| Author |
Message |
|
|
Many people say that asymmetric maps have no place in 1v1 ranked matches, but I believe it is possible! I challenge you, the people of uniwar, to prove me right.
Rewards:
1st Place: 500 unicoins
2nd Place: 200 unicoins
3rd Place: 100 unicoins
Big thanks to Duaneski for providing half the prize pool!!!!
Maps do not have to be new, they can be past creations that need a little love, but they must be 1v1. Maximum 2 map submissions, only one of them can win!
Deadline: Extended to August 13
The grading is subjective in nature, so I may ask questions directly to the map makers about balance so that I do not improperly judge them (maybe even playtesting them myself), and may ask the mapmakers kik (consisting of many notable mapmaker names, including MasterYoda and Jeffph79) for confirmation of my opinions to reduce bias. I will not play favorites with anyone, everyone has equal opportunity. Feel free to make a joint submission!
Maps will be awarded a grade on the following scale:
Balance: /40
- Equal # of bases. (5)
- Equal access to uncaptured bases/cities. (5)
- Equal chance to win control of the major conflict areas. (10)
- No major advantages to any race. (10)
- No major advantages to player 1 or 2. (10)
Enjoyability: /20
- Minimal chance of buildups (either a small map or forced conflict) (10)
- Interesting dynamics and conflicts (5)
- Everyone likes unique maps! (themes, styles, unlike most maps in ranked) (5)
Playtesting: /10
- # of versions (2=2pts, 3+=5pts) (5)
- # of games played on all versions cumulative (5= 2pts, 10+=5pts) (5)
- If you find nothing to correct after 10+ plays, you will also not be penalized on the # of versions
Level of Asymmetry: /30
- Everyone should get around 25/30 here, this is to reduce points from people that have mostly symmetrical submissions. 0/30 for 100% symmetric maps.
Total: /100
Send all versions of the maps to The Impaler as a personal message with the subject "Asymmetric Map Challenge"
Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
wheres my unicoins???
|
|
|
|
+1
|
|
|
|
*walks down alleyway slowly wearing a leather jacket, snapping fingers with each step*
|
|
|
count me in!
The Impaler
|
|
|
wormdog i feel your proposed changes take it way too far. multiple buffs to tanks and multiple nerfs to anti tank is kinda crazy. id be careful with nerf stacks. keep in mind that increasing tank defense/speed, passive tank healing, decreasing borfly GH attack and decreasing borfly Air attack are all borfly nerfs, be it direct or indirect. each adjustment needs to be considered before a second adjustment can be added
the proposed wyrm chage of moving after attack is too much for its cost i feel. if that is done, i feel it must be moved to $600. keep in mind that unless it is attacked by infantry, it trades VERY well, unlike the battery and walker who are glass cannons.
re: 3 classes, dont worry about that, it was a throwaway point... i heard discussion earlier about making speeders and marauders a ground medium type, which would allow for better balancing (but would be way too much work to balance and rework every unit...) by adding in armor piercing, they essentially circumvented this issue, so now some units can do more damage to tank classes without demolishing the pseudo medium classes.
i also find buffing eclipse to be a potentially good idea,but again dont let multi buffs stack. reducing antitank GH is a buff to eclipse, so just keep that in mind. my biggest gripe with the eclipse is that borfly trade so well with them, so reducing borfly should help.
I spoke with thetraxis and we both feel the bopper is in a pretty good place (disagreeing with kikoho) but -1 GH could be good. overall we both feel -1 GH for borfly and bopper could be good, and guardian should not be nerfed. I think some tank/long range buffs might be in order but i caution a barrage of buffs and nerfs all at once, it will be hard to know the interplay of each change before it comes into play
spoke more with thetraxis and we both feel buffing tanks can have some negative repercussions. extra defense means they will never really be killed by anything besides tank busters, and extra heal is going to promote turtling. maybe extra movement wouldnt be so bad... im not sure what i hink of that yet.
i sent him this link so he will share his thoughts directly
|
|
|
honestly the best solution was recommended a while ago, but would be too hard to implement. split the classes into light medium and heavy ground units. that would allow for a more careul balance
oh and footnote: i think antitanks doing 4-5 damage is actually not the worst thing in the world, but borfly should NEVER be able to do 5 to something worth 2.5x its cost...
|
|
|
Hey guys, I hope I can maybe frame this in another light. First of all let me say that i support this suggestion: Ariel AP% from 50% to 40%. Defense drops from 2 to 1.for the borfly. i agree borfly shouldnt outclass swarmer in the air.
Now about the perspective: try to consider the game as being released right now with all these units. It's easy to see problems based upon previous experience "now this is changed and this is weaker" etc, but the real question should be, is the game fair and balanced right now, and promote good strategic gameplay?
for the borfly, i say the answer is no. they can effecitvely damage all units, so swarming them is a viable strategy. one unit should never be able to do everything. But in terms of reducing tank effectiveness, I dont see this as much of an issue. They are just niche. they are there to block routes of travel for fast units, NOT to form impenetrable walls or be unkillable juggernauts pressing into enemy territory. and i feel the current state of the anti tanks more or less do. because of the range and fragility of the guardian, i feel it is easy to play around. it never sways games. i feel the booper is highly effective, but i buy marauders turn 1 every game, never boppers. so if somehing needs a nerf between the two of them, wouldnt it be the marauder? it costs less and is a better unit.
the borfly is the only exception, because it is so cheap. i believe it gets 200$ minimum return in terms of damage dealt, every time if it is played right. Im playing a lot of khral recently in casual to learn these things, and im still not done learning, but borflys have way bigger sways in pro games i feel.
there should be a good balance of rock paper scissors between the marauder class, the tank class and the tank buster class, and that is broken when the borfly beats both pinzer and swarmer.
other than that, i actually feel the game is in a good place. if we let tanks become unkillable again, then the campy boring strategies will be best. and i know i dont want to lose a game just because my opponent has access to a 5 range unit and i dont...
my opinion is that unless one class has an advantage on most maps, or one unit becomes 100% never used at the top level, then there are no balance issues. niche units are good imo. maybe the sapien tank vs khral is the least used piece, and im not sure what to think of the three long range units... maybe a bit of redesign there. you either make them too effective or useless.
|
|
|
|
heh, just for the record, weve realized that since he used CTF gametype, and the gametype is broken, new maps need to be made. CTF = ANY base capture is a win. not just the flag base. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Ahh yes, that's essentially what I was looking for, that makes sense. Thanks a lot for the help! I think this pretty much clears it up  Also thanks for being so quick to reply, that's dedication!
If I hadn't already added you in game, I'd add you again!
|
|
|
You gave a good suggestion, but I feel that only explains half of the situation.
If a marine needs 6 and a marauder needs 7, then wouldnt it always be the case that a roll that increases a marauder attack would also increase the marine attack?
My problem is only when trading places increases BOTH of their attacks, I feel that if the second rolls is better that the first for one unit, it should always be better regardless of the different minimums different units have, because it's numbers must be higher. But that did get me to think about it in a bit different way, maybe next time I come across it, it will make more sense. I know stats can sometimes have. tricky non-intuitive solutions, so I'll think about it more.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Hello everybody!
I'm not normally one to talk on forums, but I have noticed something odd and I wanted to know if anyone else has noticed this, or knows why it is happening.
The Situation:
I have 1 marauder and 1 marine, and they are each going to attack a different opposing marine (so no gangup bonus). As everyone knows, the exact damage they do is based upon the "rolls" of a RNG (random number generator), and you can choose which units get the better rolls by having them attack first or second, depending on which is the better roll.
The Problem:
I've noticed in a very small number of cases, reversing the order of attack can increase BOTH units damage output. Using the previous example:
option 1: marine attacks for 3, marauder attacks for 5.
option 2: marauder attacks for 6, marine attacks for 4.
It seems to me that under some specific situations, the rolls do not act the same when different units are used, almost preferring different units to be used in certain orders during a turn. I've noticed this happens most often with varying attacks between air/ground/ranged units, as if each of the rolls have a different value for each of them. I'm not really sure how to add pictures to forums, but if people need screenshot evidence I'm sure I can provide it.
I feel that if roll #1 makes a marines attack lower than roll #2, then the same should be expected from any other unit. Am I missing something?
Thank you for your time!
|
|
|
![[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
