EotA--false appearance of depth...

[jamn455]

I happen to have a replay that contradicts everything that you decided to go against here. It shows us losing a lane, and coming back losing many other lanes on the way and winning the game. You say losing bases ends the game, well we lost top, bottom, and inn lanes(oh sorry or as you say red team bottom obelisk lane demon... god you are dumb). We pushed through it against all odds. At the end yes, it was very one sided due to us taking middle and me building both middle obs, but that is what the game is all about.

BTW the game lasted two hours, have fun watching it!!!

This was three quite good players, well versed in the game(Myself, sparda, and poolman) and two pubs, against some random guys that joined the game. Us as the elven battalion, them as the undead brigade.

[Kibiyama]

That's a good replay. And it shows that the pro game is pretty rock solid. I really don't find any fault with it. The stuff I've been talking about has mainly been from a noob perspective, and it's all speculative; I really don't know what's directly affecting what, that's why we mess around with the variables and feel it out. But nine times out of ten (official statistic from the Bureau of Arbitrary Numbers), a comeback doesn't happen, especially among noob players, so it seemed to me that there needed to be a stronger force keeping the game centered. But I never did consider what would happen to the pro side if the noob side was, erm... "fixed".

So maybe I'm an idiot, but I threw some points out there that I think are completely valid and worth considering. If someone wants to seriously discuss them, go for it. That's what forums are for. (not pissing contests and attacks on people's character...)

By the way, I learned something yesterday: Never talk shop outside of allegro.cc. Two totally different worlds.
Penis.

[Elreth]

(not pissing contests and attacks on people's character...)

Hypocritical much? The very statement itself IS an attack on people's character. The only reason he even said it is part of his pissing contest. And you dont think my concerns about you are valid? I have no idea who you are (nor do the people i've asked); you come in, and spew a lot of nonsense, and then when pressed on it you decide that forums arent for debating; and casually admit you dont really know what you're talking about. Did I say you wanted to take his map for mega-stardom? Ever? No. Stop. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth.

By the way, I learned something yesterday: Never talk shop outside of allegro.cc. Two totally different worlds.

More attack's on people's character...


And just for fun.

The stuff I've been talking about has mainly been from a noob perspective, and it's all speculative; I really don't know what's directly affecting what

[Storamin]

people here need to either

a) get a real job

b) get a real girlfriend

please pick one and go with it.

[mianmian]

Such a hater Storamin ~~

[Kibiyama]

Okay, let's go over what's happened so far:

I shared my opinions
You strawman'd my opinions and kept using the word "arguement" as if we were in a debate
I tried to make what I said more explicit to correct whatever misunderstanding there was
You get into semantics over my post, and even suggest that I have "ulterior motives" and "want a free copy of hundreds of hours of work given to me to work on and base my own map on" and conclude by saying that my post was semantical!
I concede defeat so we can get on with something that's not a pointless flamewar
I try to make it more clear exactly what my perspective is in all this
You say I'm hypocritical, and that I've put words in your mouth, and say that something completely benign is an attack on your character?

Game design is an art, not a science. There is no right answer. You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all you can do with it.

As for who I am, I used to be an active member of EotA East. Now I'm a shaman of EotA West. I'm a Junior student of Digital Animation and Game Design. I have made 4 games, and I'm working on a commerical-quality OpenGL-based engine. I'm an active member of allegro.cc game development community, McShaffry's Game Coding Complete forum, and the International Game Developer's Association.

Now either stop trolling and get helping, or leave.
Penis.

[Fierach]

By the way, Demons, the only reason a hero in EC can 1v5 and isless due to superior skill, but more to the tier level where the hero was at, and the fact that EC items, though not as overpowered as DotA items, are still really freaking powerful and easier to get then good items in EotA.

Just throwing that out there.

[Tehw00tz]

Last warning, stop talking about EC, after this I'm deleted posts.

[DarnYak]

Alright, time for me to get into this since it seems like the real arguments stopped but the discussions not over.

First, I want to thank Demongod for posting. Not because I nessarily agree with anything he says, but because he cares enough to post about it, and continues to post in the face of constant personal attacks. He's certainly not the only one making his points known, but taking the initiative to bring up multiple topics and put up with the harrassment makes me feel obligated to point this out.

I both agree and dissagree with Demon on some of his core points. However, Demon, I also have to add, you're arguements are generally really fucking bad at supporting anything you say. And I am not at all going to focus on rebuttalling most of you're arguements because its irrelevant to the important parts of this thread, and most other people have done it already.

But onto the important stuff.

it would be nice not to have to restart every half hour because the other team had one nice push.

30-45 minutes is the target goal for an average game, although I wouldn't nessarily mind seeing them down to even 20 minutes. I don't think i would charactarize winning as being a mere one nice push, unless you loose center by some really bad stroke of luck (I dont think i've ever seen this)

but now, it seems that EotA's mechanics practically force only one way of playing and that's offense=>obelisks=>mass spawn towers

I'm suprised nobody's properly pointed this out by now. You consistantly talk about obelisks as a strategy. Its not - obelisks are an objective. They are contested resources and points of intense conflict. This is all intended and does not imply the game is shallow. The strategy in games is not whether or not to get Obelisks, its how to get them, and I would like to think there are many strategies to go about doing that.

Related to this is the first part of where you're going wrong in you're arguements. You're attacking the obelisk system due to spawn towers, rather then focusing on the specific issues involved, those being something like:

- The reward for holding obelisks happening too fast, or too strong
- The risk of hold obelisks being too low (by risk i mean risk of losing it, not a vulnerability to the team)
- A lack of options when you're at a disadvantage

You sorta touch on all of them, but fail to break them down into their core issues properly.

Now is it me, or is EotA the *only* aos in which half the map is unused because the game is decided long before a main base is ever knocked on...

Most AoS's I've played have no objectives aside from structures in the main base, so unless hero feeding creatives a massive imbalance in power there's not much change in the battlefield. All the space inbetween the two is just open space to fight on, and holds no value. Related, there tends to be no real long term gains/losses in maps setup this way (there can be some), so there is no need to care about anything but killing and not dying.

Anyway, Eota has changed, its something that happened so we have to deal with it.

"Just deal with it" tends to not be something I support when the creator's willing to listen and work with you guys if you've got a good idea ;P

The right way to make a game is that every disadvantage opens the door to an advantage, like a seesaw.

I can't decide if this is just one of those quotes that sounds smart by sorta contradicting itself, or has real merit. I keep thinking of how it turns out in risk vs reward terms, and that I dont think it makes any sense for rewards to add their own inherient risk.

You're chess example: "However, this doesn't account for the fact that a temporary advantage can become a permanent disadvantage. You might take a knight with your queen, but you may then lose your queen to a pawn.". The problem is taking the knight isn't what brought the advantage of taking a pawn, moving the queen to that space did. Baiting is a tactic universal to all games (I think, anyway), but isn't an inherient game mechanic. Moreso, it applies to obelisks just like anything else, ie pushing an obelisk hard to distract all their players, which lets some other plan be executed elsewhere, or even having them teleport to the obelisk itself be a trap.

There is no reward for defense in EotA.

Its an intended game design that offense is both encouraged and is suppose to generaly be stronger then defense (both due to being on offense more fun, and that it helps draw the game to a close). Defense is inheriently less risky on offense (you own the terrain, you have safe lines to retreat behind, reinforcements arrive faster), and its pretty passive (the fight comes to you one way or another). What defense is suppose to be about is taking thier offense and turning it into a situation more in your favor - which you'll need to use in an offensive way somehow. There is no inherient reward for defense, no, but it is an important step in winning the game - its just not the only thing you do.

And just to be clear, an all-offense game doesnt work either unless the other team is purely on defense, which results in them not needing defense at all.


I'll be making a seperate post on snowball issues shortly, I think it'll be long enough to warrent its own post.

DarnYak

Edit - Short as in EotA release time short, aka within 3 months

[Kibiyama]

You're chess example: "However, this doesn't account for the fact that a temporary advantage can become a permanent disadvantage. You might take a knight with your queen, but you may then lose your queen to a pawn.". The problem is taking the knight isn't what brought the advantage of taking a pawn, moving the queen to that space did.

Well, I was comparing the complexity. If taking the knight was a victory condition, it would be entirely reasonable to do whatever is in your power to take the knight, but if it isn't, then you have to take the whole board into account, and that's where strategy (should) come in to play. I was saying that playing chess that way is a shallow approach, treating a mechanic of the game as a primary objective. But obelisks seem to play a role as both an objective and a game mechanic. I think that makes them sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can't decide if this is just one of those quotes that sounds smart by sorta contradicting itself, or has real merit. I keep thinking of how it turns out in risk vs reward terms, and that I dont think it makes any sense for rewards to add their own inherient risk.

In a fighting game, almost any attack offers the opponent a chance to block and/or counter. From that point in the tree, a block is a safe bet to negate the disadvantage, or you can risk a counter-counter-attack and try to turn the disadvantage into an advantage.

I'm not asking for any handouts, like a rubber-band setup in racing games etc. I just think that the disadvantaged party ought to have some more recourse. But I guess if we're thinking of obelisks as objectives in the first place, then I'm not sure that even makes sense.

(a little aside, Mario Kart had an awesome way of doing this with items that mainly resulted in pushing the item-user up in the rankings rather than pushing players behind down. A pretty smooth way of creating an implicit king-of-the-hill style of play -- so nice Kart Rider emulates it almost exactly. I just can't say the same for MK's use of the rubber-band model of kart speed)

I always thought of the castle as the primary objective, but if you look at control as the primary objective, then you kind of have two different levels to the game. You have the first level of controlling the obelisks, and the additional tier of destroying the enemy's base. But then, the team who controls the obelisks is usually the team that wins the base fight. And victory usually comes from destroying the enemy base rather than the artifact. So why is there that crossover?

Experienced players accept this, and go after obelisks early and often. But new players get a sort of tunnel vision where they are focusing on trying to get to the castle, and the obelisks are just a nice distraction. Perhaps it's not that obelisks need to change, exactly, but they either need to move closer to a clear position as a primary objective or become more intertwined with the base fight and be more of a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

As it is, they take a similar role to gold mines in melee, but gold is something instantly communicated to the player as being absolutely vital to their success. But the fact that we have to spam new players to get them to do something about obelisks is kind of a testament that it isn't working right. I wonder if it's because it is different from the style of resource-gathering players are used to so they just don't expect it, or if it is something else?
Penis.

[Discombobulator]

Experienced players accept this, and go after obelisks early and often. But new players get a sort of tunnel vision where they are focusing on trying to get to the castle, and the obelisks are just a nice distraction. Perhaps it's not that obelisks need to change, exactly, but they either need to move closer to a clear position as a primary objective or become more intertwined with the base fight and be more of a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

As it is, they take a similar role to gold mines in melee, but gold is something instantly communicated to the player as being absolutely vital to their success. But the fact that we have to spam new players to get them to do something about obelisks is kind of a testament that it isn't working right. I wonder if it's because it is different from the style of resource-gathering players are used to so they just don't expect it, or if it is something else?

Firstly, people who play Warcraft at this point are generally of below average intelligence. Don't expect them to read some strange text that keeps appearing on the screen or trying to understand a novelty in the AoS genre.
Secondly, they're usually 7 to 13 years old. Same as above.
And lastly, even if they are old enough to read the text and smart enough to actually bother reading it, they will most probably ignore it and just play the game like any other AoS.

It's not a problem in EotA, it' a problem in the people. You don't want stupid people playing your map. I could call names and we could all laugh at peoples' stupidity but this is hardly a thread for somethign like that.

[Kibiyama]

Experienced players accept this, and go after obelisks early and often. But new players get a sort of tunnel vision where they are focusing on trying to get to the castle, and the obelisks are just a nice distraction. Perhaps it's not that obelisks need to change, exactly, but they either need to move closer to a clear position as a primary objective or become more intertwined with the base fight and be more of a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

As it is, they take a similar role to gold mines in melee, but gold is something instantly communicated to the player as being absolutely vital to their success. But the fact that we have to spam new players to get them to do something about obelisks is kind of a testament that it isn't working right. I wonder if it's because it is different from the style of resource-gathering players are used to so they just don't expect it, or if it is something else?

Firstly, people who play Warcraft at this point are generally of below average intelligence. Don't expect them to read some strange text that keeps appearing on the screen or trying to understand a novelty in the AoS genre.
Secondly, they're usually 7 to 13 years old. Same as above.
And lastly, even if they are old enough to read the text and smart enough to actually bother reading it, they will most probably ignore it and just play the game like any other AoS.

It's not a problem in EotA, it' a problem in the people. You don't want stupid people playing your map. I could call names and we could all laugh at peoples' stupidity but this is hardly a thread for somethign like that.

Tou-fuckin-ché

Still, it's not to say everyone on Battle.net is an idiot. There are smart players that we're missing by not getting the map enough exposure. But I guess we've mostly resigned to EotA being a cult map.

Done talking for a while, I've been jockeying this thread too much.
Penis.

[Elreth]

I didn't want to post earlier because I didn't want to distract from Yak's post, but I guess now I might as well....

Well, I was comparing the complexity.

Comparing? As if, in an analogy? =P

If taking the knight was a victory condition, it would be entirely reasonable to do whatever is in your power to take the knight, but if it isn't, then you have to take the whole board into account, and that's where strategy (should) come in to play. I was saying that playing chess that way is a shallow approach, treating a mechanic of the game as a primary objective. But obelisks seem to play a role as both an objective and a game mechanic. I think that makes them sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The only reason Obelisks are an objective is because they might help you win, and it they are just an extension of this. The are an objective in the same way taking outposts is an objective; they're both mechanics that help you win. Much in the same way that taking a knight in chess is an objective because the other player losing the knight helps you win (by making it easier to eventually win). However, it is up to the player to decide if the cost of taking the obelisk, outpost or knight is worth it at the time. That is where strategy comes in, and in this regard there is nothing different about obelisks.

(a little aside, Mario Kart had an awesome way of doing this with items that mainly resulted in pushing the item-user up in the rankings rather than pushing players behind down. A pretty smooth way of creating an implicit king-of-the-hill style of play -- so nice Kart Rider emulates it almost exactly. I just can't say the same for MK's use of the rubber-band model of kart speed)

Mario Kart does this for a very specific reason. The game is designed for a specific strategy with very minor variations, that is, try and be fast. If you screw this up; the game would be over for you - and its easy to do in a racing game (fall of a cliff or some such). EotA is NOT designed for one strategy, it is designed for many; therefore a mistake on one front does not end the game unless the player has deliberately risked everything on this one front. Yak could inhibit such a strategy but that would only limit the amount of choices. Its a constant struggle of noob friendliness vs. complexity. The problem comes in when new players unknowlingly bid everything on one front because that is all they are used to - If such a bid wasn't designed (generously) to be a strong play in and off itself; new players would always lose.

I always thought of the castle as the primary objective, but if you look at control as the primary objective, then you kind of have two different levels to the game. You have the first level of controlling the obelisks, and the additional tier of destroying the enemy's base. But then, the team who controls the obelisks is usually the team that wins the base fight. And victory usually comes from destroying the enemy base rather than the artifact. So why is there that crossover?

The castle is only the primary objective in the sense that it wins you the game; therefore on stormwail you must also consider the artifact to be a primary objective. Don't look at control itself as a primary objective, only as a means to a primary objective. Control of course meaning specifically how close you are to unlocking the artifact. Victory usually comes from the enemy base because a) Not everyone even knows about the artifact b) its less risky and c) it requires less effort, even if its a bit longer.

Experienced players accept this, and go after obelisks early and often. But new players get a sort of tunnel vision where they are focusing on trying to get to the castle, and the obelisks are just a nice distraction. Perhaps it's not that obelisks need to change, exactly, but they either need to move closer to a clear position as a primary objective or become more intertwined with the base fight and be more of a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves.

The obelisks in this case are actually a stepping stone into more advanced play. The game was not designed for noobie play all the time; Yak purposely included ways for noobies to get used to the more advanced features. The best example of this is the scroll- which introduces people to the obelisks and upgrading. Then after they get obelisks, they can look at generators, and so forth.

There are two problems with making obelisks more important to new players. A) It immediately introduces something they're unfamiliar with seems important and they don't understand. People are already loading some kinds of codes, there's a map choice? A hero to choose; its very baffling and they feel disadvantaged enough already with thinking that theyre screwed because they can't act quickly on these obelisks. As it is now, they get there hero, theres creeps, its very comforting, they do that for a bit and fall in love with the spell effects and stat systems and get comfortable before dealing with this matter of 'obelisks'.

B) Yak would have to find something new to introduce them to advanced mechanics, like generators or the gold mines, or some such. Who knows how that would work or work out? Don't fix what ain't broke in my opinion, and honestly, despite the scrolls' famous failures I think you really can't expect much more than what you've got from new players. Especially considering Disco's points.

I guess while im on it, I should deal with that earlier post as well... you can skip this if you want, im really doing it for myself.

using the word "arguement" as if we were in a debate

I really think word choice is my perogative, but regardless I think it was a fair use; perhaps you are foggy on its meaning outside of debates? Argument: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true. These are things normal people use when they want people to believe them (ie: instead of acting smart).

I tried to make what I said more explicit to correct whatever misunderstanding there was

There wasn't really a misunderstanding so much as what you said was wrong (and if you'll recall you admitted both my victory and later that you didn't really know what you were talking about.)

You get into semantics over my post...and conclude by saying that my post was semantical!

You are confused in this regard. Im sure a quick review of my post will reveal that it did not in fact get into any semantices other than the ones brought against me (by yourself).

I concede defeat so we can get on with something that's not a pointless flamewar

And let's review what happened then, since you seem to have left that out. I don't make any reply; I agree in fact. Then you edit; well I tell myself, that's alright I guess. Ill still leave it alone. Then you make another post which again insults me. What the heck? You think im going to let this stuff go?

You say I'm hypocritical, and that I've put words in your mouth, and say that something completely benign is an attack on your character?

I assume you're talking about "(not pissing contests and attacks on people's character...)" and claiming that it is benign. You're either completely unfamiliar with the concept of connotation (hint: no one is), or deliberately trying to decieve people in order to make me seem foolish. The problem with this is that neither myself nor my friends (many of the board readers) are complete morons, and know damn well that when you talk about a "pissing contest and attacks on people's character" that you are calling them a bad person, or poor character.

Now either stop trolling and get helping, or leave.

I dont even know how to respond to this, should I go after the trolling bit by saying that the post itself is as much if not more trolling than anything i've done, or should I go after the helping bit because at this point he hadn't said anything helpful in ages? Should I even bother? I dont think so.

[jamn455]

You know, you could always ask the players on your team for their scroll or teach them how to use the obelisk.

BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE DUMB WOULDN'T IT?

People helped you learn how to play the game but you just stand by and hope they catch onto the game.

[Tehw00tz]

Just a little off-topic, no one helped me learn to play EotA.
Control is a reason why the games always favor the winning team (Although saying something favors the winning team is kinda dumb, considering they are winning). It gives the people with more obelisks extra experience gain, and since they have the obelisks they got the cores. So their creeps can have the cores and their heroes are getting an extra 1% of experience for every % of control they have causing a snowball effect. (and I begrudgingly have to say demon was partly right about EotA having a snowball effect to the winning side)

[Elreth]

To Jamn: I agree, and I have always been helpful and continue to be especially to the curious. I was referring to instances where the helpful are not present; perhaps after being downloaded for the first time by oneself? There are many cases.

To Tehwootz: I agree that there is a certain "snowball effect", however, you have to define winning. Are they winning simply because they own the obelisks? Or is there another factor which is would cause them to be winning without the obelisks, and the obelisks are just a perk that helps them win? In either case, the ability of the obelisks to generate this snowball effect is part of what makes them valuable. Of course, you must recognize that there are other mechanics in game that cause these effects and no one complains about these. If you kill a hero once, and get the crystals, gold, and xp from it, are you not stronger and therefore more likely to win the next encounter (assuming all else remains equal)? At what point is the game over then? Once they take a base? Once they start holding obelisks? Once they get the first hero kill?

I suspect Yak's post will address snowball issues completely so I will only touch on it lightly here. But consider that there are other snowball effects, and that even these snowball effects can be related to non snowball effects the same way an account with interest can be compared to a flat amount. Some heroes might be good at holding obelisks, while others are better at killing heroes (although there is obviously some overlap). These are still relative effects, that are even for both sides. If the game didn't have things that helped you win better, the game would become very shallow indeed.

A game without any snowball effects of any magnitude would be.. I can't even imagine one.. Two units hitting each other back and forth? Where there is no advantage that helps you win better before the final victory? That's madness. Even if you had only two bases (you couldn't have towers, because once a tower was destroyed, the winning team would have an easier time destroying the other towers - a snowball effect), and no heroes (or at the very least no levels, items, or heroes dying or being disabled by the other team in any way).

You could say that theyre too powerful of an effect... but I would be inclined to disagree. In my experiance, this just isn't true. Even if it were, then your best arguement would be that the game is decided before the game officially declares it so. In which case you have something similar to melee. One team is LIKELY to lose, and can surrender to give the other team whatever credit they for whatever reason desire, or force them to fight for the end to it. The problem is that like melee the game does not detect this "certainty" and in melee for all the game knows, the "losing" player "lost" because he sent a secret force to destroy their base or something. The same is true for EotA, except that such things are much more possible.

Anyway I dont want to ramble.

[Shadow.M4L]

Elreth i didnt read your full post i just gave it a short view but i saw something intresting.

"A game without any snowball effects of any magnitude would be.. I can't even imagine one.. Two units hitting each other back and forth?"

That is when the Tactic factor comes into play, if both side are equal strong you need to get an advantage somehow. Buying a Creep Wave, asking a second hero to help on the lane, build a spawn tower. I think a none existant snowball effect is a good effect ^^

And also about the Obelisk, you should ask yourself why the other team got a Obelisk more than you? I assume we play a 4on4 where all scrolls was used, not a public with idiots who cant play.
Ofcourse its a disadvantage but its your own fault loosing the Obelisk to the enemy.

But maybe the advantage you get from a single obelisk is way to much. Because you lose the Outpost 5% per kill and Cores. Thats a difference of 10% exp per kill.

[jamn455]

Just a little off-topic, no one helped me learn to play EotA.

Cough, Cause your annoying, j/k

You guys could be out there teaching a noob how to play the game with all of this nonsense you are doing on these forums. Just stop posting and start playing and bettering the community. Then it may become the amazing utopia of EotA gaming.

[Tehw00tz]

Annoying is my defining feature, jamn.

[Elreth]

Elreth i didnt read your full post i just gave it a short view but i saw something intresting.

"A game without any snowball effects of any magnitude would be.. I can't even imagine one.. Two units hitting each other back and forth?"

That is when the Tactic factor comes into play, if both side are equal strong you need to get an advantage somehow. Buying a Creep Wave, asking a second hero to help on the lane, build a spawn tower. I think a none existant snowball effect is a good effect ^^

And also about the Obelisk, you should ask yourself why the other team got a Obelisk more than you? I assume we play a 4on4 where all scrolls was used, not a public with idiots who cant play.
Ofcourse its a disadvantage but its your own fault loosing the Obelisk to the enemy.

But maybe the advantage you get from a single obelisk is way to much. Because you lose the Outpost 5% per kill and Cores. Thats a difference of 10% exp per kill.

You're confused about what I was trying to say (likely because you didn't read it all), thats alright, because someone else (who also didnt read it) was confused about the same thing; so I guess I could have been clearer. First of all building a spawn tower is a snowball effect... and if you have more than one unit, if you kill some the other team's units first, thats also a snowball effect (although it can end if there are towers - which have their own snowball effect); but my point is that to get an advantage somehow - you NEED snowball effects, its just a matter of magnitude.

As for your talk about Obelisks... Im not complaining about them. In fact im defending them (to a limited extent). So thats a bit misdirected.

I like think your last paragraph is the most important, and thats up in the air to me; but in my experiance its within reasonable boundries.

[Elreth]

Elreth i didnt read your full post i just gave it a short view but i saw something intresting.

"A game without any snowball effects of any magnitude would be.. I can't even imagine one.. Two units hitting each other back and forth?"

That is when the Tactic factor comes into play, if both side are equal strong you need to get an advantage somehow. Buying a Creep Wave, asking a second hero to help on the lane, build a spawn tower. I think a none existant snowball effect is a good effect ^^

And also about the Obelisk, you should ask yourself why the other team got a Obelisk more than you? I assume we play a 4on4 where all scrolls was used, not a public with idiots who cant play.
Ofcourse its a disadvantage but its your own fault loosing the Obelisk to the enemy.

But maybe the advantage you get from a single obelisk is way to much. Because you lose the Outpost 5% per kill and Cores. Thats a difference of 10% exp per kill.

You're confused about what I was trying to say (likely because you didn't read it all), thats alright, because someone else (who also didnt read it) was confused about the same thing; so I guess I could have been clearer. First of all building a spawn tower is a snowball effect... and if you have more than one unit, if you kill some the other team's units first, thats also a snowball effect (although it can end if there are towers - which have their own snowball effect); but my point is that to get an advantage somehow - you NEED snowball effects, its just a matter of magnitude.

As for your talk about Obelisks... Im not complaining about them. In fact im defending them (to a limited extent). So thats a bit misdirected.

I think your last paragraph is the most important, and thats up in the air to me; but in my experiance its within reasonable boundries.

[BLUEPOWERVAN]

You know, eota players aren't some batch of geniuses. I love the map but I do think it doesn't treat new players well enough.

It doesn't cater to them at all, too many things are unique about the map... some are explained in a brief easily missed 1 line text message at the bottom of the screen, some are explained in the huge quest help text, and others still only on websites.

Some of it quite accessible... like the shops with text decribing them. However, the vast majority is not. Teleporting to buildings, obelisks, energy, the exp system, mercs and merc heroes, spawn resources, upgrading items/hero, midmap shops and so on, are very obscure.

That and there are excessively long hero picking periods, always unexpected long lag when map is being populated.

[Shadow.M4L]

Ahh yeah sorry Elreth, i should have read it all. But the Obelisk part was not agains you
But i expect sometimes people to have my way of thinking so it happens.

@BLUEPOWERVAN

Well but how we get rid of it?
How we inform people about it?
They dont read the text on the Monitor.
They dont read the Questlog...
They dont care about other player.

A Video Tutorial? I tryed to host games of soulchess people skipped the tutorial, and then sayd i cant do anything fuck this map.
And Soulchess is way more complex.

Maybe a big Soundfile? Well we dont want to break the 4mb part of the battle.net~

So tell us how to help them! Dont hide your answers from us!

[DarnYak]

A Video Tutorial? I tryed to host games of soulchess people skipped the tutorial, and then sayd i cant do anything fuck this map.

EotA: Exodus had a cinematic tutorial people were forced ot watch if the host selected it. What I learnt from this: even given the option of being unable to do anything, they will still refuse to accept information not in direct response to question they ask.

DarnYak

[Hammel]

Then you could add a "Do it yourself" tutorial where they build obelisks, teleport to bases/obelisks, upgrade items and stuff... and when they don't do it... tell the other players who hasn't done it yet, and what step he is at, and then they can help him at this very moment where he might ask "what to do now?"... I guess we've got enough map space left for that.