AoS.

Now before you read the entirety of this post, please realize this is merely my opinion and it has no reflection upon you, the reader, or anyone else. If you do agree with me, or you think I'm a complete moron who's got his head up his ass, by all means you have the rights to say so, and if you wish to do that and you feel it's necessary, by all means go out and say it.

Before I begin my rant on a map I'd like to develop, I'd like to stress a few points so we're all on the same page. An "Aeon of Strife" or, the acronym'd form "AoS" can be defined, in my opinion, as "a game in which two or 'forces' of players attempt to 'win' the game but achieving some objective, often before the other team". By force I mean teams of players, and by objective, I mean a quest or "general tactic". Such would be the example of EotA, where you can win by destroying the other teams "main hall", or by capturing the artifact.

What I really want to get to, is that I'm developing a map, and my prefrence of game-type leads towards an "AoS" map. In short, I find the concept to be very easy to manipulate as well, very flexible in terms of what I can do with it. I feel comfurtable with several ideas involving "AoS"'s, and I really want to endorse that creative side of me, that would take me to developing such a map.

What I don't like, is that there is a very "generalized" form of AoS, that every map-maker seems to like to follow. There are two "formats" this generalized AoS can ride upon, they really meet together in the same sense. One "format" is the "Hero VS. Hero" format or the "DotA" path, often a half-assed effort to make an AoS very much like World of Warcraft, where spawns are simply there to feed the heroes experiance, and the game generally revolves around making your hero "imba" (or, too strong so that no one can catch up to your heroes current stats and you basically "checkmate" the whole thing).

Another AoS path is the "Hero VS. Enviorment" path, as I like to call it. This is a variation depending on what map you play, but this is basically a half-way between complete spawn dependance (where Heroes play near to no part in the game and are merely there as filler) and hero dependance (in HvH where heroes basically descide the outcome of the game). HvE focuses on spawn control and being able to "upgrade" spawns, and be able to control spawn flow, but often ends up being a bit of a hero game. Good examples of this were Tides of Blood. The Incident at Broadstream and Eve of the Apocalypse, both of which utilized the "HvE" system to their advantage, and created a game which was original and "different" compaired to the classic "HvH" AoS.

What I want to do, is different then both of this. I want to develop a PvP AoS, but do not confuse this with Blizzard's definition of "PvP" which is the exact definition (or, paragraph rather) I wrote on "HvH" (Hero VS. Hero). PvP in my opinion, would be, not the heroes: but the player VS. another player directly. In this sense, the player's choice of heroes, spawns, and spawn upgrades are generally irrelevent to the player himself, and it would be the player who ultimately descides the outcome of the game.

Now it gets a bit weird. I'm sure your thinking "WTF THAT MAKES NO SENSE BECUZ PLAYERS CONTROL HEROES IN HvH and HvE SO THEY WIN IT 4 THEM!!!!" (or maybe for those of you who make the attempt to type in proper english, that's a little less uh "explicit") but infact, I don't see it as all that. Alot of the games in HvE and HvP are devoted to 3 factors: player knowledge, luck, and heroes. Certain heroes work better then others (in HvH stunners and Agi. heroes rule the game: in HvE crowd-control is the go-ahead hero). Also, knowledge of certain aspects of the game helps (for instance, you know the shorter path to take to hit a running player or you can intercept a spawn tower by backdooring etc.) In other cases, luck is a desciding factor (it's a constant factor, since damage is die based, i.e luck).

But what frustrates me most when playing these games, is theres no "4th" division of player cunning and wit. Often times, regardless of the player, they are often "held back" by their either lack of information, lack of fast-finger clicking, or simply picking the "incapiable" hero. This is why I want to develop an AoS that focuses more on player wit and strategy, then the classic AoS revolving around what I like to call the "who's penis is bigger" (analogy to "who's got the better nuker" or "better hero" or "more knowledge of spawns").

This would be a very difficult project and would be far from perfect, and I don't want to give the idea that I expect it to be perfect or that my way is the only, perfect way. My way, like all ways in gaming is flawed in many aspects, but I just want to be original, or as close to original as one can be with 10000+ years of human history on our backs. So, in short what I want to do, is add a 4th aspect to "AoS"'ing that makes it so players also have to have a bit of general wit and cunning to overcome situations against the opponent.

How do I plan to do it? Well, below I have a few ideas. Your welcome (and I encourage you) to comment on it, if you don’t like it I accept that, and I’m perfectly open to critism.

My first and formost manditory for an AoS is to make it somehow different then other AoS’s, in every possible way without deterioriating from the gaming experience. This means that I want to do something that involves changing the normal “spawn-feed” theory I brought up above (the idea that spawns are simply there to feed heroes). I also want to do something about heroes, so it’s not just focused on 3 “usual” types of AoS heroes (Support, PK, and Crowd Control). I’d also like to go against the grain and develop a 5 or 6 point stat-system, over the system currently in place (which I believe is flawed, as intelligence heroes are severly underpowered when put up against Strength and Agility heroes).

The second thing I’d like to try is a different objective then most AoS games. Personally, the big thing I have against AoS’s is their lack of will to be “ingenuic” (if the word exsists). AoS’s have always been “blow up the town”, it strikes me as odd that no ones ever really come out with a different sort of idea or objective for people to use. I don’t know if Vampire Hunters was ever considered an AoS (it certainly had some characteristics of an AoS) but if it was it was definitely a good example of a well designed concept (RoC one I mean) and at least a stab at some different stuff.
In order to make the objectives different, I had one major idea in mind, that I wanted to throw out for a bit of critism and refining.

One being a CTF objective, where there is something both teams have to have (an item that heroes or units can pick up, or a mine you have to hold and drain resources from: whatever) and they fight over it. For spawns in this situation, I was thinking of making them all heroes, with hero abilities. I would be able to program a basic AI into these “hero-spawns” to make them run and heal at low life, or to suicide if no other options are available (I’d obviously use a custom EXP-gain system). As well as this, I would make spawn-times considerably reduced, and they would probably follow certain “designated heroes” over running normal paths (though if no hero is “chosen” to be a “designated” hero, they would obviously run their own route). Town’s would become invisible, but you could build towers and other such objects to defend the CTF-points and other-such places.

I had no other major ideas in mind, because none stood out to me as much as the idea of controlling a specific point where an item is, or the fact that a CTF would mean I could use “stealth” heroes and “illusionists” and cool concepts like that (as well as more then just 1 team, because I think it’d be great if it was 3-4 teams of people, 3 being my preference).

As for heroes, I wanted to try something most games don’t like applying, for several reasons that there has never been a real “stable” ground for it, nor has anyone really ever thought to much about using it. I am of course, speaking of a job-class hero system, where heroes begin as “bare” heroes, and eventually learn to specialize in particular areas. There are two ways of me doing this:

One is to make it so as heroes progress, depending on what they do and what abilities they get, this will “change” their hero class (for instance, a “bare” hero who uses a lot of melee-type abilites and gains a lot of Strength would eventually become a “Knight” like hero or something). Or, I could make it so people had a choice of what classes they would like to go under, and they could change it as the game progressed (but of course, they would master in certain classes).

If I was to use this sort’ve system (which I think is cool, and different) I would of course want to knock-off some players on teams (meaning a max of about 3. so 3 forces, each with 1 comp and 3 players) to avoid problems like “everyone choosing the caster hero and mass-nuking the other team”.
As well as all this, heroes would not “gain” abilities over-time, but in both situations they would “purchase them”. I would make it so rather then heroes gaining experience from dying, heroes would become more proficient in certain areas when they attacked, used spells, are attacked, etc. This is to make it a more “authentic system” then what most people have in their AoS maps.

Now, this is basically the jist of what I wanted to talk about. I am very open to critism, though I’d ask you at least try not to slander my ideas too much =P (if you feel the need, go on and express yourself though). This is all just my opinion and I’m just trying to find some ground-work for a beginning. I want your opinion as well on what I theme I should use, if your interested. I’ll end up choosing my own theme, but this is just the four themes I had in mind:

Final Fantasy (meaning, if I was to use a class system you’d get Black Mages and Knights =P) would be based on classes from all the Final Fantasy games, and I would compile them into some sort of “FF themed” game. This is just out of the simplicity of using a class-system, because it’s an already well-generated set of hero-classes.

High-Fantasy. This means I would incorperate some sort of high-fantasy plot behind it: most likely not very deep, but relitively generic to all high-fantasy games (though I like political battles much more over the classic “save the world” sort’ve plots). I can’t say I’ll generate a great one, but you can expect dwarves, dragons and goblins to have some part in it (and Ogres. They kick ass). It would probably two very opposite sides of the coin fighting each other (Orcs VS. Naga, Barren Creeps VS. Northrend Creeps, that kind’ve thing).

Horror / Mystery. By this (and I know this sounds like I’m writing a novel) I mean the plot would be centered around some sort of oddity in an area (most likely involving mythical creatures and the undead) and would use a lot of class-systems based on either spreading this “oddity” (for instance, Undead classes) or removing it (Undead-Hunters or something) or merely, villagers defending from both (sort’ve Fantasy-type classes).

The “Other” poll is for any other story you might’ve had in mind, and I’d ask you to post it here. Feel free to say anything you want about this, I want to hear suggestions, and hopefully some constructive critism (I’m bound for a lot of negative critism for using the overplayed “AoS” map I know). Thanks, sorry for the long read, and for any grammatical/spelling mistakes.

- Note [Also, if your interested in helping me create the map or willing to pledge your infinate-triggering skills to my cause, I'd be more then happy to have some mates work on this with me, but if no one wants to or you believe it's a solo-sort've thing projects like this, I have no problems whatsoever. Just PM me if you know ^^]

- WereWabbit

If you think I am reading all that you are so wrong.

Haha, well if no one reads it I suppose I'll have to summarize it all in the end. Hopefully I won't have to (I spent awaile writing that) but, well maybe I will, if people are unwilling to read it.

For now: I'm trying to make an AoS, I'm trying to be different, the 6 or 7 paragraphs up from the bottom (which are notably much shorter then the beginning) explain how I'm going to be different.

I like your ideas of doing something different, as well as not have a super-uber noob killer that people can just obtain and then wipe out everyone with a flick of a switch.
But, have you ever thought of doing something restricted to warcraft units? Perhaps using custom models and skins, as well as some terrain, you can use an era that not many people have done (I have a couple ideas, but I'm saving em as I might think of making one of them down the road).

Although I like your ideas based on classes and more attributes, won't there be some combinations that are the super-uber units in late-game, effectively being a check-mate?

In my opinion, if you wanted to get rid of the super-uberness, what about making a system that stays balanced throughout the course of the game, and the only deciding factor has to do with the computer AI and what objectives you have completed? Of course the heroes will have their own skills and abilities that the AI won't have, including the inventory, but if you can come up with an idea that stays balanced throughout the whole game, that will establish a level of teamwork with other players as well as computer AI that games like DoTA will never be able to touch.

Thank you for the reply and the comments.

Would it be possible (and this isn't an offensive manner, it is actually to the contrary, a very curious and interested one) what you mean by making a balanced system? It's sort've a vague statement, but I am intrigued in the way you present it, because it sounds like you sort've have a conclusion to it but it's just, not there or I'm not getting it.

As to the hero-class problem, I would (most likely) really try and stay away from what I like to call "the classic-AoS playtypes". These types of course include stunners (often strength heroes, usually nicknamed "tanks"), PK'rs (heroes with super-high damaging nukes or a combination of passives that makes their normal attack ridiculously high, as well as having a lot of "stealth" involved in their characters), Nukers (heroes whose sole purpose is to repeatedly nuke a unit with 3-4 of them. I don't plan on having a ton of nukes, and if I do they will be "odd" so they're not so devastating or that, they don't contrast as well when cast together) and of course, my least favourite, the "SpeedWhore", a hero of whom is horrible at the beginning due to it primarying agility and then sprouting at the end, becoming invisible (i.e Naix).

Now I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but I'm trying to keep it well enough so it could at least hold together.

If I could do custom models, and all that like ToB or something it'd be really cool, but it's more of a side-thing that I'm less concerned about amoungst other things. If I could be creative in other aspects, this could hopefully take a little more away from the fact I can't skin or model worth shit =P

I would, of course prefer if my heroes were all somewhat, different then what most people consider "standard AoS heroes".

Well I'm not 100% sure what could be done to make it balanced as I am thinking it through every now and then to form some idea(s) to include in a map/mod that I am planning right now.

But, what I am thinking of doing, is making the "heroes" be only slightly better than the ai, so the heroes are sorta support units in the whole scheme of things. Would that work? I'm trying to form some sort of example that could work, but all I can come up with is having the heroes be the healers/buffers/debuffers/have auras, etc.. But I'm not sure how fun that would be in the end.

In my two ideas that I have, I am thinking of making it so the player has a certain number of units to control as well has his hero. I suppose you can think of it as similar to those Footman Frenzy games, but instead there will be a food limit, and the only way to cause the food limit to rise is to capture more places of importance on the map. And, the only way to capture the areas are with the use of your hero character. But, I'm just rambling. :)

You know what, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking: of making the heroes just a tad better then units (they have a different set of development). XD

To comment on your post, I have to make another long one....well here it goes :P
If this is your definition, it is vague. Too vague. With this definition, you could say that all melee games are AoS's. Two teams trying to destroy the other.
To get the problem of having witty players have a chance, you need to create a balanced, problem solving map. My idea was a maze-like map, where you need to be inventive to get to certain areas which in the end win you the game.
I like how your want to change this. I wish you luck. (my other ideas will help in this regard..)
The word you're looking for is inventive.
This is a good idea. Run with it. It is certainly inventive.
To accomplish this, you should refer to RPG maps. Many of them have progressing hero classes. You can use this concept for your map.
Good idea, but I think Final Fantasy has been over-used. Just my viewpoint.
Plots in AoS's are hard. Especially because they usually take place at a snipet in time. For instance, a basic HvH takes place in a day (Warcraft time). Where as such, a campaign can span over years.
I like this idea, but again, plots do not work the greatest in AoS's.

Now, for my idea. I would like to see a map the complete opposite of DotA. WTF?!?!? you might say. Just gimme a chance.
I would like to see the computer control all heroes. You could also incorporate a system to make different levels of difficulty. Then, all of the players would control units, trying to kill the heroes a number of times or trying to get to some area, and all players would get gold from killing other player's units and the heroes that they kill. The gold they get would then be used for upgrades, special units with special abilities, etc.
I hope to see a new style of AoS generated by you

I think by ingenuic he meant something that has ingenuity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ingenuity

But then again, the definition of ingenuity talks about inventive..ness.

True, however in the sense that he is writing in, the word ingenuity doesn't seem to fit, thus inventive seems a more likely choice.
But they are closely related, and either/or works.

I wish I could speak english enough so we wouldn't be debated on my crappy use of it all =P

Thanks for the comments, they really helped, and appreciate the time you took to point several important things out. It's really helped clear my mind out a bit, and I think your last idea especially about the "opposite" of DotA is a really, really good one.

Again, I appreciate the comments and you expect several (if not most) to be incorperated somehow into the game.

Ohhhhhhhhh

IMO the way of doing it would be giving the players enough choices to work with, in terms of heroes, in terms of spawns, and in terms of additional features. If each option is a) efffective if not countered, b) has at least 2 counters, c) counters at least 2 other options, then you get an awesome framework for mindgames.

The trick is not to lose playability to the complexity, while doing all of this. This is hard to do. In fact, i haven't seen a map which succeeded in this scale of game design yet.

EDIT: Oh yeah, i am trying to eventually make Eternal Conflict an AoS like that, and its "FF-type wc3-themed" in your categorisation. Just thought you might wanna know :)

There's a major flaw in your plan.

The majority of B.net players lack wit and strategy.

Yes, I think that is the most annoyingly recurring element in AoS games; mindless, expandable spawns. There are so many ways to fix this... giving players some degree of control over spawns, either in spawning, or on the battlefield, or just completely rework the periodic spawning into something different.

Well, what can you do? That's not just the way heroes are categorized in AoS games, it's how they're categorizes in any hero game. AoS, Arena, Survival... You can mix them up, make hybrid/rounded heroes, but the fundamental gameplay concepts won't change because of that.

It all depends on how you make your map. I can easily make a map right now where intelligence heroes are wildly overpowered. There are plenty of mechanics with which you can balance them.

Well, as you already say yourself, when it comes to maps that do this differently, it's hard to say if they're still an AoS. Clearly your definition was too vague, as someone already pointed out, melee games could be considered an AoS by that definition, so could arena maps... Of course, nobody is forcing you to make an AoS, I would rather seem people make original games myself, but at one point, the map stops being an AoS. My point is just that people should be careful when demanding originality within a genre, because if they demand too much it can turn out they don't want that genre at all.

But isn't that then more a CTF map rather than an AoS. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea itself, I just want to stress the point from my previous paragraph some more. For example, I could make a TD (even worse, a maul) and call it an AoS, and it would be the most original AoS out there, completely different from any other; of course, because it wouldn't be an AoS at all.

Multiple teams is like FFA, which I dislike alot, because the game is inherently unfair, as the three teams never attack each other equaly; there is always a player/team that benefits from the other teams fighting.

Reminds me of my Era of War map.

This can be avoided just through clever hero design that promotes diversity of hero choices.

A completely free skill choosing system has the problem of some skill combinations being better than others. It adds a whole new chalange to balancing, as you have to balance spell combinations as well as individual spells.

As for the theme, that's just a design decision which you should make yourself. Any theme you pick can be equaly playable and equaly balanced.

I was reading that, and all I could think of was "He's never played a good game of Tides of Blood, has he?".

Heroes that aren't catagorised into those roles? DoTM - Commonly catagorised by newbies as a hero killer, in fact also a powerful sieger. SH - powerful support, but also deadly in destroying waves and even heroes (though not often getting the final kill). What is this - heroes good at multiple roles? Impossible!

Strategy, wit and co-operation were all essential. You didn't have them, you'd be quickly be beaten.

Now, you could also extend this by introducing specialisation, by making hero levels in total more than the points available, so you couldn't max out everything.

A totally free job class system. Windwalk, storm hammer, shockwave, reincarnation. Oh, look, he drops enemy heroes like flies, especially since he is a melee hero.

Or are you talking about a non-free job system, where you in fact just choose different heroes? Because this is just the same as the old system, but having three times as many heroes as needed, and not having your final hero until later in the game.