lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
Regarding the random factors that determine how much dammage your attacks do:
1) I find them to be very annoying as they make long term planning impossible. This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of luck.
2) It seems like you have the same factor for all attacks in a given turn. So when I start my turn, if my first attack is weak, I already know all my attacks for that turn will be weak. In fact, I often start playing my turn with an unimportant attack just to see how my other attacks in that turn will work and then plan my turn based on the result. Good attack factors - go on the offensive. Weak attack factors - turtle up and build units. This is not the way I would want it to work. If you must have random factors, then each single attack should be random separetely.
Bottom line - lets get rid of the random factors or at least make them truly random on a per attack (not per turn) basis.
|
|
Anonymous
|
i didn't realize the random factor was the same for all attacks in a single round. if that's the case, i might as well quit playing this game right now.
|
|
Anonymous
|
Developers - can you please confirm if that is the case? It sure seems like it to me.
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
Rolando - can you please confirm that I am correct here and that random factors are turn specific (not per single attack).
|
|
rolando
Messages: 157,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline
|
|
rolando
Messages: 157,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline
|
Interesting... I am confirming with our developers on this.
From what I know, the idea behind this somewhat *fixed* setup was to prevent players from re-doing their turns in an attempt to gain more favorable results. So if your unit attacks another unit and you didn't like the result you should not be able to re-do that same attack in that same turn with those same units and get a better result.
But what you are explaining is different. I'll let you know once I find out myself.
|
|
colin
Messages: 15,
Joined: Jun 11, 2009,
Offline
|
|
colin
Messages: 15,
Joined: Jun 11, 2009,
Offline
|
Bump.
Is there any word on this from the devs yet? I am also seeing in my games evidence to confirm that for an entire round the attack damages are either consistently good or bad.
|
|
GameShaman
Messages: 63,
Joined: Jul 13, 2009,
Location: Chicago, IL
Offline
|
|
GameShaman
Messages: 63,
Joined: Jul 13, 2009,
Location: Chicago, IL
Offline
|
I have tried to pay attention to this since I read this post and it does seem like it is possible that the random seed factor for determining damage could be consistent per turn, instead of per attack. But I haven't had anywhere near enough data to determine this for certain. It would be nice if the devs could speak up and settle whether the random factor is per turn or per attack.
I believe the random factor needs to be there, but if it is really true that it is per turn, that it needs to change. It needs to be per attack to even the playing field. A bad random turn followed by a good random turn for your opponent could essentially decide a game. If it were per attack, this reduces the chance for such lop sided battles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jul 30, 2009 10:15
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
Rolando, any word on this?
I am 95% sure that I am right here and this seems to be a major bug that must be fixed.
As I have explained in previous posts, the best fix would be to just get rid of random factors all together.
|
|
newuser
Messages: 60,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Offline
|
|
newuser
Messages: 60,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Offline
|
Dusting off my background in simulation programming ...
Often what you would do is provide a seed for a random number, and then use that random number as the seed for the next one. This way the series is truly randomish, but still repeatable.
In Uniwar's case this would let you still use and remember a single initial seed each round, but each attack's success or failure would have nothing to do with whether the prior attack succeded or failed. This seems like quite an easy fix.
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
|
lion37
Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline
|
Newuser - you are correct in your analysis.
The fundamental problem with the approach you describe is this:
Your iPhone will know in advance the result of each attack before you make it.
This means that a clever hacker can make his iPhone tell him these results in advance and can then use this to cheat.
|
|
rolando
Messages: 157,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline
|
|
rolando
Messages: 157,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline
|
You guys are smarter than the average bear!
Looks like what you brought up is true. It's impressive that you figured it out.
Just to clarify, the random factor is supposed to be on a per attack basis. But to prevent cheating a seed a sent by the server so that players could do not re-do the same attack between the same units to gain better results. Instead the seed is randomly determining the kind of outcome you'll have during your turn (so pretty much what lion37 said).
Now that we know about this we are taking steps to fix it and to make it random for every attack.
Kudos to lion37 for having a keen eye!
|
|
zCRP
Messages: 21,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: Milan, Italy
Offline
|
|
zCRP
Messages: 21,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: Milan, Italy
Offline
|
why not eliminate randomness altogether? chess works fine without randomness, as risk does _with_ random combat. I think uniwar is much more like chess than like risk. most games are not played out with hordes of armies, but with clever use of limited units. just MHO
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Aug 04, 2009 12:06
|
|
Anonymous
|
The randomness makes long term planning very difficult. This is supposed to be a game of strategy, not a game of luck. I support zCRP's idea of eliminating the randomness.
|
|
didude
Messages: 45,
Joined: Jul 23, 2009,
Offline
|
|
didude
Messages: 45,
Joined: Jul 23, 2009,
Offline
|
There is a random factor. Sometimes my mauder can kill a capturing marine with two moves and sometimes the marine will get lucky and survive with 1 hp.
|
|
Anonymous
|
i'm starting to agree that the randomness is somewhat annoying. it makes the game feel more like dice wars. the randomness negates all those unit stats somewhat since anything can happen depending on your luck.
|
|
|
|