• 0

    posted a message on [Blizzcon 2011] Blizzard DOTA Info

    I see both sides to the argument here, but I'll put my point of view in anway...

    • Simplifed Items - Its the same as School Math teaching you 15 steps to do a problem, compared to grandpa (a rocket scientist) who teaches you to do it in 3. Keep It Simple Stupid. Grandpa didn't have time to do a 15 step problem when the ship was flying... you really don't in DOTA either.
    • Last Hitting - This system was just down right dumb for DOTA. You profess that "geeking" on the numbers was so pivital to DOTAs enjoyment, yet you seem to think that Last Hitting is a logical result? Last Hitting is like Killing Blows in WoW PVP. You can have all the damned KBs you want in a BG game; it still won't win you the match. Blizzard change forces KBs to be minutely effective in an individual perspective and more in a team perspective. Even the Last Hit resulting in health globes can be considered a team perspective, as players can let some one who is wounded get the last hit on purpose so he gets a free heal.
    • Jungling - It's still available, just accelerated and far less Idle. You actually DO SOMETHING in Blizzard DOTA rather than just hugging a choke in the other ones.
    • Strong Towers - Towers being weakened is debated I guess. I can see easily where there are times I'd rather have a long game, and focus on PVE in a PVP environment. However, DOTA is about PVP, so I see the point of making them easy to let you down if you think they'll cover you endlessly. This forces you to have balls. I don't see anything wrong with that either.
    • This is not WoW - I dunno where people get the idea that DOTA should be complicated beyond the point of a 16 gig, 11 Million populated MMORPG. DOTA is more or less an Arena Match with PVE elements geared to PVP results. It's a giant duel fest! Over complicating the stats for what? So that you think you have an edge? I'm sorry but all the math can be done off-game and I can simply have a build order basically ready when I log in to save time. It's the exact same thing as Cookie Cutter Specs in WoWs current Talent Tree System. It's simply not needed, unnecessary, and I feel all it promoted (Last Hitting, Complicated Items, ect) was Elitism, which in turn ruins the game's popularity and depth. Sometimes, people, LESS = MORE.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on New HotS Protoss unit revealed (Finally)

    I'm going to throw 2 easy ideas about this one 1 - It's Narezim (Dark Templar). It's style is more primal, and its "mid action" pose almost reminds me of the Corsair; which was also Narezim. 2 - It's a support unit. It looks like a caster. Hard core. It's too lanky and overly frilly to be a full combat unit. This is a standard issue with Blizzard design artists. Casters stick out. If I see a protoss fleet with this in it, I'm pretty sure I'd wanna' target it first because I assume it's a caster.

    With that said, I don't know what kind've casting it may do. Protoss Generally rely on their Sentries and High Templars for some hard core casting; their Mothership usually just daddling behind. Compared to Terran units, Protoss casters seem a bit more shallowed; soft. HTs are awesome yes, but there is nothing more intimidating than a small fleet Ravens flying into ones base, dropping PDDs and or Turrets/H Missiles everywhere. Like wise, Sentries are cool n' all with Guardian Shield and some nifty FFs but, they suck vs ONE spell that a Ghost has... EMP. This unit, if it's caster, might be an easy 3rd Tier caster, with some hefty abilities like say, mass Haste or some sort of Nuking spell.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on [Video] Mercenary Empires

    @lom4R: Go

    Well said. I sense that you feel the concept is rounded, but lacks some strong foundation to justify some of the complexities. Of which, we cannot identify until you get constant full lobbies. This brings me to the first note-

    • One, it's a 10 player map. Lobbies are going to need dedicated masses in order to even start. Can the map be played on a 3v3 basis? Smaller lobbies means easier testing until more players can be found.
    • Second, certain heroes seem required. When it comes to games where it invites that you have a choice as to how you play? Forcing the player's hand on making a choice is not the way to go. I'll get to my point: you might be able to play the game fine without a scout hero, but some one HAS to play the builder Hero to even rebuild the Recovery buildings. I'd suggest making the Recovery buildings more generic in their purchase. All players, reguardless of class, should be able to create the building. Maybe the Builder can have an advantage on the Recovery Building by builing it faster, but still. If My team kills your Recovery Base AND snipes the only Hero that builds it? It's GG via attrition.
    • Thirdly, Invite player choice whole heartily. Allow for players to pick the same Classes. If certain game focused mechanics are made shared class wide (like the recov building), another way to create replay-ability is by letting players choose what they want to play despite what their team mates decide, in order to inject more variety each time the game is played. 1 match might be a team of 2 scouts and 3 assaults vs 1 Builder, 2 Engineers and 2 Supports! That'd make for some interesting content!
    • Lastly, I asked about game modes because it might be simpler to have the goals be over all team performance based rather than individual kill based. I'm expecting after a time (when the game is being played constantly enough) for combat to devolve into massive "Focus Fire the Hero!" situations; which completely destroys the RTS depth entirely. If the goal was say, a Greed objective, players would have to be strategical beyond just sniping heroes. Should they spend money on Defense Buildings? How much should they budget themselves on calling down more units? Can I really afford that item with only 1k resources left til victory? Same with King of Hill. One team decides how to best turtle while the other decides how to best crack the shell. This doesn't always involve just sniping the heroes when in this mode, people will obviously be looking into the Defenses and Troops to do most of the defending.
    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on [Video] Mercenary Empires

    Beware! I bombard thee with questions!!!!

    • Since you can spawn units via Call Downs, I assume you can control them as well like normal? And are the units shared through out the entire team or are units you spawn clearly yours only?
    • If they are separated per player, is it possible to still have shared unit control enabled without letting the control effect the Heroes?
    • Also, I believe the end game goal needs to be clarified a bit more. All players on the opposing team need to be dead for 30 seconds. How's that supposed to happen? The chances of doing this just by kills is slim; I don't think any one can master killing all 5 players at the same time. It seams the easiest way to victory is to kill all the Hero Recovery Buildings and simply snipe the Heroes. If that is the focus, if all players are dead and no way to spawn... how do you construct another Recovery building so you can spawn?
    • If you can't, what's the point of the 30 second timer?
    • Do Heroes have a spawn time? That could mean we could kill all 5 heroes within 10 seconds of each other and get a win.
    • Is Ranking Planned?
    • Are achievements planned?
    • Is their a plan for possible game modes? I can see Greed and King of Hill styles working very well with this map concept. All the best to you. I hope this map turns out well and can't wait for it make State Side.
    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on Heroes of might and magic

    @Zolden: Go

    I remember HoMM a ton. Having the 1st through the 4th, I was very happy with the series; that is until HoMM 4 ruined it. I've seen HoMM 5 and 6 and quite honestly, despite how awesome the successors look, nothing can match the epic scale and polish HoMM 3 had. I remember map making on that game, having 2 worlds vs each other (using the subterranean system as the rival planet). My god the campaigns were insane. When I was mapping for War3, my first project was making HoMM 3 into an RTS. This is more true to the Turned based though, from what I see. Mine was literally HoMM 3 in RTS form, including placing of the buildings, walls and controlling the armies by units like common RTSs. Your's rings of the HoMM aura. It looks very bland though. The combat system is the one part of the game that seems very lacking. It's epic how basically the encounters are real time like they are, but there is very little control and finesse available. It looks mainly all down to the spell casting of one's hero. Because of the lack of control, you won't achieve the tactical power of even a regular RTS styled combat system. Also, unlike HoMM battles, this Real Time combat system with no set boundaries can let allies tag team enemies. HoMM of course only let one instance happen at once. With this, a player with supreme skill could go though 2 or 3 heroes worth before they needed to retreat and reinforce. That wouldn't be possible in this mod unless the numbers simply stacked well for the tag teamed sap. Because of the lack of intrigue in the battle system, this mod looks more appropriate as a regular 4X styled game, with far less features than most 4Xs would aspire to have. Because (in the nature of HoMM) everything is purely military, the 4X feel is even incomplete. I can't wait to try it out once it's on the US servers, but I'd have to say that I worry about that battle system. I don't wanna' see a "single unit represents" a stack. But I will digress that the current spamming of units in front of one's Hero won't suffice well.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on Start listing things that annoy you about the editor and I'll give to Blizzard

    @Foolish_Fool: Go

    I think the Editor's power is obviously amazing; i would just love to see it furthered by being more flexible in some areas, and being slimmed down in terms of complexity.

    Terrain - Allow use of as many cliff tile sets and terrain tile sets as wanted. Including imported.

    Terrain - a much better water tool.

    Terrain - a expanded cliff system to allow more cliff levels.

    Terrain - True support for underground/multilevel design. Currently cannot be done in the ways we assume (hell we cannot even do bridges) because of lack of pathing types. This also goes into Data editor stuffs, but Terrain specifics could be included.

    Terrain - MUCH better road system. Road system also includes "track system" for trains. Ability to import custom road designs and use them.

    Terrain - More control over density and scaling of your foliage. Option for foliage to be in different types (such as, picking a tileset to fill only, then having the option to spawn only the grass foliage, or grass AND bones. Things of that nature)

    Terrain - Havn't seen an option to import a way to use custom foliage? Is this possible through the data editor? If so, this would be sweet for auto spawning forests... discard this item if true.

    Data - Tooltips on the more obscure fields. Currently, tooltips are mainly on fields which are self explanatory.

    Data - User Created Plane Arrays.

    Data - User Created Height Map Options to create new planes for movers to interact with (such as underground, high altitude, bridges, ect ect)

    Data - User Created Pathing Modes (to pair with the last 2 items)

    Data - User Created Pathing Flags

    Data - Movement Mass (variable which causes the unit to slide, almost like units could in SC1. The higher the variable, the "heavier" the unit. Slide amount is determined based on weight + the unit's speed.)

    Data - Rework the "Strafe Radius" stat to work more anchored. Suggest renaming too "Movement Turning Radius". Variable determines the scale of curve units will make while traveling in a change of direction. The faster the unit is moving, the radius increases.

    Data - "Movement Turning Radius Exponential"; determines how much the turning radius multiplies based on the unit's speed. If set at 0 for example, the radius will not increase at all; no matter what speed.

    Data - LoS Arc Angles (works similarly to the Firing Arcs)

    Data - LoS Arc Fixed Orientation (meaning you can adjust the firing arc facing to face out've the unit's left, or right for example.)

    Data - LoS Arc + LoS stat fields usable on turrets (meaning that if you had a unit with a turret that used an LoS Arc, that plus the Turret's Fidget could give the effect of "looking" for the base unit, rather than the base unit having a fixed LoS Arc that doesn't follow the Turret)

    Data - Firing Arc Fixed Orientation as well.

    Data - Custom Stat Pool options (such as energy, life, sheild pools? It'd be nice to create your own pool types to interact without resorting to triggers, or charges on abilities. For example, wouldn't be sweet to have a custom field created where units have an "Ammo Pool" that intereacted with the units Attack costing X Amount of this pool as a resource? You can already control interesting aspects of the pools available, why not just beable to create new ones too.)

    Data - Custom Resource (unlimited. Similiar to Pools. Would go beyond the Terrazine)

    Data - Custom Supply Resource (allows for multiple types of supply. You could have a supply pool for buildings and a supply pool for units if you wanted)

    Data - Movement ; Movement fidget (causes units to Zigag during movement; frequency of course variation and amount of course variation could be variable)

    This is all I have for now.

    On a side note, where the hell our the promised SC1 Units and Scrapped stuff? I mean, all of the sites I went too kept track of every single scrapped thing because we were all told we were getting them... but where are they? Are we really waiting until the expansions are done for these to come out? Ugh.

    Also, would like to see a repeat of the Warcraft 3 Art Tool for SC2. Would be lovely and just plain awesome. Still for Max I assume, since Blizzard seems to prefer Max for modeling.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on Sniperz ProMod (CTF)

    <<reply 2531

    Snipers too me was a fun paced twist on the usual, but it didn't really hold my attention for too long. I really loved how your could in'a sense; hone a few micro skillz with it; namely keen-eye spotting and accuracy clicks. I preferred WC3s rendition of Paint ball though, where the weapons were capable of being dodged, had collision (so they could impact terrain/unintended targets) and a few power ups to keep things going. It seems kind'a rough to improve much upon the old snipers maps without really just making it a rehash of the new "Bounty Hunters", however. I mean, I'f love to see Snipers SC reborn and evolved, but it's almost stuck in the same rhetoric as Starcraft itself is in; it HAS to use a set game play model; that's what made it great in the first place. Deviate too much from the standard old UMS Snipers game play and that map ceases to be a Snipers map and becomes something else. Kind'a blows. Good to see that this map still maintains it's roots, despite how much I wish it could change into.

    Posted in: Project Workplace
  • 0

    posted a message on Walking under Bridges
    Quote from Abion47: Go

    This is a very intreguing problem. I am very tempted to try and find a solution, although I'm pretty sure I will end in a ball of flames.

    Although possible to "fake" unit collisions enough for them to path over and under a bridge, don't expect the combat to work. I remember trying this a long time ago in War3 via a castle gate. You run into an issue with units being able to hit units directly under/above them. Even if you get past that? You have a bigger issue with ranged units, who's range often reaches beyond the layered zone they are standing in, and so can only hit units in the same zone as them (even though the enemy is standing just outside the bridge). It blows. It's possible to get them to walk through, or at least appear too, but when it comes to workable combat? It's a fail. be careful. I too would love to Blizzard add something for this. We're not asking much. I think they could make it easily work with cliff height recognition. A bridge on Cliff Height level 1, would register units standing on it, as 1 level up, thus wouldn't be reveals. Unit's below them would still be at 0. Units directly under them? Still 0, but out've LoS. Units at level 0 under the bridge? Couldn't see them anyway because the enemy is on a cliff (thus out've LoS to begin with). Just rig another flag for "underground" into the game so that Air Units couldn't spot units "under" an object and we're good to go! We could literally make multi-layered maps A LOT easier.

    Posted in: Terrain
  • 0

    posted a message on Squadron Death Ability?

    Is there a way to reverse the inceptor's fate where when carrier dies, they all die? 'Cept in reverse, when all escorts die, the host unit dies?

    Unit type I'm looking at implementing this with is the broodlord as a perfect example. However, replace the broodlord unit itself with a place holder for "selection" reasons and the actual units that do combat be it's escorts (taking the form of Marines for example). When all Marines in the squad dies? The "Anchor" unit should pass as well. Just wanting to reverse engineer the Interceptor death ability to this if possible.

    Posted in: Data
  • 0

    posted a message on Weekly Data Exercise #6 - The Ubers

    @BorgDragon: Go

    Challenge 6 too me sounds like it was inspired by the storms created by the eventual Dark Templar before their banishment; when Adun was still tutoring them in secret. A great Psi Strom was set loose and just kept going on its own, obliterating many lives O.o; I had an Idea for this using Normal High Templars. If Multiple High Templar casted (3 or more) Storm over the top of one another (or at least within AoE range of the other storms) they would become a roaming wave of Psionic destruction that persisted for a period of time like the challenge describes. An actual, Psi Storm.

    Challenge 8, unless greatly exaggerated by whom ever accomplishes this, doesn't sound all THAT uber. This challenge sounds like one is basically recreating the old Collosi weapon, where it DID continuously fire its beam and it continuously searched targets. All I see this challenge being is basically the replacement but not so cool version of the UBERCRUISER, which was made back in Beta. NEED MOAR LAZORZ!

    Posted in: Data
  • 0

    posted a message on Wingednosering's Data Assets

    @c0rnbread: Go

    this editor is freaking amazing. As vacation comes up, I'll be finally doing some tinkering around with it to see if I can achieve this stuff. You can really do some crazy ass spells with this thing.

    For example, on the Face Hugger ability? What about having it not only do the 25 DPS, but also limit the time the Zergling rides, have it an Auto casting ability with a cool down, and have the marines do the /cheer to make it look like their are waving their arms/shooting/flailing. At the same time!!!!- *gasp, how would you make it to where the Zergling is still target-able by others not stunned? And they will still shoot at the Zergling and thus do damage to both the Ling and its host?

    I also would love to experiment with a spell where the Zealot Charge acts almost like a chain lightning with a stun. He rampages for a few seconds (not teleporting though, he'd actually run), bouncing from target to target and causes them to be knocked down (thus disabled for 2 seconds) + 25 Damage to each hit target. The animations you could have for such a simple sounding ability seems very fruitful. O.o

    Posted in: Data Assets
  • 0

    posted a message on Formations?

    @SouLCarveRR: Go

    Eh, no, it actually formed a formation. Loose formation was free form, units didn't match speed, and bundled up in a tight ball, like SC2 does currently. Also, each unit has a formation rank value, melee-ish and tank-ish units were ranked to go in front, well ranged units and casters were ranged to go in rear. This data value was a stat you could edit in the unit editor per unit. The formation used these ranks in the forms of rank and file, a simple box formation where ranks would line up in order from front to back corresponding with their "rank value". So, to the contrary, WC3 actually did have formation control and abilities, though limited to the rank n' file.

    Ack, god damnit, keep "submitting" too soon.

    I've experimented with formations using the broodlord's attributes. The little broodlings hold formations even under direct control and you can have from free room on editing their formation style in terms of spacing and placement. If you make the anchoring unit (aka in this case, the broodlord) more of a dummy unit that is simply there for selection purposes? You can edit the "broodling" units to be simple marines, or vikings or whatever you want, completely targettable, but unselectable yet they respond to the commands given to the "broodlord" anchor. Simply rig an ability to where the "broodlord" dies when all it's escorts are destroyed, and tada! Working squadron/formation units.

    Posted in: Data
  • 0

    posted a message on Frame drops from environment

    @elshaw27: Go

    I dunno' if this is for a cinematic map or not, but i've heard of people making their map run at slower speeds (using triggers) so everything acts in slo-mo. When they piece it together and edit the "film", they speed everything back up to the mimic the average 30FPS of most video recordings, giving the appearance that their computer was never lagging at all during the recording.

    Posted in: Miscellaneous Development
  • 0

    posted a message on VoidCraft

    @irok2002: Go

    lol LOVE the Death animation. "Jim, I dunno' how much longer I can hold her toge'-BOOM!- ... 'Oi, that was fast..."

    This concept has many many uses; for example, Supreme Commander 2's unit upgrade/customization system now seems more flexible and possible than it did before in SC2.

    Posted in: Project Workplace
  • 0

    posted a message on DavidCraft Machinima

    That was actually quite good. It wasn't laugh out loud to me (though it came close when the Zealot was replying in shock to the Hydralisk's secret). It did provide a chuckle though at almost every turn. I can't really wait to see Ep2, kind'a anxious as what might get cooked up. I'd like to see these 3 characters continue with the series as they are the most mundane (along side workers themselves) and iconic units of each of the three races. They also sport character archetypes that are much more broadening and available for depth unlike just having units complain over something rather trivial, such as "why I cost 75 minerals instead of 50". If other characters are to be added, these original 3 should provide the basis for any new comers. The only other character set I see rivaling these three off the start are in fact, the workers. The SCV trying to get a college fund, the Drone evading being morphed into a spawning pool (wants to be a spine crawler instead or something) and the probe, loopy as hell, cannot tell what it's saying, and for some reason? Never really acts like a "probe" accept after 12 supply O.o

    Good luck with the next one! :)

    Posted in: Project Workplace
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.