Tutorial Z-Factor and Proper Late Game Balance of Power

[tooltiperror]

We should have a new tag for this.*

 

[Jedi]

We should have a new forum.

www.Z-Factor.net sounds good.

 

[uberfoop]

Well, I think that DotAs system is really good. You grow stronger by killing, but being killed with a streak results in extra gold. The point is, that mostly the noobs leave because they don't pwn and try their luck in another game. DotAs key to turn-over the game is to kill the one 'imba' dominating hero via a gangbang and rush into the enemies base => team-play. This happens all the time, if the game lasts long enough and only one "killer hero" gets feeded.

Okey, if the whole enemy team is feeded and plays in a team it is hard.. yes. But real game-goal of DotA is to PREVENT the enemy team growing to strong via tactical movement.

Such methods as you suggested (one team gets nearly defeated => creep spawn increases) will annoy the most people. For example: You fight 20 min to get nearly to the enemy base, one ultimate and the game ends up again in the middle ....

I believe you're taking his article the wrong way. He's not saying that a team should have to spend a lot of time to get the win after nailing a decisive, irreversable advantage. In fact, that's precisely what he's against. He's saying that, once a team does get a clear decisive advantage, the game should end quickly.

I believe your confusion is caused by your assumption that he's recommending the "more creeps when a push is strong" mechanic for all maps, when he isn't; he's saying that, in the context of Blizzards map, which, by the way, is not a typical aos at all, it is a mechanic that works.

 

[Viikuna]

Actually, snowball effect usually makes games last longer, because you need that big snowball to win the game, and its something that can only have in the late game, even if its the early game that determines the team that gets the snowball.

Its the moment when you know you have lost for sure, but you still gotta wait for enemies to finish you off.

 

[SineCosine]

The thing is, how easy is it to get that snowball growing? O_O

 

[Ioannes]

I believe you're taking his article the wrong way. He's not saying that a team should have to spend a lot of time to get the win after nailing a decisive, irreversable advantage. In fact, that's precisely what he's against. He's saying that, once a team does get a clear decisive advantage, the game should end quickly.

I believe your confusion is caused by your assumption that he's recommending the "more creeps when a push is strong" mechanic for all maps, when he isn't; he's saying that, in the context of Blizzards map, which, by the way, is not a typical aos at all, it is a mechanic that works.

To be honest, I'm saying that there should NOT exist in a map such a thing as a decisive, irreversible advantage in the first place. I'm saying that such a thing is bad and if it exists in a map, then the games will be fun only part of the time. I think that a spring-like mechanic, of the type seen in 'The Search for Illidan' is the best conceptual decision in an AoS (and other PvP maps, in the form of various handicaps and compensations for the losing side).

Actually, snowball effect usually makes games last longer, because you need that big snowball to win the game, and its something that can only have in the late game, even if its the early game that determines the team that gets the snowball.

Its the moment when you know you have lost for sure, but you still gotta wait for enemies to finish you off.

No. You do not need the that big snowball to win the game. You are not supposed to need that big snowball to win the game. Because if you do, the game will be decided too soon and the remaining half an hour or whatever will not be pleasant, because one of the teams will have no hope of winning. The map won't be fun.

I think it's a bad idea if in a map you have to wait for enemies to finish you off. Playing during that period would be not fun and a waste of time.

The thing is, how easy is it to get that snowball growing? O_O

Z-factor determines that.

 

[Viikuna]

No. You do not need the that big snowball to win the game. You are not supposed to need that big snowball to win the game. Because if you do, the game will be decided too soon and the remaining half an hour or whatever will not be pleasant, because one of the teams will have no hope of winning. The map won't be fun.

I think it's a bad idea if in a map you have to wait for enemies to finish you off. Playing during that period would be not fun and a waste of time.

Dude, I didnt say anything about map being fun or good or anything.

I simply said that snowball effect usually makes games that last longer, and told you why it is like that.

 

[Ioannes]

Dude, I didnt say anything about map being fun or good or anything.

I simply said that snowball effect usually makes games that last longer, and told you why it is like that.

W8, how come?
Positive Z-factor makes games being decided earlier, negative Z-factor makes games decided at the very end. Hence, positive Z-factor and the snowballing it creates are supposed to reduce the game duration (or at least the duration of the real competition between players).

 

[tooltiperror]

Ioannes, perhaps you should add in more information about how to achieve this, for all different genres of games.

 

[Viikuna]

game duration != the duration of real competition between players

 

[uberfoop]

To be honest, I'm saying that there should NOT exist in a map such a thing as a decisive, irreversible advantage in the first place. I'm saying that such a thing is bad and if it exists in a map, then the games will be fun only part of the time.

Right, but given the difficulty in determining exactly when that moment of toppling is, the idea that there should be NO time whatsoever in the icky snowballed state is a fairly idealized one.

You might notice in my description, "once a team does get a clear decisive advantage, the game should end quickly," that the result of this as this "quickly" approaches to the implied best value of "in 0 seconds", my model approaches your idealized one; that the switch to a decisive advantage on the part of one team should immediately be a win.


So, our ideas with respect to the ideal situation aren't at odds whatsoever



Also, with respect to the springboard idea, I would like to disagree with your argument that having stronger pushes as you approach an enemy base would necessarily be a good thing. Many AoS maps are played largelly outside of the bases, and are carried on in such a way that, if a wave actually pushes past the middle, it could be either random chance OR it resulted from a team ALREADY getting a clear advantage, thus creating stronger waves would do nothing but PREVENT this clear advantage from winning as quickly as it should. By going the other way you're going against your own model of "less post-snowball time = better".
Again, it was a GREAT idea for Blizzard's map, but it's NOT a mechanic that could be simply slapped onto any aos map with the hope that gameplay will be improved.

 

[Ioannes]

Ioannes, perhaps you should add in more information about how to achieve this, for all different genres of games.

I will, I guess.

game duration != the duration of real competition between players

I think not, because once the gap of power has grown too big for the losing team to make up for with skill, there is nothing they can do. And so they can legitimately and honourably lay down their arms and stop playing. Because there is nothing they can do to win (unless the top enemy player loses connection or some other extra-game event). Even if their base and towers are still standing.

@uberpoof: point taken

 

[Viikuna]

It doesnt matter what you think.
Game duration is the time between game start and game end. Your opinion is not required.

 

[Ioannes]

It doesnt matter what you think.
Game duration is the time between game start and game end. Your opinion is not required.

If so, then still, only the competition part is fun.

Bah I'm tired of adding graphs.

Well, I'll simplify the article in a week or two.

 

[jwallstone]

Just wanted to say that I really liked this article. This is a great must-read for all the starting mapmakers who might still have the "cool uber rewards I can give for kills" mentality. Careful game design is very important, much more so than fancy effects etc, and seems to be missing from a lot of maps.

You may enjoy this site: http://www.mindflare.com/wc3maps/index.htm. I'd recommend the Notes and Writings section, where this mapmaker wrote some very insightful pieces on game design. Also, check out his maps as well - some great concepts in there.

This is a good section:
http://www.mindflare.com/wc3maps/ideas/aos.htm

 

[Ioannes]

Bump!

Just wanted...

Yep, thanks. Very useful, indeed.

 

[Darthfett]

Great tutorial, one of the things I've been considering in my Forest CTF game for a while.

Some feedback:

It may be beneficial to include a section on other types of maps. For example, in games with no difference in players' power but the teamwork and skill of a team (such as team fortress 2, where respawning is a factor), some snowballing/steamrolling is essential, as it prevents stalemates.

It also would be a good idea to include a graph on how a player's power should be used to calculate their reward, i.e. a 1/x graph:

So that the further behind a player is, the more reward he/she gets, to increase his/her chance of catching up.

 

[Bloodcount]

veeeeeeeery well written. I learned a few things from it.