You used fora instead of forums! And thanks. I must say that I absolutely loved your post too and thought it was absolutely dead on and very well written, indeed it was one of the few posts of that length I didn't just cut to the concluding sentences for a synopsis.

I think my ears popped off I grinned so much at that one.

Back to (mostly) serious:

I must agree with most of that post. Way to express the viewpoints of those of us with no desire to make 'not getting carpal tunnel syndrome and still clicking like you want it' a major skill in a game. I'd much rather a game promote quick thought than quick clicking. A few frenetic bursts when you're trying to get all your abilities off before the stun wears off, sure. However, I'd like to think that deciding on the right place and time to press my attack is worth more than my ability to rattle off all the torchbearer's abilities in 5 seconds flat. I lost most of my interest in Battlefield 2 after I realized that all my crazy flanking maneuvers and well-timed attacks really weren't much more useful to my team than becoming a human aimbot or being able to compensate for two tanks' relative velocities. Must say there were some moments that kept me going for a while, such as the time I pulled onto a hill so my tank's main gun could hit a helicopter gunship and actually blew it out of the sky. Seeing my use of the environment and quick thinking make something awesome happen was much more rewarding to me than any kill streak, even though the kill streak would've helped my team more. The point I've achieved orbit around by now (I keep trying to get closer, but still I miss) by now is that I'd much rather have a game with room for imaginative and cunning maneuvers to be rewarded enough to make them worth their while against sheer reflex speed and memorization of a strategy.

While we're promulgating this mutual man-love society, it's the plural of a forum. It's fora! Has the decline of Classical education fallen so low in this great country that we can no longer decline a noun properly? The heart breaks at the loss.

(Yeah, my time in High School translating Catullus and John Dee has lingered with me, lo, these many years. I've exceeded all sane geek-limits.)

Now, there's a legitimate question to bring up, which is "How do I convey my intentions and results of quick thinking to the computer, representing it, without quick clicking?" which I think is a hugely important and meaningful question in design both to ask and to answer. In terms of Demigod, the way that seems to manifest best is in a few places:

• In selecting skills, skill paths, and items (which will actually become less fast-click obsessive once you can do so during death)
• In deciding where and how to advance; move-then-attack, attack-move? From what angle? Can you use the corner to your advantage to avoid the rock-throw while fire/ice-raining or sniping?
• Do I target the zergs or the demigod there? Is it worth taking the inevitable death by said hero to strip the zergs off while mine are rolling up?

(Whew, bullet points. Thank ya, Jesus.)

Demigod has a huge opportunity to focus, even in Assassin play, on strategic usage of resources and allocation (buy now or later? This or that?), positioning and resource denial, and the auto-attack. Generals should be that but moreso, which should be even more craziness and over the top epic fun for we considering types.

I just realized I'd never said how I feel about the scale of things. My own feeling is that I could use some extra epic; I might start by multiplying the size of buildings by 1.5x or so, and the Rook by 1.25x. Keep Regulous just slightly larger than the basic or second-wave zergs, nudge the Torchbearer up just slightly. The buildings should just tower over the Rook slightly, and Regulous really profits from being "human scale" in the sense of his design. There is some real issue with telling enemy demigods from friendlies; it seems to me the obvious first cut at a solution there is to give each side a bit of an alpha-layer shimmer. Gold for good, Red for evil, or something equivalent. It'd be immediately obvious which heroes are which at a glance without anything as unwieldy as icons, which wouldn't seem to really fit the theme. I don't have trouble telling zerg from zerg on the map (as I ask myself, "Is it hitting me?") but making the textures on them slightly less muddy in the black/white design wouldn't hurt my feelings overmuch.

Yep, pretty much. Sorry, but it has. Proper declension is actually rare these days.

I agree with this. It would both be scenic and functional.

Don't really disagree with anything else you said, so I don't have much to say.

I've come across this argument many times before - "twitch and micro have nothing to do with thinking or real skill, it's just reaction."  It's simply not true.

A game can still involve many intelligent, tactical aspects and yet have great depth in terms of skills that you have to practice.  The problem with trying to make a game entirely based around 'tactics,' 'maneuvers,' and 'strategies' is that anybody who just plays the game long enough can learn to do certain strategies at certain times.  But being able to micro and pull off impressive tricks and in-the-moment techniques involves real skill that you have to practice but that also requires natural ability.

If you want this game to be competitive, it must require knowledge of the game as well as practiced skills, and natural ability.  Otherwise, the ceiling of skill for the game is lowered significantly, and therefore the competitive metagame won't really develop, at least not to the same degree.

So does playing a game with sufficient options. Micro is not the only skill that you cannot get off a website. A game with sufficient options can have an equally rewarding tactical and strategic half. Such a game can have sufficient strategic depth that it isn't a matter of picking which 'strategy' to use (Which in all honesty is a sign of an underdeveloped strategic half), but instead about making the right decision on where to fight, what to bring to that fight, and not just how to fight. Micro is just as canned as macro when the game doesn't give the freedom to do it properly. It can boil down into which maneuver to use as easily as macro can into which strategy to use. If the game is designed properly, there is enough room for innovation that you can't run canned strategies ad nauseum, but need to innovate, while the micro game doesn't boil down into the same glorified macro script every time. Stop trying to convince me that microing is 'the one true skill' or anything along those lines, because that's a syndrome of a game that can be analyzed and has been until all the strategic thought became moribund. I've played games where innovation works and is rewarded, and know it can be done here.

I'd say it should be a nice portion of micro, at least during Demigod clashes. And the bigger part of strategic decisions. Hard/soft-counter against diffrent Demigods, counters to specific artifacts/itembuilds - if you notice them.

Again: Diffrent doesnt mean its bad.

To be honest, Dota is 90% about microing and not about strategy. Push <Lane>, Gank <Lane/Hero>, Jungle, Rosh.. those 4 commands are nearly 100% of the strategic parts (besides picking / lanes - but that is decided before the game starts) during a game. I hope Demigod will be a little more complex :/

I hope so too. I don't have the reflexes for the other.

I think I'm going to add a new bullet point:

• Demigod is not DotA.
• Chess has no micro.

Not that Chess with micro hasn't been done, but Archon never was as compeditive as Chess is, even without the several hundred years of devoted analysis applied to it.

(Seriously, I keep seeing all the arguments for micro-is-the-only-way and really wanting a Go board with the author on the other side of it.)

I'm going to say something even more radical on the subject: "Micro's been done." Done to death, in fact, in RTS games. That's pretty much the demense of Starcraft in the world, and that's great. When Dawn of War pushed away from the obsessive micro that had been swarming through the RTS genre like mad cow prions in cerebral tissue, I was absolutely thrilled. Lessened focus on micro is one of the big movements in RTS, at this point. I consider that a massive plus.

We'll never fully get away from it, but I'd certainly love if Demigod were the Dawn of War (or even Sins of a Solar Empire) to DotA's Starcraft. That would be fresh, new, and entertaining.

(I spent 20min straight gushing about Demigod on my show tonight; we'll see if I hear feedback from folks on it. To be fair, it was part of about 40min gushing about Chrome and Spore, too.)

Just to sort off go off/on topic...

I'm not quite sure how they'll handle this, assuming from what I've heard there's going to be 8 heroes and therefore people will obviously have the same heroes. As of now the disctinction between the heroes are next to none. When playing yesterday most of the times I wasn't 100% sur if the other heroes I saw was in my team or not. Part of this issue might've come from the fact that I was testing it with AI, but I still think there should be a clear visual difference. To one again to groan-face on everyone, DotA doesn't have this problem simply because you can't be the same hero.

Since alot of the success of your gameplay is going to be based on making quick decisions you'd rather not want to have to think twice. Maybe nametags above their heads can allievate some of the issues, or slightly different color schemes/looks depending on the side you are on?

And oh yeah, heroes and towers could be bigger. I'm not quite sure how much focus is on the towers in Demigod, are they meant to more or less be a sort of creepkiller or actually feared by your hero as well?

here's your problem:

Starcraft is a VERY competitive game.  There is still a strong competitive scene for that game even after 10 years.

Dawn of War is NOT a very competitive game.  It's not at WCG, nobody watches videos of people playing Dawn of War, and so on.  That's because the game is all about building up the right units at the right time and sending them to the right places.  But the actual battles are not particularly involving.

The game with less micro might seem more fun for some people, but it remains engaging for a much shorter amount of time because there's not as much that you can put into it.  There are people who have been playing Starcraft ever since it came out who still have things to work on and learn with the game.  A game like Dawn of War - once you learn the right strategies and play enough games, you're set.  The skill ceiling is much lower, and so the metagame stagnates.  And it's just not nearly as exciting.

Less micro = less competitive.

No, you cant compare any games to Blizzard games. Ok, Blizzard made a lot of mistakes with WoW, and hell they behaved like a cow :/

But the Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo Series are their babies. They brought the 1.11 Diablo 2 Patch a year(?) ago for a also nearly 10 year old game. Blizzard supported their games more than every other company i know. Just look at the Battle.Net which was really a great invention at the old days.

Btw, Dawn of War is alot about micro - it got alot of abilities for each his troops/squads. Each squad can have diffrent weapons in the squad, can be upgraded + refilled even during combat. The big flaw of DoW was, that i was abosultley UNBALANCED at the beginning. BigMek in your base after 1 min or 4 Cybots after 3-4mins ... just insane-o.

Btw: Your comparing Dota/Demigod to normal RTS.. this wont work. Counterstrike has no micro, an i'd say its the most played and most popular competitive Game in the world. Its just about reaction. AND about strategy, how to walk, where to walk.. know the positions etc. etc. => A part that will take a big role in Demigod.

Dota + Demigod are a new Gerne .. i just dont know how to name it.. Strategic Beat 'em up? RP-Clash?.. What are they anyway

So long,

Aspartem

Less macro = less fun IMO. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Many games with great potential for micro have terrible potential for strategy. This shouldn't be the case, because it is perfectly possible for a game to have very good micro and macro. However, most games on the market lean towards one extreme, and I don't see why that should be. It is not particularly unreasonable to expect a game to offer enogh strategic depth and micro potential to make both groups competitive. Why can't there be enough depth that there aren't a few stock 'strategies' which are essentially overgrown macros.

I never said anything about reducing macro.  Macro is great, too.

But removing twitch gameplay (basically removing skills you have to practice, that aren't just knowledge based) removes micro, and you can't have a competitive RTS without that element of gameplay.

How good its no RTS... Maybe the Generals, but we dont know how twitchy they are - so no arguments there. And Assassin dont have to be twichty, imo.

Last hitting or better killing mobs is still important.. its just easier to last hit, like if you start Dota with an undroppable Divine Rapier. It makes the game faster, and i dont see it negativ.

The "mirco" is just not on that hyper-atomic-mega-mini-Level like in dota, where even stopping 2 autoattacks of an opponent heros can setup the balance on the solo lane.. Thats not needed for high lvl gaming. But again: To argue about such stuff in Beta1 is like guessing the weather in january... at 2142.

So long,

Aspartem

I never said anything about reducing micro. Micro is great, too. It's just that the best candidates for explaining how not to make macro work still need to be successful, so they generally have tremendous micro. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I wanted the opportunities for micro removed just to compensate for my terrible reflexes. They aren't that bad . I fervently want a game where a master of macro and a master of micro could go head to head and nobody would know who would win. That is my dream game.

Snowy with a good chance of EU bullet fire and 2007 era advertisements, why do you ask?

As an addition to the original topic, I would like to state how I think that the Rook is too small. While, yes, it is big, it certainly does not match the scale that should be seen given the previews. Even just a little bit bigger, such as 10%, would be fine. Also, when using the Rook, I wonder how people can allegedly fit inside those towers of his...

Ya know.. in previews he looks bigger due to the camera-angle.. i forgot the name of the technique but it was used in films 10-20 years ago to make creaaatures huge just by filming the same scene twice out of diffrent angles and mix them together.

So long, Aspartem

There seems to be an assumption that people want Demigod to be a competition game.  Have the developers stated this anywhere?  Are people generally in favour of this?  

Because personally, I don't care about competitive play, and I'm pretty sure most of the people I know aren't that bothered either.  It'd be nice if it were fun for teams, but leagues and tournaments?  Don't care.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that most people who play Demigod won't even play multiplayer.

So, if it's a choice between making the game fun for Joe Public (or Rebecca T. S. Player), and making it fun for people who play competitively (obsessively), well surely Joe Public's money is just as good and there's more of it?

With that in mind, since the engine supports it, I'm in favour of bigger scales and more minions.  Supreme Commander sort of failed in this because T1 and T2 units mostly got left by the wayside as the game went on, but here we truly have the chance to have a giant rock monster striding through a sea of anklebiters.

Ok, having read the dev diaries, the devs do want this to be a competition game, whoops.

I'd say the game should be for everyone with the motto: Easy to learn, hard to master.

It should be intuitive and motivating, so new players wont quit in frustration after a few hours - Well, it has, or its going to have a Singleplayer mode for practice the game first, so you dont have to jump into the world wide web and die tryin^^

Plus, it shall give the wannabe-"pros" and the real pros somethin new - dota-a-like (omg, i said it) which they can play at a high lvl, also means it affords some kind of skill to be succesful.

But even for Publicplay lvl.. why should the Rook be sooooo big, that he disturbs the game flow? Imo, specially a mutliplayer game shouldnt sacrifice to much gameplay for RP or shiney FX.

So long, Aspartem 

Yes, they have stated numerous times that they want it to be a "tournament staple.'

This will not be the case unless some changes are made to incorporate practicable skills as well as simple experience / knowledge based habits and strategies. 

DotA has not become so competitive despite the fact that it is not an actual stand alone game simply because it has a unique genre-bending concept.  I'm sorry to all of you who might think so, but you can't just take the concept and expect it to be just as successful or competitively challenging.  You have to include the less obvious details that made it work - the way heroes progress, the emphasis on fast use of skills, last-hitting creeps, ganking, and so on.  You can make changes to those mechanics as you see fit, but you can't remove them altogether and just keep the framework and think you're going to get a similar result.

You know, you argue about the competetive potential of a game which is in the first 1-2 weeks of beta testing... The most parts are not even implemented.. like MAPS, DEMIGODS, ITEMS.. so most likely everything. All we got right now, is a small 3on3 map with nothing more to do than crashin the opponents base + 3 out of 8 heroes with _placeholder_ items.

Do you think, Dota was totally competetiv at the first day? It took a while until everything was settled. If im correct it started more or less after Guinsoo's Era.. Druing Euls Era tournaments etc. started to show up.

20-30mins before i had a long discussion with a friend of mine, he also meant that we've nothin to do right now. But if you read the journals etc. even GpG says: there is a lot missing, right now its even boring for us. There will be more objectives than just destroy the opponents base or to say it diffrent, there are much more ways than just "push mid".

Fights for goldmines/flags/spawnpoints + more will raise the lvl from tactic to strategic. Still, fights against other Demigods will still be a mousetrick-competition. Just the creeps are not soooo important like in dota. Or, in Dota the early game decieds a big part of the outcoming of the game. In Demigod it will be vice-versa, or so i think it will be looking at the current state + whats they've planned.

So long, Aspartem

You make a good point - we haven't seen everything yet.

On the other hand, I think the basics are clearly there, and the fact that everything is so small, fast paced, and in some cases automated (racking up gold without even thinking about it) really points to a glaring problem.  I am not so sure that extra features (more demigods / maps etc) will make up for those issues. 

Extra features will just introduce more choices into gameplay that will necessitate greater knowledge of the game, but not necessarily greater practiced skill.  There's a big difference. 

Anybody can play a game for a long time and learn everything about it.  Not everybody can learn and incorporate intricate tricks and techniques (micro and macro related) into gameplay in order to gain a foothold over other players.  Demigod needs to provide players with ways to develop those kinds of tricks and techniques so the most dedicated and skilled players can rise above the others and push the metagame forward.

Real Time Role Playing Strategy.

RTRPS

though the end kind of looks like rock-paper-scissors/shotgun.

Personally the worst part about DoTA, is kill and creep "gankers".  We are a team and we should function as such.  Experience in a close area should be split as done in Demigod to avoid last hit gankers.  If you want the kill credit for a demigod, more power to you me too.  But exp should be split appropriately to foster a true team feel.  Nothing is worse than playing online with a selfish player who kills the team and loses the match because he is only interested in his own stats, gold, and exp.  I personally think Demigod should focus on encouraging team play.