Here is the thing - I have a game planned out pretty thoroughly. I need help doing the map though, because I lack the time. It's not that I have so much else to do, but I have a pretty tight deadline.
I need people for:
Discuss aspects/mechanics of the game with me
Terrain
Actors
Lore
Gameplay: Two players engage in 1vs1 melee combat. Each side is joined by 3 heros who will help accomplish the standard melee goal (destroy all enemy structures).
Right now I need someone to do the terrain. Preferably someone who did several melee maps before.
As for Actors - I just need someone to add visuals and sounds to my heros, because I lack the time to do all myself.
In terms of Lore - I need a creative mind to come up with a story for my game and also a NAME for the game.
I honestly could need help with this map. Someone who can create and polish a good game initilisation would be best. So trigger, especially dialog would be important. I don't really have a use for a data specialist, since I can do everything data-related pretty well myself.
Also someone who made some melee maps would be useful.
No, the commander is the only one who can control the army units. The heros will be limited to their heros. I have planned to make the heros difficult to use or at least difficult enough to keep the hero players busy. Yes macro-wise the hero players will have much less to do, but micro wise probably more.
The two roles (hero or commander) should be very different so this gap in macro and micro is welcome.
It also prevents teamwork from becoming overpowered. It's fine if teamwork beats no teamwork, but there is a border were teamwork just becomes unbeatable even by really bad players versus really good players.
We have that problem in Island Defense I. If you have the Titan (a hero basically) and several minions (also heros) with like 16 different abilities you cannot micro them all properly during a 4 second fight. If you have 3-4 teammates helping you though and everyone controls a hero alone, then you are suddenly a lot stronger.
What happened in Island Defense is that fair players don't allow others to control their minions because it's too overpowered if they all get micro'd properly. If I disallow the heros to help the commander micro and macro then I remove this imbalance in the first place.
For now they would not get anything new. The concept evolves around normal melee gameplay, that's why. The only change would be that their upgrades are all already researched and the "melee damage" "ranged damage" "armor" upgrades get replaced by "Damage" and "Armor", so you upgrade all units at once with just 2 upgrade paths.
Why? Because the commanders will need to research upgrades for their heros and it just becomes too complicated for the commander if I leave the normal upgrades (like Stimpack) in the game. It adds no depth but unnecessary complexity.
I guess the commanders might get some abilities on their hatchery/CC/nexus with a global cooldown that somehow augments the heros. E.g. a defense matrix for the terrans.
Yes the teamplay element is always there, I will make sure of that.
It's more about balance and content. If I make MOBA-Style heros they will require a lot more work than unit heros. Ability-wise it's not much difference. It's just the progression. Unit-heros progress solely by upgrades while heros will progress through levels most likely - and items. Item systems are ridiculously time consuming.
If I make it MOBA-style I need to think of new ways, because it will just be too much work otherwise.
Aside from that, MOBA-style heros come with a huge disadvantage. Either I give every side only 3 heros, which means that every hero will always be present. Or I make more which opens up different team compositions but also a far larger meta-game. I'm not sure the depth-complexity ratio of that is useable.
As for the style. I guess it's best to directly tie the strength of the heros to the upgrades of the commander. So that every hero starts with just 1 ability and for every "hero upgrade" the commander gets gives them the next one.
Of course I will add some way for the players to increase their personal strength as well. Probably augmentations. It's unlike items, as it has infinite scaling, but I don't really see the problem on a map with limited resources.
The main reason why I am so unbelievably torn between these two is that both make for a completely different game.
MOBA-Style heros mean you choose a hero and are stuck with it. You adapt by items or upgrades (both work) and you progress by leveling up. Though I feel this is very hard to balance and thus also bad for competive play.
NS-Style heros mean the system I explained above, where you have a basic hero and can get better heros for minerals. Dieing reverts you back to your basic hero. Adaptation is done by buying the right hero at the right time. Progression is done by saving up minerals to buy a hero when you need it and by upgrades from your commander, which again promotes teamwork.
In either way I want the hero players to only ever command 1 hero.
I'd suggest using heroes instead of unit heroes it makes them more unique and fun I think.
Yes I am really torn. Unit Heros are very unpersonal, but they are MUCH easier to balance and MUCH better for teamwork.
I found a possible solution though.
Heros work as the following:
You start with a basic hero - Marine/Zergling/Zealot
You gain minerals when your commander gathers minerals. You can spend those to get a better hero unit. (e.g. Stalker/Marauder/Roach)
If you die, you respawn as the basic hero again. Yes you lose the minerals spent - but that's the risk. (Risk vs. Reward = Fun)
For a large amount of minerals you can get a special hero for a limited time (e.g. Raynor/Kerrigan/Zeratul). These are very powerful but only last X seconds until you default back to your normal hero. Yet they can easily turn the tide.
Alternatively
I could make a vote on game start. "Classic Gameplay" vs. "Hero Gameplay", classic would be like above. Hero Gameplay would allow you to start as one of the special heros and stay that one forever.
I am still not sure though!
Please tell me wether you think it would be better to have a fair and balanced unit hero system (like explained above) or a MOBA-style hero system. Latter is probably easier to use and more initial fun, but I feel like it makes competive play impossible.
Upgrades
I was afraid it might get way too hard for the commander. Imagine you have to play melee gameplay against 1 person just as good as you and 3 heros who make your life hell. Plus you also get a ton of new upgrades for the hero units. (e.g. Metabolic Boost for Zergling Heros)
So I decided that all upgrades (Stimpack, Charge, Metabolic Boost etc.) are already researched like in the HotS campaign. You only get 2 upgrades for your units. "Damage" and "Armor" working like the ones you know from the engineering bay/evo chamber etc.. Instead of the usual unit upgrades you get only upgrades for the hero units. This shall promote teamwork. (Commander, please spend minerals to get us all the zergling upgrades! Would help a ton!)
No I don't want to make another Starcraft MOBA. We have enough, bad and good ones alike.
I want to make something in the style of "Natural Selection".
Two teams.
Each team gets one commander. The commander will be randomly selected after a time but people also have the opportunity to go commander if they want to.
Every other person can choose a hero unit.
The commander will play nearly unaltered melee gameplay.
The other people will play their heros and can do whatever they want.
Teamwork is crucial. If heros don't join a fight but the other side has them in the fight, they will win most likely even with inferior numbers.
Hero strength is about like Kerrigan in the campaign. You can easily take out a small group of enemies, but certain things (e.g. Siege tanks, Thors) can quickly spell doom for you. Heros always keep respawning.
One thing I am not sure about yet is wether I will allow people to use normal units (for example a Marauder or Stalker) as hero units or actual heros like Kerrigan, Stukov or Zeratul. The ups and downs are pretty clear. Heros are unique, hero units are not. It would make the game a lot more strategic if people can use hero units. So one side could have 4 hero immortals if the other side is massing roaches. Actual heros have a better RPG factor and might attract more people.
Body Squibs aren't as important though. The terrain squibs appear to be visible at all times, so a cloaked or buried unit - if you don't disable the terrain squib (which a lot of normal buried units do) - then those unit's terrain squibs will be visible even when they are cloaked or buried, making it an interesting game-play influencing mechanic.
If not all units share this, then it can actually lead to imbalance.
0
Here is the thing - I have a game planned out pretty thoroughly. I need help doing the map though, because I lack the time. It's not that I have so much else to do, but I have a pretty tight deadline.
I need people for:
Gameplay: Two players engage in 1vs1 melee combat. Each side is joined by 3 heros who will help accomplish the standard melee goal (destroy all enemy structures).
Right now I need someone to do the terrain. Preferably someone who did several melee maps before.
As for Actors - I just need someone to add visuals and sounds to my heros, because I lack the time to do all myself.
In terms of Lore - I need a creative mind to come up with a story for my game and also a NAME for the game.
0
Might do.
As for recruitment, will make a new topic.
0
I honestly could need help with this map. Someone who can create and polish a good game initilisation would be best. So trigger, especially dialog would be important. I don't really have a use for a data specialist, since I can do everything data-related pretty well myself.
Also someone who made some melee maps would be useful.
0
No, the commander is the only one who can control the army units. The heros will be limited to their heros. I have planned to make the heros difficult to use or at least difficult enough to keep the hero players busy. Yes macro-wise the hero players will have much less to do, but micro wise probably more.
The two roles (hero or commander) should be very different so this gap in macro and micro is welcome.
It also prevents teamwork from becoming overpowered. It's fine if teamwork beats no teamwork, but there is a border were teamwork just becomes unbeatable even by really bad players versus really good players.
We have that problem in Island Defense I. If you have the Titan (a hero basically) and several minions (also heros) with like 16 different abilities you cannot micro them all properly during a 4 second fight. If you have 3-4 teammates helping you though and everyone controls a hero alone, then you are suddenly a lot stronger.
What happened in Island Defense is that fair players don't allow others to control their minions because it's too overpowered if they all get micro'd properly. If I disallow the heros to help the commander micro and macro then I remove this imbalance in the first place.
0
I guess it seems pretty interesting to quite a few. Once I finished Island Defense II I will probably start up this project.
0
For now they would not get anything new. The concept evolves around normal melee gameplay, that's why. The only change would be that their upgrades are all already researched and the "melee damage" "ranged damage" "armor" upgrades get replaced by "Damage" and "Armor", so you upgrade all units at once with just 2 upgrade paths.
Why? Because the commanders will need to research upgrades for their heros and it just becomes too complicated for the commander if I leave the normal upgrades (like Stimpack) in the game. It adds no depth but unnecessary complexity.
I guess the commanders might get some abilities on their hatchery/CC/nexus with a global cooldown that somehow augments the heros. E.g. a defense matrix for the terrans.
0
Well I don't want to spend much time on this and I only want a SC2 map not a new standalone game.
0
I don't see people being tired of MOBA's in fact, they seem to like them even more. Can't explain how to MOBAs are on page 1 in the US otherwise.
Also - this isn't a MOBA. It's Starcraft + MOBA combined, basically.
0
Yes the teamplay element is always there, I will make sure of that.
It's more about balance and content. If I make MOBA-Style heros they will require a lot more work than unit heros. Ability-wise it's not much difference. It's just the progression. Unit-heros progress solely by upgrades while heros will progress through levels most likely - and items. Item systems are ridiculously time consuming.
If I make it MOBA-style I need to think of new ways, because it will just be too much work otherwise.
Aside from that, MOBA-style heros come with a huge disadvantage. Either I give every side only 3 heros, which means that every hero will always be present. Or I make more which opens up different team compositions but also a far larger meta-game. I'm not sure the depth-complexity ratio of that is useable.
As for the style. I guess it's best to directly tie the strength of the heros to the upgrades of the commander. So that every hero starts with just 1 ability and for every "hero upgrade" the commander gets gives them the next one.
Of course I will add some way for the players to increase their personal strength as well. Probably augmentations. It's unlike items, as it has infinite scaling, but I don't really see the problem on a map with limited resources.
0
Not sure what you mean.
The main reason why I am so unbelievably torn between these two is that both make for a completely different game.
MOBA-Style heros mean you choose a hero and are stuck with it. You adapt by items or upgrades (both work) and you progress by leveling up. Though I feel this is very hard to balance and thus also bad for competive play.
NS-Style heros mean the system I explained above, where you have a basic hero and can get better heros for minerals. Dieing reverts you back to your basic hero. Adaptation is done by buying the right hero at the right time. Progression is done by saving up minerals to buy a hero when you need it and by upgrades from your commander, which again promotes teamwork.
In either way I want the hero players to only ever command 1 hero.
0
Yes I am really torn. Unit Heros are very unpersonal, but they are MUCH easier to balance and MUCH better for teamwork.
I found a possible solution though.
Heros work as the following:
You start with a basic hero - Marine/Zergling/Zealot
You gain minerals when your commander gathers minerals. You can spend those to get a better hero unit. (e.g. Stalker/Marauder/Roach)
If you die, you respawn as the basic hero again. Yes you lose the minerals spent - but that's the risk. (Risk vs. Reward = Fun)
For a large amount of minerals you can get a special hero for a limited time (e.g. Raynor/Kerrigan/Zeratul). These are very powerful but only last X seconds until you default back to your normal hero. Yet they can easily turn the tide.
Alternatively
I could make a vote on game start. "Classic Gameplay" vs. "Hero Gameplay", classic would be like above. Hero Gameplay would allow you to start as one of the special heros and stay that one forever.
I am still not sure though!
Please tell me wether you think it would be better to have a fair and balanced unit hero system (like explained above) or a MOBA-style hero system. Latter is probably easier to use and more initial fun, but I feel like it makes competive play impossible.
Upgrades
I was afraid it might get way too hard for the commander. Imagine you have to play melee gameplay against 1 person just as good as you and 3 heros who make your life hell. Plus you also get a ton of new upgrades for the hero units. (e.g. Metabolic Boost for Zergling Heros)
So I decided that all upgrades (Stimpack, Charge, Metabolic Boost etc.) are already researched like in the HotS campaign. You only get 2 upgrades for your units. "Damage" and "Armor" working like the ones you know from the engineering bay/evo chamber etc.. Instead of the usual unit upgrades you get only upgrades for the hero units. This shall promote teamwork. (Commander, please spend minerals to get us all the zergling upgrades! Would help a ton!)
0
Does that sound remotely interesting to anyone? Otherwise I won't bother making such a map.
0
No I don't want to make another Starcraft MOBA. We have enough, bad and good ones alike.
I want to make something in the style of "Natural Selection".
Two teams.
Each team gets one commander. The commander will be randomly selected after a time but people also have the opportunity to go commander if they want to.
Every other person can choose a hero unit.
The commander will play nearly unaltered melee gameplay.
The other people will play their heros and can do whatever they want.
Teamwork is crucial. If heros don't join a fight but the other side has them in the fight, they will win most likely even with inferior numbers.
Hero strength is about like Kerrigan in the campaign. You can easily take out a small group of enemies, but certain things (e.g. Siege tanks, Thors) can quickly spell doom for you. Heros always keep respawning.
One thing I am not sure about yet is wether I will allow people to use normal units (for example a Marauder or Stalker) as hero units or actual heros like Kerrigan, Stukov or Zeratul. The ups and downs are pretty clear. Heros are unique, hero units are not. It would make the game a lot more strategic if people can use hero units. So one side could have 4 hero immortals if the other side is massing roaches. Actual heros have a better RPG factor and might attract more people.
0
No, I have the same issue with my "Builder - Kerrigan" map, but not the other maps I have.
0
Body Squibs aren't as important though. The terrain squibs appear to be visible at all times, so a cloaked or buried unit - if you don't disable the terrain squib (which a lot of normal buried units do) - then those unit's terrain squibs will be visible even when they are cloaked or buried, making it an interesting game-play influencing mechanic.
If not all units share this, then it can actually lead to imbalance.