| Author |
Message |
|
|
I believe there are still a number of people holding the hope of guardian being granted ability to be repaired in the future updates. So here is another piece of suggestion of mine about a possible plan.
Guardian is indeed the strongest in terms of firepower among the three blasters so it's repair rate is somehow nerfed to 0 as a probable measure of balancing while the other two have 1 repair rate. However, being deprived of the ability to be repaired makes guardian quite a once-off unit and unable to be utilized to the fullest. So how about granting it a special rate of repair that is more than 0 but distinctly lower than the other units? My suggestion is as follows:
While the repair rate of any other unit is the base rate(1 or 2) MULTIPLYING the rate of engineers/assimilators/infectors and the medibase, maybe the repair rate of guardian can be set as the base rate of 0 ADDING the numbers of the assimilators next to him and the medibase it stands on. For example, guardian gets 1 repair rate added for each assimilator next to him and 2 for the medibase it stands on(which means a guardian can at most heal for 8 in an extreme situation). This will buff guardian, but meanwhile may cause titans to cut down the firepower to build more assimilators to repair guardians, balancing the buff in the other way, similar to saps building engineers to deal with the more occurring plague caused by salamanders.
The idea above is inspired by the discussion on repair rate by a few players in the Chinese community. To focus on the viewpoint, this suggestion is put forward regardless of balancing problems and technical possibilities. I'd be thankful for your attention and glad to hear about your points.
我相信现在仍会有人抱着这样一种希望，守护者在游戏以后的更新中能够获得修复的能力。所以在此我向各位展示一种或许可行方案的建议。
在三族的反坦克兵种当中，守护者无疑是火力最强的，所以，或许是为了实现平衡性，官方将其修复速率削至了0，而另外两族的为1。然而，被剥夺修复能力的守护者几乎变成了个一次性消费品，从而不能发挥其最大的威力。那么，可不可以适当给它一点儿修复速率？稍微有一点儿，但明显低于其他任何兵种。建议如下：
其他兵种的修复速率是由其修复速率基数（1或2）乘以工兵/同化器/毒蝎以及医疗基地的倍率得到，那么，也许守护者的修复速率可以设置为：基数为0，再加上它附近同化器和它所在的医疗基地的数值得到。比如说，守护者旁边每有一个同化器，修复速率就增加1点，它所在的医疗基地能增加2点，这样在最极端的情况下，守护者可获得最多8点的修复。这样固然会增强了守护者，但同时，神族可能会造出更多同化器来修复守护者，从而无形中削弱了自己的战斗力，于是从另一方面平衡了这个增益，类似于人族制造更多工程师来对付虫族毒螈导致的更加频繁的瘟疫。
上述想法来自于中国玩家QQ群里一些玩家关于修复速率讨论的启发。为了集中表达我的观点，上面的建议并没有过多考虑平衡性的问题和技术上的可能性。感谢你们的关注，并期待你们的回复。
|
|
|
Maybe this has been mentioned by others before:
Could the history of purchase be listed by the descending order of date? Thx. It is a little bit disturbing scrolling all the way down to see the latest purchase from time to time.
也许有人已经提到过这个事情了：购买历史能不能按照日期降序排列？非常感谢。每次我们想查看最新的购买记录都得一路翻到最底，这挺麻烦的。
|
|
|
|
wookieontheweb wrote:I prefer the idea that map designers can choose which units are available to use on a map. You can then create maps that only allow artillery (kill all enemy units), or only naval etc. Then all maps created before the new units were enabled could be set to have them turned off and only new maps that have been properly play tested with new units would allow them.
That idea also sounds nice. But personally, I think that idea may work better for ranked random games than customized ones. In customized ones, it is the player who decide all the attributes of the game he wanna play, so why not leave the choice to the player to decide which units are available or not?
|
|
|
|
Angkor wrote:It's a good idea, but myself I'd like just an option of switching on/off ALL new units (classic mode). In unranked games at least, maybe ranked too, with some lower rank changes (50 or 30 percent of usual rank change).
Tourneys should keep the mainstream of the game, which means all units in, always, no exceptions.
-----------
这是一个好主意，但自己我只想打开/关闭所有新单位（经典模式）的选项。 至少在未分配的游戏中，也许排名，有一些较低的排名变化（50或30％的通常的排名变化）。
游戏应该保持游戏的主流，这意味着所有单位，总是，没有例外。
Sounds good. Yeah, actually I am among the guys who prefer the "classic mode". So it may also be fine for me to switch all of them in one switch. And, yes, maybe the tourney should go like what it is now as you say, maybe in order to test out who is the true omnipotent player. 
|
|
|
译文：关于增设新兵种开关的建议
建议官方在个人资料(或游戏设置)中增设新兵种(反坦克、两栖兵种)开关选项，以供玩家调节是否可以使用新兵种。
具体实施方案：
1、每一类(组)兵种分别设置一个开关，例如——反坦克兵种：可用/不可用；两栖兵种——可用/不可用。
2、非比赛单挑局：开始随机游戏时，系统为该玩家寻找有着完全相同的新兵种开关设置的玩家；创建自定义游戏时，另一名玩家自动适用房主的新兵种开关设置。
3、非比赛多人游戏：玩家自建团队作战，可以参考上述做法，在团队资料中增设新兵种开关选项，由队长设置；非自建团队团战，所有玩家自动适用房主的设置。大乱斗模式中，根据所有玩家对每类新兵种开关的比例来确定是否能在本局中使用该类兵种，例如(只是例如)：如果有超过半数玩家启用反坦克兵种，则本局游戏中可使用反坦克兵种，并且所有玩家均可无条件(无需购买)使用该类兵种；如果不超过半数玩家启用两栖兵种，则本局所有玩家禁用两栖兵种。
4、比赛：建议官方增设比赛种类和场数(只要服务器能吃得消)，不同的比赛中，不同类型新兵种的可用性也不同。
5、如果创建一局游戏时，玩家尚未拥有所选种族的某一类兵种，则他在本局无法选择启用该类兵种。
|
|
|
4. For tournament games. This could be the most difficult part. I have no better suggestion but suggest dear devs to set different kinds of tournaments to adjust the availability of each kind of new units.
5. While creating a new game, if the player hasn't purchased a certain kind of new unit of the race picked, he is not able to enable the use of that kind of new unit in this game.
I sincerely hope that my suggestion could raise your attention and help to make UniWar better for both fresh and veteran players. And I will also be happy to hear from other Uniwarrior friends about this.
祝大家玩得愉快！
|
|
|
Dear devs,
I am writing this to suggest that there be an option to enable or disable the using of new units released recently (and in the future if there will be any) while a player is setting the account (or a game) just like setting his color and flag.
We are excited to see the drastic changes to UniWar with your continuous dedication and hard work. During the past two months, two groups of new units have been released. The game is becoming more exciting and challenging with their emergence. However, that also brought about heated discussion and even some complaint. Some complained that the new units are released in a too rapid pace to allow them to purchase all of them by grinding enough unicoins in a short period of time. Some complained that the new units are too premature to be used in ranked and tournament games while they still needs to be further balanced. And some, especially some veterans prefer the "original taste" of UniWar, the game with the original 8 units for each race. And I have already seen that those complaints came from the significant impact on the gameplay and the concern about fairness caused by such a rather "sudden" change to the game. So I am thinking of the suggestion above.
The possible design of that suggestion could go like the following:
1. Make a switch for each type of the new units separately, e.g. Blasters: on/off, Amphibians:on/off.
2. For non-tourney solo games, when he starts a random(R) game, the system searches for a player who has exactly the same setting as his; when he creates a custom game as the host, the other player automatically apply his settings.
3. For non-tourney multiplayer(>=3 players) games, if it is a team match between player-built teams (with a team name and bio), the design can refer to solo games' mentioned above, which means there is a switch in the team setting like in the player's setting. If it is a team match between players that haven't teamed up, all players automatically apply the host's setting. For FFA games, whether each type of new units are available or not depends on the ratio of the settings of ALL players. For example, if over half of the players enable blasters, then everyone is free to use blasters in the game; if not more than half of the players enable amphibians, then amphibians are forbidden in this game.
(To be continued...)
|
|
|
Driven by curiosity, I have just one question. Why aren't the miniguns firing at the same time? 
|
|
|
Grrrrrreat! Finally! We rejoice for the monumental moment!
不胜感激！
|
|
|
Duaneski wrote:Max - I had just posted in game chat similar concerns. I wanted to play some matches first buuuuut my gut reaction after seeing the bopper in action was just what you posted
So, GOUT is gonna stomp me in a match or two haha. Will see if we can learn anything there 
But in theory, I agree with you
Sounds good. I also feel like playing some more.
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote:We plan to deploy some balance changes to the new blaster units later tonight.
More changes are possible before they are allowed in rated and tournament games.
These changes will make the bopper more flexible while preventing it to become to overpowered, and reducing the possible mass-Borfly-play in the Khral vs Khral matchup.
Borfly: decrease air attack from 6 to 1
Borfly : increase AP air to 50%
Bopper: move and attack
Bopper: decrease air attack from 7 to 2
Bopper: increase air AP to 35%
Bopper; decrease GH from 7 to 5
Bopper: decrease AP vs GH to 25%
Bopper: decrease GL from 5 to 3
Bopper: reduce range from 2-3 to 3
Great to see the changes to bopper. Though badly nerfed in terms of power, it retrieves the vital feature AAM, making it more favorable to maneuver anyway.
However, I am still a bit worried about the borfly's change. It is mentioned that this change is due to a worry about overusing them in KvK, but imo more attention should be paid to its anti-tank feature, in other words, its utility against T and S. I have played several games with the opponents using borflies. Being slow, defenseless without AAM, they turned out to be nothing but popcorn of marauders and speeders, and believe it or not, marines and mechas. As for tanks, they are hardly affected while having my own blasters or artilleries. So, why not grant borfly AAM like the other two? Khrals are supposed to be relatively more mobile than the other two races. Being cheaper doesn't necessarily mean being weaker, especially to the degree of being useless in any way but being enemy's experience juice.
Just like the change to battery a few years ago, where it was granted MAA with price raised 100, but become more favorable to be used. There may be also many ways to make borfly balanced with AAM. Increasing the cost, nerfing its power maybe applicable.
|
|
|
|
th1whoknocks wrote:Are the abbreviations (GL, AP, etc.) defined anywhere?
GH refers to ground heavy.
GL refers to ground light.
AP refers to armor piercing.
They are in the game itself, you can check them in the info page.
|
|
|
Grrrrrrrreat! I have always been looking for uniwar quizzes like this. But unfortunately, YouTube is inaccessible in China. 
|
|
|
|
Greetings. This question and the relevant have been discussed before in the forum. I am not sure if your proposal can be supported by many. First, there have already been scouting units like speeders, marauders and swarmers reinforcing the vision of the artillery units. Second, it may be a little rediculous to reduce artilleries' vision. They are already very vulnerable. Also, what use is their attack range if they can't see where they can fire?
|
|
|
|
wookieontheweb wrote:That crossed my mind too but it would be the same for both sides.
The oft promised amphibious units could be complicated though. Would they be under or over?
Hmm maybe just sticking with the purely cosmetic change of transparency would be enough to suppress the ocd in me.
How about raised bridges? ... maybe I'll just get used to boats bobbing on concrete.
Creative idea. But anyway this is just a game. Strict logic of daily life should give way to gameplay more or less, maybe. I wonder if you notice that underling can also bury under a bridge. If ships can also "bury " under bridge as you suggest, then how should we deal with the location arrangement with it and the buried lings? Normally they are surely not in the same location, with one on water and the other suspending under bridge. Is there any necessity to set a new layer of terrain to solve that? Not really perhaps.
|
![[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
