| Author |
Message |
|
|
Helis are DEFINITELY over powered. They're stats are all better than Garudas and they have the runaway ability after they attack, if they boost the healing of helis up to 2 then they should take away it's ability to move after attack (seeing as how that's the only reason it is there for.....)
Maybe we could turn down the Heli's aqua attack stat, so ships would be able to more easily defeat it and sap players would actually have to use the destroyer.....
|
|
|
|
Just a quick thought here, but how many of you guys have played on crossroads recently? I was khrals against 2 titans, so I got the middle base easily, but then they HAVE to go through me to fight. It's a pretty interesting situation where an alliance is actually forced through the map structure. I've pretty much given up on holding it. I'm gonna let one of the other two take it, build up troops, then take one of them out and use the resources to finish off the other one. Any similar situations where the maps actually force an alliance in a FFA?
|
|
|
The "rules" in question are being discussed precisely because they do cause unfair advantages. Of course, life is out there and this is just a game, so it really doesn't matter, but the "rules" aren't the be all, end all authority. The "rules" aren't necessarily fair, clinging to the fact that they are currently the rules, asdf, doesn't mean anything.
Like I said earlier, implementing functions that 3m games only start when the second player joins and that 3m games can only be joined when the creator is online would level the playing field and would help minimize the risk involved from real life factors, as both players would be making a choice to set aside the time when they joined/created the game.
Maybe you should try to understand what it is your arguing, asdf. You're evidence behind your point is so narrow that it only scratches the surface of potential problems with 3m games. Before you go and say that skipping through someone's turns on a 3m game wouldn't affect rating or game count, consider the real life factor and how it can be kept to a minimum. You say that no one else understands, that you're the only one who gets it, but obviously this isn't the case. We're just looking at the bigger picture. Whenever you want to come out and join the actual discussion, feel free.
|
|
|
|
well they can only either move or attack per turn (less than Khrals), they have less range and power than Titans, and they cost the medium amount for their catagory. Yea, I'd would prefer Khrals or Titans artillery unit....
|
|
|
I don't think it's wrong, but take that with a grain of salt. It is a FFA, and you are trying to win. Because most people try to gang up on the highest rated player, I always ask the highest rated player if they want to team with me in FFA. I typically just explain that either everyone else is going to gang up to bring them down, or he and I can team up and hash it out later. On the off chance I'm playing FFA and on the off chance I get an alliance, I usually only keep it for 2-3 turns (typically long enough for our offensive to halt the other players offensive and for me to get in a good position in order to backstab  my "teammate") Once, and I say once because it only happened ONCE, I switched teams mid-game because it was to my advantage.
What I'm getting at, is I see no problem with forming temporary alliances in FFA, as long as its done in Global Chat so opposing players can see and potentially form their own alliances. I see this as most realistic to real-life, nations will work together temporarily but are always struggling to get an edge, even over their allies.
What I do hate is people joining with two accounts (main and a dupe) in order to have the dupe quit (so main can swoop in for its bases) or have dupe rush early (let main build up) or fight together and have dupe quit in the end.
|
|
|
Hey, uhhh, asdf, some of us have real lives..... I enjoy the occasional 3m game, and I do think that the option to skip someone's turn is vital to the rank system, but people abuse the 3m game by making one, waiting until the other person who joined it has gone offline, then starting it in order to skip through them and win..... While I am in no way suggesting that this is the intention of every player who creates a 3m game, there IS a group of people who start 3m games in order to do this.
The best suggestion I've heard to counter this would be to start a 3m game the moment the 2ND PLAYER joins. A second suggestion to work with this would be that 3m games are automatically "locked" (become unjoinable) the moment the game's creator goes offline. This balance of 3m games being unjoinable unless the creator is online paired with the game starting when the 2ND PLAYER joins would balance 3m games out and would allow those of us who have lives in the real world to not get screwed over every time something happens.
I realize, asdf, that you are going to hate this suggestion because you enjoy race screening and this suggestion would prevent that in 3m games (if you're not asdf and am wondering what I'm talking about, read some of the other forum posts asdf has made).
Anways, asdf, stop flaming other people's comments. We're trying to be constructive here. I realize you're probably some angsty 14-year-old who has learned a couple "naughty" words and enjoys using them without any repercussions (especially since you're supposedly not using your true username to post), but mommy and daddy are talking so don't interrupt. You're ideas are appreciated, but if you want to be treated like a grown-up, you need to act like one
|
|
|
It could be do-able. Nuke units would have to cost the most, and they would need to cost a bitch in order to make them balanced....... I think to prevent OP you would have to limit the hex radius to a 3-CLUSTER, yes you read correctly, cluster, not radius, especially if they were to do the amount of damage you were talking about. I think you could launch a nuke to anywhere on the board you can see. I don't think nukes should have a "travel time", balancing them out can be easily achieved via recharge time. Also, to prevent people from buying tons of these units on maps with high amounts of Credits-per-Base-per-Turn, each unit would have an insanely high recharge time (say 15-20 turns) which would apply to all a player's nuke units.
Example. I have 10 nuke units, I deploy a nuke, all 10 of those units would then have to wait the recharge time before firing another nuke. They would have insane range though, which would allow it to be used routinely.
I feel that this could be a good idea because it would allow for ground to naval attacks. I feel, for a good chunk of maps, if ships want to stay away from land units, they can do it easily. I feel particularly bad for titans, as I am a Khralean man, there are two or three maps with low Credits-per-Base-per-Turn amounts that have naval bases. On these bases, I build tons of cheap Khralean ships and keep them out of reach of the Titans walker units. As the Titans have no air units, I can run maneuver circles around them on these maps, giving me complete naval supremacy. The nuke could help eliminate that. Just thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Unfortunate, yet true, Nicko.....
I'm going to side with you, Chum. I think it would be a great idea. How many other games have handled this has been to have a Map-of-the-Day/Week thing, where once every Day/Week a submitted player-created map becomes available to everyone to create games with. Once the new Day/Week rolls around, the previous map vanishes and is replaced with a newly selected one. Popular maps are tested, edited, and released in updates to become "credited" regular maps.
I think this could work wonderfully in Uniwar because the Devs would have some control to prevent OP maps from being used, but it would promote artist pride and originality. I think that this feature should be implemented in Uniwar 2, as this would be a great selling point for them.
|
|
|
Nicko, agreed on the Mason count.....
Mason, please try to contain all your ideas into one post. When someone replies, THEN you can comment further. Paragraphs are your friends; multiple postings are not.....
Anways, Nicko, I like Uniwar 1 where it is right now. I would only do tiny amounts of tweaking to online matchmaking, but that would be updates. The point of the new game, in my opinion, would be to add a new race, new unit types, new maps, enhance online play (I'm lobbying for clans! ), and, of course, better AI for offline play.
|
|
|
|
For that, good Nicko, I suggest incredibly descriptive theme music.
|
|
|
|
I think the "cross-over" units idea does have some merit, but I would prefer just one new race and several new unit types. Of course, in our "dream world"...... I think it would be too difficult to rebalance the game with more than one new race, but multiple new unit types could be done (relatively) easy.
|
|
|
THANK YOU NFONG AND NIXFLIX!
Seriously, asdf, you control what map you're playing on, the OTHER player should control what race they play with. They're all balanced anyways, you forcing someone to be a certain race just because your especially good against them just makes you a weaker player overall. People who "willingly" join your game don't realize that all you've been doing over the past year is playing your particular race against their particular race on a particular map. I can understand imposing screening on rank, but race?! When you do that, you ADMIT that you have a serious strategic deficiency.
Stop flaming other people, if all you care about is the playing your one race against another race on a certain map then make UNRATED games, seeing as how that is their point. By making the games rated, you admit that all you care about is rank.
Thirdly, the Devs created maps to have a certain balance. Some maps, the first person has an advantage, sometimes, it's the second person. This advantage can be placement of starting units or a variety of other things. This imbalance is made in order to balance out first-turn-second-turn as well as race screening.
The Devs made an option for people like you, it's called UNRATED games. Either you pick race screening or rank, either way, pick one and stick to it.
|
|
|
|
Coming from a Khrals player, the underground spam truly isn't that great, against any race, if they know how to play it. If I'm Khrals, I just wall them off with my own undergrounds and wait for them to surface. The off-chance I'm playing as titans, i just build tons of basic mecha and plop them down, literally in huge blankets around my base and base area and area surrounding the base area. Throw an assimilator in there and you're good. On the off-off-off-off-off-off-chance I'm saps (I really hate them =D) I do the same thing, plop marines down in wide blankets and stick something in front of them so they can't send the infector in.
|
|
|
|
Uhhh, sorry asdf, but they mainly added in the feature to kick people from game lobby in order to remove lower ranked players from high ranked games and allow game creators the option or removing a player who was recognized as a cheater..... It most definitely was NOT added so you could screen out races you didn't like. That is discrimination, which is essentially cheating, and it prevents you from developing as a player. Besides, your argument fails on the point that if you really enjoyed good matchups, you'd play tight and more complex games, not ones where the outcome is virtually assured in your favor.
|
|
|
|
I'm definitely a fan of adding an official method of creating and recognizing clans to Uniwar 2. All you'd really be able to do would be basic chat, see clan ranking, and setup clan team matches. Of course, the forum could provide slots for clans to set up shop.
|
|
|
![[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
