Currently the attitude seen with the current setup is Brutal must be beatable by a pair of commanders with no mastery. If you want more difficulty, you have mutators, unfair difficulty to counter your own unfair capabilities.
And I think this is where most of the poor design choices come from. The hardest difficulty should not be beatable (easily, I might add) by casual, low-skill players playing low-level commanders. That is the entire point of difficulty. If brutal were actually brutal and not just a stupid AI with unfair mechanics, you wouldn't even need mutators.
Couldn't you simply program the AI as a dependent to the Commander that is currently playing the map? EG: Player hero is Zagara so in turn -> AI gets Protoss units for attacking. Although this might be 'more work' it would certainly improve the AI aspect of it, IF it could react to the Commander/Units/Structures the OF the player.
That's not randomization, that's an equation. If this, then that. I'm talking about making the AI smarter and reactive regardless of race, with unique challenges for the players to overcome depending on which race the AI rolls into.
Could you also set up a system that would par same race characters? Kerrigan & Zagara, Raynor & Swan, and so on? but that would have to go into the 'match making' aspect of it. Don't know if that is do able though.
I wouldn't want that, part of the allure is finding interesting combinations through matching with a wide variety of commanders. There's not much to be gained by limiting each commander to only be able to play with a pre-designated set of other commanders.
What if you keep the Mutations aspect of the Co-op map hidden from the player and they had to 'find out' what they where up against?
If mutators were more fair, maybe this would be a usable strategy. I think this is already covered by the fact that bonus objectives, AI playstyles, and strategic terrain would be more varied in this new system, creating more uncertainty as to what exactly you'll be up against.
The problem I would have with reactive AI is that means your mastery choices are pointless, the AI is going to hardcounter them anyhow.
Rebalance the mastery choices if that's actually a problem. Your choices would never be pointless, your commander and toolset would just occasionally be less optimal in some cases and more optimal in others. I don't see a problem with this.
And some commanders, regardless of the AI comp, are going to destroy them (no AI comp is going to be able to hack their way through Karax).
Why not? Why can't there be a siege comp that (intelligently, and with interactivity in mind) negates some of Karax's strengths selectively, so that he must be smart with his positioning and communicate with his ally to properly support his defensive efforts? Why should some commanders be able to play and win while their partners underperform (or in Karax's case, blatantly AFK)? It's a co-operative, team effort. If one part of your team can't make the cut, you'll stand less of a chance.
Hiding the mutators is just being even more unfair, its a form of fake difficulty, and again violates some of the very guidelines laid out out for the contest.
Mutators themselves are almost exclusively fake difficulty, as I've already pointed out. Hiding them could be a strategy if they held more depth to them, and added interactivity rather than taking more of it away.
The purpose of this thread is to explore alternative systems for the co-op commander mode. We should all keep in mind the purpose of a co-op mission: to be a replayable experience that players will seek to play many times with multiple commanders and combinations of playstyles. A good co-op mission is designed with replay value in mind above all else, and as such generally doesn't have more than a backdrop for its story, but focuses instead on creating multiple paths to victory where all current and future commanders should be able to fulfill the main objectives.
From my perspective, the current co-op system has the following issues:
-The only reward for being skilled at your commander is that you make every mission trivial. When you win, it feels like it was the natural conclusion; that the AI would never have done anything to stop you from winning, because you've grinded until your commander is overtuned and/or you're skilled at that commander.
-Similarly, the only punishment for not being skilled at your commander is that you can't make any mission do-able. When you lose, it feels unfair; you would have to be good enough or high-level enough to trivialize every mission. There is no in-between, only these two extremes, at which point it does not feel genuinely rewarding nor punishing when you win or lose.
-The AI is uninteractive. Their attack waves are spawned and their behavior does not adapt to the toolsets the players have. There is no specific reaction to powerful units or heroes entering a certain area, or a commander ability being used. Players act on an object that does not think for itself, issue attacks itself, purchase upgrades itself, or even defend itself. Its assault patterns are arbitrary rather than adaptive. It lacks harassment capabilities altogether. Players exploit the default tactical AI of units and it has become the status quo for the AI to simply sit there while its base/army is dismantled.
-The commanders you can play as are poorly designed. Commanders with actives (Nova/Vorazun/Alarak) are too powerful and commanders with passives (Abathur/Stukov) lack impact. They have variety in their units and loadouts, but outside of niche cases, very few of them act as specialists that work best when combined with other commanders, thus defeating the entire purpose of co-op. Raynor/Artanis is a good combo because of mass-produced infantry and the invulnerable-before-death shield; Vorazun works well with other allies that cloak or burrow their units. But Karax is a better version of Swann, and Kerrigan/Zagara/Abathur all lack the tools to compete with the most powerful commanders. The current roster lacks identity in some cases and viability in others.
-The maps do not facilitate high replay value. Once you've experienced a map once or twice, you should know it inside and out, regardless of which race you went up against, as there are very few variations to the AI's army compositions, very few objective variations (mostly what order they appear in, if anything) and no terrain variations, leading to a very linear experience as opposed to one that at least has a chance to be different the next time you play the map.
-Nearly every mutator in the game is based around an unfair mechanic or relies on poor game design to even be noteworthy (i.e. weather that damages your units without the game notifying you of it).
I put forth the following suggestions. More will likely come when I have some more time to think on the topic, and when I'm not so tired.
-Make the AI reactionary, as opposed to predetermined, and have the degree to which they react to external stimuli scale with difficulty. If two hero commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize single-target damage. If two spammy commanders (Raynor/Artanis/Stukov) are selected, have the AI prioritize area-of-effect. If two defensive commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize siege weaponry. And so on and so forth, scaling up or down in each priority depending on how many commanders of what archetype are selected. Have several different army comps that fulfill each reactionary role, i.e. a void ray comp and an immortal comp for single target, so the player doesn't already know what they'll face before they start the mission. Have the AI mix and match from pre-set comps depending on the opposition.
-Additionally, make the AI more interactive. Give them many more bases, expand map sizes. Make spawned attack waves come from outposts that the player can destroy (though the AI will always attempt to rebuilt/can rebuild them in other spots) in order to stem the flow of spawned attack forces, albeit temporarily. Make the AI slower to respond to attacks if its workers have been sniped out. Make the AI attack with more basic units if its tech structures have been destroyed. In an effort to make them more reactionary, make them defend their outposts/workers/tech more if players are prioritizing them. Make the AI adapt its defense and offense based on player interaction.
-Give commanders more clear-cut identities and play to their strengths. A defensive commander should struggle to egress into enemy territory, but should be able to achieve the "hold" part of "take-and-hold" quite nicely if an offensive commander clears the way for them. It also shouldn't be impossible for a defensive commander to solve the "take" part of that equation, either - just make it less optimal than if you're an offensive commander. Similarly, have a mobile offensive commander that can move across the map quickly (probably zerg), but is less effective and powerful than a slower offensive commander that has stronger individual units (probably protoss). I don't have detailed outlines for how to change all individual commanders, but this approach should be used to rebalance some commanders and make them superior/inferior situationally as opposed to some being superior/inferior holistically.
-Create terrain variations that open and close different tactical windows. These ensure that the player will have to change their attack plan even beyond how they handle the AI.
-Add more bonus objectives for all maps, and randomize which ones become active. There are always one or two (destroy x, escort x here), sometimes three (Void Launch) - change it up. On higher difficulties, enable more than the default amount. Players who overcommit to these bonus objectives could lose the main game, but teams who are smart about their resource and unit allocation can earn even more rewards.
I'll add to this list (both of grievances and of suggestions) as I think of more of them. Please feel free to analyze both lists, and give your perspectives. I hope this is helpful to creators.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMy YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIf mutators were more fair, maybe this would be a usable strategy. I think this is already covered by the fact that bonus objectives, AI playstyles, and strategic terrain would be more varied in this new system, creating more uncertainty as to what exactly you'll be up against.
Rebalance the mastery choices if that's actually a problem. Your choices would never be pointless, your commander and toolset would just occasionally be less optimal in some cases and more optimal in others. I don't see a problem with this.
Why not? Why can't there be a siege comp that (intelligently, and with interactivity in mind) negates some of Karax's strengths selectively, so that he must be smart with his positioning and communicate with his ally to properly support his defensive efforts? Why should some commanders be able to play and win while their partners underperform (or in Karax's case, blatantly AFK)? It's a co-operative, team effort. If one part of your team can't make the cut, you'll stand less of a chance.
Mutators themselves are almost exclusively fake difficulty, as I've already pointed out. Hiding them could be a strategy if they held more depth to them, and added interactivity rather than taking more of it away.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe purpose of this thread is to explore alternative systems for the co-op commander mode. We should all keep in mind the purpose of a co-op mission: to be a replayable experience that players will seek to play many times with multiple commanders and combinations of playstyles. A good co-op mission is designed with replay value in mind above all else, and as such generally doesn't have more than a backdrop for its story, but focuses instead on creating multiple paths to victory where all current and future commanders should be able to fulfill the main objectives.
From my perspective, the current co-op system has the following issues:
-The only reward for being skilled at your commander is that you make every mission trivial. When you win, it feels like it was the natural conclusion; that the AI would never have done anything to stop you from winning, because you've grinded until your commander is overtuned and/or you're skilled at that commander.
-Similarly, the only punishment for not being skilled at your commander is that you can't make any mission do-able. When you lose, it feels unfair; you would have to be good enough or high-level enough to trivialize every mission. There is no in-between, only these two extremes, at which point it does not feel genuinely rewarding nor punishing when you win or lose.
-The AI is uninteractive. Their attack waves are spawned and their behavior does not adapt to the toolsets the players have. There is no specific reaction to powerful units or heroes entering a certain area, or a commander ability being used. Players act on an object that does not think for itself, issue attacks itself, purchase upgrades itself, or even defend itself. Its assault patterns are arbitrary rather than adaptive. It lacks harassment capabilities altogether. Players exploit the default tactical AI of units and it has become the status quo for the AI to simply sit there while its base/army is dismantled.
-The commanders you can play as are poorly designed. Commanders with actives (Nova/Vorazun/Alarak) are too powerful and commanders with passives (Abathur/Stukov) lack impact. They have variety in their units and loadouts, but outside of niche cases, very few of them act as specialists that work best when combined with other commanders, thus defeating the entire purpose of co-op. Raynor/Artanis is a good combo because of mass-produced infantry and the invulnerable-before-death shield; Vorazun works well with other allies that cloak or burrow their units. But Karax is a better version of Swann, and Kerrigan/Zagara/Abathur all lack the tools to compete with the most powerful commanders. The current roster lacks identity in some cases and viability in others.
-The maps do not facilitate high replay value. Once you've experienced a map once or twice, you should know it inside and out, regardless of which race you went up against, as there are very few variations to the AI's army compositions, very few objective variations (mostly what order they appear in, if anything) and no terrain variations, leading to a very linear experience as opposed to one that at least has a chance to be different the next time you play the map.
-Nearly every mutator in the game is based around an unfair mechanic or relies on poor game design to even be noteworthy (i.e. weather that damages your units without the game notifying you of it).
I put forth the following suggestions. More will likely come when I have some more time to think on the topic, and when I'm not so tired.
-Make the AI reactionary, as opposed to predetermined, and have the degree to which they react to external stimuli scale with difficulty. If two hero commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize single-target damage. If two spammy commanders (Raynor/Artanis/Stukov) are selected, have the AI prioritize area-of-effect. If two defensive commanders are selected, have the AI prioritize siege weaponry. And so on and so forth, scaling up or down in each priority depending on how many commanders of what archetype are selected. Have several different army comps that fulfill each reactionary role, i.e. a void ray comp and an immortal comp for single target, so the player doesn't already know what they'll face before they start the mission. Have the AI mix and match from pre-set comps depending on the opposition.
-Additionally, make the AI more interactive. Give them many more bases, expand map sizes. Make spawned attack waves come from outposts that the player can destroy (though the AI will always attempt to rebuilt/can rebuild them in other spots) in order to stem the flow of spawned attack forces, albeit temporarily. Make the AI slower to respond to attacks if its workers have been sniped out. Make the AI attack with more basic units if its tech structures have been destroyed. In an effort to make them more reactionary, make them defend their outposts/workers/tech more if players are prioritizing them. Make the AI adapt its defense and offense based on player interaction.
-Give commanders more clear-cut identities and play to their strengths. A defensive commander should struggle to egress into enemy territory, but should be able to achieve the "hold" part of "take-and-hold" quite nicely if an offensive commander clears the way for them. It also shouldn't be impossible for a defensive commander to solve the "take" part of that equation, either - just make it less optimal than if you're an offensive commander. Similarly, have a mobile offensive commander that can move across the map quickly (probably zerg), but is less effective and powerful than a slower offensive commander that has stronger individual units (probably protoss). I don't have detailed outlines for how to change all individual commanders, but this approach should be used to rebalance some commanders and make them superior/inferior situationally as opposed to some being superior/inferior holistically.
-Create terrain variations that open and close different tactical windows. These ensure that the player will have to change their attack plan even beyond how they handle the AI.
-Add more bonus objectives for all maps, and randomize which ones become active. There are always one or two (destroy x, escort x here), sometimes three (Void Launch) - change it up. On higher difficulties, enable more than the default amount. Players who overcommit to these bonus objectives could lose the main game, but teams who are smart about their resource and unit allocation can earn even more rewards.
I'll add to this list (both of grievances and of suggestions) as I think of more of them. Please feel free to analyze both lists, and give your perspectives. I hope this is helpful to creators.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter