I can do so and instead stick to the remainder.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be proclaiming that DotA is the pinnacle of AoSs or design or anything, I'm just making the change from not tolerating it to tolerating it.

At the time I thought that this was obvious, but just for clarification, all of those times that I compared DotA to self-injury or genocide or other bad things were just exaggeration for what was intended to be humorous effect (but of course did not turn out as such most of the time; thankfully I for the most part realized that a while ago). As much as I hated DotA, it was still just a video game, and seriously calling it anything worse than a really bad video game would be just plain silly.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Satan called and wanted to borrow my ice-scraper, so I need to go deliver it.

[nooblade]

CfG's next, right? Or is SWAT before that?


No, wait. The important thing, actually, is to get people to quit going on about DoE. Really, honestly, if I didn't hear someone saying that that game is perfectly designed every time it enters discussion, I might actually be able to enjoy the exercise in selecting some condition-applicators. Keep it to yourself just a little more, please? I am being 100% serious. As it is, I don't think I could possibly enjoy the game anywhere near as much as you do.

I've had more fun with DotA, just because I didn't expect it to be any good.

[The Orange Zergling]

No, wait. The important thing, actually, is to get people to quit going on about DoE. Really, honestly, if I didn't hear someone saying that that game is perfectly designed every time it enters discussion, I might actually be able to enjoy the exercise in selecting some condition-applicators. Keep it to yourself just a little more, please? I am being 100% serious. As it is, I don't think I could possibly enjoy the game anywhere near as much as you do.

I've had more fun with DotA, just because I didn't expect it to be any good.

Firstly, it's hard to rate something without an objective, static milestone to compare it to. This is the one we both used in our personal discussion because we both agreed upon it. If such was not explained, what else was I going to say? "These heroes were pretty good"? That's hardly objective.

Secondly, we don't spend 90% of our time talking about DoE, and when it's even brought up anymore, it's usually because someone suggests it and it's subsequently vetoed.

[nooblade]

That's not how objectivity works. DoE is used in a relative comparison. For an objective one, you'd use the most fundamental possible things for a measuring scale, or a perfect thing. Relativity is an important idea. The discussion was geared for you, so a comparison with DoE was excellent. It works for you. If it were me, well... That would spark a discussion that would only cause everyone to hate me even more.

Are vetoing privileges being abused? What are we playing nowadays?

[The Orange Zergling]

That's not how objectivity works. DoE is used in a relative comparison. For an objective one, you'd use the most fundamental possible things for a measuring scale, or a perfect thing. Relativity is an important idea. The discussion was geared for you, so a comparison with DoE was excellent. It works for you. If it were me, well... That would spark a discussion that would only cause everyone to hate me even more.

Essentially, what I meant was that while, yes, liking DoE is purely a matter of personal opinion, I figured that the majority of the group (exceptions exist, definitely, but still the majority) shared my and WW's opinions of its hero design, thus it would be a good point of comparison. Perhaps the specific words and phrasing I used were poorly chosen, but still.

Admittedly I don't know how many people actually do share our opinions, it appeared that way to me thus it was the assumption I was operating under.

Are vetoing privileges being abused?

Not that I'm aware of. It can sometimes get a little difficult when multiple people with wildly differing tastes are on at the same time, but even then we usually find a compromise.

What are we playing nowadays?

Rabbits vs. Sheep, Castle Fight, Eve of the Apocalypse, Stand of the Elves, Regicide, Dark Deeds, Pyramid Escape, Legion TD and Pest Invasion stand out as regular picks nowadays, though occasionally we also play Desert of Exile, Against the Darkness, Element TD, Battletanks, Imperial Castle Defense, Extreme Candy War, Obsidian Depths and Uther Party 2. Probably more, too, but that's just off the top of my head.

[Winterwind]

What we actually discussed was how well the heroes on DotA fulfilled certain criteria we considered hallmarks of good design, rather than comparing them to any other maps. Such as:
- synergy: Do the hero's skills work well together? If they do not have anything to do with each other, that's bad; if they all work towards the same role, that's better, but it's still not quite synergy; if, on the other hand, each skill supplements the others and makes the set of skills more than just the sum of its parts, that is synergy and the best design.
- engagement: How interesting are the hero's skills to use? A skill that requires some actual player skill to use, for example because it needs to be targeted, is more interesting to use than one that automatically hits the target. Is proper positioning required to get the most out of the hero? Does it not have too many passives or too long cooldowns?
- variability: Can the hero fulfill many different roles? If so, that's more interesting than being locked into just one role.
- autonomy: Can the hero stand on its own, if necessary? Being a support hero is fine, but if even a support hero can be used on its own, that's better design than if a hero needs other heroes (be it all the time or just in certain situations).
- creativity: Creative skills that have complex effects are more interesting than just simplistic, generic stuff taken straight from melee, hence score higher.
- fun to oppose: If a hero revolves largely around preventing others from playing (because it's based around silence, disables, etc.) it is less fun to play against. Heroes that do that to a degree where they might be considered to noticeably lower the fun for others therefore score lower.

These are, so far, I think you'll agree, perfectly objective criteria (though the application of them may, of course, end up being subjective). We never actually stated them like that, but this was basically what we were looking for in well-designed heroes.

As for the DoE comparison, it just so happens that we both find that the vast majority of DoE heroes demonstrably fulfills most or all of these criteria. Which makes them objectively well-designed. I don't think that's just a personal opinion of the two of us - I truly believe one could make a logical argument that proves that DoE heroes, under the above criteria, are well-designed. Some more than others, but all of them to a very high standard. Compare this to, for example, Regicide - Regicide's heroes are generally speaking far less synergistic, tend far more often to have skills that do not have anything to do with one another, have tons of skills lifted from melee, etc. Whether a hero's skills work together or are just picked at random from a pool of abilities is not a question of subjective opinion. It's something to which a conclusive, objective answer exists.

One can make a case that points out flaws in DoE's gameplay, or such, but as far as the hero design is concerned, I really doubt an argument could be made that points to anything other than them being marvelously well designed that would not instantly fall apart when confronted with facts and logic, because design is something that can be objectively judged. Now, as I said, gameplay is a different matter (personally, I like it, but that is subjective), and design has nothing to do with balance, which is a real issue on DoE, but I cannot think of any map that comes even close to DoE in terms of hero design.

But, we didn't really talk about DoE anyway. At most, because my personal rating scale actually went from "Sub-Regicide" (heroes that are so boring, anti-synergistic, generic and overall ill-designed that even Regicide heroes are better on average), over "Regicide" (heroes that show just as little synergy as Regicide heroes do, but at least seem fun enough to play and oppose due to not having too many unengaging passives or such, and may have the occasional truly creative skill) and "Regicide+" (first signs of synergy, increasing creativity), up to "DoE-" and "DoE" (heroes that exhibit the above design criteria to a similar degree as DoE heroes do). Mostly because it made an easy way to quantify to which degree the above criteria were fulfilled.


In other news, reminder: Tomorrow is our next custom map session. I'm not entirely sure yet whether I will be able to show up, unfortunately (most likely, yes, but late), but I wish you lots of fun either way.
EDIT: Okay, I will definitely be there. On time, too.

[nooblade]

Oh, Winter, how can you be so cruel? You must know by now that gameplay is one of the things I value most. And if hero design is different from gameplay (In an AoS... I assume we're only talking about AoSes? Regicide is another AoS?), and balance isn't the same body as those two, why, they're at least inseparable Siamese triplets with fused brains.

I find myself losing the energy to continue this line of thought. What, do the heroes stand around and mockingly wave skill icons at you when the gameplay is out to lunch? Did every bit of the criteria he listed not have something to do with gameplay? So cold and lifeless... Everything I ever learned was wrong. I don't understand I think anymore, I am so completely wiped. The unstoppable force has reached the immobile object, and then they procreated. Throw the towel in the laundry, it's been soiled.

Goodbye DoE, I'll never understand your mysteries now. It'll take weeks of rehab just to click a skill again.

[Winterwind]

...I think I just broke Nooblade.

Okay - I guess "non-hero-related gameplay" might have been more accurate, then. Specifically, what I was referring to were the following things:
- map layout, and the strategies it lends itself to - for example, DoE's layout makes ambushes from behind a fair bit more difficult than, say, DotA's, though still far from impossible. You can like this or not (I don't).
- mini-bases. This completely changes the entire dynamic of the game. You can like this or not (I do).
- troop power level - DoE creeps are a lot more powerful in comparison to heroes than DotA creeps are. You can like this or not (I don't particularly care either way).
- buying troops to reinforce your waves. You can like this mechanic or not (I do).
- items being a lot weaker than DotA items. You can like this or not (I don't).

See what I mean? None of those are in any way related to hero design (though how you play the game will, of course, be heavily dependent on what your hero does, so that part of gameplay is of course intertwined with your hero. Not the part of gameplay I meant though.).

As for balance, it really is independent from the rest. Just consider - you could take any hero, with perfectly synergistic and interesting-to-use skills, and just move it from map to map. It may end up being just right on DoE, underpowered on DotA and overpowered on Regicide, because all these maps use slightly different numbers on their heroes, with DotA numbers being higher and Regicide numbers being lower - yet it would never change anything about how synergistic and interesting-to-use this hero is. It would be balanced on some maps, unbalanced (into different directions) on others, but at all times, it would remain just as well balanced.

[nooblade]

I know you want me to say that, yeah, Dusk (that's his name, right?) and VZ people put a lot of effort into hero design, and yeah, I guess that he did an exceptionally good job. Unfortunately, I no longer understand what hero design, gameplay, or balance are.

[Winterwind]

I know you want me to say that, yeah, Dusk (that's his name, right?) and VZ people put a lot of effort into hero design, and yeah, I guess that he did an exceptionally good job.

Actually, no, there is nothing particular I want you to say. I'm just presenting and explaining my point of view, that's all.

Unfortunately, I no longer understand what hero design, gameplay, or balance are.

...huh?

Well, the definitions I was using in my previous posts are detailed right up there in said posts... though I get the impression you are actually trying to make some kind of sarcastic statement here, the meaning of which I find myself utterly unable to deduce from your posts, unfortunately. Once more with less sarcasm and more directly and clearly, please?

[Arcanoi]

I would however like to point out that from my limited interactions with him, Dusk is kind of a jerk.

DoE is a pretty good map, but the items and balance leaves quite a bit to be desired. It's a lot less fleshed-out than DoTA, and a lot more static and defensive as well. I like the map quite a bit, but several evident flaws stop me from really enjoying every game.

[Winterwind]

I would however like to point out that from my limited interactions with him, Dusk is kind of a jerk.

So I've heard. He also has the balance-sense of a drunken one-legged giraffe on top of a wrecked ship sinking into the maelstrom of a black hole while being thrown pie made of steel at by Pennywise the Dancing Clown. When he's having a good day, anyway. No attempts here to excuse anything of that.

DoE is a pretty good map, but the items and balance leaves quite a bit to be desired. It's a lot less fleshed-out than DoTA, and a lot more static and defensive as well. I like the map quite a bit, but several evident flaws stop me from really enjoying every game.

Some of these aspects can be considered matters of taste, but I definitely understand where you are coming from. Personally, I like DoE and DotA about the same.

[The Orange Zergling]

DoE is a pretty good map, but the items and balance leaves quite a bit to be desired. It's a lot less fleshed-out than DoTA, and a lot more static and defensive as well. I like the map quite a bit, but several evident flaws stop me from really enjoying every game.

I agree that the balance is the map's biggest problem, though personally I think the item power is just about right (one or two errant Artifacts being too weak or too strong aside) and I'd argue that, even though it has fewer heroes overall, basically every hero on the map is worthy of playing rather than every other hero having tons of passives, entire skill sets taken from melee or other such things, thus it's actually more fleshed out.

But yeah, personal taste and all of that. DoE is probably tied with Rabbits vs. Sheep for my favorite WC3 map of all time, so I tend to get a little defensive.

[nooblade]

Well, the definitions I was using in my previous posts are detailed right up there in said posts... though I get the impression you are actually trying to make some kind of sarcastic statement here, the meaning of which I find myself utterly unable to deduce from your posts, unfortunately. Once more with less sarcasm and more directly and clearly, please?

I don't have the capacity to explain this frustration with DoE, and your definitions certainly aren't helpful IMHO. Does that mean that logical argument to oppose your assertion (DoE has objectively well-designed heroes) doesn't exist? I don't think so, I didn't think it was just wishy-washy emotions, I was pretty convinced that I had enough empirical evidence that something about DoE wasn't good to me, and I was pretty solidly determined not to rule out the hero design. More relevantly, I didn't agree with the assertion that an objective measure would ignore the exact preferences, interests, or abilities of any player for the case of playing videogames. I figured this because the target audience is such an important consideration, and my best guess at why I don't like DoE is that it is because DoE wasn't designed for me.

Any other opposition to it won't come from me, my understanding of games and things is too weak to proceed, I have no desire to strain it, and less to put more effort into it at the moment. AoS games particularly confuse me at the moment, I am feeling stupid.


Now that I've responded to your question, tell me this: Did you anticipate some of the things that I would say and then deliberately dismiss those points in your first post without seriously addressing them, and if so, then why?

[Winterwind]

I don't have the capacity to explain this frustration with DoE, and your definitions certainly aren't helpful IMHO. Does that mean that logical argument to oppose your assertion (DoE has objectively well-designed heroes) doesn't exist? I don't think so, I didn't think it was just wishy-washy emotions, I was pretty convinced that I had enough empirical evidence that something about DoE wasn't good to me, and I was pretty solidly determined not to rule out the hero design.

Firstly, as I said, I think there are plenty of reasons why one might not like DoE which I can, while not necessarily sharing them myself, perfectly understand or even agree with. I just don't think hero design belongs on that list, because while even well-designed heroes may be utterly not fun to individuals, I find it nigh impossible for a player to dislike all of the extreme variety of DoE heroes while still finding likeable heroes on, say, DotA.

Secondly, if you do see objective issues with the hero design on DoE, please proceed and tell me what they are, because I'd love to hear those. As I said, I don't think a logically consistent argument in favour of them being poorly designed can be constructed under the stipulations of what I consider good design (see the above points), but I'd love to be convinced of the opposite, because that might provide quite a lot of insight into game design theory for me, a subject I am quite interested in. So, if you think you have a good point to make that I may have missed, please proceed. My mind is open.

More relevantly, I didn't agree with the assertion that an objective measure would ignore the exact preferences, interests, or abilities of any player for the case of playing videogames. I figured this because the target audience is such an important consideration, and my best guess at why I don't like DoE is that it is because DoE wasn't designed for me.

Bolding and underlinement by me.
There's your contradiction right there. All of the points you mention here are subjective issues, not objective ones. An individual player can have a lot of fun with a hero that is, objectively speaking, badly designed - I myself like a few of the DotA heroes I gave miserable ratings to quite a lot, moreso than some heroes I gave a much better rating to even - but that doesn't change anything about the objective quality of their design.

Any other opposition to it won't come from me, my understanding of games and things is too weak to proceed, I have no desire to strain it, and less to put more effort into it at the moment. AoS games particularly confuse me at the moment, I am feeling stupid.

I continue to be confused by the statements made in this paragraph, not quite seeing where these sentiments came from, but can do nothing but let them stand. Just to let you know, I never thought your understanding of game design was sub-par; quite the opposite, in fact.

Now that I've responded to your question, tell me this: Did you anticipate some of the things that I would say and then deliberately dismiss those points in your first post without seriously addressing them, and if so, then why?

No, I did not anticipate any of those. If I had, I would have addressed them.


So, since it was requested a few times, here is the graph Bane made that contains our ratings for all the heroes. Mind that this is without context - behind each of these ratings there is a pretty lengthy review, often followed by discussion that sometimes went on for weeks.