Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

A mode to somewhat directly set the game length, simply put the first team to reach the point goal wins.

Possible sources of points include:

Destroying bases
Building a base on a destroyed base (points lost if reclaimed by other team)
Hero kills
Obelisks/Control
Gloomite
Moon shards
Barracks mana (basically all the map specific features)
Spawn kills (per some number like 100)
Gold/Crystal expenditure

It is a kind of heavy handed way to set how much each thing is worth, like top lane bases are worth 2, mid lane base is worth 8, obelisks could either accrue points over time, be worth points while held or both. Obviously the way points are obtained are numerous beyond what I have listed and even those I have here are not entirely compatible with each other. Thus any ideas are welcome, but I think it could be a worthwhile mode with even something as banal as only counting hero and building kills.

For bonus complexity try thinking up independent counters for different things, first team to 50 hero kills (possibly relatively) or the first team to win normally and so forth. Part of the goal is to end games that are one side slaughtering the other because of some huge advantage in kills.

I'd like to include heals and buffs added.

The idea seems like something that could diversify objective in how it's played, making any step progressive potentially speeding up the game. Though the question of performance is something to be in question. Going between unrecorded games and recorded is a significant performance difference.

If Hero kills will be a factor though, hero respawn time should have a greater gap since killing a hero will be worth points in the case that killed hero won't be able to earn points for the team.

I would really rather not include any changes with this other than point values, ie hero respawn times. The idea is to reflect what is already causing people to win, or to increase/decrease the value of things you can do to win. In this case if you feel that hero killing being worth points is too desirable or not desirable enough because at the same time the dead hero cannot earn points then the solution would be to decrease or increase the points earned by killing heroes, as opposed to modifying something about the way dead heroes are treated like gold, crystal or respawn time.

To me though, this defeats the point since the reason killing heroes is worth points is to lead to teams that are able to do so very well being given the win earlier than they most likely would otherwise. Yes the dead hero cannot be earning points, but in a mode without points he cannot be accomplishing the current victory objectives either. However by attatching this scalar to things that lead to you winning, you can more easily control the duration of a game.

For instance for an extreme example, requiring very little points would cause the first team to start doing well to win. Perhaps they get the first two hero kills, and destroy a tower. Well they might win in the long run and might not, but right now they are doing better. The points are for how long you want the game to last. (and as previously mentioned, to redefine the value of various actions, albeit heavy handedly)

--

As for 'performance,' I have no idea what you mean. Maybe you could elaborate for my sake. Buffs and heals are okay, but they are a different kind of objective than the ones I have listed. For instance, killing units will give you gold/xp, prevent them from pushing, help you push them. It is definitely going to help you win. Buffing your units might or might not make a difference, and if you are against a dispeller it might even significantly hurt you. Also it is more of an indicator, that is, a team that is killing siginificantly more units is probably doing much better (unless it is because all their bases are destroyed), whereas a team that is buffing more units well. That probably is more related to hero choice than anything. You could say the same for spawn kills but it is less applicable.

If you are wondering why I am comparing buffs/heals to spawn kills, it is because presumably the most buffs/heals would be on spawns and I believe that is the only other spawn related item I listed. It is seeming less and less viable to me as a result of this discussion but maybe it has a place.

We could rate players based on the amount of points they earn based on this idea, they could save it and then we make a ladder out of it.

But I guess the balancing would be too hard...

Internet EotA's aren't usually that long anyways. Leave the game how it is. If you want to increase speed, hoard all your gold and pub smash.

DarkNemesis wrote:Internet EotA's aren't usually that long anyways.

I've played in a EotA game that went back and forth for two hours before any base fell.

I've played in a EotA game that went back and forth for two hours before any base fell.

That's not a statistical anomaly, that happens EVERY GAME ALL THE TIME

I was going to get to that point but I guess you did it for me ion

Disagreements about game length aside, hoarding gold(?) and crushing pubbies does not appeal to me. Also, if you wanted, you could extend game length with this mode as well. Naturally, it would be optional. And of course there are other benefits than game length influence, as discussed.

As Dekar said, it would be difficult to balance, especially with a complex system. I am interested to hear what people think about various point schemes or possible point sources like Perhaps mentioned.

Another possibility is that it could have a reasonably low point prerequisite to be met before being able to win. After it's met the objective could be obtaining a certain lead, be it by proportional lead or set difference rather than a set point to be reached. Could also have it so there are ways you can cause the other team to lose points. Going along with the latter, it would probably be best to make it so gaining points is a bit more beneficial than making them lose points. Adding to all this, special things you could spend points on could be added, but to the point where it could be a risky move, where they could use that point to push up points spontaneously for a surprise win.

Here's some more point gaining possibilities.
Using the charm items.
Charm Of The Bear
Charm Of The Cat
Charm Of The Owl

Using Termite Jar
Using Scroll of Travel
Using Tomb of Power
Using Hammer of Banning (Worth the most for gaining points from item uses)
Actually banning a player will be worth a decent amount of points.

For every kill remote control flying machine gets.

Bad idea is bad.

Tehw00tz wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:Internet EotA's aren't usually that long anyways.

I've played in a EotA game that went back and forth for two hours before any base fell.

This is rare however.

I was thinking about the possibility of being able to decrease their points as well, specifically if you give them points for destroying one of your bases, you might then rebuild your base and lower their points again. It could really go either way, though.

You are right about there able to be a variety of ways to set it up, relative versus absolute and so forth, which is why I was hoping to get a lot of opinions in.

The items are a little specific I think since that is really going beyond heavy handed in my opinion and would radically alter those items for that mode only. If the specific items are too weak then they can be modified. It's true I said this mode could be used to modify the value of things but I was imagining this for higher level goals, obelisks/pushing and so forth. At least you are not useless/wasting space like say jamn.

Since we seem freaking intent on arguing about game length, then I will say that games are generally an hour long, occasionally an hour and a half and rarely two hours. This does not mean that the two hour games are not a problem though. Or even the hour and a half games. What is worse in this regard is that although map selection has some influence over game length it is still at heart extremely random and based on hero selection and well player actions might not be considered random, but from the perspective of one person who has no control over the rest of the players and their interactions on the map, they might as well be. But the almost complete inability to predict whether a game will last 30 minutes or 120 minutes from the game lobby is part of the reason for this mode. Sometimes the randomness makes it interesting, and that is great okay, it is not like I am saying this mode should overwrite the default game mode, but a lot of times it is just annoying and a semi-quick fix like this could help.

I'm not opposed to alternate modes (far from it), but everything I've seen in this thread is just the basic game as it is with a point system added on top.

I'm under the impression this point system is to help make game length more consistant (or maybe limiting game length?), but it seems like all the points are from things that corrispond with that already. No bases are dying, so the game's lasting a while? Thus you're not getting points for base kills either. Tying it to things like specific item use would just be an artifical way to win against people that don't spam unproductive things.

Point game specific objectives (missions?) is probably the best way to go. Stuff like two megacreeps spawn in opposite lanes and the first to fall gives points to the opposing team. Or king of the hill type objectives. I suppose you could do something collection related but that might suck.

DarnYak

DarkNemesis wrote:

Tehw00tz wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:Internet EotA's aren't usually that long anyways.

I've played in a EotA game that went back and forth for two hours before any base fell.

This is rare however.

Contrary to your belief, if you pit good players against good players a game will take longer than a pub smash.

I don't know about that. When Toxik is in the arranged game, they seem to go as fast as a public smash, if longer, only a little bit longer, at least every game I've seen him in.

[quote="DarnYak]Tying it to things like specific item use would just be an artifical way to win against people that don't spam unproductive things.[/quote] That all depends on the points they offer, if it's something worth like one single army unit kill, then "spamming" it wouldn't be an option, you'd rather pop out the Frozen Skull instead for points. The idea on that is for supplemental points encouraging the usage of them. Even assuming a false win could be generated by it, both teams could "spam", however, if one team is constantly using them in a productive matter to enhance their playing while getting supplemental points, and the other team is just simply pumping out until their money supply is dry, the first said team would win.

That is because ToX understands how to play EotA

So basically instead of buying spawn towers like in the older versions, we buy semi useless items and ban everyone of our own team to win?
Sounds like fun!

Tehw00tz wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:

Tehw00tz wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:Internet EotA's aren't usually that long anyways.

I've played in a EotA game that went back and forth for two hours before any base fell.

This is rare however.

Contrary to your belief, if you pit good players against good players a game will take longer than a pub smash.

Yeah, and how often do you have instances like this? Most Internet Multi, imo, in any game, don't have even odds, that's why one side wins.

That is the thing about games, one side usually wins.

jamn455 wrote:That is the thing about games, one side usually wins.

Right, because most EotA's only last an hour due to "equal" teams.

The reason they correspond to things that lead to people winning already is so that by limiting the number of points you can just win earlier. Instead of killing all the bases you might kill one base, have a bunch of hero kills and maybe 50% obelisk control. Suppose this is enough points under your configuration then you might win as much as an hour earlier.

The point mode specific bonus objectives sound like fun, and you could say they actually add something to the game instead of just changing it.

Try not to focus on the specific items giving points idea, that is not a core tenet of this mode at all. Rather the opposite.

An example would be a game on Candleburg where one team has control of the lane for the entire game pretty much and is generally beating the other team. It is pretty clear that they are going to win but magic immune last second mercs and tower concentration extend the game almost indefinitely. Well suppose it is set to only need 40 points to win and you get one point for every mana your barracks gains (or would have gained if its full already) and say another 3 points per hero kill, then the game will end much faster.

"No bases are dying, so the game's lasting a while? Thus you're not getting points for base kills either."
This is somewhat true but the mode is based on the idea that "Few bases are dying, so the game's lasting a while" instead of none, then the few bases are essentially multiplied by a scalar up to victory. And regardless of bases there are always hero kills which to me are an ideal candidate for point generation.