| Author |
Message |
|
|
I've been watching ads on and off since the official release. Starting today, I've noticed an odd glitch. Some of the ads won't start playing once they appear on my screen. I have to tap the X in the upper left corner, which pulls up the option to either resume watching or end it. When I select resume, the AD starts running and I can eventually collect my unicoins. Some ads (specifically one for Armymen Strike) simply cannot be watched. Instead of an actual number in the timer in the upper left corner, I get something like NaN. The above mentioned method does not work in this situation, and I am required to abort the ad (which, of course, means no unicoins). This would not be an issue if it were not for the fact that it is rather common to get the same advertisement several times in a row (e.g., I once got Lords Mobile ten times in a row). Now I doubt that anyone is actually watching the ads, but this glitch does make it difficult for players to earn unicoins. I can only imagine the frustration a new player might experience if he or she was stymied several times in a row.
I don't know if this is an issue that can be fixed on your end (these ads were running fine yesterday so the issue might reside with the provider of said ads), but I figured it wouldn't hurt to bring it up. In case it is somehow device specific, I'm watching these ads on a Samsung S6 running on Android 7.0 (Nougat).
|
|
|
|
Now that the advertisement system is in place, perhaps you can restore the "no pay to win" tag to the game's description. Having played with the system extensively (easy to do while grading papers), I can assure everyone that it is extremely easy to earn unicoins. This game is once again, and hopefully will remain, one of pure skill (which means I can give up on my dream of defeating Simsverd and Gout. . . Oh well).
|
|
|
|
I've had similar experiences. Until this matter is handled via an update, try using your phone's or tablets "memo pad." While it is not completely fool proof, it is more difficult to cancel out a message there than in the Uniwar chat. Also, you can save your memo before switching screens. With your content saved (and easily deleted once you are done with it), you can copy and paste without fear of your thumbs betraying you.
|
|
|
|
That would be a nice feature. As for now, try highlighting and copying your text to your device's clipboard. That way you can close out the chat box, get the grid number (s), open up the chat box, paste your message back in and add the needed info.
|
|
|
With all the various projects that Xavi is furiously working on implementing (e.g., the advertisement system), it feels a tad selfish to keep putting new ideas onto the forums. Even if they are good ideas, they ultimately create a giant mountain of work that may never be fully surmounted. That being said, new ideas and concepts are what allow all projects to continue flourishing, so I thought I’d post one of my more ambitious notions.
While some may consider my declaration to be premature, Uniwar has, in fact, entered a sort of golden age of productivity. New and exciting maps are coming out on a fairly regular basis (setting aside for the time being the numerous challenges surrounding the issues of balance and map ranking), and several players have taken the concept of multiplayer games in new directions. Most noticeable are UW-Sandman’s The Grand War and Angkor’s UNIWAR Role-Play Campaign (EVR1022 Pro-Tournament also shows promise, but it is an entirely different beast). Both UW-Sandman and Angkor are using the forum and in-game chat system to create new gaming dynamics, and those taking part in their projects appear to enjoy and appreciate their efforts. Unfortunately, the current structure and restrictions of the gaming system limit what they and others can ultimately pull off. They are, after all, ultimately confined to the passive role of the observer in many of these games/campaigns, and must depend entirely on the good will of the participants to ensure that things run smoothly.
Admittedly, it may very well be that the abovementioned limitations are what allow UW-Sandman, Angkor, and various others to be so creative; that is, by endeavoring to work around said restrictions, they are able to come up with new and innovative approaches. However, even the most creative of individuals have their limitations and if additional progress is to be made in the arena of custom games and events, then it might be time to consider adding to the number of options available when creating a game. Specifically, I would like to argue for the development of an “administrator” mode.
The basic idea is fairly simple. Rather than having to insert themselves into the game as a non-active third party (e.g., by surrendering at the start of the game), the person who creates the game would be able to watch over it as a sort of moderator. This would, among other things, allow the administrator to keep tabs on all aspects of the game from beginning to end. Taking this a step further, the administrator would be allowed to control/manipulate aspects of the game that are currently outside of any player’s control. For example, he/she could double the amount of credits a player receives for a turn, or could temporarily lock out certain units (e.g., player two could suddenly find him/herself unable to create blaster units for the next two turns). The administrator could be given other powers/abilities as well. That being said, the administrator should not have complete control over all aspects of the game. For example, he/she should probably not be allowed to manipulate the random number generator.
Please keep in mind that this mode would have to be deliberately selected by the person creating the game, and that all games played in this mode would have to be unrated. After all, the goal here is not to create unnecessary pain or hardship for any member of the Uniwar community. Instead, the idea is to add increased flexibility so that players can create more detailed and contextualized gaming events. Looking at it another way, what I am ultimately advocating for is mode of game play in which one player can take on the role of GM or DM (Game Master or Dungeon Master for those unfamiliar with RPGs like Dungeon and Dragons). This would allow for “random events” to be inserted into a game without having to rely on the good will of the players involved.
I cannot imagine how much actual work would be required to implement such a system, and it is entirely possible that this notion may ultimately prove to be unfeasible; however, I nonetheless believe that this idea has a lot of potential and is worthy of serious consideration. And as always, the thoughts and opinions of others are warmly welcomed.
|
|
|
|
careloads wrote:I think I found a bug. Guardian cannot repair on med hex with assimilator next to it.
That's not a bug. Guardians are not supposed to repair/heal under any circumstance.
|
|
|
While engaged in my customary 30 minutes of self-imposed torture (i.e., cardio at the gym), I got to thinking about the storytelling aspect of this event. Why? Mostly because the really hot blond who usually there performing stretches and doing light abdominal work right in front of the cardio machines was absent today, and I needed something to distract me from the pains and aches of trying to "maintain" my physical condition. Anyway, a lot of what we are going to be doing contains not only prose-based elements, but also drama as well. Angkor will, of course, get the final word on this, but I was thinking that the following elements might prove useful going forward:
Use single asterisks to convey actions (e.g., *walks up behind Angkor and lifts his wallet*)
Use double asterisks to convey internal thoughts/monologues (e.g., *watches as their forces are quickly decimated with a panicked look* **Ok, me, just calm down. This isn't the end of the world. We just need to edit the logs and shift the blame to that worthless sock puppet** *gives Angkor a sideways glance and smiles*)
Use brackets for asides/muttered comments (e.g., Why that's a great idea [you worthless, incompetent piece of dung] *flashes a huge smile in Angkor's direction*)
The last item, brackets, might not be necessary; however, they could be used to great effect for providing a sort of subliminal commentary. The only thing we would all have to agree to, is not to react to the internal thoughts of others (i.e., anything enclosed in double asterisks). Admittedly, I would prefer to use italics for internal thoughts, but Uniwar's chat system currently does not support the use of italics (@Xavi: if you happen to stumble across this, please add the use of italics to the chat system)
|
|
|
While the above easy to dismiss as sentimental claptrap, the howls of frustration reverberating through the English and Basement chats clearly suggest otherwise. Map makers are increasing growing discontent with the misuse and abuse of the current system, and some have even gone so far as to give up map making entirely. Should this continue, we could easily find ourselves with an increasing shrinking pool of rated maps; a prospect I’m sure that none of you have made it this far into the post wishes to see happen.
Before getting into one or two possible solutions, it is important to mention that the map makers themselves are not entirely without blame. Over the past couple of weeks, there has been an increasing number of inane arguments regarding individual map making practices. People harping about how another’s map is not symmetrical, or how they don’t like a map because it has holes in it (i.e., the use of null space). While it is true that some of the singled-out maps are, in fact, imbalanced, the fact remains that the impetus for these critiques are principally aesthetic in nature. Of course, each and every person is entitled to an opinion, but framing these critiques in terms of personal preference causes more harm than good. It can lead others to downvote perfectly good maps based on elements of style rather than functionality, actions that will only end up hurting us as a community. I would humbly ask that our more vocal map makers to be more prudent in their commentary, and to carefully consider whether their opinions stem from issues of mechanics or style. Map making is, after all, a form of art, and within any given art form there are varying styles. We currently have Classicists (e.g., they prefer symmetry above all else), Modernists (they like playing around with asymmetrical styles), and Surrealists (they like playing with black/null space to create unique concepts). When giving other map makers advice, try to put your biases and preconceptions away and focus solely on a given map’s merits. What works, what doesn’t work, and why you think so.
As to how to go about addressing the numerous flaws in the current map voting system, I only have a few vague notions and must ultimately defer to others. I would, however, argue that allowing people to vote anonymously on maps that they have not yet played should be temporarily disabled. Although it has had some positive outcomes (see above), it is far too easy to misuse and abuse. Not only do some people go out of their way to downvote the maps of others regardless of quality (i.e. Trolls), but far too many players allow outside factors to influence their votes. New and/or inexperienced players will up or down vote a map based solely on the opinions of more experienced players (who may or may not be correct in their assertions), and others will cast their votes based on their views opinions of the map maker him/herself; that is, people will upvote a map out of loyalty to a friend, or downvote it because they do not like the person in question. Such practices are ultimately a disservice to both the map maker as well as the community as a whole. Until the abuses inherent to current system are properly addressed, a temporary shutdown of that aspect of the voting system is worth considering (i.e., users must actually play on a map before being able to vote on it).
I would also recommend a slight alteration to how map voting works at the conclusion of a random rated game. As we all know, many players are quick to blame the map for their defeat. While the map can be at fault, more often than not it is the person being reflected on the phone’s or tablet’s screen that is to blame. This problem, however, could be addressed with a delayed carrot approach. The way this would work is relatively simple. Once a rated game has come to an end, neither party is allowed to vote on the map for a 24-hour period. This will give both parties time to cooldown and reflect on the game in a more calm and rational manner. Once they have voted, they will receive a small reward of 5 unicoins. This will help to encourage players to take the time to vote on completed games. Also, those who still feel the need to downvote the map should be required to provide some brief feedback to explain/justify their decision (they are getting some unicoins after all). This feedback could be sent to the map maker in a private message, or it could be attached to the map directly (add an option to turn comments on and off).
These are merely some of my thoughts on the map making issue currently festering in the various chats. As previously stated, I have chosen to focus more of the psychological nature of the problem rather than the technical aspects, and I am keenly aware that this approach suffers from numerous limitations. Nonetheless I would like to hear what others have to say (be it positive or negative) so that this discussion continues to grow. If the problem is to be eventually solved, we cannot allow it to be shelved once more.
And yes, I do know that I’m a windy, arrogant blowhard. 
|
|
|
Over the past couple of weeks, there has been an increase in the amount of wrangling, petty commentary, and immature behavior regarding the up and down voting of player created maps. Admittedly these reactions are not entirely without some small justification. The current system is, after all, easily abused with perfectly good maps being unfairly downvoted, and more questionable/dubious maps being up voted for reasons other than their actual merits. How to fix this is a matter of substantial debate, and I myself have only partial answers to provide. That being said, it is a matter that needs to be more thoroughly discussed, and this conversation needs to take into account far more than the current state of the pool of rated maps. Instead, it is essential that the map makers themselves be thoroughly considered for without them, this game would most like have died out long ago.
Although clearly present in the numerous frustrations vented in the game’s chat system, the feelings of the map makers seldom play a role in arguments for or against revising the current map voting system. This, of course, is a mistake that will most likely end up significantly hurting the game at some point in the future. The reason for this omission is that most people prefer to view the voting system in purely analytical terms; they address the matter as a technical problem in need of a rational solution and failing to find one (or being too busy to address the matter), they are content to shelve the issue until a later date. Admittedly the actual problem and eventual solution may prove to be technical in nature; however, thinking solely in such terms completely ignores the psychological aspect of the problem. Simply put, many of our map makers are growing increasingly angry and frustrated over the pitfalls of the current system, and some (perhaps many) are considering putting an end to their map making endeavors.
Taking a closer look at this problem, the current system allows people to anonymously vote on any map without having to provide any sort of feedback. The rationale being that anonymity helps to protect the voter from retaliation, whereas the lack of mandatory feedback makes players more likely to vote. Truth be told, this system has produced many positive results. Numerous unbalanced maps have been down voted and removed from random rated game play, and this has done wonders for the community. Therefore, it is clear that some sort of voting or filtering system is needed to help regulate the deluge of player created maps. That being said, the current system fails to take into account that map making is ultimately a creative process; that is, the time and energy poured into these maps make them an extension of the map maker’s sense of self – a reflection of his/her identity as it were. Furthermore, the more time and energy put into refining a given map (e.g., refining the map via comments and test games), the greater the connection between creator and creation. While seemingly abstract, this connection between investment and attachment is important for it helps to explain why so many map makers are currently fed up with the current system. They essentially pour themselves into their creations, only to have their maps – and by extension their sense of self – unfairly maligned by those who take a perverse joy in hurting others.
|
|
|
|
I like number 3. There's something to be said for effective use of null space.
|
|
|
|
Sargeyoda wrote:I got 100 coins on Angkor, I am not sure how my score will affect that but I am 1798 currently. Anyone want to bet 100 coins on Duaneski?
I log in at random to give myself a break only to find this?!  Of course I have to put 100 coins on Duaneski, so I'll meet your wager, Sargeyoda.
|
|
|
|
It is entirely possible that my proposal would require far more time and energy than Xavi and co. have at their disposal, and thus rendering the entirety of my post moot. On the other hand, if it were possible, then it would open the doors to other possibilities as well. For example, the ability to specify whether or not a map is for FFA or team match ups.
|
|
|
As it already stands, map making is a rather daunting and tricky task. This is because the gold standard, a map that is perfectly balanced for all races and turn sequences (i.e. it doesn't matter what race player one is), not only requires careful, if not painstaking, planning and tests, but also because it is quite subjective. Given some of the rather heated debates in English chat, it is clear that people have rather differing opinions as to what makes a map balanced. To make matters even more complicated, there is the issue of the fun factor (i.e., maps need to be both balanced as well as interesting/enjoyable). Of course, the latter is even more subjective than the former and if the echoing screams of some prolific map makers in English chat are any indication, whole droves of map makers are on the verge of apoplexy. To make matters even MORE complicated, we will, at some point, be graced with new units whose new abilities may very well render countless maps obsolete.
*politely waits as several map makers suffer severe spasms and are taken to the hospital for observation*
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not a computer programmer and therefore do not have any idea as to the difficulties involved in changing the internal functions of the game. That being said, I wonder if it might be possible to tweak both the map editor as well as the way random matches are setup. Concerning the first part, adding elements to the map editor (perhaps boxes that can be checked off) that would allow map makers to specify that a map is for certain races. For example, checking a box to indicate that a specific map is meant for same race match ups only. Taking this one step further, allowing users to specify not only race match ups, but also the order of races. For example, that a map is for player one as Sapiens and player two as Titans. Admittedly, specifying the race for player one and player two may be taking things a bit too far; however, being able to formally specify that a map is at least for same race match ups or for only two specific races is not overly outlandish. After all, several maps have notes specifying that a map is designed for specific match ups/pairings. As for the second part, this may prove far more difficult to implement. The system itself would need to be able to recognize/understand the map labeling (e.g. that the map it has randomly selected is meant for sapiens vs. sapiens only) and assign the players the appropriate races.
|
|
|
|
You might want to make the support developer option something that can be purchased more than once. Even when there isn't new content for players to buy, some of us might still want to offer some token of appreciation.
|
|
|
|
I suggested this myself in another thread, and I still think it is a good idea. Building off of this, I would recommend allowing map makers to have the option of downloading their map to their various devices instead of uploading it to the server. This would give them the opportunity to test things out for themselves (i.e., check for balance issues) before uploading it and asking others for their opinions. This would benefit both the map makers and the community at large. It would benefit map makers by cutting down on the number of map tokens needed to perfect the balance of a given map. Rather than having to go through numerous reiterations of a given map, and thus numerous tokens, they might only need to use two or three in order to get the balance just right. As for the community, it would result in a greater number of balanced maps to choose from.
|
|
|
![[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
