| Author |
Message |
|
|
mb it's just me but...
it always seemed to me that a bot unit acts with limited information on hand each turn, probably with no continuity of strategy from turn to turn. if you take into account the bot's area of visibility, any units not shrouded by the fog of war, and toss in terrain info as well as the location of capturable bases, you can have a good idea of what the bot is going to do. i'd go even further to suggest that if your unit in view of a bot's unit moves into a fog of war, it will "forget" a unit was there, though it may seem to chase after it, but only because it's going after a base. i'm not even sure a bot's unit even works in concert with units of the same team, as i'm sure i've seen an infantry attack my unit and then finish it with a ranged unit.
the first few times i played three islands with two bots, they always came for me and then got distracted by each other on my island. i think i ended up avoiding a gang-up by letting the other two bots see each other first so they end up fighting.
i wish i could be conclusive but i would imagine it's a lot easier to code a bot's behavior this way.
in any case, your "wild bot" game might still be fun. it'd be like herding the bot towards your enemy.
|
|
|
i've been having this problem for a while as well. first on my original iPhone, lately on my 3GS.
sometimes touching one player selects another (player listed below (sometimes above) the touched one). in these cases there's usually one player who simply can't be selected.
one example is in a current game "No quitters pls" in which selecting players worked fine until the green player became defeated. After that points, touching yellow selected white, touching white selected orange, touching orange had no effect. Players up to, and including, the defeated green player can be selected normally. Yellow simply can't be selected.
in the several times I've seen this bug, the first few players listings were not affected.
|
|
|
I liked how Uniwar now allows you to look at user profiles from within a game. This let me discover that 6 of the 8 people in a current octal war game were friends and refraining from attacking each other and cooperating to take down the non-friends (the half a dozen screenshots for consecutive turns is evidence enough of their strategy).
I would like to have the ability to look at profiles of users in a game before the game starts to keep from joining those pointless games. Obviously this isn't a fix to the issue, but I think it'd be a good enough help for such a small feature.
Also, is there a specific channel to communicate grievances against specific players? If the support address is used, will the Uniwar team act on it?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Without jailbreaking, without complicated hacking, I reset a turn once in a bot game (more for proof of concept and curiosity's sake than anything), leading me to confirm that yes, fights between two units in same circumstances will generate the same results. My concern is that this allows players to reset until they get a more favorable turn result, as well as gain information about terrain initially outside the fog of war. It would not shock me to discover that some players already utilize this technique.
I understand that it's more efficient (from the server standpoint) to have the device transmit all of the moves from a turn simultaneously when the player hits End Turn, but if at the very least there is some kind of an auditing mechanism on an installation of the game that randomly triggers--for a turn--the transmission of information move-by-move (to be compared to with the final set of moves transmitted by End Turn)... if something like this were in place, I would be more at ease.
|
|
|
Here's a frustrating dilemma from earlier today:
A couple of weeks back I was playing a 2v2 on Fourquad with 3 other bots where I had sat my plasma tank on the last remaining enemy base before realizing my teammate bot had surrounded the base giving me no where to move so that the base could be capped. I emailed support who then removed this game for me, and seeing the email reply as well as posts here on the forum, I thought these kinds of issues would be a thing of the past.
But earlier I was doing a 4v4 Full Planet with bots and was confronted with the same issue. When the enemy units were nearly destroyed I stationed my blue choppers over the hostile bases waiting for my marines to come by. Suddenly worried that my choppers might get stranded on the base, I vacated the base to allow the AI to do its thang and move towards victory, but then the yellow teammate proceeded to station his garuda over the base to awaits its own underling.
Eventually it got to a point where the bottom portion of the map was overcrowded with units and there was going to be no way for the AI to work together to create a path towards the bases for the marines/underlings. Fortunately I had foresight enough to fashion a path of choppers along which units could walk towards the bases.
Depicting the path (If you look hard, you can see that my teammates went on to infect my marines I was hoping to use to capture the remaining bases):
About to capture red base, dilemma of white base:
Clearing the path for yellow underling:
Underling capturing white base after I make space for garuda to move off:
Thankfully this kind of brain-racking resulted in a victory, as I was quite anxious to keep from losing tons of points from surrendering to 1200 level bots. There seems to be an inherent problem with bots needlessly generating floods of units at the end, leading to this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it seems that when bots play in a team, they are simply bypassing attacks on team units/bases with virtually no consideration into cooperation. Perhaps things might work better if the devs could figure out a way to make a team of bots act as a single player with units separated by colors and turns...
|
|
|
zCRP wrote:That would be me  but I think the situation is different from how you are telling it.
In many multiplayer games, I have found that aiming for second is much better than being crushed by two strong neighbours. In our case, I was attacking red when you started attacking me from behind. For a short while I tried to fight on two fronts, but as soon as I realized red's advantage, I tried to take on the only possible adversary, at the same time removing myself as a threat to the dominant player. In this case the incentive to gang up against the strongest opponent is very low. I have had a similar game where this course of action allowed me to build a small force and give a decent fight to the dominant player when there where only us two.
There's some truth to that strategy, specifically the part about aiming for second when one player is clearly on the verge of victory (as it happened in our game when my ally finally surrendered). But to say that blitzkrieg was the definite winner at the point that you made this decision is too defeatist, and to argue that your strategy was completely optimal and not a bit indulgent in what I called a "personal vendetta" is a little fallacious, especially in light of the fact that you can't truly remove yourself as a threat to an adjacent titan player in a peninsula game without fog of war.
I might have done something similar had I felt there was a clear winner, but in our case where 3 players were already banding together, I was disappointed you had given up so soon.
|
|
|
I experienced a similar 3-person game wherein the two players would attack my units regardless of the strategic advantages of attacking each other. I left the game upon seeing that these two players had only a couple of friends, including each other. I'm also noticing team games with same pairs of players where one is an anonymous/1500 player who ends up timing out of a game, leading to an advantage for the other player (whether because he is on the opposing team, or because the disappearance of an adjacent enemy gives him some breathing space).
I am trying to avoid games with anonymous/1500 players, but often enough you can't tell who will be joining an open game after you. Of some help would be allowing easy access to user profiles from within a join-game screen where players are listed so you can consider the players' friends list and win-loss-draw stats.
Can anyone explain the rationale behind allowing anonymous accounts? I understand why the devs might wanna allow multiple accounts per device, but perhaps something as simple as email verification would cut down on the level of cheating.
|
|
|
I may be wrong, but you might be referring to the Peninsula game you and I are both in. In that particular game you had quickly taken over half of the map, and it simply became a matter of strategy and an application of game theory for the rest of us to stifle your dominance by refraining from in-fighting amongst us weaker players and seek to disrupt your growth. Without a certain level of collusion all of us would easily be wiped out by your units.
Cooperation to that extent, I believe, could hardly be called suspicious. There being no agreed upon point at which our temporary cease-fire would expire, we weaker players have to be mindful that at any point another collaborator may turn on us. In this particular game, one player who would likewise benefit from targeting the strongest opponent has, instead, decided to indulge in his personal vendetta against me.
In the end, each of us are basing our actions on self-interest, realizing that allowing you to capture more bases would only jeopardize each of our positions. I am a fan of your gameplay and am sorry if the game won't end as quickly as you may like, but the fact that this kind of strategy unfolds only adds to my enjoyment of the game, and I don't think it's that different from you offering second-place finishes to those who help your cause by leveraging your strong position.
See you on the battlefield, blitz.
On the topic of cheating, there are definitely issues that should be looked into. In Peninsula, has anyone else gotten suspicious of anonymous players dropping out of a match as neighbors of a Titan player who, at that point, can quickly gain control of 6 more bases by teleportation?
|
|
|
|
Is anyone else experiencing odd email notification behavior? I keep receiving notifications sporadically for a game I finished hours ago, in a random order (round 20, then round 18, etc).
|
|
|
playing a 2v2 with 3 other bots, i had a game where one of my tanks was on an enemy base and all enemy units were destroyed.
i couldn't get off the base because my teammate bot was surrounding my tank, and the game would not end. upon emailing support, they assured me this is a bug that would be fixed in the next update, and i imagine the issues described here may fall under the same umbrella
|
|
|
|
is this the same bug as getting logged out of the game when you log into the uniwar.com website?
|
|
|
thanks a lot
Will this affect games already in progress?
|
|
|
|
can someone repost the info regarding these changes? i saw a server message pop up in-game but my attempt at scrolling it faster took me out of the game...
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
