Minecraft PvP Map Lesmor: An Early Breakdown

I initially wrote the second section, "The Take Away", to provide initial play test feedback, but after writing, I felt that it had a little bit of formatted substance which would fit perfectly as a blog post. So here we are. I have included an additional introduction to explain this map for those who may not be familiar.

All numbers preceded with a "~" are approximations since I do not recall the exact value, but I feel that each ~# give a general perspective on how that mechanic may interact throughout the game.

A Map Introduction

To set the stage, Lesmor (by Ausxh and OC) is a team based Minecraft PvP map where 1 match consists of a team winning 10 rounds. Each round ends when all players on a team have been killed, a central control point is captured (~7 seconds), or time expires (~5 minutes). A draw occurs if time expires, at least 1 player on each team remains, and the point has not been captured. All players have 1 life per round and are outfitted with a basic kit of a bow, ~10 blocks, leather armour, knockback wood sword, and ~64 arrows. Saturation is given. The map is spatially small and mildly asymmetric. Building and mining can take place during a round but the map is reset/rebuilt after each round.

A few locations of interest include; (1) red spawn, (2) blue spawn, (3) the capture point, and (4) the ender pearl hill. On the ender pearl hill, there is an elevated chest (out of reach without building) with 1 ender pearl in it. This acts as the first map objective and is usually contested at the start of each round.

At the end of each round, points are awarded to the teams. ~1 point for each enemy player eliminated, ~2 points for a win, ~1 point for a loss, ~1 point to each team in the event of a draw. With these points, teams can choose from a list of upgrades to buy.

Powerups can only be purchased once per round and apply to only 1 player. They are lost at the end of the round. Win condition forces a match victory if the holder of the power up captures the control point. Buildings place predesigned structures onto the map and are automatically replaced after every round once purchased. The TNT shed and blocksmith provide a (nearly infinite, in the scope of a round) supply of their respective blocks, while the other structures reinforce and define choke points. Every structure includes; (1) blue blocksmith, (2) blue tower, (3) red tower, (4) red blocksmith, (5) red bridge, (6) blue blockade, (7) red blockade, (8) blue bridge, (9) red TNT shed, (10) blue TNT shed.

I played the map a handful of times with teams of 3.

The Take Away

Interesting mechanics in the map include; the ability to edit the voxel world (as with most maps), the economy, and the changing of the map with structure purchases. At a certain point (after some round n), the player realizes that any thoughtful map/voxel edits become pointless to invest time in, the economy becomes static with sole purchases of power bows, and all wanted structures are purchased. From here the game snowballs into a raw Minecraft PvP mechanic simulator, and it is safe to say that raw Minecraft PvP mechanics are awful. Shifting game play towards the interesting map mechanics and away from raw Minecraft PvP mechanics should and can be achieved by strengthening the interesting mechanics to be continuous and persistent through multiple rounds in a match (action in one round have an effective in another round).

The time sink for obtaining resources relative to the potential and maximum round length is too great for constructing fortifications, TNT cannons, or mobility infrastructure all for it to disappear at the end of the round. The extra 8 to 10 seconds is enough for the other team to take a pivotal lead in the round through map control or objective (not specifically the actual capture point) play. If player built structures persist it might be a valid trade for losing a round. A level redesign and/or restrictions/rules to persistent building are probably necessary for this route.

The problem with the static bow economy is that the economy, an interesting mechanic, becomes an active play for only 1 player every round after n rounds. Structures and other non player targeted purchases are great since they continue to be an active play mechanic that can be manipulated by any player throughout the duration of a round. This idea may have been lost in transition from Counter Strike. Weapons dropping after player deaths, as seen in CS, keep the economic investment as an active, more complicated, and therefore more interesting, play mechanic for other players. The removal of purchases applying to single players in favour of team wide upgrades would be fine. If player based purchases are to persist, there should be a lot more player targeted purchases to make; more than number of players and what is economically possible. Somewhere greater than number of players * 3 maybe.

Purchasing of structures is concluded after n→5 rounds; 25% - 50% of the game. The static economy becomes a consequence and players can no longer edit the voxel properties of the map with lasting intentions (purchasing structures). Structure purchasing can then solve both problems. If purchased structures are cleared after a defeat, every round, or player caused destruction is persistent across rounds, it could lead to greater economic decision making through counter playing. Structures should continue to server 1 of 3 purposes; choke point creation/offensive position, choke point counter/defensive position, resource (blocks, TNT, tools, weapons) stash. By making structures dynamic across rounds a strategic drafting match can then be played between teams by applying economic pressure and forcing a team to chose what they value. A choke point that worked well last round but can be countered this round? A set of defensive structures to "save" economically? Resources to focus on structure denial and outplay potential? In an obviously one sided match; winning economy should give a structures advantage, or losing economy should not give a structure advantage. Round pay outs would need to be increased to some function of n rounds.

From changes to the structure system, players that want to make long term edits to the map can now continue to do so past round n since structure denial and counter plays would be introduced. This applies a force to the economy of each team forcing a variation of purchases. Interesting and fun mechanics offered by the map are then reinforced and made more prevalent instead of reliance on the generic raw Minecraft PvP mechanics.

TF2: Mechanic Feedback and Learning Curves

A recent video (seriously a great video; a must watch) raised the idea that TF2's single fire weapon design makes the action of shooting fun, but this mechanic also teaches the player about the game itself.

In this context, a single fire weapon is a single user action causing one instance of a large amount of damage. TF2's scatter/shotgun, sniper rifle, and rocket launcher are all examples. In Dota2 this mechanic is called a "nuke", as demonstrated by laguna blade, a critical hit, or the active on the a dagon. All are one non repeatable action causing significant damage.

As mentioned by LazyPurple (watch the video), using single fire weapons or nukes are extremely satisfying because of the significance of the action. A hit confirms your ability as a player to have successful hand eye coordination, a tangible skill, that then causes real measurable damage to the enemy. For that brief moment the player is notified and rewarded for skillful action.

But there are also implications as a new player.

Entering a new game fresh can be overwhelming. There are a lot of new sounds, images, and actions to recognize and understand. Single fire reduces the amount of noise and graphical clutter which in turn will help a player pick out and identify the sources of different sounds/graphics, a key learning barrier in many games. The reduction also limits the amount of overall information the player has to process, solving the overwhelming feeling of playing a new game.

Another obstacle a new player faces is determining if what they are doing is productive, or worthwhile. When damage committed is noticeable it sends feedback to the player that they accomplished something, since their action was worthy of been registered.

As a result of the preceding attributes, single fire weapons or nukes are a great tool for new and existing players. They create noticeable feedback that tells the player they have successfully executed the mechanic. It provides an exhilarating action with a high skill cap for veteran players, while also creating an experience friendly for new players.

TF2 executes these ideas perfectly and they are examined in detail in (WATCH IT!) this amazing video.

Cube World: Contradictory Mechanics

I was asked jokingly to share my thoughts about the infamous Cube World. I took the request as both an insult and a challenge but alas I failed the challenge and continue to be insulted by the request.
So here we go.

For those uninitiated: Cube World is a procedural generated open world RPG.

Cube World does not have a current version available for download so I had to dig around for a copy from what I imagine is a half decade ago. It was noted as an alpha, but none the less should have the initial mechanics intended by the designer. An alpha, in my humble opinion, should contain base game experience so that the testers, you and I, the fools for purchasing early access, are able to generate usable feed back on the game for the designer to work from.

With such a philosophy in mind, some of the core mechanics, exploration and combat, were either missing or felt controversial to the core game play. Initially these mechanics feel independent to one another, but instead of inspecting them solely as separate ideas, they can also be compared together by how they either compliment or disfavour each other.

[Cube World]

Spawning into the game presents a landscape ripe with mystery. Bright colours, obscure structures, and dramatic landscapes are fantastic tools for obtaining the player's attention. Cube World immediately communicates and emphasizes that it is about exploring the world. Character movement feels quick and responsive making every movement feel worth the player's time, it is an enjoyable world to be in. Flashback to early 3D platformers where you cross dead space while holding down an auxiliary move button to keep yourself interested. I'm looking at you Legend of Zelda roll button. In addition to being an interesting world, the world is random and endless, providing an exciting fresh non linear experience every step. Exploring feels great in Cube World.

[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time]

Combat is boring. And by extension; enemies are boring. These observations are from early in the game since I did not progress very far. Melee creatures run at you in a direct path at the same speed that you move at. Ranged enemies follow the same pattern stopping short of the player and shooting directly at them. The ability to kite or mislead the enemy is impossible or nullified due to the speed in which they move and the perfect path that they take. Any interesting or complex actions are left to the weapon mechanics which are also lacking. Most weapons are 1 dimensional by dealing damage through pressing its respective button. An advanced weapon may also have a secondary ability found as a charged attack with an equally exciting execution; holding down and releasing its respective button. Combat is reduced to single button mashing with brief periods of secondary button holding. Simple combat rules are negligible if enemy health is in proportion to damage per blow. Attacking in Cube World however feels meaningless since so little damage is done to your enemy per blow, with most single enemy battles lasting around 20 to 30 seconds. Generally, 3 enemies are able to deplete all life resources, and most enemies spawn in packs of 3. Thus a spiral of death and mindless frustration occurs. Enemy design needs to be approached to allow for a friendly introduction of lower health enemies with a potentially more forgiving AI, transitioning into a more dynamic AI that can provide epic long fights. Fighting needs to allow for abstract player interaction and have its difficulty be rooted from mechanical execution and dynamic battle movements.

[Cube World]

Together, the environment of exploration and the combat with enemies contradict each other. On one hand the game presents an enticing free flowing world which is interesting, open, and dynamic. On the other hand game progression is based on experience earned through combat which is a very slow, linear, and provides an uninspiring experience. There is no purpose to exploration since its progression; finding castles, dungeons, and towns, is relied upon being able to explore them, which in turn is congested by fighting enemies. If the act of exploration is slowed down, or combat sped up, these mechanics would compliment each other and provide a more satisfying experience.

But perhaps, as I was told by a viewer in my Twitch live stream of Cube World:

Thoughts on the Upcoming Professional Dota 2 Season

It is the night before The International and all through my house, not a creature is awake EXCEPT ME BECAUSE I AM EXCITED!

But along with TI comes the end of the professional Dota 2 season, where most teams will shuffle their rosters. The difference this year is that Valve is implementing a tournament format where partnered organizers will host tournaments throughout the year, and they will distribute ranking points to the attendees based on their performance. Sound familiar? I happened to outline this exact system 1 month before it was announced.

Today the schedule of when these partnered tournaments are going to happen was released.

A few quick points about the upcoming season:

• "Major" tournaments have a $1 000 000 base prize pool
• "Minor" tournaments have a $300 000 base prize pool
• Both tournaments are required to have a LAN final
• Both tournaments are required to have 6 qualifiers from each Valve recognized region
• Every tournament will have different valued ranking points
• More tournament ranking points will be given out later in the season
• Rankings will determine who receives an invite to The International 2018
• Entire information post here

 Here is the schedule:

[Team Manager's Twitter Account]

There are a lot of tournaments; 11 minors, 11 majors. With traditional online qualifiers set to take place at least 45 days before an event, there will be nonstop action from September until the break for The International later in the Summer. Some people are noting that there are too many tournaments, but I feel that this is just right.

There are essentially going to be 2 circuits, the Majors and the Minors. The Majors will attract any top level team to compete because of its large prize pool and possibly large ranking point pool. The top teams will compete nearly once a month (ignoring May). Nothing really changes for them with this new system, they receive their invite to the Major, participate, and wait until the next one. The Minors on the other hand will be host to maybe 2 or 3 top tier teams looking to pad their ranking points. This will leave room for boarder line tier 1 teams to compete more regularly, and to earn more prize winnings. As an example, the most successful team of 2016-2017, OG, played in 14 tournaments where 3 of them where small online events.

This will boost the competitive scene by not only expanding a player's opportunities, but also for the viewer. Giving consitant opportunities to compete will help develop lower tier teams by giving them experience playing against top level teams, and by enticing them not to disband since their consistent top 3 at the Minors could secure them an invite to The International instead of having to battle through a wild qualifier. As an example, Planet Odd placed second at The International 2016, second at 4 large LANs, and first at another large tournament this year, but was eliminated from contention at The International because of one lost best of 3 series. They disband today.

All things considered, I think the over saturation of Majors and Minors will raise quality of the near top tier competitive scene, developing stronger future players.

A Solution for the Dota 2 Professional Scene

For those familiar with pro Dota 2, skip to (5) to reach my solution, the following will set the scene and introduce the problem.


(1)  First off for those who are unfamiliar, Dota 2 (Defence of the Ancients), developed by Valve, is an online game where players form teams of 5 to battle and destroy the opposition's base; see MOBA/ARTS. Also esports, but since you are reading this blog, I'll assume you are in the know of everyone exuding the general media. </side tangent>


(2)  The top level of competitive play is featured over multiple tournaments rather than a league structure. Some tournaments are sponsored by Valve but the majority of them are sponsored by 3rd party organizations, in fact, before 2016, Valve only sponsored 1 tournament a year. This created an open system where any group of 5 players were able to form a team, and have a chance to compete at the top level in any given tournament. There is not an official ranking/standings for teams or a system to define what tournament will host top level play. What has developed is a system where tournaments with higher prize amounts attract the better teams, who are determined by pure competition and how they compare relatively to other teams.


(3)  The scene was dominated by 3rd party organized tournaments (non Valve events). The top teams would constantly compete with each other in order to gain the respect of all the different organizers. There would be 3 to 5 tournaments a month hosting high level play since every team wanted to compete at every possible chance in order to maintain a livable income from their prize winnings (and team sponsor contracts in some cases). Unfortunately a problem emerged where mid tier teams, placing 6th or below, would shuffle rosters constantly in order to gain a small edge. Instability of rosters lead Valve to introduce the "Majors" series of tournaments in order to enforce their own regulations on rosters stability. They related roster stability with direct invitations to their events starting in autumn 2015. The large prize pool (3 million dollars as opposed to the average 100 thousand dollar prize pools set out by other organizations at the time) emphasized the importance of the Majors, and forced teams to hold their player line-ups together.


(4)  Since the Majors' introduction, they have drowned out 3rd party events to the point of there being only around 1 event per month. The Majors' prize pool out weighs the chance to compete in other events for top level teams since they would rather train for the Valve Major. Valve has tried to combat this by limiting the number of Majors to 3 per year, instead of 4 (including The International), while also setting the precedent of directly inviting non Valve tournament winners to their Major, which will guarantee the invited team some prize money. Unfortunately these methods have not pushed all top teams into playing more 3rd party events, causing lower viewer amounts which in turn force these companies, and their money, away from Dota 2. A stagnant scene is not good, this is a problem.

(5)  Professional Dota 2 could be fixed by more control from Valve. I love that the scene is natural and opened, we have had amazing events from this set up; all thanks to Valve's hands off approach. A bigger step needs to be taken along with the addition of the Majors to control the scene. No, I do not want a closed league that teams have to buy into or are only invited into, but I would like a tour system to be implemented by Valve.


(6)  The Dota 2 Tour would end with the big event of the year, Valve's The International. Leading up to The International the year is filled with non Valve sponsored tournaments functioning as they always have, only this time, they are recognized as part of the tour. 3rd party tournaments can enter the tour given that they occur at a reasonable time. Points are awarded to teams based on how they place, and a public ranking controlled by the tour is created. Direct invites to Valve's tournaments and qualifiers are taken directly from the public ranking. Any team can enter the tour by competing in any event throughout the year, which they can qualify to through either public or closed qualifiers as determined by the tournament organizer. Valve's Majors can be used as an event that is guaranteed to have public qualifiers to ensure access for new teams. The points system would not over award top teams, but focus more on consistent top 8 finishes, to not allow for any 1 or 2 teams to over power the field.


(7)  The tour not only promotes 3rd party tournaments, but also places importance on them. A team constantly playing in all tournaments placing 6th would be able to challenge the ranking of a team placing 1st at only 1 event, not only attracting tier 2 teams to improve to a reasonable goal, but also forcing tier 1 teams to keep competing to secure their position at future Valve events.


(8)  The only differences this idea holds from the current format is that Valve will need to be public with their internal team rankings, and the distribution of ranking points from Valve is not as focused on tournament wins.


volvo plz

The Nintendo New 2DS XL

I have been wanting a 2DS with a specific colour scheme...

with a larger screen...

for over a month actually...

and 2 hours ago Nintendo announced this:

[Nintendo 2DS XL]

Before noting my distaste for the hardware in this announcement (oh, so much for not making note of it) I would like describe why I wanted a 2DS in the first place. 

[Nintendo 2DS]

This device may not be the most attractive brick of plastic released in the decade of 2010 but there is elegance in the simplicity of it. There are no moving parts to break, or special features hidden away within the case. What you see is what you get. The longer body provides more room to rest larger hands on without cramping fingers, and there is a nostalgic retro feel to the design. The launch colour schemes consisted of a basic pair of black with red or blue, with the clean lines and corners of the case tying it all together.

The game library is phenomenal. Not only does it have access to the entire current Nintendo 3DS library, but also the Nintendo DS/DS lite/DSi (previous console generation) library is compatible. There is over a decade of games available dating back to 2004. Oh right... the Nintendo virtual shop with games from the entire Game Boy line and the NES is packed inside. Lost is the 3D image feature from the 3DS, an NFC reader (dropping the ability to scan amiibos that hold DLC like content or work like an external memory card), and the system is downgraded to a single mono speaker (although still packing stereo audio with headphones). If you are in the market for playing some awesome games while ignoring the fireworks, this system works as a great option against the flagship 3DS.

All this for less than half the cost of a New 3DS XL (50% to 30% the cost, depending on the market -- Canada and USA are used for these figures). My only impulse purchase prevention was that the 2DS sports a 3.5 inch screen. What can I say, a 4.5 inch screen in the form of a "2DS XL" would be great!

Enter the New 2DS XL. The perfect system. A 2DS with slightly upgraded hardware for new potential 3DS games, and a glorious 4.5 inch screen. No. Wrong.

Yes the new system does have upgraded hardware, a 4.8 inch screen as found in the 3DS XL, an NFC reader, 2 stereo speakers, the 3DS clam shell design -- wait how does this differ from a 3DS? The only component lacking from the New 2DS XL is the 3D video. All of the included features, personally good or bad, would be acceptable if the main selling point of the 2DS was still relevant; the low price. Buying a New 2DS XL gets you over 3/4 of the way to a New 3DS XL (85% to 75% the cost of the 3DS XL, again depending on sale location). In other words, you could purchase almost two 2DS systems for the price of one New 2DS XL, and almost three 2DS systems for the price of one New 3DS XL.

The easy affordable access to one of the worlds greatest line ups of games utilizing interesting hybrid touch screen mechanics is gone. A New 2DS XL offers a flagship 3DS at a negligibly lower cost, while dropping the biggest feature of the 3DS (the 3D feature is in the name, come on!).

"Fine. Ignore the New 2DS XL if you do not like it."

Introducing this device can only be inferred as the first step to phase out the original 2DS, which has been on the market for over 3 years. The new system inherits the "New" branding, featured by the only currently purchasable 3DS consoles direct from Nintendo. All other initial 3DS models have been phased out, creating a similar framework for the 2DS line. Also, any newly produced games for the 3DS are no longer guaranteed to run on a 2 or 3DS who are not members of the "New" brand.

I am pointed towards regarding this announcement as a step against a simple accessible economic method of play, which is what I loved dearly about the initial 2DS (after the post launch price drop). I hope the entry level void left by the first 2DS with be filled with a "New 2DS" (not XL) possessing a similar design and price philosophy of the initial system, since sadly the New 2DS XL does not fit the same niche as the original Nintendo 2DS.

Subtextual Beauty: Minecraft Custom Builds

We've seen them. The grand castles, sprawling landscapes, fantastic caverns. What an awful example for what beauty is.

*Preparing self for backlash*

[Minecraft: from Fyre UK]

I am not above name drops for this post.

The most effective way for me to demonstrate my perspective -- my angle -- is to use actual examples. This castle construction above is considered to be a creation from one of the highest quality sources available. 

[Minecraft: from DarthEngima]

As for the above, I have never heard of this individual. I have no personal [negative] opinion of them leading into viewing their work, unlike the vast majority of content in the Minecraft scope. This image was shown to me as I was launching the game to play at my modest abode; a structure with a 3x3 block footprint.

[Minecraft: from yours truly]

The look of the forest from DarthEnigma captured my imagination and caused me to considered the idea that I am writing about now. Yet I still prefer my build, no matter how lame, simple, and uninspiring it is (I really do not care at all for the castle build so it will remain unmentioned through to the end of this post).

The simple point that I have noticed is the following; a beautiful build in Minecraft consists of large high detailed creations which mask the blocky simple aesthetic of the medium itself.

Referring back to early forum posts upon the release of the initial Minecraft experience, a room full of wooden blocks was interpreted by the builder to be a room of chests, containing valuable treasure. The magic of Minecraft was in the mind of the player where they were allowed to easily interpret and conclude what an object's meaning and physical form was. 

Using another example from an early forum post; what is this?

[Minecraft: again myself, top level builder]

A few wooden blocks? A floating raft? A simple boat? Perhaps a member in a fleet of pirate ships? When something is simple, it allows you to expand personally on what it means or is. When given a complex structure that removes this mask of mystery, the magic is lost, and you only have what you are given, which is the same experience as anyone else.

________________________________

Returning back (a few days later now also) to my simple build, the lack of any definite details allow the viewer to generate the details themselves. More often than not these created details are in the form of stories, and stories are powerful.

[Minecraft: behind my hut, a bed would not fit]

Take this hammock as an example. Perhaps the wooden post the head rest is connected too was once a mighty tree, whose sapling has now grown into the pillar of a tree now used as the foot support. Maybe the owner of the hammock spends their lazy summer afternoons, floating in the breeze after a successful day of fishing by the river. The lack of explicit detail creates an open canvas for powerful creativity. Looking back to my image subtitle, there is even a story within, with the fact that a bed would not even fit in the house!

This concept (of course!) transcends the building-scape of Minecraft to all aesthetics. The photo realism of the newest first person shooter vs the world of Limbo, is a fantastic video game example of stories from minimalism in aesthetic. 

[LIMBO]

With the idea of expanding of scope, I now leave you with a quote at the end of this article.

"The universe is made of stories, not of atoms"