| Author |
Message |
|
|
July 21st. Now I have too many days  . If getting it perfect is too much effort, you can just reset me to 285. I was more concerned with reporting a bug in the new special offer than getting my pro account correct.
|
|
|
I purchased the year pro account with the current special offer as of July 20 2019. The deal was the $23.49/year one. My profile says I have 285 days left on my pro subscription.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Randomize by round or game if the tiebreaker will be decided by the game with the least rounds or the game with the most. If no one knows which game they need to stall, they will play at a normal pace
|
|
|
|
Do points matter against only your opponent, or will advancement ever be based on not only beating your opponent, but having the highest score (6 vs 4 or 3) of the winner pool? If I beat my opponent in 20 rounds in 1 game, can I quit the second game after the 21st round and still advance? (No I'm not planning on being this unsportsmanlike, the answer to the question does affect my strategy though)
|
|
|
Xavi, I appreciate that you care about the game and want to improve it, so I thank you for that. I do though, see some flawed logic behind the reasons for the changes. I think the logic is based on improper assumptions:
Assumption 1: high ranking players who stop playing ranked matches cannot be overcome on the ladder.
My answer to this is that if the ladder were functional, any stagnent play should easily be overcome by good players with even a slow but steady increase in points. The fact that good players get stuck at 2100-2200's is a symptom of race bias overcoming all skill at >2100 points.
Assumption 2: players above 2400 had to have abused the system.
Answer: other than a couple of outliers which I agree are quite dubious, this is just scapegoating the high ranking players. The reason why a new generation of >2400 players have some risen up is because once again random games are completely controlled by race bias.
Assumption 3: mirror matches solve race bias.
Answer: I don't know how this idea even got started. Mirror matches will be the most inhibitive obstibical to moving up in the rank yet seen in Uniwar. All matches will end with 1 win an 1 loss for the players. The lower ranked player will get a net gain in points. The higher will be brought down even though they tied in the win/loss. This format will not expand the bellcurve, but shrink it to the point and almost every player will have the same number of points probably averaging 2000 with a SDev. of about 25.
Ultimatelty, Random games are quite aggravating. Especially if you get a bad map. People have asked for this many times, and I believe it is the simplest solution so I will ask again.
Please give us the ability to choose map and opponent and then uniwar randomizes the races.
Sincerely,
Grumpy Curmudgeon
Ps if you plan on taking points away from >2400. How will you stop them from just giving them away before that time and/or giving them to their other accounts?
|
|
|
I would like to start this by saying that I have been playing Uniwar non-stop for over 4 years now. I only paid $0.99 for this and I actually feel like I owe Uniwar more money for the entrainment it has provided me. I support ideas which will help drive income to support the servers, development, and to make it profitable for the owners for years to come: As long as these ideas maintain the integrity of the game. I however do not support the long-term and short-term proposals for changes in the rules, including the ones to purchase move restarts and a more aggressive/fanatical ladder system. I believe that the new ladder proposal is designed specifically to increase sales of move restarts when they are rolled out and has nothing to do with a relevant ranking system like they claim. The most likely source of these resets will not be the best players, who are typically adults with busy lives, which play few games and would not pay for restarts, but the mediocre teenagers- early adults who play more games, believe that their Uniwar ranking is the most importing thing in their lives, and who will purchase an untold amount of restarts if they think it will help them get into the “Top 50” of Uniwar. I put the Top 50 in parenthesis because I believe that the best players will continue to lose points by not playing the boring random game system and the “Top 50” will be filled by those who are actually 2100 players at best. I also do not find it surprising that players who stand to make a profit from tutoring the same mediocre players have shown their support for this format.
The reason why the best stop playing rated games/ stop playing Uniwar completely is because the race bias on almost every map has a weight of about 10-fold more than the skill level on the outcome of the games. Random games are boring because it is just like flipping a coin and starting a game is a guaranteed loss as well. The thought of playing random game mirror matches makes me shutter. If these matches are played by 2 people of any skill the outcome will be 1 win and 1 loss for about 99% of the matches. Not only is this horrifically boring, but will exaggerate the frustrations of anyone who begins to reach the top of the ladder; I suspect the rate of attrition will only increase for the skilled players.
The only salvation for Uniwar is to have the users and/or developers generate maps which minimize the effects of the race bias and maximize the effect of skill level on the outcome of the game. If we had an abundance of these maps, then starting a rated game on them would be as fair as starting a random game for all parties involved. No mirror match required. Recently, I have been spending the few free moments of my day, to develop maps which minimize the race bias. I am doing this completely because I feel that I have to give back in some manner. I think I have one 2 player game and one 4 player game which do not have a race bias. I do not see why as a community, we cannot generate many more. I would like to see Uniwar make more of an effort to look at what makes a map fair and reach out to users to generate more. I don’t see why we can’t base a ladder around maps like that. Unless of course, there is no money in it…
|
|
|
|
If that scientific study is true, shouldn't you be swearing outloud to relieve your stress and not in a chatroom? I support the censoring not to protect the children from adults swearing, but to protect the adults from the swearing children who play this game.
|
|
|
K vs k desperately needs to be addressed because it is not fun at all. I like the idea, but I think it needs to be tweaked a little because arial units typically sit out of the attack range of a pincer. That means that a devour can only be used as a counter attack. I'm not sure it would deter a swarm. I would for every 1 pincer, there is approximately 2 less swarmers on their side. This means that most of the counter attack will have to be done by devours and not swarm vs swarm. I would just spread out damage to the pincers so their devour would not be as effective and after they are done chewing up a handful of swarms while at the same time taking heavy damage, then finish them all off on the second move.
If the pincer could devour at a range of 3, they would be a good deterant of swarmers who's front line would only be able to land attacks on the pincer and healthy pincers in the backfield could counter attack.
|
|
|
Everyone talks a lot about balance of maps and races, but are we all talking about the same thing? There are two opposing interpretations on how this game can be viewed as balanced and how to scrutinize user generate maps. I would like to try to come to a consensus on what balance means.
In general Saps>K's, K>Titans, Titans>Saps. One way to view this is that even though one race always has the advantage in 1vs1 games, the entire game is balanced in the end. The other way to view this is that the game is unbalanced and tweaks need to be made to each race to decrease or completely get rid of race advantages.
The same problem can be applied to rating maps for balance. When someone rates a map as balanced, are they saying that it fits the Saps>K's, K>Titans, Titans>Saps format, or it is actually a fair fight for all races? Can we establish some sort of consensus on how we are rating maps?
Obviously I would love to have all the races be equal, but I do not think that is possible(without being allowed to play games where all units can be bought). I would like to see the ones called balanced maps be the ones which follow the Saps>K's, K>Titans, Titans>Saps format and when a map changes this format, we should be able to give this feedback in the rating system.
How does everyone else see this?
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to report a problem directly to the devs. I stumbled across a loophole which shouldn't be discussed here in the forum.
|
|
|
|
In a few games recently when playing Titans, I will log into the game and Meachas that had just teleported appear fully functional. They are not greyed out, have their ZOC, and will display damage calculations against any unit I put next to them. If I leave the game and come back in they will typically be displayed properly as non-functional and so have been a minor nuisance until this past game I am playing. It is a large map and my underlings and their teleporting mechas were scrambling for bases. I came across a cooling down mecha which appeared to be fully functional and i so my next move was made in response to a normal mecha and not a cooling down one. It's not a big deal, but is annoying and I just wanted to let you know.
|
|
|
|
No, I love it as much as I hate it. Which is exactly the point. It helps you as much as it hurts you so getting rid of it can't make things better because the net gain is already 0.
|
|
|
|
This is a horrible cheat. Please make a way to prevent resets from logging inbetween accounts. There is nothing to be done about uninstalls, but it is such a pain in the ass only the most neurotic will spend the time to do it. If we are allowed to retry, then you should just take the random factor out of the attack formula. If you see you don't get a favorable roll, you will just reset. Just because some people do it, does not mean the game will be better if everyone does it.
|
|
|
I would increase the draw to this game by giving the current users more game play options and at the same time stealing avid TBS players from other simillar games. I won't plug the game here, but there is one great game, (if it worked on iphones and wasn't a monthly subscription would give this a game a run for its money) that has only 1 race, no fog of war, and no teleporting base capturing units. In this game users are free to make maps with unclaimed bases all over the map and as long as they are symmetrical, there is no map or race bias. This format opens up a style of gameplay where expanding and keeping your opponent from expanding are crucial aspects (something I really miss about Uniwar). I'm not saying to do away with what Uniwar has going on, but allow users to play in this style too, which will hopefully increase the number of users and retain the top tier players who seem to get boored and stop playing.
Suggestions:
-All ow a no fog of war option in rated games
-Allow for another mode of "1 race games" where each side can purchase any unit from any race (with the exception of mechas and maybe just chose 1 of the 3 healers which will work on all races)
I've left out a lot of details on how a 1 race game would work given the current units of Uniwar because I'm just trying to get the concenpt out there. Please comment only if you like the concept, and not get wrapped up in details like "this won't work becuase no one would buy a Pincer"
|
|
|
Having users direct tournament for money is a horribly misguided idea. Talone or any othe user cannot guarantee fairness or payouts. Even if he keeps his word and the tournament is run legitimately; this format is not conducive to transparency.
A general rule for the Internet is to not give money to people you don't know, especially when they are in other countries.
At best this is just an honest person with a bad idea. At worst Talone has decided to rip off the naive...
|
![[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
