Possible Victory condition for a strategy map like AWLR or LTA.

iliya

Donator
Strategist
#1
Hello Guys

I have came back to WC3 recently and it's editor and have been lurking in forums and hive for a sometime and have been looking for the following question? Is it possible to make a proper strategy map? As you know all the ones we have were designed were designed were intention of roleplay in mind. Tho some became less roleplay over time and focused more on Gameplay e.g AWLR and some became even more roleplay. I won't name lol. My aim is to think of a possible strategy map with the intention of game play first then maybe role play later.

So Here is gonna be a wall of Words thread. I figured Warclave would be the best place to post this since I actually care about this problem and also who is better to discuss strategy with other than union of strategists. KeK, dont kill me.

So here is my first challenge. A possible Victory mechanic for a strategy map. I could not come up with one but I have managed to set some conditions and should someone come up with a victory mechanic that meets all the mentioned criteria. We have ourselves a nice start. The conditions can be altered don't worry if you don't meet exactly all. Just post it and we can see where can improve it. Also let me know if you think something here should not be part of the Criteria or if you need more clarification.

The genius who can come up with a solution will win the Nobel Peace Prize and a small loan of a million diamonds. So here we go:

Victory Condition Criteria

A victory condition is needed for a game to succeed. Here are some features the condition must possess:

1) No direct ties: The victory mechanic must not be directly tied to game progression. This means player who is going for victory points and finishing of the game should not be able to get much power ups (e.g Gold, levels, etc) anymore.

Reason: This allows for players to are behind to look for power ups and find ways to comeback and capture the victory points

2) Universal: Victory condition must be universal to make the game simple to start and not require necessary knowledge of every faction (specially if there are gonna be like 50). Power up events don’t have to be universal.

3) Important to All: As long as you are in a game you should have some chance of getting extra points and possibly even winning. So, this way you always care about trying your best despite the odds. This means ranking should matter to each player so being 23rd player gives more Elo than 24th. However, this must not be directly proportional.

4) The Top must content for more: To ensure entertainment. There must be intense competition between the top players so this way they prefer to fight each other rather than just prey on weak. This can be done by ensuring first place gets much bigger reward in relative to second place and so on.

5) Aimed: While the Winning team must be focused, they should not be aimed to death by everyone. Specially by the lesser teams. This is because should that happen, the second in place will just takeover quite easily with little fight and cheese the game and same scenario continues.

6) Position of VP: Massive gangbangs + Natural invincible defence from attackers killing each other. The victor of points should not be able to be vulnerable to huge gangbang by all the factions from all sides. It should be balanced! Also there should not be a situation where the victory point holder gets free defence cause it’s attackers have to kill each other first before getting to him.

7) Attack at any minute: Attack player deciding to attack at any minute and Still should have some reward. Player should not leave VP cause the time is already near end

8) Time of the game: Seems like 45-90min seems to be the ideal time for a game.

9) Eliminations: Eliminating other players should not give Victory score as the system can be abused through betrayal and dynamic alliance mechanic. Players themselves cannot be eliminated by their team can. E.g You can’t really kill off purple entirely in AWLR but you can weaken him. However only way to really eliminate him is to kill the entire alliance. Purple should want to stay in game if alliance which is his team is doing well. Hurting other players can give power up just not victory point. Victory condition has to be something Neutral on the map.

10) Comebacks: Some sort of comeback mechanic should be considered.

11) Betrayals and alliance changes: Remember enemies can be future alliance and alliances can change or break. How will that affect your victory score system and how do you make sure it won’t be abused through betrayals.


12) No interactions: Victory condition should not encourage players just to sit around one area and not to interact with other players in the map at all. Whoever is top of ladder should still have some incentive to attack others over just turtling.

And remember:

Benefit Over damage: Since it’s more than 2 sides. Damage to enemy no longer directly equates to benefit to player. So, players will seek interested benefit for themselves more than interest to kill their enemies. This golden rule must be account for conditions and control of players action.
 

Dragon

The Mighty Dragon
Donator
Strategist
Game Admin
#2
@iliya
Victory Condition Criteria

A victory condition is needed for a game to succeed. Here are some features the condition must possess:

1) No direct ties: The victory mechanic must not be directly tied to game progression. This means player who is going for victory points and finishing of the game should not be able to get much power ups (e.g Gold, levels, etc) anymore.

Don't have much to say about this, would be interesting how you polish this.


2) Universal: Victory condition must be universal to make the game simple to start and not require necessary knowledge of every faction (specially if there are gonna be like 50). Power up events don’t have to be universal.

On this, I kind of disagree, because you need to know what faction and play style required for it, take example of many games, one example of Company of Heroes 2, where you have to know the strength and weakness of your units, faction, and the enemy's, which can only be done through experience of the game.
If you take away this, then there is no difference between factions, because they would require very slim knowledge for you to play them, they wouldn't be any unique or difficult, lacking in challenge.

3) Important to All: As long as you are in a game you should have some chance of getting extra points and possibly even winning. So, this way you always care about trying your best despite the odds. This means ranking should matter to each player so being 23rd player gives more Elo than 24th. However, this must not be directly proportional.

I don't know how you plan on doing this though, but regarding the top 3 players in game by score, if you can put up a system that weakens the top 3 for others to catch up, so, say, the current top 3 leading players receive some debuffs or 'overextension' so other players can make a comeback and take a position amongst that top 3, and receive that debuff too.

This is so that the strongest players currently in a game are not steamrolling so easily, and still face difficulty in the game after growing big, Can be done with "Victory points/Prestige/Score" system, though I don't know if its too much taxing.

4) The Top must content for more: To ensure entertainment. There must be intense competition between the top players so this way they prefer to fight each other rather than just prey on weak. This can be done by ensuring first place gets much bigger reward in relative to second place and so on.

I don't quite understand this, but from what I think I did understand I would say I disagree, Because I explained in #3 about a better system in my opinion, to keep the difficulty for the top players, though if you have more ways to improve it with this, then it's all good.

5) Aimed: While the Winning team must be focused, they should not be aimed to death by everyone. Specially by the lesser teams. This is because should that happen, the second in place will just takeover quite easily with little fight and cheese the game and same scenario continues.

to Prevent this, you could make teams in the map, or use a Diplomacy system that puts Peace, Non aggression (for those who break it, along with breaking alliance, a treaty, he face penalties for X time), Alliance, Declaration of War.

And could also improve it by adding Coalitions/Confederations/Unions.
Coalitions --> to form against a player.
Union --> to join a player in a formal 'alliance + resources?' co-operation.
Confederation --> Join the faction of the player, becoming the same faction as the player you joined in confederation and is basically the same faction. (could be worked with shared resources/divided income?)

6) Position of VP: Massive gangbangs + Natural invincible defence from attackers killing each other. The victor of points should not be able to be vulnerable to huge gangbang by all the factions from all sides. It should be balanced! Also there should not be a situation where the victory point holder gets free defence cause it’s attackers have to kill each other first before getting to him.

It's very hard to Prevent this, but it's possible to limit it, Maybe what I wrote in 5) works.
Another, could be a cooldown from a player to declare war on 1, so then another player who wants to declare on that 1 will have to wait a certain amount of time, (say 5 minutes?). before being able to declare war on him.

7) Attack at any minute: Attack player deciding to attack at any minute and Still should have some reward. Player should not leave VP cause the time is already near end

Did not quite understand.

8) Time of the game: Seems like 45-90min seems to be the ideal time for a game.

Agreed.

9) Eliminations: Eliminating other players should not give Victory score as the system can be abused through betrayal and dynamic alliance mechanic. Players themselves cannot be eliminated by their team can. E.g You can’t really kill off purple entirely in AWLR but you can weaken him. However only way to really eliminate him is to kill the entire alliance. Purple should want to stay in game if alliance which is his team is doing well. Hurting other players can give power up just not victory point. Victory condition has to be something Neutral on the map.

AWLR is a bad example of the mechanics, Victory goals you look for, to be honest. I doubt that w3 engine can even achieve that, and with the Crashing stability of Custom maps in due to Blizzard patching W3, it's hard to say if anything comes out, even if so, it's even harder to say that it will be stable regarding the crashes.
Paradox games have a much better mechanics that maybe could be placed in w3, even if in small scale.

10) Comebacks: Some sort of comeback mechanic should be considered.

Comebacks is mostly related to the player skill and the resources given to him, Events can help, maybe doing events or Decisions in the played faction can create some sort of buff to do a comeback.


11) Betrayals and alliance changes: Remember enemies can be future alliance and alliances can change or break. How will that affect your victory score system and how do you make sure it won’t be abused through betrayals.

Diplomacy system, explained already.

12) No interactions: Victory condition should not encourage players just to sit around one area and not to interact with other players in the map at all. Whoever is top of ladder should still have some incentive to attack others over just turtling.

Coalitions, Unions, Confederations, Vassals. but this is mostly up to the player's choices and skills, decisions he makes.

And remember:

Benefit Over damage: Since it’s more than 2 sides. Damage to enemy no longer directly equates to benefit to player. So, players will seek interested benefit for themselves more than interest to kill their enemies. This golden rule must be account for conditions and control of players action.
 
Last edited:
#3
Good to see you Iliya, been a long time.

So you see, usually spawn based maps are the most balanced type of maps in wc3, as most units are pretty much the same and non of them is especially op, and with a fixed spawn system its easier for map makers to balance the game and armies as they want. So the armies are always balanced in this type of map, but usually the thing that breaks the balance the most are the heroes, and especially late game. Almost in every single spawn based map, heroes are more important than armies itself, and sometimes even bases. People would suicide their whole army just to get 1 hero, because no matter what, an army that has atleast 1 hero is gonna beat an army without one, and thats true to all rts maps, just in spawn based heroes dont revive which breaks the balance even more.
So one of the first things you want to do, even before you start talking about positions and victory condition, is to plan how impactful are heroes going to be, because no matter what, heroes are going to be a vital part of the game.
Unless you want to listen to my advice, and remove any form of heroes from the game. That would be the best and most balanced scenario for the game. But that would cost entertainment as players usually dont like controlling just flat armies, they want to control a hero that they can power up.

Now for my idea of a Victory Condition (Has nothing to do with what I said above, tho you should take note of that as well):
Kills count.
The Team (or player) that has the most kills at the end of the game, wins. It can be achieved by either reaching a fixed amount of kills and when he does game will be over, or by a timer in the game which at the end of it the player with most kills would win.
Kills will be achieved through, well... killing units.
Now there should be other ways of achieving kills, like, killing a base or towers will give you a big amonut of kills or killing a hero would grant you more than a single kill.
There should also be points around the map that reward kills to whoever controls them, to encourage players to go out of their bases and attack or defend, instead of camping.
There should also be other resources in the map like wood and gold, as players would usually want to fight over these for in order to get stuff and get stronger for lategame.
But because at the end the goal is to get as many kills as you can get, players would fight more carefully with their units to no feed the enemy, or play agressivly to chase kills.

Either way, the winner at the end of the game will always be the most skilled one, as he won the most kills and won the highest amount of battles.

Now thats just an idea of a victory condition that offers no reward for owning it (except xp, but thats just a small reward and isnt very op. Plus it makes winning battles more entertaining and rewarding so its fine),
and pretty much covers a lot of the notes you have said.
Tho I do got to admit, that it is a pretty boring one. But hey, you asked for balance, and balance is always boring.

But honestly, it is all depends on the type of map you are trying to create, if you give us an idea of how the map is going to be like, I could make better suggestions.
In my opinion, its the best to make the map first, with all the roleplay in it, and then balance it out. Note that I might suggest more ideas after that.

Glad you chose warclave and not BH btw, I havnt seen you for a long time I thought you stayed in BH after I left, what have you been up to?
 

iliya

Donator
Strategist
#4
Good to see you Iliya, been a long time.

So you see, usually spawn based maps are the most balanced type of maps in wc3, as most units are pretty much the same and non of them is especially op, and with a fixed spawn system its easier for map makers to balance the game and armies as they want. So the armies are always balanced in this type of map, but usually the thing that breaks the balance the most are the heroes, and especially late game. Almost in every single spawn based map, heroes are more important than armies itself, and sometimes even bases. People would suicide their whole army just to get 1 hero, because no matter what, an army that has atleast 1 hero is gonna beat an army without one, and thats true to all rts maps, just in spawn based heroes dont revive which breaks the balance even more.
So one of the first things you want to do, even before you start talking about positions and victory condition, is to plan how impactful are heroes going to be, because no matter what, heroes are going to be a vital part of the game.
Unless you want to listen to my advice, and remove any form of heroes from the game. That would be the best and most balanced scenario for the game. But that would cost entertainment as players usually dont like controlling just flat armies, they want to control a hero that they can power up.
Actually That's quite a good point right there. I had already thought about this and was gonna ask a question for opinions on this but thought I'd break it down to make it simpler and one step at the time, however that indeed will cause confusion since people won't know what type of map I'm looking for so I will have to explain what my vision is. By the way what you reckon the best spawn maps are, I'm quite keen to give some of them a try.

Regards to heroes, my opinion on them is not fully certain yet and I will to have to make another thread about them. However I definitely agree with your point and plan to moves toward that direction with heroes. Not sure if you played Total War Warhammer 2 quick battle but I kinda really like how they handled heros there. Heroes should not be massive Army killers imo (maybe with few expecation like archimonde but still less effect) but should imo just be mainly a support for the armies and armies should be doing the main damage to armies not heroes. I also like how in TWWH2 There is long CDs and high mana cost which ensures heroes won't be constantly spamming ridiculous AoE while also the spells they have are used strategically rather than just spammed. Also another issue I found with current macro maps is that there is not point to fight without a hero. You don't get any benefits from a battle without your hero even if you are smashing the battle. Also Armies are pretty much useless in LTA for example when it comes to late game and there is no need to care with controlling them. The game just becomes Dota Late game since both sides just spam units from barracks through a tight choke lane while they Dota with their heroes. 0 Strategy for Army control and position. Still I need to think more about armies and heroes.

Now for my idea of a Victory Condition (Has nothing to do with what I said above, tho you should take note of that as well):
Kills count.
The Team (or player) that has the most kills at the end of the game, wins. It can be achieved by either reaching a fixed amount of kills and when he does game will be over, or by a timer in the game which at the end of it the player with most kills would win.
Kills will be achieved through, well... killing units.
Now there should be other ways of achieving kills, like, killing a base or towers will give you a big amonut of kills or killing a hero would grant you more than a single kill.
There should also be points around the map that reward kills to whoever controls them, to encourage players to go out of their bases and attack or defend, instead of camping.
There should also be other resources in the map like wood and gold, as players would usually want to fight over these for in order to get stuff and get stronger for lategame.
But because at the end the goal is to get as many kills as you can get, players would fight more carefully with their units to no feed the enemy, or play agressivly to chase kills.

Either way, the winner at the end of the game will always be the most skilled one, as he won the most kills and won the highest amount of battles.

Now thats just an idea of a victory condition that offers no reward for owning it (except xp, but thats just a small reward and isnt very op. Plus it makes winning battles more entertaining and rewarding so its fine),
and pretty much covers a lot of the notes you have said.
Tho I do got to admit, that it is a pretty boring one. But hey, you asked for balance, and balance is always boring.

It is a good idea indeed however I don't think it will fit my map well. It's kind the most straight forward solution and as you mentioned it's kinda boring. The problem with this is also there might be headaches with betrayals abusing it. Like the betrayer feeding his soon to be allies and joining them after giving them points. Losing army will hurt betrayer but it doesn't matter if the allies are getting Victory points. Specially if the game is Max capped for a victory points or time capped. I also found players generally don't care about feeding the enemy in macro map since it's two sides and take risky and stupid decisions due to game theory. This sorta system also might encourage players to just prey on the weak rather than have the best content each other. This can reduce the chance for comeback also. However I like the idea of encouraging more combat and battles. That should the main goal I think. I really don't like for example in LTA how sitting idle and turtling is the best option.

But honestly, it is all depends on the type of map you are trying to create, if you give us an idea of how the map is going to be like, I could make better suggestions.
In my opinion, its the best to make the map first, with all the roleplay in it, and then balance it out. Note that I might suggest more ideas after that.

Glad you chose warclave and not BH btw, I havnt seen you for a long time I thought you stayed in BH after I left, what have you been up to?
You are right, I think I need to explain my goal more clearly. I will do that soon. The thing is tho I'm not yet fully sure. I came back due to the high chance of Warcraft 3 remake and also Netease platform. I still sometimes hang around in BH for a bit to check for LTF and LTA updates tho not much seems to be happening. Warclave seems more ideal for what I'm trying to do now. I'm not planning to make a fully functional map yet since I will need to wait for the remake to see what the roleplay in the map will be. However game-play wise I don't think much will change. You just made me think of a really good idea tho! I can't make the alliances and stuff figured out but I can make the combat. What I can do is maybe make like 1v1 map or something similar and add in the mechanics and game-play elements I'm thinking about. I reckon this sounds like the plan and can give a much better basis for feedback and much clearer idea of what I'm trying to do. Also can help me learn the editor more while I don't think there will be many lag or crash problems in a small map.
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
#5
Removing heroes takes away a huge amount of the fun and micro. The whole point in pushing for a win is trying to unbalance the game in your favour. Hence pushing loads of resources into killing a hero. Losing an army is not especially important in spawn-based since you can spawn them back easily. Of course, if you are not late-game they take ages to respawn which is why it's a big risk but also it's harder to kill them late-game so it's always a calculated risk. Removing heroes just removes a win condition, making the game stale. In wc3, heroes are the whole gimmick. Go play Starcraft if you don't like heroes.
 
#6
Removing heroes takes away a huge amount of the fun and micro. The whole point in pushing for a win is trying to unbalance the game in your favour. Hence pushing loads of resources into killing a hero. Losing an army is not especially important in spawn-based since you can spawn them back easily. Of course, if you are not late-game they take ages to respawn which is why it's a big risk but also it's harder to kill them late-game so it's always a calculated risk. Removing heroes just removes a win condition, making the game stale. In wc3, heroes are the whole gimmick. Go play Starcraft if you don't like heroes.
You asked for some good spawn based maps, so i will try give you some. As I said before, in my opinion spawn based maps are the most balanced maps in wc3, but of course if you are new it will always be hard for you,

The First War - a 6v6 map based on the first war between humans and orcs. The map is very popular, and what in my opinion specialize it is the amount of balance behind it. Its a very heavily balanced map. When I first played it i found it too balanced to be boring. Worth a try.

War In The Plaguelands - a map based on the war between humans and undead during the third war in the plaguelands., 6v6 (there is also new version of 12v12). Very good map, and very enjoyable as well. Requires more macro than micro, and there are decent amount of events too. Good example for a spawn based for begginers. There are some options for betrayals, but most people dont usually do it unless they are about to lose.

Roberts Rebellion - a map based on the events before games of thrones (5v5). Personally one of my favourite maps in wc3. Well made and well balanced, and what I like in the map is that armies dont spawn as easly as in other maps, even on lategame. So armies are a lot more important in this, even more than heroes.

So far I talked about team based maps, where its usually 2 teams fighting against each other, and actually the majority of spawn based maps are like that, but not all of them.

Lordaeron Tactics - a map about the third war. with legion team (including undead), Alliance, Horde, and Illidan. And there are a lot of paths and events, so a lot betrayals too.

Glory of The Horde/ Kings of Azeroth - Basically the same map with different lore and alliances each time. It is worth a mention as it considered to be pretty good and very balanced. There are events and betrayals as well. Tho I havent played a lot these maps they are nice.

Also note, that in all of these maps most heroes are unreviveable, which means hero aiming is part of the game. Thats a very important note as in the majority of these maps heroes are vital for lategame.


You pretty much agreed with all I said lol, but I like your way of thinking. As I said earlier, you should first make the map and then think of ways to balance it.
Good points about the kills as victory condition, I dont think it would work for your map.

On a side note, whats wrong with just eliminating all enemies? Whatever victory point you are planning to set, eliminating a player by attacking his base will still be an option.

Talking of Total War, in total war there are multiple Victory Conditions in the campaign. What if you imply something like that as well? Like if a player reaches a very high amount of kills (So high that even if he gets fed it doesnt matter, as he still has to eliminate players.).
Or if a player has researched all possible researches for example, which will be impossible resource-wise as you have to own atleast some of the resources points in the map, and spending resources on researches instead of an army will make it hard to hold these points.
Of course the option to just eliminate everyone else and be the only one alive.
Also a cool sneaky victory condition could be cool, like forging a secret item by gathering items around the map, but that would be very difficult as players would own some of these items, so you will have to kill a lot of heroes in order to get the item. Idk about this one tho, it needs more thought.
I dont remember all of the victory conditions in Total War now, but Im sure you can think about more. but im starting to like this

Removing heroes takes away a huge amount of the fun and micro. The whole point in pushing for a win is trying to unbalance the game in your favour. Hence pushing loads of resources into killing a hero. Losing an army is not especially important in spawn-based since you can spawn them back easily. Of course, if you are not late-game they take ages to respawn which is why it's a big risk but also it's harder to kill them late-game so it's always a calculated risk. Removing heroes just removes a win condition, making the game stale. In wc3, heroes are the whole gimmick. Go play Starcraft if you don't like heroes.
So what? Is starcraft not fun and stale in your opinion?
Usually the reason that there are heroes in maps is because of the roleplay of the map, but a map can just as easly have no heroes.
Tho I do agree that if you are planning to make a map like LTA or LTF it would require some heroes...
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
#7
So what? Is starcraft not fun and stale in your opinion?
Usually the reason that there are heroes in maps is because of the roleplay of the map, but a map can just as easly have no heroes.
Tho I do agree that if you are planning to make a map like LTA or LTF it would require some heroes...
They're different games. I don't play Starcraft, but I presume a lot of the fun is in the intense micro. Wc3 is old and shit. Not fast enough for that stuff. Also, Starcraft is fun with the diversity. Lots of different unit types and big differences between the factions. As far as I'm aware, most wc3 stuff just doesn't have that specialty. Hey, I could be wrong about Starcraft in that regard. I tried Starcraft, but I did find it a bit boring. Heroes were introduced in wc3 for a reason, be that strategic or gameplay. They were not introduced in sc2 for a reason, be that strategic or gameplay. We are playing wc3, it would be sad to throw away heroes.
Also, I found your list of best spawn-based maps interesting. All of them are very hero focused. Well, I never play RR so I can't speak for it. I find that map dull. Also, something else that is very interesting, is that you said that First War is the most balanced. Hero pools can go up to about 8 heroes. All of which are impactful. Of course, army killing AoE is only really on two factions, but First War is still very hero focused. Of course, you are wrong about it tho. It is not the most balanced, just the most predictable. GotH's 1v1s are more balanced, but where that disappears is when the 1v1s end and the game becomes unpredictable. First War is not balanced by any stretch of the imagination, last time I checked it is heavily alliance-stacked. Tekcor is working on balancing that, but that is the current state. However, the stages of the game and the fights are very predictable.
I'm just rambling here, as I do, but that opens up a more interesting analysis of what we want. Because you have implied that predictability should be the key point in balance, instead of actual balance. I'm very much in favour of unpredictable gameplay, it makes the game more interesting. More strategically interesting, to be specific. I guess you just don't like that? So rating games in terms of how predictable they are, and implying that being unpredictable is bad, is very disingenuous.
 
#8
They're different games. I don't play Starcraft, but I presume a lot of the fun is in the intense micro. Wc3 is old and shit. Not fast enough for that stuff. Also, Starcraft is fun with the diversity. Lots of different unit types and big differences between the factions. As far as I'm aware, most wc3 stuff just doesn't have that specialty. Hey, I could be wrong about Starcraft in that regard. I tried Starcraft, but I did find it a bit boring. Heroes were introduced in wc3 for a reason, be that strategic or gameplay. They were not introduced in sc2 for a reason, be that strategic or gameplay. We are playing wc3, it would be sad to throw away heroes.
Also, I found your list of best spawn-based maps interesting. All of them are very hero focused. Well, I never play RR so I can't speak for it. I find that map dull. Also, something else that is very interesting, is that you said that First War is the most balanced. Hero pools can go up to about 8 heroes. All of which are impactful. Of course, army killing AoE is only really on two factions, but First War is still very hero focused. Of course, you are wrong about it tho. It is not the most balanced, just the most predictable. GotH's 1v1s are more balanced, but where that disappears is when the 1v1s end and the game becomes unpredictable. First War is not balanced by any stretch of the imagination, last time I checked it is heavily alliance-stacked. Tekcor is working on balancing that, but that is the current state. However, the stages of the game and the fights are very predictable.
I'm just rambling here, as I do, but that opens up a more interesting analysis of what we want. Because you have implied that predictability should be the key point in balance, instead of actual balance. I'm very much in favour of unpredictable gameplay, it makes the game more interesting. More strategically interesting, to be specific. I guess you just don't like that? So rating games in terms of how predictable they are, and implying that being unpredictable is bad, is very disingenuous.
There are a lot more of rts games without heroes other than sc2. im just saying it is possible to have a map without ones, and that might even speciliaze the map even more.

Honestly all spawn based maps are very hero focused. as for RR, its a very special map in my opinion. It isnt only that armies and bases make much more difference, but team work is included too. as for gameplay, all units have actual abilities that require macro, and each faction has its own unique role. As hero abilities arent as op as in other games, and as armies are relatively smaller than in other spawn based maps, it is almost impossible to nuke a hero that stands in the front by only right clicking on it like you can do in maps like GoT or WIP, you have to surround heroes in order to kill them. So that adds a little more amount of skill that I like in the map. As I said, thats one of my favourite and its my personal opinion.

As for what you said about predictiness and that a map should be unpredictable, the reason that most of the maps i mentioned are "predictable" (which i totaly disagree btw xD) is because they are usually team based maps, 6v6, 5v5. With fixed early rivals and early fights. Thats why it may seem predictable to you, while maps like GotH has got different factions fighting each other that can choose their rivals lategame.

It doesnt matter that The First War is still very hero focused, those heroes are very balanced. The AoEs are very weak, and even the stuns dont last longer than 2sec. Even 8 heroes squads (That can only happen lategame, where most heroes are lvl 10+ anyway) arent as op as you may think. they still very vulerable and the amount of AoEs and Stuns in each squad is calculated and balanced. The balance im talking about is the balance around the armies, the heroes, and fortifications. None of them are especially op. You say its predictable, but thats because its too balanced, not the other way around.
Anyways that is just my opinion on the map and how I think about it. You can smell the balance in every feature of the map, and thats why i recommanded it.
I didnt say those are the best spawn based maps, just ones i recommand. I missed quite a lot of maps and im not giving them the respect they deserve. but after thats not the subject is it?
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
#9
You say its predictable, but thats because its too balanced, not the other way around.
The game is predictable because it is split up into a number of discrete sections. There are two fights on the outside of the main push, the north and south fight. Once they end, the victor funnels down towards the main fight. The main fight has a western and eastern front. Once one front has been pushed out of the natural defending point, the victor of that pours around to push through the other front and then they move on through a 'tier system', as I'll describe it. The first tier is the initial fights. The second tier is a bit further on, with the walls and shit. The third tier is the one just outside of Stormwind. After that tier there is a sub-tier which is across the bridge. Then in Stormwind, the final tier, there are two fronts which need to be defended. Through that design, the game is very predictable. The balance doesn't affect that predictability. It's just on the other side, the alliance can push down. That is not usually the case unless Horde really sucks though. Instead, balance affects the amount of time it takes the Horde to push. Since First War is a timed game, that is a big deal.
 

i.am.norsk

SAD!
Donator
Game Admin
#10
While I havent read everything that has been posted in this thread since im tired af, I do have some to say about this, since I have also been thinking about it as well back when I played alot of WIP and LTA (sometimes LTF).

WIP currently has a "win condition", while a horrible one, its still there. Everyone on enemy team leaves = map ends in 60 seconds. I guess its more of a "lets clear the lobby so players can join the next lobby rather than sitting around"-condition. Kind of useless, and I would actually not say thats a win condition.

But lets take for example LTA.
Why go for the win condition? How can you make a player who joins a map like LTA think:
"I am going to go for the win condition"
Rather than
"This game I will do path X, and if my ally messes up, I will betray" etc.

People dont play maps like LTA to win. Its not about winning the fastest, its about trying the paths, summoning your OP pat heroes, do sick plays.
They play the map for the map, not the victory.
The victory comes from them successfully going their path and defeating their enemy, which is fun.

Lets say you go your path, and your enemy instantly leaves when he sees the path being activated, compared to going the same path, but also having nice fights with your enemy, and then win / lose. I would choose the latter option over the first, since I have had those games where the enemy leaves abruptly without a fight.

Most custom maps dont have stats or ratings gained from winning games, like other MMR-based ranked games like DOTA or LoL, SC2 whatever.


My point is that a win condition on a map like LTA isnt needed, and wont work. While it can be annoying that someone is hiding a boat of workers on the corner of the map (ahem frozen1221), who cares? Just fkin leave lol if you cant deal with the island-baser who has 2 CPs vs your 30 CPs.
But as you said, if you find a win-condition that doesnt completely change the map, all the praise to them, but in the end LTA is about paths, summoning OP heroes, destroying your enemy. Winning is just a bonus.


Another example (but isnt wc3), is 1v1 fighting games, both with and without MMR, you can come accross opponents who will stop going at you if you go AFK, as they prefer winning a good fight than vs an AFK player.
 

Srdjan Radivojevic

Strategist
Loyalist
#11
Hi man, i just skipped everything after the first 2 posts including yours...
So here is the thing, victory conditions are bullshit, they don't exist and if you make them then you will make the game less fun...
The only way to win something is either kill them good or kill them until they leave.. That is what i say, and that is the truth.
 

Top