[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Messages posted by: Xenai
Forum Index Profile for Xenai »» Messages posted by Xenai
General Discussion » Suggestions » Go to message
1.3.0 was a very drastic change to the game in an attempt to fix things up. I, and I think a fairly large portion of the rest of the community, don't think the update was the ideal way to fix a lot of those problems. Below, I'll list the problems I see with the game and my suggestions for solutions.

1. Cheating. The cleanest way to get rid of this is to fix the exploits in the game people can use to cheat. However, that is probably much easier said than done. Instead, I think a few simple steps could curb the effect of cheating by a lot. First, do a ladder reset. Some of the people who cheated their way to the top probably used exploits which have been fixed since, some no longer follow the game, and some won't want to put in the work to cheat their way back to the top. All of this dead wood clogging up the higher ranks will be removed with a simple reset, along with people who got their playing only on imbalanced maps. Second, implement that replay system which you've been talking about. Do a check on the replays on any players who rise to the top of the new ladder suspiciously fast. Create a thread where people can post the game ID of games they've been cheated on, and the round in which the cheating happened, so devs can do a fast relatively easy check to confirm if the cheating happened. This will get rid of the vast majority of the cheaters not eliminated by the reset.

2. Map balance. Making people play random maps in random positions was very extreme. It would be so much simpler to just removed the option to make imbalanced maps rated games when hosting them. Then, release that mapmaker you've been talking about so players can create their own balanced maps to add to the pool.

3. Gameplay variety. Random games with random factions in random positions does make the gameplay much, much more varied, I agree. However, it would be far more effective to get players to do this by using a carrot instead of a gigantic spiked club. Make the second+ random game in a row (not the first, since then players could turn down rated games until they found one to their liking) give, say, 50% more points for a win and have 50% less points deducted for a loss. People still have the freedom to choose how they want to play and participate in the ladder, but there's also a strong motivation to branch out and start playing random games as well.
General Discussion » Do you hate 1.3.0? Rant here. » Go to message
Look, making it so I can choose to play 0 games a week if I don't want to lose points is not a solution. I don't want to be playing random games against random people on random maps with random races. So far I've been invited to 5 of these random games and haven't even remotely wanted to play any of them, which is not only frustrating for me but I imagine is also frustrating for the players who are continually getting turned down.

There is a simple solution to all these problems: fix the bugs. If you can't cheat, there won't be cheating. No need to destroy the core mechanics of the game in attempt to get rid of cheating if there's no way to cheat. Then make only certain maps have the option to host as rated games, release the mapmaker you've been talking about, and everything is solved.
General Discussion » Do you hate 1.3.0? Rant here. » Go to message
Not really seeing benefits to the changes either. A ladder reset, removal of the ability to select "rated" for the unbalanced maps, and fixing the bugs would seem to me to be the best solution.
Khraleans » Wyrm +Aerial Buff » Go to message
Slightly, it makes a wyrm+garuda combo more likely to take down a heli, though that still only happens about 60% of the time on a rough estimate.
General Discussion » List of Playable Maps » Go to message
I've found the same thing to be true, though I haven't played it extensively. Larger higher income maps seem to be good for Khrals, like Gold Rush/Montevideo/Forest Walk.
New Feature Request » Ranking System » Go to message
I believe that the ranking system as it is allows for far too much movement in the upper ranks. Any game you play against someone within 100-200 points of your rank is going to result in a gain/loss of an average of about 15 on both sides. This means when looking at rank, it's impossible to tell if a rating of 2050 is an accurate representation, or whether it represents a 1900s level player having a good streak or a 2100s level player having a poor one. Also, past making ratings fairly meaningless, having large penalties for losing/large bonuses for winning will reduce the longevity of the game in the long run I think. It will make players less likely to try out new maps or strategies or factions, meaning they will get bored faster and there will be less innovation going on in the game as a whole. Large amounts of movements in the lower ranks is fine I think, as newer players might not bother playing if it takes them 60 games to get up to 1900, but past there I think the amount of points gained/lost per game should be heavily reduced.

On a sidenote, please update the ladder on the website so that not all ranks are suffixed with a "th." Having "271th" looks pretty unprofessional and isn't nearly on par with the online components of the rest of the game.
New Feature Request » Titan favorable balance? » Go to message
  nfong wrote: I actually like the guide. I'm not really looking for strategies or anything, but I'm trying to learn how to play the game. I like to develop my strategies on my own.

This is your first online RTS?
General Discussion » Critical Flaw in Uniwars Undo Button Mechanics » Go to message
Widely known, widely used, and adds more depth instead of less to the game in my opinion. Doubt anything is going to be done with it.
New Feature Request » Titan favorable balance? » Go to message
  nfong wrote: This is the book I got: http://www.amazon.com/StarCraft-Signature-Guide-Brady-Games/dp/0744011280/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291853152&sr=8-2
Your profile's weak, Nicko!
Do you start at 1500?

You got kind of ripped off there if you bought it for help with your multiplayer game, even if the strats/tactics in there were good when it was written, they're way way outdated by now. Websites are by far your best option for improving.
New Feature Request » Titan favorable balance? » Go to message
A 400 page guide? That's insane. Go here: http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/. TeamLiquid.net is of course the ultimate SC/SC2 sight, but gamereplays.org will be much better for you if you're just beginning.
General Discussion » Too much luck involved in small maps? » Go to message
  Solitary wrote: One of my losses on the isolation account was 100% down to two bad combat results in a row and tbh that's just stupid. I think the luck should be between two numbers rather than three as the difference between a 5 point hit on a heli and a 3 point hit on a heli (with a garuda) is just ridiculous. If it was between 4 points and 5 you'd know that there's always a chance of taking the heli down with a second hit and +2 gangup whereas now sometimes you'll know from the first hit that it's going to take 3 attacks.

It goes very much against my idea of a strategy game to carefully plan out a sequence of moves and be forced to deviate into damage limitation after a single bad result throwing my calculations off.

I actually think that last part, being thrown off and having to adjust, arguably adds more strategy to the game. However, I agree that there's way too much of it going on and it has far too big an effect. I like your idea of doubling the resources from bases on small maps. What did Kralux argue?
General Discussion » Too much luck involved in small maps? » Go to message
I'm not particularly crazy about the idea of luck in strategy games in the first place, but I understand adding it in so there's an element of uncertainty and a larger requirement for adaptation. However, on small maps it seems to me it's just too prevalent. Getting a bad combat result or a good one in a key attack can make or break the game when there's only a couple units, and even with relatively unimportant unit vs. unit battles, a string of bad/good combat results early on can give one player a really significant advantage on small maps.
General Discussion » Going 1st/2nd » Go to message
Ah, so basically starting credits+1 round's worth of credits, which makes sense.

Also, I believe the advantage of going first is entirely dependent on terrain. On a map with no terrain, going first or second wouldn't give one side the advantage (take chess as an example).
General Discussion » Siege units and gang up bonus » Go to message
"To gain a small bonus, have an attacker next to the first attacker or have one of your attackers fight long range."
General Discussion » Going 1st/2nd » Go to message
I'm probably wrong about dead monk, but I'm almost certain Great wall reds don't get double the blue.
Forum Index Profile for Xenai »» Messages posted by Xenai
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website