| Author |
Message |
|
|
andrei82bu
2172
1year 9months (may 2012)
Romania
Today finally the google docs loaded without error and i was able to comment YES. Looking forward for the pairs, although pairs should not be random but within score range.
Really excited about your great work, Talone. Good thing you got the devs to message in the game about it, otherwise i would have found out too late.
|
|
|
alright. i playtested your map and here are my thoughts:
- the fact that each player starts with one base is very good, a small starting money difference encourages players to create that map
- the fact that neautral bases are not capturable in the first round is bad, cause the game starts slow. nobody wants to spend 4 rounds just to capture all neutral bases - put some base units on the bases
- if you do not place base units near neutral bases, then the map is race unbalanced, as krals will capture their bases 3 turns earlier than titans
- other than that, it seem pretty good.. i'll let you know if anything else comes to my mind when i finish the game
Meanwhile, you could make a petition for unrated maps to be able to play as rated games and for maps to be editable and savable by the author with the same name while keeping their thumbs up. Cause every time we update a map, making it better, it's like creating it from scratch, losing all reviews and that sucks.
restecpa
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote: Uniwar uses an "ELO rating" system to determine points won/lost in rated matches.
There seems to be a lost points issue in multiplayer games, if division is not integer: if N players remain alive in a game, when a player loses N-1 points, none of the other players get them.
For example: we play an 8 player game. First player out loses 6 points. None of the 7 remaining players receive them, which is fair. Now, the next player loses 5 points. None of the other 6 players get them. Which is not fair: they should all receive (6+5)/6 = 1 point each (5 points remain). Next player loses 4 points, the 5 remaining see 0 points. They should receive 1 point (4 points remain). If this goes on, the last player receives only the points lost by the 2nd player, when he should have received also what was left from the others.
So someone should give a look at those math mechanics.
On the other hand, there are players which are inactive for more than 6 months if not even years. Normally, the score of such players should slowly decrease, so as to have an accurate image of current ratings. I would propose that if you have not finished at least 1 rated game every month your score should decrease by 10 points that month.
|
|
|
|
waxoid wrote: So +1 attack if first level veterancy and +2 if second? cool, didn't know, but suspected.
so besides the 10% or 20% damage bonus you get from health, you also get 0.5 or 1 more hit points. that is something to consider when killing infectors with speeders 
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote: I got the answer from one of the devs:
Any time a unit kill another unit, the first unit generates"points" for the kill,
The "points" gained are calculated with the following formula: unit killed cost * remaining life points/10
Examples:
kill a tank with 2 remaining life points generates: 400*2/10 = 80
kill a marine with 1 remainig life point generates 100*1/10 = 10
kill an engineer with 10 remaining life points generates 200*10/10 = 200
To get 1 chevron a unit need to generate as many points as his cost ( a marine needs 100 "points", a marauder 250, .....)
to get 2 chevrons a unit need to generate 2 times his cost ( a marine needs 200 "points", a marauder 500, ...)
To get one chevron a unit needs to generate MORE points than his cost.
1. Could you talk to the devs to make it "as many"? It would be a nice touch, as veterancy is so rarely obtained.
2. This one is a hard one: as veterancy is so hard to obtain, could the devs add 2 to maximum life for each chevron earned instead of one?
|
|
|
one thing that should be changed in the game is the way "Credits spent:" and "Bases captured:" are displayed. Nobody cares how much much money you spent since you made your account or how a big conquerer you were and, as pro as it may be, why make things so hard, as writing down this info at the beginning of the game about all players and then make the substractions in the game as it moves on.
This information should be per game. So everyone starts with 0. Like this we won't have to substract 6845850 - 6845750 to find out someone bought a mecha and neither 4592 - 4591 to know he captured a base somewhere on the map. A nice thing to add would be kill/killed ratio per player. This would add a lot of strategy to balancing the game with multiple players.
Also info about players should be available in the join game lobby.
|
|
|
simsverd wrote: thank you for the feedback
what i would limit in the free version is the number of troops a player can have
Interesting idea. Would ofc result in that "free players" mostly play on smaller maps where you dont need so many units..
however with this option, troops should be able to move from the base when created
i did not understand why that would be needed ...?
this option would eliminate the situation where you have a lot of money because none of your bases are conquered but you cannot spend them because everytime you buy something you instantly get destroyed by 3 walkers let's say or your base is surrounded by oponent basic troops. this would allow for a more strategic game when approaching enemy bases.. however there are issues with this variant as one can wait for the oponent to come close and if he has aerial troops than you spawn eclipses if he has ants you get assimilators.. but it could be balanced by a maximum buy of 2 troops/base/round.
there are a lot of interesting things than can be done with this game but if users are not stimulated by let's say, a creativity contest or some other incentive then we understand that developers are not actually taking the community seriously or just are not involved as they once were in the project.
one other idea i've been giving a lot of thought is the health multiplication by the assistance unit. a more balanced way to handle this is instead of having *2/*3 to have +2/+3. than means that with one engineer a marine gets +3 (instead of +2) but with 2 engineers it gets +5 (instead of +4) and a garuda with infector gets +5 (instead of +6) and with 2 +8 (instead of +18, as if that's possible). same goes for health bases. i would also add a +1 to repair when a troop sits on base. this eliminates the wierd advantage of krals where you just can't kill one or two pinzers that have behind one or two infectors. you get them to 4, they instantly get back to 10.
there are also some nice variants than can be worked out with veterancy but unless at least the base type/color view, that everyone agrees to, is implemented, i am personally discouraged to put my creativity to work as it seems useless.
sims, could you talk to devs to do disable the word filter in team chat as most of the time i use my local language (Romanian) as i play with friends and we get all stars when we use words that in English are filtered but in my language mean something completely different.
|
|
|
one thing i would add and requires minimum changes to the game mechanics is the ability to buy modified troops with unigold. 150 seems a balanced amount, as two of them make about for three basic units.
one of the most interesting things the game could evolve towards would be, for example, if titans conquer a kral base, the kral base does not become titan but only changes color of posessing player.
one thing that need to be done, regardless of unigold is, in fog of war games everyone to see the color and type of all bases (not the troops on them). this would add strategy to the game, as alliances would be created to balance a player that conquered half the map but is far away and would get red of those early game situations where you don't remember who's race is south and north if they are out of sight. it's really easy to implement from the way the game is made: all it takes is some 1 instead of 0 by default in a new hide/show bases registry.
5 games for free version seems rather low. i would increase that to 7 (it even sounds better - a magical number) for new players and i would max in the paid version the 20 to 50 if some players are really obsessed with the game. let them play all day if they have the money and health for that.
what i would limit in the free version is the number of troops a player can have (not counting modified troops). it adds tons of strategy to the game (i really liked it in ancient empires II) and makes the game worth while even if you are the last player. however with this option, troops should be able to move from the base when created. if however a premium player creates a game he can set it to have a limit of 5/10/15/20 troops or no limit.
|
|
|
I'll make it as legal as I can for you.
1. get Virtualbox (it's a free Vitual Machine, OS independent, although I recommend it on Ubuntu) - install it
2. get a free android image (iOS is really hard to install on PC's which's processors don't support virtualisation) from andoid-x86 dot org - install it within VM (follow proceducure on the site)
3. get a friend with an android phone to buy UniWar from Google Play on your behalf (you can't access/install Google Play on VM yet, that would have been tons simpler), then back it up to his SD as .apk file (it's not as easy as it sounds) and send an e-mail to yourself with it as attachement
4. open VM - open Android - within the browser download the .apk from e-mail and install it
5. happy UniWar time on your PC
|
|
|
So we know that the seed for the random factor is received each turn from the server. However, some questions remain:
1. how come that sometimes after restarting my turn I get lower first hit results ? Does that mean that the random factor changed?
2. how is the retaliation related to my random factor, or is it linked only to the defending player's factor ?
3. is there an algorithm for anticipating the factor, something like: low-high-high-low-low-low-high .. or whatever?
I thought about how it would actually add to strategizing to have in a little corner shown on that hit what your random factor is:
PROS:
more strategy: you might spend lower hits on cheap troops and save high ones where it counts.
finally soldiers might take 1 point of health of a tank/pinzer/plasma
PROS / CONS:
it would be of more use to large number troops
CONS:
if more low hit rates than high ones in a game, players might complain (not that they don't anyway
|
|
|
Maybe the answer in balancing the no plague cooldown time issue could come from reducing the time o cooldown for the other paratroops. 9, 10, 11 or whatever turns it takes these days after UV or EMP actually means you only get to use it once in the game per paratroop.
The game would be more strategic if that number would be lowered to let's say 7 turns.
|
|
|
|
youownme wrote: Our balancing Salvation
Proposed solutions:
Khraleans:
*Allow infector to infect as many marines as are in a one tile radius. This will provide more protection and get rid of more of those marines. A possible downfall is the effectiveness on close maps, such as powerplay. Keep in mind batteries, marauders and helis can one-shot infectors.
*Plague range of 2 with cooldown. This will help limit the ability of sapiens to pull back and repair. Also get them to spend some credits on engineers. A possible downfall is the ability to sit behind pinzers and plague.
Sapiens:
*Battery cost increase to 650, and a move AFTER attack of one tile. [..]
Seems that some of proposals got implemented fast. I wonder how you managed to do that or do devs actually read the forum? Anyway, it was very fast so, whatever your method, congrats.
Still, as most of you mentioned, something needs to be done for titans concerning the terrain issue, limiting access to titan players in top 50.
|
|
|
First of all, a methodology for implementing changes should be adopted. I see a lot of clever ideas around and even read some more in older threads that belong to the sea now.
My proposal is that changes to the game are made after voting. Of course, not everyone can vote, I propose top 1000 players. A php script that checks the stats of the voter before alllowing him to vote is pretty easy to implement. That way, players that have proven that are into the game and pretty good at it have a say.
One poll per day and a period of 2 weeks to 1 month be allowed to cast the vote. That way you keep players interested in the development of the game while giving them enough time to vote. If the poll reaches let's say 20% participation, the change is implemented, otherwise it is dismissed. This limit can grow or shrink depending on the importance of the issue. For example I would accept a 10% participation on showing how much damage a unit has to further afflict in order to get veterancy, but I would set a 20% participation for UV damaging burried lings and a 30% for allowing battery to move 1 tile after attack or changing any unit's attack/defence.
The anouncement of proposed change should be made as intro message, when starting the game.
When players see that devs care about their opinion and implement changes that they asked for, they get involved even more and the game grows organic, thus atracting new players, which means more money to the devs while keeping customers happy. After all, that's what it's all about, right?
|
![[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
