If it's a game of strategy, why is there all this mouse-timing and accurate and rapid clicking BS?
Honestly, I think this is just a complaint due to a lack of personal skill on the issue. Any commander can come up with the most excellent of war strategies, but if he is unable to pass those strategies onto his subordinates in due time, then he is essentially ineffective. This applies to ANY game, really. You may have a strategy in Left 4 Dead to survive an area (taking advantage of choke points, attacking during certain times), but if you can't aim and shoot properly, the best of strategies are for naught.
Knowing when to attack, when to defend, and when to retreat is all included from the get-go. Even if you're just attacking creeps, your ultimate goal is to help your creeps push forward, with consideration of your opponent's heroes. Mechanics like Last-Hitting are only implemented to further maximize that effort. Creep blocking IS another strategic element of the game, since you're slowing down your own creeps to further boost the timing of your overall attacks.
It's disappointing that the what is turning you off from the game is the IDEA of the game (and the community), as opposed to the game itself. When we played, you didn't seem to have too much of a problem with anything, and you were having fun.
This isn't a turn-based game, Scott. It is played in REAL TIME, so speed of execution is inherently a factor in the game. Chess analogies do not and cannot apply.
Plus, High-Level chess IS timed. You have 10 minutes TOTAL for all your moves, and you have to clock in as quickly as possible each turn to conserve thinking-time for future moves. If you accidentally place a piece in the wrong square and you let go, you cannot revoke your move unless it is an inherently illegal move to make, and even then, you'd be wasting precious time.
Your proposed Robotron control scheme would be even MORE mindless, since instead of saying "I want to target THIS enemy", you'll be saying "I want to attack that-a-way". All you'll be doing is pointing in which direction you want to attack, and there'll be no way to specifically indicate where you want your AoE spells to take effect.
Edit: And an auto-Last Hit/Deny button? Really? At least with those two mechanics, you'd have to pay attention to your surroundings. If that button were to exist, all people would be doing is going near a group of enemies and spamming it.
Edit: Come to think of it, Scott. Have you even tried to do any Last Hitting/Creep Blocking yourself? I cannot at all say that I'm a fast-clicking RTS person, but even I can do that. They're not even essential parts of the game, if your tactics don't call for it.
Scott, your complaining about this game is like me complaining about Natural Selection. I can say that Natural Selection is a terrible game, because of all the Bullcrap pointing and shooting that I have to do. Why can't I just have a button that lets me attack my opponents immediately, without me having to aim and shoot? THEN, it'll be a true test of strategy and cooperation, instead of twitchy BS aiming and fast moving!
Exactly, it wouldn't be DoTA anymore, because DotA sucks. DoTA consists of many separate games, some of which do not go well together. It has the tower defense game, the grinding NPCs in the jungle game, the resource management/item game, the last-hitting game, lots of separate games. The thing is, only some of these games are good. The good part of the game is the maneuvering of your hero, and deciding which special attacks to use when, on whom. Deciding when to push, and when to defend, and working with your team. The other aspects of the game kind of suck. Thus, if I were to remake the game, I would throw out all those shitty parts, and keep only the good parts.
This is entirely your opinion, I think that all these elements go great together.
If you really wanted to keep it the exact same game, but remove this problem, there would be an easy way to do it. Put a button in the interface for every stupid fiddly thing. For example, there would be an auto optimal last-hit button. It would make your hero automatically attack only creeps with health so low, that they will die in one hit from you, and it will also attack your own creeps. Make another button for creep block. You click the button, then click some creeps, and your guy automatically block them and slows them down. You could also make an orb-walk button, a feign-attack button, etc. Now instead of all that stuff being fiddly bullshit mouse-clicking tricks, they simply become strategic decisions.
This would dumb down the game so much. If these were trivial to do and you could pull it off every time then maybe I would agree but they are not. They take some skill and practice and dont even have to be done if you do not want. Why do fighters have combination sequences to execute moves instead of just another button for everything? If there were just interface buttons that did everything, the game would be incredibly boring, the skill cap would greatly decreased, and the competitive level would decrease. Like I said, this game is not just about strategy and whether or not you like the other aspect of the game is complete opinion and does not reflect on the quality of the game itself. I like the accurate micro that this game requires and it does not detract from the other aspects, it just adds to them.
As I stated earlier, I just don't think Scott realizes that RTS games are supposed to be played in REAL TIME, and the ability to click with a certain level of speed is essential.
As I stated earlier, I just don't think Scott realizes that RTS games are supposed to be played in REAL TIME, and the ability to click with a certain level of speed is essential.
The problem is that the clicking ability completely dominate skill being tested, and strategy matters almost none at all in the face of that. The speed at which you are able to interact with the interface matters way way more than what decisions you make. This would be a more tolerable situation if it was impossible to make the interface easier, but it is possible, and they choose not to do it.
This would dumb down the game so much. If these were trivial to do and you could pull it off every time then maybe I would agree but they are not. They take some skill and practice and dont even have to be done if you do not want. Why do fighters have combination sequences to execute moves instead of just another button for everything? If there were just interface buttons that did everything, the game would be incredibly boring, the skill cap would greatly decreased, and the competitive level would decrease. Like I said, this game is not just about strategy and whether or not you like the other aspect of the game is complete opinion and does not reflect on the quality of the game itself. I like the accurate micro that this game requires and it does not detract from the other aspects, it just adds to them.
I actually thing Street Fighter would be a 1000x better game if they just had a hadouken button. At the very least, why does hadouken have to be down, down-forward, forward, punch with certain timing? They could have made it much easier, like press fierce and roundhouse at the same time. Part of why Soul Calibur is such a better game is becase the controls are more intuitive. Sure, there are still some really complicated moves in there, but it's a big improvement over Street Fighter.
Ok...so the game is only challenging because the controls are obtuse, difficult, and are purposefully not improved? I believe this shows that the game itself is fundamentally flawed. If you actually "ruin" the game by making the controls easier, what does that say about the actual game? I would propose that good games only get better with control improvements.
You're conflating two separate things. I'm not arguing that this game is solved, because it isn't, so none of that stuff is relevant here, which is why I haven't brought it up. Being solved is just one thing that can make a game bad. There are other things as well, bad controls are a good example.
Understood. Your point is that a solved game is necessarily a waste of time, but a game that is a waste of time isn't necessarily solved. However, the same argument that you made for Diablo could be made for a game like Super Mario Bros. (link to AI playing SMB). Either game could probably be finished by an AI, but neither game could be finished in optimal time by AI (unless the AI is tailored to each individual level). What is the difference between these two games, if any?
The problem is that the clicking ability completely dominate skill being tested, and strategy matters almost none at all in the face of that. The speed at which you are able to interact with the interface matters way way more than what decisions you make. This would be a more tolerable situation if it was impossible to make the interface easier, but it is possible, and they choose not to do it.
I haven't played DoTA, but my suspicion is that quick-clicking offers diminishing marginal returns in this game, which become essentially negligible past a certain point. Around this point is probably where most good DoTA players are. Unlike an RTS, you're still only controlling one character, and there are a limited number of mobs to manage. Consequently, with all players around this point, strategy becomes the main determining factor in the outcome of a game. However, since Scott's level of quick-clicking ability is very low, his play does not hold up.
Utimately, Scott, you're making a subjective judgement about DoTA - you're saying that you don't enjoy the game of quickly clicking on the low-HP mob, but you do enjoy the game of quickly clicking on the enemy's head.
Ok...so the game is only challenging because the controls are obtuse, difficult, and are purposefully not improved? I believe this shows that the game itself is fundamentally flawed. If you actually "ruin" the game by making the controls easier, what does that say about the actual game? I would propose that good games only get better with control improvements.
The thing is, it's arguable as to what exactly constitutes a control improvement. Is automatic aiming an improvement? That would ruin pretty much any FPS, would it not?
Ok...so the game is only challenging because the controls are obtuse, difficult, and are purposefully not improved? I believe this shows that the game itself is fundamentally flawed. If you actually "ruin" the game by making the controls easier, what does that say about the actual game? I would propose that good games only get better with control improvements.
The controls are bad in the same way that starcraft is bad because you cant press a button to optimize mining for your workers. The controls itself for Dota are very simple and follows the same scheme that an RTS does. You just select units and click to move, press button to use spells, etc. What Scott is complaining about is that you have to be quick at clicking, which is an inherent part of RTS type games. Since he can not do this well, he fails to see any of the merits past this point and complains about them. Good games do get better with control improvements, but automating everything is not a control improvement. How fun would Soul Caliber be if you only had 1 attack button and pressing it would execute the most effective attack at that instant?
And also, the "quick clicking" is not really bad at all. It is is a lot easier to micro one hero in dota than it is to play any RTS. Its just RTS with one hero, for god's sake! I dont know why this is even an issue. No one i've ever introduced Dota to has ever had any complaints about the clicking aspect of the game. I never even thought this would be a possible issue to learning the game.
What Scott is complaining about is that you have to be quick at clicking, which is an inherent part of RTS type games.
So if I make a game that is real time and you play it by controlling multiple units in a strategic way to win battles against other players, but in the gameplay there would be no use for fast and accurate mouse hand, wouldn't that be an RTS? Kinda past the topic but I have sometimes seen in Finnish game journalism a alternative term for RTS;es that could be translated as Real Time Clicking -games and I find that a lot more fitting name for the genre as it is currently.
Since he can not do this well, he fails to see any of the merits past this point and complains about them.
Allegory time. Let's say that there is a TV-series where there story and script is horrible, no matter how good the acting or the directing is I wouldn't like to watch that series because the most important part (for me, at least) is bad. Same works with games, if there is part of the gameplay that is annoying or other ways flawed I won't play the game no matter what good it has.
So if I make a game that is real time and you play it by controlling multiple units in a strategic way to win battles against other players, but in the gameplay there would be no use for fast and accurate mouse hand, wouldn't that be an RTS? Kinda past the topic but I have sometimes seen in Finnish game journalism a alternative term for RTS;es that could be translated as Real Time Clicking -games and I find that a lot more fitting name for the genre as it is currently.
I dont see how you can make a RTS that doesnt benefit from a fast and accurate mouse hand. You can make it so you dont need it to be able to play, but I dont see how you can make it so it wont help you at all. If you have to control multiple units in real time, faster, more accurate clicks is an advantage.
Allegory time. Let's say that there is a TV-series where there story and script is horrible, no matter how good the acting or the directing is I wouldn't like to watch that series because the most important part (for me, at least) is bad. Same works with games, if there is part of the gameplay that is annoying or other ways flawed I won't play the game no matter what good it has.
But the annoying/flawed part is based on Scott's opinion. To him this might be the case, but I think it is the opposite.
The thing is, it's arguable as to what exactly constitutes a control improvement. Is automatic aiming an improvement? That would ruin pretty much any FPS, would it not?
It would, but the analogy is a false one. The main idea is that the idea of last hits is a poor measure for "leveling up" one's avatar within HoN. A better comparison for leveling up one's character would be be proportional XP to the amount of damage done to an enemy. This isn't a difficult calculation and would prove to be a significantly improved representation of one's tactical prowess within the game than the idea of last hits. It would eliminate the pointlessness of clicking at the last second to gain XP and would allow players to take a more strategic approach instead of having to micro-manage their character. If there were better way to represent skill tests in FPS games, then I would be all for it, however there is none.
The controls are bad in the same way that starcraft is bad because you cant press a button to optimize mining for your workers.
Resource management via mining is pointless and should be phased out of RTS games all together. A better representation is the territory control based resources that Company of Heroes has, or just constant resources all together. I could discuss more of this should you want me to delve into it further.
The controls itself for Dota are very simple and follows the same scheme that an RTS does. You just select units and click to move, press button to use spells, etc. What Scott is complaining about is that you have to be quick at clicking, which is an inherent part of RTS type games.
A better system would be the PC Dragon Age controls where you can use WASD to physically move your character or use the click move. Also, for AOE attacks you should be able to place a marker where you want it to occur rather than having to guess where the AOE attack is going to occur by fiddling around with your character (The soulstealer hero comes to mind. It is impossible to know where your attack is going to land it's just annoying). While not all together a perfect solution, it would be better than the current HoN controls.
Good games do get better with control improvements, but automating everything is not a control improvement. How fun would Soul Caliber be if you only had 1 attack button and pressing it would execute the most effective attack at that instant?
I'm not arguing to automate everything, but rather change the fundamentals of the game to better represent the overall goal of the game.
And also, the "quick clicking" is not really bad at all. It is is a lot easier to micro one hero in dota than it is to play any RTS. Its just RTS with one hero, for god's sake! I dont know why this is even an issue. No one i've ever introduced Dota to has ever had any complaints about the clicking aspect of the game. I never even thought this would be a possible issue to learning the game.
Quick clicking for pointless reasons is annoying. I have no issue with the fundamental idea around whoever can time their clicks the best wins, but it should be tied to a reasonable activity as opposed to difficult for difficulty's sake activities.
The thing is, Last Hitting is FAR from necessary in order to gain experience. You gain XP just by being around your creeps that kill enemies, and Last Hitting only allows you to get a minuscule boos in XP, as well as a minuscule boost in gold. It's not even necessary OR incredibly difficult to do at all.
Andrew, the method you're speaking of IS how AoE is usually implemented in HoN, with Soulstealer being one of the only true exceptions to the rule. If you look at the Spell Description, it clearly states that the AOE effect is based on the direction you are facing.
I don't see how quickly selecting specific enemies to attack is anything but reasonable. I suspect that these complaints are spawned from a lack of experience with an RTS-style control scheme, which HoN does WONDERS to simplify.
No offense, Andrew, but this is why people shouldnt comment on the mechanics of a game until you understand them.
You gain full xp just by being around a creep, the gold is the only thing you either get or not get based on the last hit. You do not want to keep attacking the creeps, as it pushes your wave of creeps closer to the enemy tower and it is easier for you to get ganked. A system based on % of damage dealt to a creep definitely a detriment to the game. The way it is now definitely is the best way.
WASD wont work because the 4 keys giving 8 directions are not precise enough. Position is integral to this game and only a mouse (or maybe an analog stick, but then you wont have the mouse anymore to target spells) can provide accurate enough controls. Juking and weaving through trees would not be possible with WASD. Also, if your hand is on WASD for movement, you wont be able to access the keys for your other things as easy. Oh, and soulstealer's move lands at 3 set distances from where you are facing. You pretty much know exactly where it will land. It is not targeted because you dont have a choice, it is set to cast at specified distances. All other spells that target behave as you suggested.
Quick clicking for pointlessness is annoying but none of the clicking in Dota is pointless.
Ok...so you automatically get XP for doing nothing and yet you guys are complaining about what would happen if you automatically last hit creeps? You want to be next to creeps, but you don't want to attack them? What's the point of XP then?
The thing is, Last Hitting isFAR from necessaryin order to gain experience. You gain XP just bybeing around your creepsthat kill enemies, and Last Hitting only allows you to get a minuscule boost in XP, as well as a minuscule boost in gold. It's not even necessary OR incredibly difficult to do at all.
Then why have it? Again, it seems like the game is complicated for almost no reason.
WASD wont work because the 4 keys giving 8 directions are not precise enough. Position is integral to this game and only a mouse (or maybe an analog stick, but then you wont have the mouse anymore to target spells) can provide accurate enough controls. Juking and weaving through trees would not be possible with WASD. Also, if your hand is on WASD for movement, you wont be able to access the keys for your other things as easy. Oh, and soulstealer's move lands at 3 set distances from where you are facing. You pretty much know exactly where it will land. It is not targeted because you dont have a choice, it is set to cast at specified distances. All other spells that target behave as you suggested.
A better system would be the PC Dragon Age controls where you can use WASD to physically move your character or use the click move.
LOL lrn 2 reed. Have you played the Dragon Age controls in isometic mode? As for soulstealer, what's 3 set distances? There is no grid and it's almost impossible to get him to pivot in-place with the current controls.
Look, there is definitely a chance for HoN to be great, but until they tighten up the gameplay and get rid of useless stuff, I'll stay away.
I don't see how quickly selecting specific enemies to attack is anything but reasonable. I suspect that these complaints are spawned from a lack of experience with an RTS-style control scheme, which HoN does WONDERS to simplify.
Trust me, I've played tons of RTS games. Don't accuse me for not having experience when I've definitely played my fair share of them.
No offense, Andrew, but this is why people shouldnt comment on the mechanics of a game until you understand them.
Perhaps they shouldn't be so obtuse and pointless.
It would, but the analogy is a false one. The main idea is that the idea of last hits is a poor measure for "leveling up" one's avatar within HoN. A better comparison for leveling up one's character would be be proportional XP to the amount of damage done to an enemy. This isn't a difficult calculation and would prove to be a significantly improved representation of one's tactical prowess within the game than the idea of last hits. It would eliminate the pointlessness of clicking at the last second to gain XP and would allow players to take a more strategic approach instead of having to micro-manage their character. If there were better way to represent skill tests in FPS games, then I would be all for it, however there is none.
Having researched the mechanic, it seems that you get XP simply by being near enemies when they die, but you get gold by dealing the killing blow to an enemy creep. You could go one step further and have to pick up gold off the corpses of the mobs - that would be the best representation of collecting gold. However, this would require even more effort than the last hit mechanic, and so the last hit mechanic is a good compromise. As for XP, XP proportional to damage done isn't entirely representative of tactial prowess either. If your character is not one that is not a straight-up DPS hero, then no matter how well you use your abilities you're not going to do very much damage. Gaining XP for just participating in battle is a reasonable enough system.
However, with this approach, there are a couple of faults in the system that you could argue. Firstly, that killing your own creeps denies the enemy XP. If we're going by Andrew's idea of using the most logical mechanic, then this is silly. For previously-stated reasons, it makes sense for it to deny the enemy gold, but they should still get XP since the death of the creep was still indirectly caused by the opposing faction. Additionally, the fact that you are forced to move back and forth to avoid auto-attacking, rather than having the option of simply toggling this behaviour on and off, is a definite flaw.
How the hell is Last-Hitting "complicated"? It's an incredibly simple concept, and having an auto Last-Hit button is like having auto-aim in an FPS. Everyone would just go into a group of enemies and spam the Auto last-hit button all the time, which would be incredibly stupid.
I don't see an issue at all with the mechanic of XP gain. Obviously, your creeps won't kill anything if you don't contribute to the push, since both sides are getting an equal number. They'll just kill each other slowly and evenly if no outside push is made. If you don't do anything as a Hero, you'll gain XP incredibly slowly, and you won't progress anywhere.
It's not hard to pivot a character at all! Just right-click on the direction you want them to face, then press Halt (which is usually set to H). I don't think any of you guys utilize the Attack/Halt commands whatsoever.
What's even easier is that HoN allows you to change your control scheme!
All four of the Spell buttons are programmed to Q,W,E, and R, and all your Action buttons can be programmed to A (Attack) and S (Stop), or D and F. Then, you can rest your fingers on QWER, and easily shift them when necessary.
I have a friend that uses ASDW for Map control, 1234 for Spell control, Q for Halt, and E for Attack. The setup is fully customizable, and it works for him. If you have a problem with THESE simplified controls, then I really can't help but question which RTS games you've played in the past.
How the hell is Last-Hitting "complicated"? It's an incredibly simple concept, and having an auto Last-Hit button is like having auto-aim in an FPS. Everyone would just go into a group of enemies and spam the Auto last-hit button all the time, which would be incredibly stupid
It in of itself is not complicated, but it just serves to provide needless micro for a very little to no benefit (by your words). Don't add an auto button, just remove the principle itself.
It's not hard to pivot a character at all! Just right-click on the direction you want them to face, then press Halt (which is usually set to H). I don't think any of you guys utilize the Attack/Halt commands whatsoever.
You should just be able to hold right click and adjust a direction manually similar to tanks in Company of Heroes. Or Dawn of War. Or Men of War. But maybe you haven't played those RTS games...
What's even easier is that HoN allows you to change your control scheme!
Changing the button mapping doesn't make the control scheme any easier or more difficult.
It in of itself is not complicated, but it just serves to provide needless micro for a very little to no benefit (by your words). Don't add an auto button, just remove the principle itself.
Yes. It's not complicated, but there is a BIG difference between not being necessary and not being beneficial. I never said that you don't benefit from Last-Hitting. All I said was that the rewards aren't humongous, and you won't be set back by ignoring the mechanic. I don't see how Last-Hitting is at all a detriment to the game.
You should just be able to hold right click and adjust a direction manually similar to tanks in Company of Heroes. Or Dawn of War. Or Men of War. But maybe you haven't played those RTS games...
I actually have played both CoH and DoW (as well as DoW2, which I prefer heavily), both in very competitive atmospheres, so I'm well aware of the mechanic. Even so, I don't see how Right-Click -> Halt is any more difficult than Hold Right-click -> Drag. The drag-direction mechanic is far too slow for HoN, and isn't even necessary for most of the Heroes. By the time you Right-click on your own unit and drag in the direction of the opponent, the opposing hero would already be long gone from your range.
Changing the button mapping doesn't make the control scheme any easier or more difficult.
Of course it does. The controls themselves are already so simple in HoN, making the inputs that much easier to access is beneficial.
Yes. It's not complicated, but there is a BIG difference between not being necessary and not being beneficial. I never said that you don't benefit from Last-Hitting. All I said was that the rewards aren't humongous, and you won't be set back by ignoring the mechanic.
That's a contradiction. The lack of something beneficial must be a setback.
Even so, I don't see how Right-Click -> Halt is any more difficult than Hold Right-click -> Drag.
Here, I agree.
Of course it does. The controls themselves are already so simple in HoN, making the inputs that much easier to access is beneficial.
The ability to change button mappings is a benefit, but any game that doesn't offer remapping is, quite simply, doing it wrong.
However, VentureJ, can you tell my why the only way to keep your character from auto-attacking is to spam other commands? What justification is there for this mechanic?
No offense, Andrew, but this is why people shouldnt comment on the mechanics of a game until you understand them.
I understand HoN and DotA perfectly. My problem with the games is that with understanding came intense dislike.
You gain full xp just by being around a creep, the gold is the only thing you either get or not get based on the last hit. You do not want to keep attacking the creeps, as it pushes your wave of creeps closer to the enemy tower and it is easier for you to get ganked. A system based on % of damage dealt to a creep definitely a detriment to the game. The way it is now definitely is the best way.
It's my opinion that the majority of the strategy in this game can only be enacted through the fiddly implementation of what I personally find to be stupid and tedious actions. You're all free to enjoy these actions, but I stand by the words "stupid" and "tedious" in my opinion. They push most of the game part of HoN into a meta realm: the game itself is no longer a sensical analogy of the underlying mechanics, but instead an abstraction, the true mechanics of play existing outside of its semantic reality. This is common primarily in amateur or very old games, and in my opinion indicates sloppy conceptual design.
Quick clicking for pointlessness is annoying but none of the clicking in Dota is pointless.
It's not pointless in the context of the game, because the game encourages and rewards it. It is pointless from the conceptual design perspective, however, because the mechanism design that therefore results serves no useful purpose and, I would argue, is actually detrimental to the community around the game.
Then why have it? Again, it seems like the game is complicated for almost no reason.
Excess complication is used primarily to obfuscate weak core mechanics. You must be wary of any very complicated game. Some extremely complicated games are wonderful and deep, but most are simply non-games hidden beneath incomprehensible layers of what can only be called obfuscation. The core games are weak or non-existent, but complexity is added to prevent players from grokking the core. This is the primary mechanic of many, many flash games.
Fast clicking is not in and of itself bad. RTSs are not bad in and of themselves. My core arguments against HoN being a good game are above. Its conceptual design is sloppy, its mechanism design fosters a pretty shit-headed community, its core mechanics are not analogized well, and what strategic gameplay there is both exists primarily in the meta realm and requires tedious, unstimulating execution.
On the issue of control, the typical RTS is a game where you need to control a bunch of units. The control scheme is one in which you control large groups with a very broad brush. You tell a squad of infantry to walk to a specific spot, and you have no control whatsoever over the path they take, or the paths the individual troops walk. Some more recent games allow you to set formation, or even to waypoint the path. Even so, you are not controlling every single footstep. If you really want to, you can give them tons and tons of extremely small orders to make sure they do almost exactly what you want, but that is a huge pain in the ass.
In DotA/HoN games, you are typically controlling only one unit. Thus, you are able to give your undivided attention to this unit. The controls for RTSes were only so broad-brush because that is the only way to reasonably control large numbers of units. Using that same exact non-subtle control scheme when there is typically only one unit under your control, and no buildings to worry about, it just moronic. It's just as moronic as if you used Robotron controls in Command & Conquer. There is no reason not to use some other control mechanism that grants complete, intuitive, and subtle control over every single step, facing, and action of your hero.
A Halt button? Seriously? Imagine if you were playing Mario and pressing right just once made Mario start walking right until you pushed the stop button. The only reason that these games have this control scheme is because the original was a Warcraft 3 mod and inherited the controls from Warcraft 3. And now because the genre is tied up in an insular hardcore community, they don't even think about changing it because they are used to it.
In a way, it's a lot like Microsoft Office. There are a lot better ways to design the user interface of Microsoft Office, but they can't change it. The users of Microsoft Office are extremely familiar with the old interface, so any big changes to it will be perceived negatively by the existing userbase. They have new user interfaces they have created that have been shown in studies to be easier to learn for new users, and have also been shown to be more efficient for users who have gotten used to the new interface. However, they have to implement these changes very slowly over time because people prefer the familiar to the superior.
And this is a large part of the problem here. You say that we only played these games for a few hours, and are therefore somehow less qualified to comment on them than someone who has played them extensively. But that's exactly the problem here. You have played these games extensively, and have become accustomed to their bullshit. That bullshit has become second nature to you, so you no longer realize how bad it is. Your experience is blinding you to the negative aspects because you already have a set of ingrown expectations and understandings that new users do not have. The same is almost definitely true of the game's developers. If they had chosen to do tests with random people off the street instead of a closed beta for existing fans, they would have had the opportunity to uncover these flaws which are invisible to the trained eye.
I'd argue that you don't, in fact, understand HoN or DotA perfectly. Considering your last few posts, It was obvious that you didn't at all take advantage of a good number of the positional commands given to you (Attack, Halt), which also reflects a lack of experience with the control scheme. I doubt you formulated any sort of plan, nor partook in any sort of coordination with your teammates.
Edit: Also, Scott. That's completely wrong on your part. If a part of the game is Bullshit, then no matter how long you've played it or how much you tolerate it to play the game, you can still recognize that it's bullshit. Further experience of a game only serves to underline just how bullshit a certain mechanic is, yet people really aren't complaining about mechanics like last-hit and denial in the same way you guys are. I understand that a lack of an auto-attack switch is Bullshit, yes, but the other criticisms you guys made were spawned from inexperience and are unwarranted.
What makes the game so great is that it is a culmination of the Top-down RPG's that people love so much (like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's gate, or Dungeon Siege), while inheriting the competitive nature and interface of other popular RTS's (like Warcraft, Starcraft, DoW, CoH, etc.). If you have a problem with HoN's core mechanics, then you have a problem with those genres as a whole, and I can't help you with those issues at all.
Edit: Scott...you're actually questioning the stupidity of a Halt button? You've said it yourself, ALL RTS games have implemented a Halt feature in the past, and it will continue to be implemented BECAUSE it is an absolute necessity. I can't see how a Halt command can be implemented any simpler than pressing a single button for halting. I suggest sticking to Turn-Based Strategy games, if you continue to find HoN (or any other RTS, for that matter) to be too complicated.
Regarding the more HoN-exclusive mechanics, you continue to put so much stress on mechanics like "last hit" and "denial", that you completely lose sight of the fundamentals of the game. Your words "Excess complication" implies that the level of complexity in HoN is far more than what it needs to be, but I could easily argue the opposite. Last-Hit is nonessential yet advantageous, same with Denial. They are all optional mechanics that each have a beneficial purpose, but can be left alone for more pressing matters.
Fast clicking is not in and of itself bad. RTSs are not bad in and of themselves. My core arguments against HoN being a good game are above. Its conceptual design is sloppy, its mechanism design fosters a pretty shit-headed community, its core mechanics are not analogized well, and what strategic gameplay there is both exists primarily in the meta realm and requires tedious, unstimulating execution.
Go into specifics, then. How is the conceptual design sloppy? How are the core mechanics not analogized well?
Actually, don't.
This is a thread about HoN and the people who play it. If you don't enjoy the game, then so be it. I'm sure you've already made up your mind about it, and any further discourse is ultimately for naught. You've already expressed your opinion, and if your sole purpose is to critique the game and question the integrity of those who play it, then all you are doing is making yourself look like an arrogant douchebag.
I think the problem is clear that you are thinking too much within the box. Go play a game like metal marines or Defcon, they are real time strategy games that retain few of the cliches of the more popular games in the genre. You will see that you can have a strategy game in real time that hardly resembles the stereotypical entry in the genre. Hell, look at the NS command chair!
Even just thinking about the theme of RTS games. You are a commander giving orders to troops. What kind of orders does a real military commander give? He might say something like "Attack the fort from the east with rockets at noon." He doesn't say to each individual troop "walk left two feet, now turn and move right again, now fire at that guy in the blue shirt, now run away, now do this". That is the realm of the action game, not of the strategy game.
Strategy games are all about making decisions on an abstracted level, and assuming the lower level details follow a statistically average result. This is why we have strategy games of every different abstraction level. That's how the real-world works. The government says "invade country X." That order goes to the top of the chain where they break it down, and as the orders go down and down the ranks all the way to the individual soldier, details are added along every step of the way. Each step in the hierarchy only worries about their particular level of abstraction. A captain on a ship might order exactly which cannons to fire, at which targets, at which specific times. An admiral of a fleet will simply order the fleet to attack the fort at noon from the east.
The problem with the typical RTS these days is it requires the admiral to do the work of all the captains, and sometimes even the average sailors. That level of micro-management removes the emphasis on strategic decision making and increases the emphasis on efficient manipulation of unnecessarily complex and faulty user interfaces.
DotA/HoN has sort of a weird problem in this mix. It takes a clumsy user interface that is designed for control of many units from an abstracted level, and forces you to use it to control an individual unit. Imagine a five star general given the task of commanding just one foot soldier. Run two steps left! Now run two steps right! Fire two bullets at that guy! Turn around a run ten feet, then turn around! That's what playing this game is like.
Because you are only controlling one foot soldier, they need to give you the controls of the foot soldier, not the controls of the army commander. Give me direct and complete control of each and every footstep, each and every shot fired with controls more like that of an action game. Or, alternatively, allow me to control armies of creeps. The RTS UI is meant for controlling armies, so give me some armies to control.
Just to drive the point home, imagine the reverse. Imagine trying to play a game like Risk or Civilization 4 with the user interface from X-Com. You have to control the crouching, steps, aim, and individual actions of every single unit in the entire global military force. Terrible!
Just to drive the point home, imagine the reverse. Imagine trying to play a game like Risk or Civilization 4 with the user interface from X-Com. You have to control the crouching, steps, aim, and individual actions of every single unit in the entire global military force. Terrible!
Imagine a one-soldier game with the interface of X-Com. It would be terrible. That's exactly what DotA/HoN is, effectively.
The advantage of having RTS controls in a game like HoN is that you can order commands to your unit while you're looking at a completely different screen. You can command your hero to patrol the Right-lane, while monitoring the progress of an ally hero in a completely different lane. You can't really do that in regular WASD controls. Plus, the control scheme (once again) is reminiscent of the more common top-down RPG's like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, and Dungeon Siege. You control 1 unit (2-3 depending on the Hero/Game) using these exact controls, and they worked quite well.
The only real difference between HoN and NN/BG/DS is that the leveling is self-contained, and maps/creeps are tuned for multiplayer competitive combat instead of co-operative dungeon-running.
That could easily be solved if the camera could be zoomed out significantly.
YES! OMG. I completely forgot. The camera in this game is so annoying that you can not zoom it out. There is no reason I should not be able to zoom out all the way and also zoom in all the way.
Plus, the control scheme (once again) is reminiscent of the more common top-down RPG's like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, and Dungeon Siege. You control 1 unit (2-3 depending on the Hero/Game) using these exact controls, and they worked quite well.
I can't tell about rest of those games, but Baldur's Gate at least wasn't real time, and if it would have been it would have sucked (even more than it does now, I kinda don't enjoy that game.)
Comments
Knowing when to attack, when to defend, and when to retreat is all included from the get-go. Even if you're just attacking creeps, your ultimate goal is to help your creeps push forward, with consideration of your opponent's heroes. Mechanics like Last-Hitting are only implemented to further maximize that effort. Creep blocking IS another strategic element of the game, since you're slowing down your own creeps to further boost the timing of your overall attacks.
It's disappointing that the what is turning you off from the game is the IDEA of the game (and the community), as opposed to the game itself. When we played, you didn't seem to have too much of a problem with anything, and you were having fun.
This isn't a turn-based game, Scott. It is played in REAL TIME, so speed of execution is inherently a factor in the game. Chess analogies do not and cannot apply.
Plus, High-Level chess IS timed. You have 10 minutes TOTAL for all your moves, and you have to clock in as quickly as possible each turn to conserve thinking-time for future moves. If you accidentally place a piece in the wrong square and you let go, you cannot revoke your move unless it is an inherently illegal move to make, and even then, you'd be wasting precious time.
Your proposed Robotron control scheme would be even MORE mindless, since instead of saying "I want to target THIS enemy", you'll be saying "I want to attack that-a-way". All you'll be doing is pointing in which direction you want to attack, and there'll be no way to specifically indicate where you want your AoE spells to take effect.
Edit: And an auto-Last Hit/Deny button? Really? At least with those two mechanics, you'd have to pay attention to your surroundings. If that button were to exist, all people would be doing is going near a group of enemies and spamming it.
Edit: Come to think of it, Scott. Have you even tried to do any Last Hitting/Creep Blocking yourself? I cannot at all say that I'm a fast-clicking RTS person, but even I can do that. They're not even essential parts of the game, if your tactics don't call for it.
Scott, your complaining about this game is like me complaining about Natural Selection. I can say that Natural Selection is a terrible game, because of all the Bullcrap pointing and shooting that I have to do. Why can't I just have a button that lets me attack my opponents immediately, without me having to aim and shoot? THEN, it'll be a true test of strategy and cooperation, instead of twitchy BS aiming and fast moving!
Utimately, Scott, you're making a subjective judgement about DoTA - you're saying that you don't enjoy the game of quickly clicking on the low-HP mob, but you do enjoy the game of quickly clicking on the enemy's head. The thing is, it's arguable as to what exactly constitutes a control improvement. Is automatic aiming an improvement? That would ruin pretty much any FPS, would it not?
And also, the "quick clicking" is not really bad at all. It is is a lot easier to micro one hero in dota than it is to play any RTS. Its just RTS with one hero, for god's sake! I dont know why this is even an issue. No one i've ever introduced Dota to has ever had any complaints about the clicking aspect of the game. I never even thought this would be a possible issue to learning the game.
Allegory time. Let's say that there is a TV-series where there story and script is horrible, no matter how good the acting or the directing is I wouldn't like to watch that series because the most important part (for me, at least) is bad. Same works with games, if there is part of the gameplay that is annoying or other ways flawed I won't play the game no matter what good it has.
Andrew, the method you're speaking of IS how AoE is usually implemented in HoN, with Soulstealer being one of the only true exceptions to the rule. If you look at the Spell Description, it clearly states that the AOE effect is based on the direction you are facing.
I don't see how quickly selecting specific enemies to attack is anything but reasonable. I suspect that these complaints are spawned from a lack of experience with an RTS-style control scheme, which HoN does WONDERS to simplify.
You gain full xp just by being around a creep, the gold is the only thing you either get or not get based on the last hit. You do not want to keep attacking the creeps, as it pushes your wave of creeps closer to the enemy tower and it is easier for you to get ganked. A system based on % of damage dealt to a creep definitely a detriment to the game. The way it is now definitely is the best way.
WASD wont work because the 4 keys giving 8 directions are not precise enough. Position is integral to this game and only a mouse (or maybe an analog stick, but then you wont have the mouse anymore to target spells) can provide accurate enough controls. Juking and weaving through trees would not be possible with WASD. Also, if your hand is on WASD for movement, you wont be able to access the keys for your other things as easy. Oh, and soulstealer's move lands at 3 set distances from where you are facing. You pretty much know exactly where it will land. It is not targeted because you dont have a choice, it is set to cast at specified distances. All other spells that target behave as you suggested.
Quick clicking for pointlessness is annoying but none of the clicking in Dota is pointless.
Look, there is definitely a chance for HoN to be great, but until they tighten up the gameplay and get rid of useless stuff, I'll stay away. Trust me, I've played tons of RTS games. Don't accuse me for not having experience when I've definitely played my fair share of them. Perhaps they shouldn't be so obtuse and pointless.
However, with this approach, there are a couple of faults in the system that you could argue. Firstly, that killing your own creeps denies the enemy XP. If we're going by Andrew's idea of using the most logical mechanic, then this is silly. For previously-stated reasons, it makes sense for it to deny the enemy gold, but they should still get XP since the death of the creep was still indirectly caused by the opposing faction. Additionally, the fact that you are forced to move back and forth to avoid auto-attacking, rather than having the option of simply toggling this behaviour on and off, is a definite flaw.
I don't see an issue at all with the mechanic of XP gain. Obviously, your creeps won't kill anything if you don't contribute to the push, since both sides are getting an equal number. They'll just kill each other slowly and evenly if no outside push is made. If you don't do anything as a Hero, you'll gain XP incredibly slowly, and you won't progress anywhere.
It's not hard to pivot a character at all! Just right-click on the direction you want them to face, then press Halt (which is usually set to H). I don't think any of you guys utilize the Attack/Halt commands whatsoever.
What's even easier is that HoN allows you to change your control scheme!
All four of the Spell buttons are programmed to Q,W,E, and R, and all your Action buttons can be programmed to A (Attack) and S (Stop), or D and F. Then, you can rest your fingers on QWER, and easily shift them when necessary.
I have a friend that uses ASDW for Map control, 1234 for Spell control, Q for Halt, and E for Attack. The setup is fully customizable, and it works for him. If you have a problem with THESE simplified controls, then I really can't help but question which RTS games you've played in the past.
However, VentureJ, can you tell my why the only way to keep your character from auto-attacking is to spam other commands? What justification is there for this mechanic?
Fast clicking is not in and of itself bad. RTSs are not bad in and of themselves. My core arguments against HoN being a good game are above. Its conceptual design is sloppy, its mechanism design fosters a pretty shit-headed community, its core mechanics are not analogized well, and what strategic gameplay there is both exists primarily in the meta realm and requires tedious, unstimulating execution.
In DotA/HoN games, you are typically controlling only one unit. Thus, you are able to give your undivided attention to this unit. The controls for RTSes were only so broad-brush because that is the only way to reasonably control large numbers of units. Using that same exact non-subtle control scheme when there is typically only one unit under your control, and no buildings to worry about, it just moronic. It's just as moronic as if you used Robotron controls in Command & Conquer. There is no reason not to use some other control mechanism that grants complete, intuitive, and subtle control over every single step, facing, and action of your hero.
A Halt button? Seriously? Imagine if you were playing Mario and pressing right just once made Mario start walking right until you pushed the stop button. The only reason that these games have this control scheme is because the original was a Warcraft 3 mod and inherited the controls from Warcraft 3. And now because the genre is tied up in an insular hardcore community, they don't even think about changing it because they are used to it.
In a way, it's a lot like Microsoft Office. There are a lot better ways to design the user interface of Microsoft Office, but they can't change it. The users of Microsoft Office are extremely familiar with the old interface, so any big changes to it will be perceived negatively by the existing userbase. They have new user interfaces they have created that have been shown in studies to be easier to learn for new users, and have also been shown to be more efficient for users who have gotten used to the new interface. However, they have to implement these changes very slowly over time because people prefer the familiar to the superior.
And this is a large part of the problem here. You say that we only played these games for a few hours, and are therefore somehow less qualified to comment on them than someone who has played them extensively. But that's exactly the problem here. You have played these games extensively, and have become accustomed to their bullshit. That bullshit has become second nature to you, so you no longer realize how bad it is. Your experience is blinding you to the negative aspects because you already have a set of ingrown expectations and understandings that new users do not have. The same is almost definitely true of the game's developers. If they had chosen to do tests with random people off the street instead of a closed beta for existing fans, they would have had the opportunity to uncover these flaws which are invisible to the trained eye.
Edit: Also, Scott. That's completely wrong on your part. If a part of the game is Bullshit, then no matter how long you've played it or how much you tolerate it to play the game, you can still recognize that it's bullshit. Further experience of a game only serves to underline just how bullshit a certain mechanic is, yet people really aren't complaining about mechanics like last-hit and denial in the same way you guys are. I understand that a lack of an auto-attack switch is Bullshit, yes, but the other criticisms you guys made were spawned from inexperience and are unwarranted.
What makes the game so great is that it is a culmination of the Top-down RPG's that people love so much (like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's gate, or Dungeon Siege), while inheriting the competitive nature and interface of other popular RTS's (like Warcraft, Starcraft, DoW, CoH, etc.). If you have a problem with HoN's core mechanics, then you have a problem with those genres as a whole, and I can't help you with those issues at all.
Edit: Scott...you're actually questioning the stupidity of a Halt button? You've said it yourself, ALL RTS games have implemented a Halt feature in the past, and it will continue to be implemented BECAUSE it is an absolute necessity. I can't see how a Halt command can be implemented any simpler than pressing a single button for halting. I suggest sticking to Turn-Based Strategy games, if you continue to find HoN (or any other RTS, for that matter) to be too complicated.
Regarding the more HoN-exclusive mechanics, you continue to put so much stress on mechanics like "last hit" and "denial", that you completely lose sight of the fundamentals of the game. Your words "Excess complication" implies that the level of complexity in HoN is far more than what it needs to be, but I could easily argue the opposite. Last-Hit is nonessential yet advantageous, same with Denial. They are all optional mechanics that each have a beneficial purpose, but can be left alone for more pressing matters. Go into specifics, then. How is the conceptual design sloppy? How are the core mechanics not analogized well?
Actually, don't.
This is a thread about HoN and the people who play it. If you don't enjoy the game, then so be it. I'm sure you've already made up your mind about it, and any further discourse is ultimately for naught. You've already expressed your opinion, and if your sole purpose is to critique the game and question the integrity of those who play it, then all you are doing is making yourself look like an arrogant douchebag.
Even just thinking about the theme of RTS games. You are a commander giving orders to troops. What kind of orders does a real military commander give? He might say something like "Attack the fort from the east with rockets at noon." He doesn't say to each individual troop "walk left two feet, now turn and move right again, now fire at that guy in the blue shirt, now run away, now do this". That is the realm of the action game, not of the strategy game.
Strategy games are all about making decisions on an abstracted level, and assuming the lower level details follow a statistically average result. This is why we have strategy games of every different abstraction level. That's how the real-world works. The government says "invade country X." That order goes to the top of the chain where they break it down, and as the orders go down and down the ranks all the way to the individual soldier, details are added along every step of the way. Each step in the hierarchy only worries about their particular level of abstraction. A captain on a ship might order exactly which cannons to fire, at which targets, at which specific times. An admiral of a fleet will simply order the fleet to attack the fort at noon from the east.
The problem with the typical RTS these days is it requires the admiral to do the work of all the captains, and sometimes even the average sailors. That level of micro-management removes the emphasis on strategic decision making and increases the emphasis on efficient manipulation of unnecessarily complex and faulty user interfaces.
DotA/HoN has sort of a weird problem in this mix. It takes a clumsy user interface that is designed for control of many units from an abstracted level, and forces you to use it to control an individual unit. Imagine a five star general given the task of commanding just one foot soldier. Run two steps left! Now run two steps right! Fire two bullets at that guy! Turn around a run ten feet, then turn around! That's what playing this game is like.
Because you are only controlling one foot soldier, they need to give you the controls of the foot soldier, not the controls of the army commander. Give me direct and complete control of each and every footstep, each and every shot fired with controls more like that of an action game. Or, alternatively, allow me to control armies of creeps. The RTS UI is meant for controlling armies, so give me some armies to control.
Just to drive the point home, imagine the reverse. Imagine trying to play a game like Risk or Civilization 4 with the user interface from X-Com. You have to control the crouching, steps, aim, and individual actions of every single unit in the entire global military force. Terrible!
The only real difference between HoN and NN/BG/DS is that the leveling is self-contained, and maps/creeps are tuned for multiplayer competitive combat instead of co-operative dungeon-running.