EPTHeroes Large General Thread - Page 169
| Forum Index > Heroes of the Storm |
Add yourself in the TL Player list if you want to play with TL people, and /join teamliquid channel ingame. Also check out the new Heroes Liquipedia. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
Whalecore
Norway1110 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
As in other MOBA: Big comebacks are rare. Snowball effect is strong. Despite the team level mechanics which leads to the team power levels often being similar. I feel this is because the team that can establish map control early will get the next couple of camps and objectives without competition. Which leads to further map control, and more camps and objectives etc. That said, I have been in a couple of comeback games, and they have been the most fun games so far. Something I wondered about MOBA's and its game-deisng is why no MOBA-game yet has got rid of the concept that the a team which previously played well needs to be more likely to win engagements in the future. This is unlike real sports. Just because one team is ahead by 1-0, it doesn't neccasarily imply that this team is more likely to score the 2nd goal assuming both teams are equally strong. The way the "reward"-mechanic works in MOBA's would be comparable to saying that a football team which is behind by 0-1 should also play with only 10 men on the field. Obviously such a rule would make comebacks alot less likely. I think winning previous battles shouldn't increase the probability of one team winning the next engagement. Rather, it should increase the probability of winning the overall game. That can be done by changing the rewards of winning a teambattle to make it more related to killing enemy structures/towers rather than gaining extra XP/Gold. The latter creates a snowball effect while the former doesn't. Given that there are so many MOBA-clowns out there, it would make sense that at least one game tried to differentiate it self through a completely different reward-mechanic. | ||
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On November 04 2014 22:34 Hider wrote: Something I wondered about MOBA's and its game-deisng is why no MOBA-game yet has got rid of the concept that the a team which previously played well needs to be more likely to win engagements in the future. This is unlike real sports. Just because one team is ahead by 1-0, it doesn't neccasarily imply that this team is more likely to score the 2nd goal assuming both teams are qually strong. The way the game design works in MOBA's would be comparable to saying that a football team which is behind by 0-1 should also play with only 10 men on the field. Obviously such a rule make comebacks alot less likely. I think winning previous battles shouldn't increase the probability of one team winning the next engagement. Rather, it should increase the probability of winning the game. That can be done by changing the rewards of winning a teambattle to make it more related to killing enemy structures/towers rather than gaining extra XP/Gold. The latter creates a snowball effect while the former doesn't. Given that there is so many MOBA-clowns out there, it would make sense that at least one game tried to differentiate it self through a completely different reward-mechanic. Because the game depends heavily on variety of heroes and it would be impossible to balance around 1v1. Go check out Bloodline Champions if you want a MOBA you can play 1v1, but don't be surprised if you just get outpicked and rolled over, it's really designed for 3v3. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On November 04 2014 22:48 deth2munkies wrote: Because the game depends heavily on variety of heroes and it would be impossible to balance around 1v1. Go check out Bloodline Champions if you want a MOBA you can play 1v1, but don't be surprised if you just get outpicked and rolled over, it's really designed for 3v3. Eh, did you quote the wrong post? I am talking about comeback mechanic design. What your talking about has nothing to do with this. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 04 2014 22:58 Hider wrote: Eh, did you quote the wrong post? I am talking about comeback mechanic design. What your talking about has nothing to do with this. Yes it does. You kinda want a game to be balanced around teamfights being completely even all game long. That would only be possible if all these champions are equally strong at every time in the game. I don't think that is possible though. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On November 04 2014 22:34 Hider wrote: Something I wondered about MOBA's and its game-deisng is why no MOBA-game yet has got rid of the concept that the a team which previously played well needs to be more likely to win engagements in the future. This is unlike real sports. Just because one team is ahead by 1-0, it doesn't neccasarily imply that this team is more likely to score the 2nd goal assuming both teams are equally strong. The way the "reward"-mechanic works in MOBA's would be comparable to saying that a football team which is behind by 0-1 should also play with only 10 men on the field. Obviously such a rule would make comebacks alot less likely. I think winning previous battles shouldn't increase the probability of one team winning the next engagement. Rather, it should increase the probability of winning the overall game. That can be done by changing the rewards of winning a teambattle to make it more related to killing enemy structures/towers rather than gaining extra XP/Gold. The latter creates a snowball effect while the former doesn't. Given that there are so many MOBA-clowns out there, it would make sense that at least one game tried to differentiate it self through a completely different reward-mechanic. I think the problem here is that it removes the RPG aspect from the MOBA. For your game to work it would pretty much need to remove leveling, items and scaling abilities. It would really be just a battleground brawler in the purest sense. I'm not sure if the public really wants that. People enjoy having your hero become progressively stronger, gain new abilities and level up in these types of games. I also don't feel the comeback mechanic is really off in this game. For some reason people tend to think that just because you screwed up early in the game you shouldn't be punished for that later. I disagree. It reminds me of all the people complaining about comebacks in SC2 and how if you lose 10 workers early in the game you're completely screwed the entire game. And that is how it should be. You need to start throwing hail marys at that point to try and get back into the game. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On November 04 2014 22:34 Hider wrote: Something I wondered about MOBA's and its game-deisng is why no MOBA-game yet has got rid of the concept that the a team which previously played well needs to be more likely to win engagements in the future. This is unlike real sports. Just because one team is ahead by 1-0, it doesn't neccasarily imply that this team is more likely to score the 2nd goal assuming both teams are qually strong. The way the game design works in MOBA's would be comparable to saying that a football team which is behind by 0-1 should also play with only 10 men on the field. Obviously such a rule make comebacks alot less likely. I think winning previous battles shouldn't increase the probability of one team winning the next engagement. Rather, it should increase the probability of winning the game. That can be done by changing the rewards of winning a teambattle to make it more related to killing enemy structures/towers rather than gaining extra XP/Gold. The latter creates a snowball effect while the former doesn't. Given that there is so many MOBA-clowns out there, it would make sense that at least one game tried to differentiate it self through a completely different reward-mechanic. The snowball effect is there certainly but it would be difficult to keep the theme of heroes gaining xp and not have a snowball effect. Besides I believe there is an xp bonus for the trailing team and levels have increasing xp needs so for example a 2 level early lead will decrease over time and comebacks can certainly happen. As for the whole football argument, competition is just in bo3 or bo5 so there is always a chance for comebacks there. Also there are often different power spikes at levels for heroes, one team can have the strong early presence and gain a level lead but the other team can have the better teamfight setup for later. So as far as comebacks go I don't think it's that bad, it's sort of the nature of the genre to have it snowballing out of control though. I'm not a MOBA expert as this is the only one i've been playing a bit more. So I'm not comparing to others at all but i think it's a fine game. Things I dislike slightly are: - seems a little too teamfight oriented, with the objectives and pushing the team that splits up seems to lose mostly. Curious to see how this develops as the game continues. - killing off an opponent could be quicker, often one game is way ahead but because of the towers and forts it becomes like a 5-10 minute death animation, where one team pushes a little, get's creeps, pushes a bit more and finishes it. They have total control but it takes so long to finish and getting creeps is the only safe way to finish as pushing too hard and getting killed is the only way you lose then it seems. I would like for example to see the power of the core and home forts grow a bit in time so they are weaker earlier on and early pushes can actually finish the game if one team is way ahead. - talent diversity and uniqueness. Most heroes seem to have obvious talents for half the tiers and only two viable choices for the others, would be cool to have more real options where the game itself actually determines what you get. Especially some of the neutral talents that many heroes have need some tweaking, many need a buff and some like envenom and resurgence could use a nerf i think. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On November 04 2014 23:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yes it does. You kinda want a game to be balanced around teamfights being completely even all game long. That would only be possible if all these champions are equally strong at every time in the game. I don't think that is possible though. No that's not what I am implying. Your talking about the scaling effect, but that is related to how long we are into the current game. What I am talking about is not increasing the probability of winning the next battle becasue you won the previous battle. That really has nothing to do with whether some heroes are good in the early phase but worse/better later game. Thus I am not saying that all engagements should be 50-50 at all times. But rather that the probability should change as little as possible based on who won the previous engagement. There are diferent types of solutions to this. A partial solution is to not make attributes/skills scale with levelling. Instead levelling could increase the range of options the "winning" team has, rather than straight up buffing battle-efficiency (though this is hard to accomplish in practice). Another solution is to make levelling related to another factor than winning teambattles. As for the whole football argument, competition is just in bo3 or bo5 so there is always a chance for comebacks there. I still don't like this solution.There really is no worse feeling in any MOBA than getting behind and feeling like you can only win the next battle if the enemy makes an error. The "catch-up" XP mechanic does indeed allow comebacks a bit, but it doesn't really reward a variety of gameplay. What always will happen is that the team that is ahead will take the objective while the team that is behind will defend. Then eventually if the defending team continously survives, the game can even out. But why not balance the game around both teams being able to go for the objective and not just the team that is ahead? Going back to the football analogy, the "faster" XP regeneration rule feels something like this: When one team is behind, it needs to play with 10 men on the field, but if the enemy doesn't score an additional goal within 10 minutes, then they can get back the 11th man. If they don't, then they need to continue playing with 11 men. It should be pretty obvious that this is just a very complicated solution, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether you find this game mechanic fun. I happen to believe that the game is the most fun when neither team - at any phase in the game - is completley dominant over the other team. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
In old MMO times thats what alot of people tried the moment a new server opened, switched over to become a top dog. So Dota became a pvp replacement for them that exactly simulated this. Without gaining an advantage for being the better player I doubt it would have gained popularity in the way it did, because the biggest playerbase came from MMOs. Now of course Dota style games have a huge scene so they can experiment to make changes like this and Heroes sure does. Comebacks are rare in Soloque, way more often with organized teams. Some maps don't have alot of comeback potential, but others do and are usually the more popular ones. Also you get an advantage in soccer if you hit the first goal, because the other team has to do something or they lose. But soccer is completely different if you take this perspective. Another perspective would be that a match is just a team fight. And winning often means more money, which means better players. So you have an advantage going into the match. Sounds more Dota Style that way. In Chess you are behind from the start as black and if you lose a piece for free you are really in trouble. The only comeback mechanic is to play way better then the opponent. Different games for different people. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 04 2014 23:21 Hider wrote: No that's not what I am implying. Your talking about the scaling effect, but that is related to how long we are into the current game. What I am talking about is not increasing the probability of winning the next battle becasue you won the previous battle. That really has nothing to do with whether some heroes are good in the early phase but worse/better later game. There are diferent types of solutions to this. A partial solution is to not make attributes/skills scale with levelling. Instead levelling could increase the range of options the "winning" team has, rather than straight up buffing battle-efficiency (though this is hard to accomplish in practice). Another solution is to make levelling related to another factor than winning teambattles. Yeah sure, but what happens if you wanna have "early game champions" and "late game champions". You pick those early game one to have an advantage and "snowball" from there. In a game where you don't get more battle advantages by winning battles, you kinda can't play these "early" game champions, or am i missing something? Why would you pick them? Instead levelling could increase the range of options the "winning" team has Yeah but what does that even mean? I don't see how you could have champs with different advantages (lvl wise/ early game/lategame, etc) in your game. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
Also you get an advantage in soccer if you hit the first goal, because the other team has to do something or they lose. Yes they get an advantage, but that advantage is not related to its current strenght on the field, but instead increases the overall probability of winning the game. This is comparable to say someone winning a teambattle in a MOBA, and then getting a reward by killing one of the 4-6 "bases" of the enemy team (thus implying that in order to win you need to kill a critical mass of "bases"). My point here isn't that HOTS should be completely redesigned at this point, but rather, given that most MOBA's have an issue with the comeback mechanic, why not just try - assuming you are developing a new MOBA game - design the game without these snowball effects in the first place. Yeah but what does that even mean? I don't see how you could have champs with different advantages (lvl wise/ early game/lategame, etc) in your game. So let's say you have one champions that scales better, then it has a probability of winning a teambattle in the late game of 60-40. Given how MOBA snowball-effect currently works, if you get more ahead (than expected) early game, then the probability of winning the late-game battle goes up to 75-25. What I am suggesting is to keep that probability of winning the teambattle at 60-40 (thus make it unrelated to whether you previously won the battle). So as far as comebacks go I don't think it's that bad, it's sort of the nature of the genre to have it snowballing out of control though. Items and last-hitting were also essential parts of the genre before Heroes of the Storm came in and looked "rationally" at whether the game would be more fun without these mechanics. In my opinion the next step of the genre is to take a serious look at the reward-mechanic, rather than trying to add band-aid "comeback"-mechanics. I'd actually be interested to know if being up 1-0 on a team on soccer makes you more likely to go up 2-0. Obviously you'd need to account for the fact that the team up 1-0 is probably better so more likely to go up to 2-0 for that reason but does the fact that you can take certain liberties with positioning since at worse if you're out of position you tie and at best you go up 2-0 matter? I'd have to assume yes. Similar to American Football where if you have a lead you can do certain things more freely like blitzing, long pass attempts, route jumps and things like that to try and extend your lead. Well first of all the 1-0 team is more likely to be the favourite, and thus more likely to go up 2-0. Moreover, it also changes the tactics of the losing team. That's totally fine and it would also be fine if the team that is behind in a MOBA took more risks and those had maybe a 45-55 probability of winning the next teambattle instead of 50-50. I think a higher risk-taking only adds to the entertainment value. But I think the "skills" during the late-game engagement should be the primary driver of who wins that engagement. Previous won engagements should instead give you more chances to lose engagements while still coming out ahead in the end. If on the other hand you were outplayed early/mid game, and then you have a "fair" teamfight in the lategame, that should basically just end the game right there, while the "ahead" team can afford to lose 2-3 extra engagements. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 04 2014 23:35 Hider wrote: Yes they get an advantage, but that advantage is not related to its current strenght on the field, but instead increases the overall probability of winning the game. This is comparable to say someone winning a teambattle in a MOBA, and then getting a reward by killing one of the 4-6 "bases" of the enemy team (thus implying that in order to win you need to kill a critical mass of "bases"). My point here isn't that HOTS should be completely redesigned at this point, but rather, given that most MOBA's have an issue with the comeback mechanic, why not just try - assuming you are developing a new MOBA game - design the game without these snowball effects in the first place. So let's say you have one champions that scales better, then it has a probability of winning a teambattle in the late game of 60-40. Given how MOBA snowball-effect currently works, if you get more ahead (than expected) early game, let's assume the probability of winning a teambattle goes up to 75-25. What I am suggesting is to keep that probability of winning the teambattle at 60-40 (thus make it unrelated to whether you previously won the battle). I mean i agree that there should be mechanics that allow comebacks, don't get me wrong. Yeah but let's say you have an early game champ who is favored 60:40 at the beginning but would evolve to 40:60 the longer the game goes (without any items/exp advantage). Why should i play this champ in your game if i probably can't win "in time" . You would need to make sure that you can win before the lategame heroes kick in, this is done in the current mobas by adding advantages for winning fights, gold+exp. If you remove that i don't see how you want to balance your game? I just don't see how you can have different advantages in your game when battles "only" give objectives to win the game, rather than future fights. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
Why should i play this champ in your game if i probably can't win "in time" . You would need to make sure that you can win before the lategame heroes kick in, this is done in the current mobas by adding advantages for winning fights, gold+exp. Yeh sure. My point is that the game should be balanced around this reward-mechanic. You can't obviously add it into any MOBA right now and expect it work out immediately. So the defenders-advantage mechanic and respawn-times and other stuffs needs to be carefully tweaked in order to get the desireable gameplay. It seems you want a game that isn't RPG in nature. Has no leveling ,items, power curves or advantages. So you start the game as powerful as you'll ever be and must beat the enemy in such a state. Sounds like you want bloodline champions. Yeh I think the RPG element is something that the MOBA genre will get rid of over time. HOTS has taken the first step by basically saying that what players find fun is player vs player interaction (lots of teambattles). It's not about getting items, runes or masteries or killing monsters. Stuff like that is fun in Diablo because you can grind a lot and look forward to purchasing item X that will make your character X% stronger vs monsters. While in a MOBA, you just lose that item after the game anyway. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 04 2014 23:57 Hider wrote: Yeh sure. My point is that the game should be balanced around this reward-mechanic. You can't obviously add it into any MOBA right now and expect it work out immediately. So the defenders-advantage mechanic and respawn-times and other stuffs needs to be carefully tweaked in order to get the desireable gameplay. I feel like you just couldn't have different power curves for your heroes, which would be my first post again i guess :D But maybe i am wrong, if it is done otherwise it could be fun, i just don't see HOW really ^^ | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
I just don't see how you can have different advantages in your game when battles "only" give objectives to win the game, rather than future fights. So let me go back to my previous example. If we look at a typical MOBA, it has X bases/towers. Before you can kill enemy nexuss you need to have killed (the majority of) those towers. What I imagine is that you win a teambattle, and then you have the possbility of killing an enemy base/tower. In most MOBA's, however, the winning team gets out ahead but very injured and then needs to go back to base to heal and then farm a bit as it often times can't do critical follow up damage after the battle. What I would look at - assuming I was in charge of experimenting with a new MOBA - is to get rid of the whole "back to base"/farm-mechanic after a battle and instead just let the team go straight for one of the enemy bases while being able to heal the heroes simultanesly. With this approach I believe it would be possible to maintain an average game duration close to that of Heroes but without the same snowball mechanic. Obviously the above was just one example, but I think there are tons of different approaches which can be taken here, and it definitely requires a lot of testing to find something that feels fun. | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
| ||
| ||
