|
|
On November 05 2014 01:05 ahswtini wrote:
Ok so you add some arbitrary step of attacking the base after a fight.
Well please be aware this is an overall concept. It's not about specific solutions here as those needs to be tested and tweaked alot.
But a solution I think could work is to make it possible for heroroes to heal after a battle without going back to base. Thus, the punishment for being very injured after a won battle is less, and then I would also adjust the defenders advantage.
So it's not like I am saying "this is how it should be done", but rather I would hope and too some extent I expect that new developers will try to experiment with this concept (just like Heroes is experimenting with no items and no last-hitting).
|
no his plan is to have a 5v5 arena cage battle,
then the winning team gets a free full heal and "base" kill
then back to another 5v5 cage battle
first team to 5 (pending testing) cage battle wins is triumphant.
Nothing must sully the complete fairness of these 5v5 cage battles.
PS: Heroes of Newerth actually implemented this scaling armor buff on towers where towers lose like 5 armor per dead hero on ur team so that it was easier to push when the enemy was dead, but harder to say split-push or siege towers without slaying heroes.
Lets just say that HoN made some good choices and some bad ones, but the only truly good thing about that game was the engine lol.
|
On November 05 2014 01:08 Sn0_Man wrote:
no his plan is to have a 5v5 arena cage battle,
then the winning team gets a free full heal and "base" kill
then back to another 5v5 cage battle
first team to 5 (pending testing) cage battle wins is triumphant.
Nothing must sully the complete fairness of these 5v5 cage battles.
In Heroes of the Storm there are bases/towers which needs to be killed before you can kill enemy nexus which wins you the game. Thus, if you simplify the concept you can say that a team needs to kill X bases before it can win. I am not talking about any rounds or anything like that. I am talking about a typical MOBA, where it's just easier to kill "bases" after a teamfight. So the reward of winning a battle is related to killing bases/towers, instead of it being a higher probability of winning the next engagement.
I don't know why you feel the need to make strawmans to every single post I have made. Whether you disagree with me is a different matter, but please stop with those lies.
|
On November 05 2014 01:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2014 01:08 Sn0_Man wrote:
no his plan is to have a 5v5 arena cage battle,
then the winning team gets a free full heal and "base" kill
then back to another 5v5 cage battle
first team to 5 (pending testing) cage battle wins is triumphant.
Nothing must sully the complete fairness of these 5v5 cage battles. In Heroes of the Storm there are bases/towers which needs to be killed before you can kill enemy nexus which wins you the game. Thus, if you simplify the concept you can say that a team needs to kill X bases before it can win. I am not talking about any rounds or anything like that. I am talking about a typical MOBA, where it's just easier to kill "bases" after a teamfight. So the reward of winning a battle is related to killing bases/towers, instead of it being a higher probability of winning the next engagement. I don't know why you feel the need to make strawmans to every single post I have made. Whether you disagree with me is a different matter, but please stop with those lies.
You never explained how you'd implement any of them just saying that they are "possible"
I'm explaining what they look like in implementation.
Its not strawman. Unless you want to correct me and offer your own implementation of them?
Specifically, you mention the following "typical rewards for winning a fight"
On November 05 2014 00:58 Hider wrote:Reward mechanic in a typical MOBA after winning a battle: - You can farm better - Take objectives - Better attributes - Better abilties - Can kill towers/bases
And you claim that farm, attributes and abilities are "Bad RPG elements that should be removed from mobas"
Which leaves taking objectives and killing towers/bases. And since these objectives can't tangibly influence the outcome of the next fight in your world, literally the only reward possible is building damage.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
Surely losing buildings would also constitute map control loss, and so would add a snowball advantage?
|
Only if the buildings actually did anything
|
On November 05 2014 01:27 ahswtini wrote:
Surely losing buildings would also constitute map control loss, and so would add a snowball advantage?
no
ur forgetting
map control is meaningless because there is no farm, no experience, no value to anything. Incremental advantage is the devil because it causes snowballs.
There are only "objectives" (aka building killers) and buildings.
|
On November 05 2014 01:27 ahswtini wrote:
Surely losing buildings would also constitute map control loss, and so would add a snowball advantage?
This depends on how objectives/reward of farming/everything else are designed, but too some extent you are correct. It's obviously a bit idealistic to think you can make teamfights completely "irrelevant". I am, however, definitely convinced you can get closer to it with some changes.
Regarding snowball effect, the part of it I dislike the most is not the lack of mapcontrol either, but rather how you can feel "inferor" during an engagement.
I am sure a lot of people who played League or Heroes of the Storm shares this super frustarting feeling of feeling "useless". It's less "bad" in Heroes because your "uselessness" is spread out amongst your allies. But I think the game would be more enjoyable if you could say to your self/team "hey we lost early on and that sucked, but going forward, we are not at a disadvantage in the next engagement, and if we play our game we can still win.
Compared to "Enemy team is 2 levels ahead and they are taking this super strong objective, which we cannot contest because we are inferior. Our best shot is to try to make the game dragon and hope they make a big mistake".
From a viewing perspective, I think it's also more exciting to watch a battle that is (close to) 50-50 compared to a battle where one team is a big favourite before the engagement takes place.
That's at least my 2 cents.
|
197 Posts
Hider, you're arguments are sound but I have to point out that this genre is Not grounded on team 5v5 fights just to kill heroes and pad a kdr stat. There was a thread on lol general similar to what You are arguing in that removing all snowball effects will make every game 50/50 at all states of the game. That is simply wrong! ARTS has so many variables inherently designed into the game that snowball advantages are necessary to maintain a lead and rightfully earn a victory. It is the duty of the winning team to pursue and increase the lead and the need for the losing team to find a way to comeback. Eliminating this struggle will reduce to what sno_man and others pointed out, a wow arena based clone. There is no real strategy anymore and simply devolves into group and spam spells hope skill shots all land ggwp.
HotS has its own system in place to insure first team fight doesn't mean GG, and given the short game timers I think blizzard has designed it well so far. The various map mechanics allow for plenty of comeback opportunities that don't always revolve around kill 5 heroes before pushing. Outplaying the opponents is a major part of the fun, both in stomping and coming back.
|
On November 05 2014 01:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2014 01:27 ahswtini wrote:
Surely losing buildings would also constitute map control loss, and so would add a snowball advantage? This depends on how objectives/reward of farming/everything else are designed, but too some extent you are correct. It's obviously a bit idealistic to think you can make teamfights completely "irrelevant". I am, however, definitely convinced you can get closer to it with some changes. Regarding snowball effect, the part of it I dislike the most is not the lack of mapcontrol either, but rather how you can feel "inferor" during an engagement. I am sure a lot of people who played League or Heroes of the Storm shares this super frustarting feeling of feeling "useless". It's less "bad" in Heroes because your "uselessness" is spread out amongst your allies. But I think the game would be more enjoyable if you could say to your self/team "hey we lost early on and that sucked, but going forward, we are not at a disadvantage in the next engagement, and if we play our game we can still win. Compared to "Enemy team is 2 levels ahead and they are taking this super strong objective, which we cannot contest because we are inferior. Our best shot is to try to make the game dragon and hope they make a big mistake". From a viewing perspective, I think it's also more exciting to watch a battle that is (close to) 50-50 compared to a battle where one team is a big favourite before the engagement takes place. That's at least my 2 cents.
some people might like that, but for me, I like to see one team that has a better draft and early game execution who takes full advantage of their early lead and absolutely demolish the opposing team who has a much weaker draft or has greedy heroes that require 20 minutes-no rush.
It's like saying that irregardless of whatever poor in-game decisions one team make, and whatever brilliant moves the other team make, the influences of their mistakes or good plays should have no influence in the next team fight because then it'll be a one-sided stomp. We don't punish players for making bad in-game decisions, and we don't reward players for outplaying their opponents. Then where is the risk and reward? Where is the fun in spectating? I think that's a major roadblock in making HOTS a great spectator ESport, is that there is essentially no punishment for mistakes, and no rewards for good plays, because at the end of the day, what level the playing field is not player capabilities, or strategic drafting, but in-game snowball-preventing mechanics that provide a false sense of equivalence. And until Blizzard addresses that, I think HOTS will remain a bore to watch.
|
Well his idea would be more like soccer (football) where if I juke the pants off of a defender and score a goal, thats GREAT for me and I'm rewarded with a goal but the next time I head for the net with the ball, that same defender isn't suddenly at a disadvantage just because he made a mistake last time and I rekt him. He can still play better than me and prevent me scoring. There's no "artificial" comeback mechanics or w/e because snowballing literally doesn't exist (outside of mentality issues lol).
Its just that that makes no sense in the moba paradigm
|
On November 05 2014 02:34 Sn0_Man wrote:
Well his idea would be more like soccer (football) where if I juke the pants off of a defender and score a goal, thats GREAT for me and I'm rewarded with a goal but the next time I head for the net with the ball, that same defender isn't suddenly at a disadvantage just because he made a mistake last time and I rekt him. He can still play better than me and prevent me scoring. There's no "artificial" comeback mechanics or w/e because snowballing literally doesn't exist (outside of mentality issues lol).
Its just that that makes no sense in the moba paradigm
Correct, because unlike traditional sports, it's not a matter of scores that determine who is the winner, but who can kill the enemy throne. Scores, K/D/A are just a mean, not an end, in ESport.
|
Eliminating this struggle will reduce to what sno_man and others pointed out, a wow arena based clone. There is no real strategy anymore and simply devolves into group and spam spells hope skill shots all land ggwp.
No it won't. It will just change strategies because instead of "hopelessly" defending in your own base when your behind you are more likely to go out on the map. The WOW arena comparison doesn't make sense because its just one simple arena with lots of battles. What I am imaging here is the standard MOBA model with minions and towers. Minions won't be used to farm, but they can receive different benefits. Perhaps they can be better at putting pressure on lanes if they do more damage to enemy bases/towers.
I happen to believe that a game where action is the only focus of the game is just straight up boring. And it's probably why I don't enjoy FPS guys as they kinda feel "pointless" to me.
I am definitely a "larger perspective"-advovcate, and I believe we need a build-up-phase where we can see allies and enemies set up their positions before an engagement and move forward. This makes each engagement alot more interesting to follow.
Changing the reward-mechanic really doesn't make this an "action-only" game. Instead, I believe action-only game is more related to map size/distance and whethere there are different types of actions you can take. You can easily have a MOBA with less snowballing, but lots of different strategic options as well. In fact, there is no argument for why you would see less.
Correct, because unlike traditional sports, it's not a matter of scores that determine who is the winner, but who can kill the enemy throne. Scores, K/D/A are just a mean, not an end, in ESport.
When you talk abuot the KDA ratio it kinda implies you haven't really understood what I am talking about. I am relating killing buildings/towers/bases in HOTS to scoring a goal in football or winning a point in tennis.
Those are actually very comparable as you typically need to kill X amount of towers before you can finish off the nexus (ofc there are still more nuances but my point can still stand). The main difference here between football and the MOBA is the "clock", thus it may almost make more sense to compare it to "points"-based games. But I don't see a single "real" sport where winning a previous points makes it more likely to win the next points (besides psychological).
That doesn't imply that copying real sports is the correct deicsion, but rather, I think it's an area - just like last hitting - which needs to be looked at in MOBA's. Does it actually create better gameplay?
All arguments I have heard so far are "this isn't what MOBA's" are.... Yes, and before Heroes MOBA's were also about last-hitting, and it's obvious that in order for changes/progress/innovations to ever occur in any situation then we need to reevaluate the way current mechanics works.
|
I think one advantage of the leveling system is about constantly giving you new tools to fight your opponents. A bit like tech in Starcraft. It gives you hope, even if it promotes snowballing.
|
I mean you could have a system where experience is TRULY globally shared (like across teams) but i'm not sure how brilliant that is either lol.
|
Removing leveling wouldn't do much to lessen snowballing and it would just flatten the game out. The team that is "in the lead" would have just as much ability to hold on to it, with or without levels. Sure, if you get 4 levels behind, your likely to lose. But the same game state can happen without a leveling system just by the other team having a superior position on the map.
Leveling and XP give you a way to improve your position in the game without interacting with the enemy team directly. Without it, its just all about who is standing where and what part of the maps you control.
|
Also, my interpretation of this debate: if you purely switch to a point based system then your in-game actions are all independent. This by definition removes snowballing but also leads to comparisons of WoW-arena. If your actions in the game are dependent, i.e. they're all part of the same lengthy process similar to how mobas and starcraft operate, then by definition snowballing can only be contained, not eliminated. I imagine Hider is talking about the latter, not the former. I'm sure there are ways to remove mechanics that heavily promote snowballing while still keeping hero levels and such in the game.
|
197 Posts
If anything, if you're hopelessly defending in base you're playing the game wrong. There will be a point of no return, but until then you can whatever it takes to recover from a deficit.
The wow arena was simply a reference to making the team fights pointless. Why kill if there is no advantage? Wow arenas are for fun, you don't reap any benefits from each kill that affects your future fights. Hence the comparison.
A game like hots right now has lots of strategies involving the merc camps and map objectives. The sheer amount of decision making on top of laning/exp soaking is great for the game. Whether or not it's more enjoyable to watch, I'm not sure but it's fun as hell to play.
And moba/arts have never been about last hitting. It's about gaining an advantage to maximize your chances for a decent push/kill throne.
|
Removing snowballing also makes the team with the advantage feel like they lose because of the game, not because the other team played better. Game developers need to be careful hat the game does not feel like it punishes a team for doing well. If you can translate an advantage into objectives, you should still be able to hold on to that advantage.
|
On November 05 2014 02:34 Sn0_Man wrote:
Well his idea would be more like soccer (football) where if I juke the pants off of a defender and score a goal, thats GREAT for me and I'm rewarded with a goal but the next time I head for the net with the ball, that same defender isn't suddenly at a disadvantage just because he made a mistake last time and I rekt him. He can still play better than me and prevent me scoring. There's no "artificial" comeback mechanics or w/e because snowballing literally doesn't exist (outside of mentality issues lol).
Its just that that makes no sense in the moba paradigm
This example is awkward because in football scoring first means you don't need to score again so you defend (in general) alot stronger. And progressively the more desperate one team gets to equalize the worse shape their defending will take and the easier they will be to score upon. So... sports snowball (maybe tennis is a better example?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
