Wc3C.net

Wc3C.net (http://www.wc3c.net/forums.php)
-   WC3C News (http://www.wc3c.net/forumdisplay.php?f=77)
-   -   Hero Contest #3 - The Verdict (http://www.wc3c.net/showthread.php?t=106387)

Rising_Dusk 06-15-2009 05:34 AM

Hero Contest #3 - The Verdict
 
HERO CREATION CONTEST #3

RESULTS


Remember the third hero contest? The judging, after several months, has finally been finished. Our judges this time around were Anitarf with coding, Captain Griffen with the design, and Rao Dao Zao on the art. Yet again, as I type this I'm not sure of who won the contest, but by the end of this post we'll all know. All judgments are scaled out of 1000, even though the initial judging might not be. This makes each of the judgments equally powerful in the final score for the entry. The public poll chose the top 5, the judgments will choose how they ranked against each other.
Design Judgment
Arcane Ranger

Arcane Ranger - 26 / 50

Theme - 5 - Okay, not much to say here. Not overly coherent theme. Laser beam much?
Synergy - 6 - Half AoE damaging, half specific target assassination? Bit confused.
Originality - 4 - Seen it all before. So many times.
Melee Design - 6 - Could fit in fine I think.
Awesome - 5 - Okay; didn't much like the way that the laser beam didn't act like shockwave (so if you clicked too near, you got less distance covered)


Deadeye

Deadeye - 36 / 50

Theme - 8 - Death and arrows, everything fits nicely
Synergy - 7 - Assassinate from invisible, etc - abilities actually fit together nicely.
Originality - 7 - I'd like to give 10 for the invisible by corpse ability. But I won't.
Melee Design - 5 - Would fit in decently but not overly well with melee.
Awesome - 9 - Hero felt just right. Everything about it. It fitted together.


Dark Apothecary

Dark Apothecary - 30 / 50

Theme - 7 - Nice theme going on.
Synergy - 6 - Remember it's tactical synergy, not just 'does ability A randomly boost B'.
Originality - 4 - Nothing that hasn't been seen before.
Melee Design - 6 - Could see it in melee, although basically 4 buff/debuffs is a little too many.
Awesome - 6 - Felt pretty good.


Annelord

Annelord - 26 / 50

Theme - 4 - There was one? Lack of spell descriptions or effects didn't help
Synergy - 5 - Disabler? Damager? What? Drawn out battle focus, but not really any role.
Originality - 6 - Different but not really high quality originality.
Melee Design - 5 - Decent. Although I can never see that aura working. 3v3, gg.
Awesome - 6 - I kind of liked the hero.


Dread Berserker

Dread Berserker - 25 / 50

Theme - 6 - Not great coherency, but not bad.
Synergy - 5 - DD, healing, curse, and uncontrollable spawns? Role - basic combat...?
Originality - 5 - Bit different from usual, but all been done before many times.
Melee Design - 4 - Distance based damage really doesn't fit well, nor does pure single target DD.
Awesome - 5 - Okay, not that awesome though.

Art Judgment
Arcane Ranger

70/100

This is a very nice model. But I believe it is marred by too many different textures competing for attention. Feathers, shoulder-pads, crystals, a funny helmet, actual hands... I like the idea, but I think there's just too much crammed into one model -- too much detail for a standard Warcraft melee hero. His projectiles too seem somewhat overly flashy. The suite of icons, however, do fit nicely. Overall, I do really like the concept, the aim... I just think it went a little too far.

Overall: this is the main character of an epic RPG campaign, not a faceless melee hero. And that is why I cannot score it higher.


Deadeye

95/100

I love the way his bow is just another set of bones on his arm. He's got just enough detail to work, though I think his facial texture is just a tiny tiny bit too much on the WoW side of things. His trousers are amazing, giving him a delightful denim-clad biker-gang look. He is beautifully animated, throwing himself around like a true Warcraft hero in Stand - 2, delicately balanced with the humour of his broken bow-arms in Stand - 3. I'm not sure how well exploding in death suits him, as he doesn't have any standard magical glows or such; they only manifest in his spells. Oh, his spells! Spell Slam is a delight to watch, a deadly pirouette of energy. The icons are nice, though the green of Quench Life seems at odds with the white, dull grey and blue of the others (though once more, it's an ultimate, so the contrast can be forgiven).

Overall: thunderous.


Dark Apothecary

80/100

He reminds me a lot of the Ash Ghouls from The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind -- the face hollowed out and replaced by some ghastly protuberance. In terms of the mesh itself, there are some slightly nasty deformations around the base of the neck and the shoulders in the more exuberant stand sequences; his arm also goes right through his head in Stand - 4 (though Blizzard have some serious gaffs in their models, this is a bit much). The hero glow on the scythe also disappears in this sequence, and for one of his most visible attributes, that's not acceptable. Skirts were popular for a time in models, and I think there is perhaps a little bit too much stretching (the solution? Why, assigning some central vertices to both legs. If you already did this, then... It needed to be done harder!). What can I say about the texture? It looks like it is straight out of the MPQ -- that's a serious boon for this model.

Overall: I don't like the Undead, but this model tweaks a little part of me that delights in strangeness. It's unique, in terms of Warcraft, but it doesn't stand out badly like it could have.


Annelord

0/100

No artwork was submitted.


Dread Berserker

69/100

I like the little Death Knight-style runes on the spears and his shin-guards and the mohecan is insane. The texture is very nice, though I think the yellow bands could have been team-colour too; on anything other than Team Yellow, they seem a little out-of-place. He fits really well next to other unit units, especially the purple and bone of the Death Knight.

Overall: a nice texture.


Other Heroes

Demon Huntress: 10/100
An additive huntress? It's not that fact that is the issue, though; while the model is mostly additive, there are jarring parts that aren't, reducing this to a most cheap edit. She still has a corpse, too. I don't remember ghosts having corpses. Terrible execution.

Overall: there is still much work to be done.

Mage Hunter: 60/100
Everybody loves that hidden ranger skin. The addition of a backpack seems slightly strange given the Demon Hunter (plus special guests) animations; a pack full of kit would surely throw you quite off balance in all those pirouettes. Everybody also loves putting backwards-wielding swords on those animations, but I think the little rip and tear daggers really work. The eyes seem slightly odd, and don't really fit Warcraft's established conventions (for example, the Priest's glowing eyes). There are also some nasty holes in her mesh under the shoulder pads.

Overall: a nice idea, reasonably well-executed.

Avenger of Faith: 73/100
This model doesn't seem to know whether it's in WoW or the Warcraft III alpha. Parts like the helmet are dangerously low-poly, while other parts like the shoulder-pads, shield and the mace are a little over-done. I like the overall shape, the cowl over the helmet, the drape down his back, the mace (which is animated nicely rather than just stuck on); but I don't think the campaign-screen textures work at all, and the areas of pure team-colour just don't work against other units. While I dislike hero glow myself, its absence in this context is something unacceptable. The icons are nicely done, though I feel that Enigma is somewhat dark in comparison to the other three, jarring the eyes -- though it is the ultimate, so maybe this contrast is a positive point.

Overall: a nice idea with a lot of nice touches, but somehow skewed.

Behemoth: 65/100
The thing that immediately strikes me about this model is -- it's mostly unwelded. Fan as I am of sharp angles and edges, they have no place in Warcraft units. I think it could use more interesting hips, as the legs seem to float in mid air as they are. The sash seems like an awkward element that's just thrown on there; while he is an abomination, even this tatter should have some indication that it wouldn't just flutter away. And another thing -- where's the blood, the gore? Even if his bony extremities are clean white, I think a few splashes of red around the transitions would give him a bit more visual interest; he seems somewhat bland to me. His icons also seem incongruous; a million shades of green and black against his tan and white model?

Overall: he feels like he's missing something vital.

The Under Ruler: 55/100
His head is unwelded... Even though it's a lower-poly version of the Tichondrius head? He's got holes under his shoulders and his legs spasm quite often; perhaps he is out-of-line with his skeleton? The giant shoulders with huge swathes of dirty team-colour are very much Warcraft, but I don't think his lower half's grey and gold match very well -- it seems too moderate against his extreme black and team-colour (though it works all right when he's owned by Team Grey; perhaps even his lower parts should have been swathed in team-colour?).

Overall: just another Dreadlord. Some nice touches, but as many fatal flaws.

Grave Reaper: 25/100
The Hydralisk skin seems cluttered and stretched. I've worked with the model myself, and I know it's a punishing host that simply can't support very much. The skulls on his bony frill seem strange as there is no border around it; they just stop at the edge. In fact, I'm not very sure what they're even meant to be; are they supposed to be painted on, are they meant to be actual skulls...? And against all that fleshy madness, the Lich's giant collar shoved on the back seems like a completely arbitrary addition that adds nothing and even subtracts from the overall idea. And then you notice the crisp, detailed Makrura shoulder pads, jarring against the low-res rest of the skin. The Firelord texture also suffers from a bit of stretching, but it's nowhere near as bad. The skulls floating around his base in the flames are a nice touch, but as with the Hydralisk's frill, the chest-plate of the Firelord has no edges. The rest of the texture is somewhat swallowed by all the flame effects; I wonder if a model edit using in-game skins might not have achieved his goal somewhat more effectively...

Overall: don't ever try to do anything with the Hydralisk, it's not worth it.

Code Judgment
Arcane Ranger

Focus Magic (73/80)
-Cleanness (8/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Detailed documentation at the start of the spell, somewhat lacking comments in the code. (+1)
-Reusability (8/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Detailed descriptions in the calibration section. (+1)
-Efficiency (20/20)
* No complaints.
-Robustness (20/20)
* No complaints.
-Quality (17/20)
* The spell is much more complicated than it looks.

Enchant (66/80)
-Cleanness (8/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Detailed documentation at the start of the spell, somewhat lacking comments in the code. (+1)
-Reusability (9/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* The spell can be used as a template for any passive-ability-buff spell, it would get +2 if mana lock wasn't hardcoded. (+1)
* Detailed descriptions in the calibration section. (+1)
-Efficiency (19/20)
* The abilities don't get preloaded because the preload calls come before the config call. (-1)
-Robustness (18/20)
* The spell is only supposed to prevent mana use, not mana gain, so it should support the use of potions. (-1)
* The stop order would be a nuissance if this were a unit target spell. (-1)
-Quality (12/20)
* A well coded buff spell.

Swap Arrow (64/80)
-Cleanness (7/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Essential documentation at the start of the spell, no comments in the code. (0)
-Reusability (6/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* The flying height of the missile is hardcoded. (-1)
-Efficiency (19/20)
* PolledWait leak. (-1)
-Robustness (20/20)
* No complaints.
-Quality (12/20)
* A decent xecollider demo, not much more though.

Arcane Arrow (68/80)
-Cleanness (9/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Detailed documentation at the start of the spell, essential comments in the code. (+2)
-Reusability (8/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Detailed descriptions in the calibration section. (+1)
* The xecollider requirement isn't listed in the documentation, but I guess the library declaration is enough. (0)
-Efficiency (19/20)
* PolledWait leak. (-1)
-Robustness (18/20)
* calling .destroy instead of .terminate on an xecollider. (-2)
-Quality (14/20)
* A very good xecollider demo, shows just how much using external systems makes spellmaking easier.


-Code reuse (19/20)
* Some spells could benefit from using more external code. (-1)


Total: 290/340


Deadeye

Barrage (65/80)
-Cleanness (8/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Has a healthy amount of comments. (+1)
-Reusability (4/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Some values, like the movement constants, could use a more detailed explanation. Also, making a calibration value distance squared is excessive optimization. (-1)
* System variables are needlessly in the middle of the calibration section. (-1)
* The Crow Form ability is hardcoded. (-1)
-Efficiency (17/20)
* Using GroupEnums on a temporary group causes a leak. (-2)
* The callback timer is not stopped when there are no instances left. (-1)
-Robustness (20/20)
* No complaints.
-Quality (16/20)
* I like the attention given to little details such as launch coordinates and fluff arrows when there are too few targets.

Rickets (57/80)
-Cleanness (8/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Has a healthy amount of comments. (+1)
-Reusability (4/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* The spell can easily be used as a template for any passive-ability-buff spell. (+1)
* Some values, like the rawcode constants, could use an explanation. (-1)
* System variables are needlessly in the middle of the calibration section. (-1)
* Library requirements of the spell are not documented. (-2)
-Efficiency (17/20)
* A timer per instance would have been more efficient. (-2)
* Doesn't preload the abilities. (-1)
-Robustness (18/20)
* If an affected unit is removed from the game (say by an artillery attack), FirstOfGroup checks could fail and the timer could be paused prematurely. (-2)
-Quality (10/20)
* It's a fairly simple spell and the implementation could be better.

Graverobber (54/80)
-Cleanness (8/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Has a healthy amount of comments. (+1)
-Reusability (6/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* System variables are needlessly in the middle of the calibration section. (-1)
-Efficiency (20/20)
* No notable complaints.
-Robustness (12/20)
* The code does not take Tome of Retraining into account, a player could unlearn the ability and still be invisible if there are four or more corpses around. (-8)
-Quality (8/20)
* Just a simple passive ability.

Quench Life (58/80)
-Cleanness (7/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Has a minimum amount of comments. (0)
-Reusability (3/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* System variables are needlessly in the middle of the calibration section. (-1)
* Most calibration values could use an explanation of what they do. (-1)
* Library requirements of the spell are not documented. (-2)
-Efficiency (16/20)
* Using GroupEnums on a temporary group causes a leak. (-2)
* There's no need to call ModuloInteger for each unit when the value is the same for all of them. (-1)
* Creating locations for GetLocationZ instead of moving a single location around. (-1)
-Robustness (18/20)
* Vulnerable to unit removal like Rickets, but since the spell was designed to be used by a hero who can't be removed in melee I guess it's ok.
* The size of the lightning array is hardcoded and too small for the default value, causing eyecandy bugs when multiple spells are cast at the same time. (-2)
-Quality (14/20)
* A basic AoE channeling spell, the eye candy is nice though.

-Code reuse (19/20)
* Some spells could benefit from using more external code. (-1)


Total: 253/340


Dark Apothecary

Noxious Fumes (27/80)
-Cleanness (0/10)
* Based on all criteria for this category a GUI spell cannot get any points.
-Reusability (-3/10 (counts as 0))
* No calibration section, spell entirely hardcoded. (0)
* Depends on a buff ability for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use that buff ability. (-1)
* Requires the user to do a lot of object editor work. (-2)
-Efficiency (14/20)
* Leaks two groups in a periodic trigger. (-4)
* GUI conditions. (-2)
-Robustness (13/20)
* When the spell kills a unit for being on too low hp, it does not award proper bounty. (-5)
* Since this was made for melee, I guess using Immolation costs you points here too since the ability will not stack with regular immolation and might not work. (-2)
-Quality (0/20)
* Simple GUI really doesn't compare to vJass spells in other submissions, sorry.

Atrophy (30/80)
-Cleanness (0/10)
* GUI is ugly, period.
-Reusability (-3/10 (counts as 0))
* No calibration section, spell entirely hardcoded. (0)
* Depends on two buff abilities for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use those buff abilities. (-2)
* Has it's own dummy caster instead of using a standard one. (-1)
-Efficiency (14/20)
* Leaks a group and a bunch of locations on every cast. (-2)
* Dummy casters stick around for 90 seconds. (-2)
* GUI conditions. (-2)
-Robustness (16/20)
* Since this was made for melee, I guess using Bloodlust costs you points here too since the ability will not stack with regular Bloodlust. (-2)
* Same for Acid Bomb. (-2)
-Quality (0/20)
* Again, does not compare.

Catalyst (16/80)
-Cleanness (0/10)
* Still GUI.
-Reusability (-3/10 (counts as 0))
* No calibration section, spell entirely hardcoded. (0)
* Depends on a buff ability for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use that buff ability. (-1)
* Requires the user to do a lot of object editor work. (-2)
-Efficiency (8/20)
* Periodically checking all units on the entire map, seriously? (-5)
* Using GroupEnums on a temporary group causes a leak. (-2)
* Using GroupEnums with a null boolexpr causes a leak. (-2)
* GetUnitsInRectMatching doesn't set the local group variable to null. (-1)
* GUI conditions. (-2)
-Robustness (8/20)
* The leveling doesn't work correctly at all, so the miss chance will not be as advertised. (-8)
* The spell was supposed to use a hidden spellbook to hide it's passive ability but then doesn't do so? (-4)
-Quality (0/20)
* None.

Plaguebearer (36/80)
-Cleanness (0/10)
* Same story as with previous spells.
-Reusability (-3/10 (counts as 0))
* No calibration section, spell entirely hardcoded. (0)
* Depends on a buff ability for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use that buff ability. (-1)
* Requires the user to do a lot of object editor work. (-2)
-Efficiency (16/20)
* The spell could have been done entirely in the object editor, so any code is a waste. (-2)
* GUI conditions. (-2)
-Robustness (20/20)
* Easiest way to get a lot of points for a GUI spell is to make it so simple it can't possibly bug.
-Quality (0/20)
* Again, could have been done with the object editor alone.

-Code reuse (0/20)
* Can't do that in GUI. (-20)


Total: 109/340


Annelord

Incubator (56/80)
-Cleanness (5/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
* Doesn't make use of create and onDestroy methods. (-1)
-Reusability (3/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* The damage detection library requirement is not documented. (-2)
* No clear separation between the calibration section and code (two extra empty lines don't count). (-1)
* Why not let people choose effects from the object editor, considering they would even have a browser and all? (-1)
-Efficiency (17/20)
* An expiration timer per buff plus unit life checks in the damage event would likely have been better than periodic life checks for all buffs. (-2)
* Doesn't preload the effects it uses. (-1)
-Robustness (19/20)
* Only the buff-applying aura is removed when the spell ends, not the buff, so it's visuals may persist for a second or two. (-1)
-Quality (12/20)
* A decent spell.

Fester (38/80)
-Cleanness (4/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
* Doesn't make full use of create and onDestroy methods. (-1)
* A struct per affected unit instead of a struct per cast would have looked cleaner. (-1)
-Reusability (4/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* It lacks comments though, what does "ENUM_VARIANCE" mean? (-1)
* No clear separation between the calibration section and code (two extra empty lines don't count). (-1)
* It lists UnitProperties as a requirement even thought it doesn't use them. (-1)
-Efficiency (13/20)
* Leaks a location on every cast. (-2)
* The Damager dummy isn't really needed and if you insist it is, preplacing one for every player would have been more efficient. (-1)
* Needless periodic gamecache calls due to the one instance per cast layout of the spell code. (-2)
* Setting a table entry to 0 instead of flushing it in DamageUnits, thus leaking gamecache entries. (-1)
* Doesn't preload the buff applying ability. (-1)
-Robustness (11/20)
* The CleanUnits static method should use GetEnumUnit, not GetTriggerUnit, this can cause the buff not to be removed from the unit. (-3)
* If one of the affected units is removed from the game, FirstOfGroup may return null and the spell may end prematurely. (-3)
* In the RangeFilter function a unit's current instance is not set properly if the unit was already affected by another instance of the spell. (-1)
* The spell ends when the caster dies even though nothing in the documentation or the tooltips implies this should happen. (-1)
* Only the buff-applying aura is removed when the spell ends, not the buff, so it's visuals may persist for a second or two. (-1)
-Quality (6/20)
* Just an AoE damage over time buff spell, poorly executed.

Consolidation Aura (54/80)
-Cleanness (4/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* No comments whatsoever. (-2)
* Doesn't make full use of create and onDestroy methods. (-1)
-Reusability (3/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* No comments whatsoever about what the calibration options do. (-2)
* No clear separation between the calibration section and code. (-1)
* Why not let people choose effects from the object editor, considering they would even have a browser and all? (-1)
-Efficiency (14/20)
* Uses the same update rate for projectiles and aura updates even though they have different needs. (-2)
* Enums units in the entire map instead of just those around heroes with the aura. (-2)
* Enums units all the time even if no heroes with the aura are on the map. (-1)
* Doesn't preload the effects it uses. (-1)
-Robustness (18/20)
* Dependant on bj_mapInitialPlayableArea, if a user destroys that by accident somewhere this spell is broken. (-1)
* May heal units not affected by the aura since HealFilter doesn't do either a buff or a IsUnitInRange check. (-1)
-Quality (15/20)
* This is quite a complex spell, auras are hard to do well.

Hivebeing (54/80)
-Cleanness (5/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
* Doesn't make full use of create and onDestroy methods. (-1)
-Reusability (3/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* It lacks comments though, what does "MIN_TENT_ASPD" mean? (-1)
* The orderstring of the dummy spell and tentacle spawn chances are hardcoded. (-3)
-Efficiency (16/20)
* Leaks a location on every cast. (-2)
* The earthquake could have simply been cast by the hero instead of a dummy caster. (-1)
* Doesn't preload the effects and abilities it uses. (-1)
-Robustness (20/20)
* No complaints here, the spell works.
-Quality (10/20)
* A plain channeling spell that relies on the object editor to do it's job, aside from the simple triggered eyecandy bonus.

-Code reuse (18/20)
* One spell uses a primitive non-standard damage detection library, I'm considering this as obfuscated embedding. (-2)


Total: 220/340


Dread Berserker

Juju Spear (59/80)
-Cleanness (6/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Uses an InitTrig function instead of an initializer. (-1)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
* Easy enough to understand despite that. (+1)
-Reusability (6/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Detailed descriptions in the calibration section. (+1)
* Speed depends on the update rate instead of being an absolute value. (-1)
* Has it's own projectile dummy unit instead of using a standard one. (-1)
-Efficiency (19/20)
* The destroy part could be done with one fewer IsUnitInRange call. (-1)
-Robustness (20/20)
* No complaints here, the spell works.
-Quality (8/20)
* A very simple projectile spell.

Inner Juju (50/80)
-Cleanness (6/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Uses an InitTrig function instead of an initializer. (-1)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
* Easy enough to understand despite that. (+1)
-Reusability (6/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Depends on a buff spell for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use that buff spell. (-1)
-Efficiency (20/20)
* You can't go wrong with a spell this simple.
-Robustness (18/20)
* Since this was made for melee, I guess using Inner Fire costs you points here too since the spell will conflict and bug. (-2)
-Quality (0/20)
* I just have to balance the score a bit, a dummy spell being cast whenever the hero kills a unit is just too simple.

Intimidation (45/80)
-Cleanness (5/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Uses an InitTrig function instead of an initializer. (-1)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
-Reusability (5/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Depends on a buff spell for it's effect, so no other spells in the map can use that buff spell. (-1)
* Why not let people choose effects from the object editor, considering they would even have a browser and all? (-1)
-Efficiency (16/20)
* In the onDamage function, a handleTable call is made before checking if the unit is even in the group. (-2)
* The periodic loop method of checking when a buff is dispelled isn't really efficient. (-2)
-Robustness (9/20)
* Buff structs are only destroyed when the unit dies (you have an "and" instead of "or" in your condition) so a unit is affected permanently, except for the curse buff which wears off and can't be reapplied. (-8)
* Since this was made for melee, I guess using Curse costs you points here too since the spell will conflict and bug. (-2)
* If you level up the spell and then cast it on a unit already under it's effect, the level of the buff won't update. (-1)
-Quality (10/20)
* A typical buff spell.

Shadow Clones (47/80)
-Cleanness (5/10)
* Correctly scoped. (+7)
* Uses an InitTrig function instead of an initializer. (-1)
* Lacks comments. (-1)
-Reusability (2/10)
* The spell has a standard calibration section. (+7)
* Many of the spell's properties are hardcoded, though. (-4)
* Why not let people choose effects from the object editor, considering they would even have a browser and all? (-1)
-Efficiency (13/20)
* Using GroupEnums on a temporary group causes a leak. (-2)
* Using GroupEnums with a null boolexpr causes a leak. (-2)
* Doesn't preload the bonus hp ability. (-1)
* In the OnDeath function, a handleTable call is made before checking if the unit is of the right type. (-2)
-Robustness (15/20)
* Array size of X means you can use indexes 0 to (X-1), not 0 to X. (-5)
-Quality (10/20)
* The behaviour of the clones is rather simple, so the spell overall isn't that impressive.

-Code reuse (16/20)
* So much dummy unit stuff is embedded in the spells. (-4)


Total: 217/340

The Verdict
What the last five million words in this post actually mean to you...
Design score is out of 50, so it has a scale of x20, art is out of 100, so the scale is x10, and code is out of 340, so the scale is x2.94~.


Arcane Ranger
  • Design: 27/50
  • Art: 70/100
  • Code: 290/340
  • Scaled: 540 (Design) + 700 (Art) + 853 (Code)
  • Total Score: 2093
Deadeye
  • Design: 36/50
  • Art: 95/100
  • Code: 253/340
  • Scaled: 720 (Design) + 950 (Art) + 744 (Code)
  • Total Score: 2414
Dark Apothecary
  • Design: 30/50
  • Art: 80/100
  • Code: 109/340
  • Scaled: 600 (Design) + 800 (Art) + 320 (Code)
  • Total Score: 1720
Annelord
  • Design: 26/50
  • Art: 0/100
  • Code: 220/340
  • Scaled: 520 (Design) + 0 (Art) + 647 (Code)
  • Total Score: 1167
Dread Berserker
  • Design: 25/50
  • Art: 69/100
  • Code: 217/340
  • Scaled: 500 (Design) + 690 (Art) + 638 (Code)
  • Total Score: 1828
Uh, wow. So I really wasn't expecting that result, to be totally honest. It was ridiculously close when I was calculating the numbers, so I had to quadruple check my numbers. This is what it is, though. I guess this places the ranks as follows:
FIRST PLACE: Jigrael / Rising_Dusk
2414/3000
SECOND PLACE: Mc ! / Vexorian
2093/3000
THIRD PLACE: THE_END / Av3n
1828/3000
Congratulations to all of the winners and all of the participants, yet again this contest was a success and it's been proven to me once more that we haven't forgotten the ways of true hero development. Stay tuned for the next time, kids!

Av3n 06-15-2009 07:03 AM

OMG... I can't believe it. I feeling so happy right now

-Av3n

AnemicRoyalty 06-15-2009 07:10 AM

Grats Dusk and Jig!

Great to see this up, it was one epic contest. Can't wait for #4!

We came fourth overall, but we got second in two categories and considering the competition that's pretty damn awesome :)

Rising_Dusk 06-15-2009 07:46 AM

Yeah, in two years time I'll force Kyrbi0 to learn JASS. :p
I think I'll go ahead and assign the awards now.

Flame_Phoenix 06-15-2009 11:14 AM

I am admired and insulted ... a GUI spell in 3rd place ?
Correct if I am wrong, but Anitarf and Pyro can code 10000x better than him. I guess too much emphasis was given to the models, but my opinion is very relative, as a coder I would obviously give more emphasis to the code xD

Oh well.... you guys know what would be awesome now?
Some results for ... THE SPELL OLYMPICS !!! xD

Michael Peppers 06-15-2009 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix
I am admired and insulted ... a GUI spell in 3rd place ?


Re-check the winners... :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix
Correct if I am wrong, but Anitarf and Pyro can code 10000x better than him. I guess too much emphasis was given to the models, but my opinion is very relative, as a coder I would obviously give more emphasis to the code xD


Though his GUI didn't win, it brought him to the final part of this contest... and to the 4th place. This is amazing for some simple GUI spells, isn't it?

Kyrbi0 just demonstrated what GUI can do when used well, but obviously GUI code is crap a lot of times.

Nonetheless, the code judgment should be based upon its overall quality, obviously the language-type (GUI/JASS/vJass) the spell is based upon is a judging factor, but not the most relevant one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix
Oh well.... you guys know what would be awesome now?

Dunno, another Hero Contest perhaps? :P (So that I can enter this time ^.^)

Kwah 06-15-2009 03:17 PM

Provided the coding of the spell doesn't effect game-play in a normal situation, it shouldn't matter much for this kind of thing.

Congratz to all who participated.

Vexorian 06-15-2009 03:49 PM

GUI is still crap. No, it can't do well. It cannot ever do well. I blame it on the fact this contest was based on completely imaginary factors like 'design'.

Kwah 06-15-2009 03:58 PM

And you'll notice that it didn't do well.

Rising_Dusk 06-15-2009 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix
Correct if I am wrong, but Anitarf and Pyro can code 10000x better than him. I guess too much emphasis was given to the models, but my opinion is very relative, as a coder I would obviously give more emphasis to the code xD

Design and art was equally as important as code. This was not a programming contest, it was a hero-creation contest. Code is only a single part of a hero. Furthermore, you'll notice that he only scored 300~/1000 because of the GUI he used. He would have placed in the top 3 had he not used GUI.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Peppers
Sue me for this simile. :)

Too bad it's not a simile.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Peppers
Dunno, another Hero Contest perhaps? :P (So that I can enter this time ^.^)

There will be, but no rush. I do want to have at least one big contest during the summer months, though.

Flame_Phoenix 06-15-2009 07:25 PM

Quote:

Re-check the winners... :P
So the number of points did not determine the winner ? Will I ever understand the rules xD
Quote:

Dunno, another Hero Contest perhaps? :P (So that I can enter this time ^.^)
+1 =D
Quote:

I do want to have at least one big contest during the summer months, though.
Sure, I assume such a contest would be after .... The Verdict of Spell Olympics?
xD

Anitarf 06-15-2009 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix
So the number of points did not determine the winner ?

What?

The GUI submission was fourth because if you examine the total scores, it had the fourth highest score, so no, it wasn't third like you said it was.

Flame_Phoenix 06-15-2009 10:19 PM

Quote:

The GUI submission was fourth because if you examine the total scores, it had the fourth highest score, so no, it wasn't third like you said it was.
Crap you are right again .... sorry it has just been a complicated day and I am tired, thus not seeing/evaluating anything decently at all....

THE_END 06-15-2009 10:55 PM

*GASP* I didn't even think me and Av3n would place when I was going through the submissions! Hell yea! And congrats to everyone who did this, this contest was awesome

Toadcop 06-15-2009 11:35 PM

it's a joke ? =O

Arcane Ranger > all pfff. it's kind a High Elf Rift Stalker ^_^
i will never understand such contest... (i mean judging)
// next time i will go full on nuke -_-

and ofc to w8 almost 6 months is... lol.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin (Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd).
Hosted by www.OICcam.com
IT Support and Services provided by Executive IT Services