| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
what will happen to the clock of existing games? Does it will be stopped for that 6 hours and half? If it will not stopped and the time will expire during that time a lot of games can be spoiled, included tournament games...
|
|
|
|
Yes, implemented with this limitations can be a useful feature. If also active army on board will be taken into account, than it will be possible to choose a better algorithm for limitation, but is too early to think about this second algorithm.
|
|
|
I will explain better why I suggested that limitations,
1) We agree that waiting 15 turns for a game ending it is not tedious, so the button can be pressed only after 15 turns.
2) The offender can have a equal or bigger number of bases then the opponent, but cannot activate the button if he has a lower number of bases than the opponent. This is necessary because the opponent has chances to recover a game that seems lost, earning each turn more credits of the offender.
3) We will take in consideration the credits value of killed units: if the offender has killed units for a value of 3500 credits while the opponents 2000, the button cannot be pressed. If the offender has killed 4100 while the opponent 2000 then it can be activated. It can be activated also if the killed units are 3000 and 900 respectively, but I'm not sure that a difference of 2000 will be determinant if the offender has killed 10000, wile the opponent just 8000. That is why I proposed that the difference in credit value of killed units must be one the double value of the other, ex. 10000 for offender and 5000 for opponent, or 6000 for offender and 3000 for opponent, and so on. The double value can be discussed and changed of course, may be it can be already sufficient if the value of killed units of the opponents will be less than 60% of that of the offender, ex 10000 for the offender and 6000 or less for the opponent.
4) The minimum value would be around 2000 or more, to avoid that if the offender has killed 1000 and the opponent 550, the button can be pressed as stated in the limitation 3.
About the scoring ratio I think that yours or khan's are both ok, the duanesky one is too little discriminative. May be 90-200-300 is enough or 90-150-200, albeit i'm not in this kind of evaluation.
|
|
|
Because if I have more possibility to loose then to win a game I dont understand why I must accept to bet twice the points for a game such this knowing that the probability to loose is bigger. Or better, I dont want any bet in this game, and I though this must not be the aim of the button. If you want to bet double points, then ask for a double point game button, and if the opponent accept then you will win twice or loose twice, but if opponent reject, the game will remain normal.
Why do you want this button without any limitation? What is the problem with that? You told that this must be a way to finish an already won game.
|
|
|
|
May be I have some chances to to win, may be I will loose, but I'm sure I dont want to risk twice of the points in this game rejecting the capitulation, neither I want loose accepting capitulation without playing the game. May be I just want play the game as it is and look who will win, but this simple opportunity is negated to me if you just press that button and I'm forced to follow your bet. This is the main problem, and this is the reason we need limitations for the use of the button.
|
|
|
It is exactly for what you are telling in the example that I don't like your idea without any limitation to the use of that button. You are shure that you are going to win, but give me 10 assimilators and I will smash 20 of your pinzers in 1 turn! So it is not clear who will win and you are simply trasforming a strategy game in a gambling game, and the opponent has no choice to reject the proposal without consequences. There must be limitation otherways that button loose the purpose of ending an already won game if it will be activated when the game is not yet clearly finished.
I agree that if pressed and the game is lost, the player wll be punished much more, but I think it is not sufficient to limit abuse.
|
|
|
Uhm... May be it can be a useful feature, nevertheless I prefer this button could not be activated if the game is not yet clearly defined.
So, I would set some limitation like (the "winner" is the player that want to activate the button):
1) It cannot be activated before the 15th turn;
2) It cannot be activated if the "winner" has captured less bases than the "looser";
3) it cannot be activated if the value of killed units of the "winner" is less than the double of that of the "looser";
4) the differences in value of killed units between "winner" and "looser" must be greater than 2000.
Obviously the values reported are just indicative and can be set more appropriately.
|
|
|
Probably I prefer to not have it in a game. What will happen if a 1700 press that button against a 2000 when the course of the match is not yet well defined? 2000 should ignore the request accepting the fact to play for twice the points even if there are some possibility to loose the game, or it will be forced to loose a game having still some possibility to win it?
The game will be transformed in a sort of a poker game in which you can bet for a win. It is something that I would not see here.
And another drawback is that this possibility will be more often used by some "players" to inflate their score, and we already have a lot of them.
|
|
|
|
drumstep wrote:First round promotions are necessary in any single elimination bracket that doesn't have a number of participants exactly equal to a power of two. Otherwise it will end up with odd numbers of players in various other rounds. Take a simple 4 round tournament for example, which would normally have 16 people and the progression would be 16 => 8=>4=>2=>winner. If only 12 people sign up the progression would be 12=>6=>3. The solution is to promote 4 players to round two and have the remaining 8 play for the other 4 spots, so we have 12=>8=>4=>2=>winner. Doing the promotions at the first round is the fairest way of making sure the numbers stay even.
The reason so many players were promoted in that particular tourney is that it was set up as 1024 person bracket, but only about 560 signed up, which would leave a lot of empty spaces in the round of 512 if everyone played. The turnout might suggest that it would be best to restrict tourneys to 512 again.
Probably this is the easiest way to overcome the problem but definitively it is not the fairest. Example: there are 600 signed for tournament, by now there will be only 176 players that will play in 88 matches for the first turn, all other 424 players will not play and will be promoted directly to the second turn. The 88 winners of the matches, joined with the other 424, will be the 512 players needed for the second turn.
The fairest way in my opinion, will be to play 300 matches so that everybody will play, at the end of the turn a ladder for all players will be made and 512 players will be promoted for the second turn, including the 300 winners + the "best" 212 looser.
Probably the rules to establishing the ladder need to be updated, but I'm sure it will not be a problem for the organizing committee.
|
|
|
Page 15 of the "solo" ladder, I see 30 players starting from position 416 at score 1971 and ending at 446 at score 1957, now on the next page 16, the starting position is 451 (cause players with the same score) but the score is 1981, higher than the score of the position 416, and this must be wrong. Again for the page 18 the starting position is 507 with score 1941 and the ending position 539 with score 1928, but on the next page 19 the starting position is 540 with a score of 1946 that is higher than that of position 507 of the page 18. Only pages that start with players having the same score of the last of the previous pages seems to be correct, all other pages shows incorrect position/score.
One other example is my position, I am an active player and currently my position is 718 with score 1880, but in the ladder the position 718 is in the page 24 with the score 1859, and all players in that page have scores lower than mine but the position in the ladder ranking is better, finally, scores between 1889 and 1779 are completely missed (and also mine included), and same scores appear twice in different pages and different position, (ex. score 1866 is in page 24 at position 705 and also in page 26 at position 765).
This kind of trouble are present in all ladders and are variable probably because the ladder is continuously updated.
I forgot to mention that I'm using a computer with Windows XP and the browser is Opera.
|
|
|
Hello,
I was searching for my position in the ladder ranking and I found that the position doesn't reflect the score, and pages and position are not in order with the score. This is true for all classification, tournament, solo, 2v2 and so on. The problem is more evident moving forward with the pages, es. look at the order of position and score of the pages 20, 21, 22, 23, .... of the "solo" classification, but there are troubles also for previous pages.
Secondly,
the login for the site www.uniwar.com is not valid for the forum and it needs to login twice.
|
|
|
TheDragon wrote:
guinwza wrote:Suggest for removing randomness because most of the time randomness of dice make you unable to predict what you should do in next turn or what opponent can do in next turn because the damage is not only depend on the unit's stats but also depend on luck which is not suite for the strategy game....
But what would earth do with all his free time if he didn't have to puzzle out the full random sequence for each of his game turns???
I do like the idea but I'm also a gamer and like the chaos of rolling your doom while gaming...
For me, randomness combined with undo turn are the keys that make the game very interesting, and shouldn't be removed!
|
|
|
Hallo to everybody,
I'm new in the game but I really love it. I think undo turn is a part of the game, and is exactly for this that the game is different from the others and is so interesting. Undo turn allows to plan a strategy by knowing exactly the result of multiple attacks, exactly like chess. Random results is also a good thinks for the game otherways the result of every attack would be already known making the game less interesting.
The only think that I would change is the reduced field of view (halved) for teleported units or in general for the second step of units that can do it.
|
![[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
