| Author |
Message |
|
|
I made three pretty different maps recently... I'll submit my Yin and Yang map:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z46r5sn5unutzuu/Screenshot_2016-10-28-11-06-51.png?dl=0
[link://1,44342,Yin and Yang,4,2]
|
|
|
I am still pretty new here, and even newer to mapmaking, but I noticed a few things that could be improved about that:
- When we publish a map, the first version is not always as balanced as we would like; and obtaining a perfectly balanced map requires some trial and error, and some fine-tuning. The trouble is that, right now, to improve a map, we need to delete and re-publish it, which cancels any thumbs up we might have recieved, and uses up a map creation token. For example, I now think my first map (marsh or die) would be a bit better with slightly increased funding, but I will not implement this modification because the map is already rated: it would be too much trouble to unpublish and republish it. It would be a good thing to have a replace button for our maps, which does not use up a map creation token (it might be safer to implement it on the map creation side: when we try to publish a map which has the same name as one of our already published map, we are asked whether we want to replace it). It will be especially important with the arrival of new units and new terrain: a lot of older maps will be made obsolete by this.
- It would be a good thing to be able to comment maps: this way we could explain to the mapmaker what we think is wrong in his map, and this would help increase the overall quality of the maps, especially combined with a possibility to replace existing maps.
- About map evaluation: I noticed there were two reasons why I might want to thumb down a map: unbalanced or boring. But these two reasons should have different consequences: it's not that bad if a boring map is available for rated play; however an unbalanced but exciting map can be selected in tournaments. A possible solution would be to have two separated evaluations: one for balance, and one for the fun factor. Considering balance, a possibility to neutralize the sore loser effect would be to check who won the game, and to check the four possible unbalances: 1st player vs 2nd player, titan vs sap, titan vs khral, and sap vs. khral. An unbalance signalement with khral beating saps could cancel out an unbalance signalement with saps beating khral. With this modification, the unbalance signalement would be more reliable (but they would be fewer thumbs down since some of them would cancel out, so stricter bounds would be needed to make a map rated, something like 80% thumbs up).
|
|
|
|
I think if the new units are implemented that way, they should come in a single pack. Balancing both the "old" version and the "new" version of uniwar will be hard enough without having to balance every possible sub-pack.
|
|
|
I thought about this pricing mechanic, and I think that the way to maximize both the money for Xavi and players' enjoyement would be that buying new units also gives them to your opponent in every game, even if he didn't buy it.
You have several advantages with that:
- First, the games will always be balanced: no bad player experience.
- Some players will still buy the units because it enhances their player experience: a richer game, etc...
- Other players will sometimes have the new units for free, and can start to experiment with them. They have them for free, so they can only be grateful towards the game.
- These players then will want them on every game, not just now and then, and will buy them. Plus, as more and more people buy the units, a very important thing happen: it feels normal to buy the units (peer pressure)
Of course there would still be people who wouldn't pay, but, I think, fewer than in any other scenario. And the game would still feel very welcoming to new players, basically saying: you pay what and when you want, but also saying: There's a lot of work behind this, it has to be worth something.
Plus, I think that players don't want new units to win more games, but to enlarge their gaming experience: an unfair map is no fun, both for the winner and the loser. A match with unbalanced units would be exactly the same: having units while your opponent doesn't isn't improving your game experience at all...
|
|
|
|
I support Duaneski's idea.
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood what I suggested. I suggested to rise progressively the starting score of new players, not to change the score of current players. Currently, most people only play human vs. human, so the 1500 score corresponds to the average skill of beginners. If beginners start at 1600 instead of 1500, people currently at 1600 will win more often and will end up rising their rating to 1700, and this will propagate to the upper spheres. If this is done slowly enough, everyone will still have good matchups during the transition phase. In the end, the offenders will have a score only slightly superior to a beginner's score.
Another completely equivalent way to do this is to apply a kind of decay to all current scores AND to the bot's scores. The players fighting against bots would suffer from the whole decay (they wouldn't be able to progress) while other players would more or less maintain their position (due to the same effect as the previous one).
I also thought of another option to countract this: whenever someone drops below 1500, some of his random matches are against bots. This would ensure that players at 1500 level are indeed barely better than bots. But good players would take much longer to reach a level where they would have interesting games, unless the gains and losses of level are greatly increased for new players.
|
|
|
I really liked the unicoin system like it worked right now: the game is free for anyone to play, the only game-changing item (unlimited reroll) could be bought for 10 bucks, which is fine, and a lot of "prestige" items could be bought for more, which is also fine.
I feel like it was a pretty honest system: you have an incentive to actually support the game (although personally I bought the 10 buck pack to support the game, because I really liked it, and then realized it would allow me to have unlimited rerolls...), but it's not really a pay-to-win.
However, people who really did support the game can show off by having nice flags, their own color and so on. I probably would have bought one of these after a while (I've only played for one month or so...)
If unicoins are more widely distributed, and necessary to advance in the game, it's a totally different feeling: it starts to have a little more pay-to-win flavour, which can turn off some players, and you lose the unique feeling for some rewards (choose your color, flag, and so on...). I would probably be less likely to pay real money in the new system actually (generally, the more the game tells me that I have to pay, the less I pay...)
|
|
|
|
The problem lies in the fact that new players are assumed to have the same skill as bots, which is clearly untrue. A way to correct this minor problem without distrupting anything would be to slowly increase (maybe by 1/day?) the ranking of new players until it reaches something like 2000. Of course, the active players' rating will climb in the same way, which will make the problem disappear.
|
|
|
My bomber proposal can alternatively simply be able to move after attack (4 tiles).
My mosquito proposal might also be able to transmit the plague to Sapiens whenever he hits them.
Amphibious and new naval units are also good ideas, but there are already lots of good ideas about them in this thread.
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm pretty new to Uniwar, but already past 2100, so I must not be playing too badly...
I think that introducing new units should aim to better balance the races while keeping their specificity (defense/no air for titans, hit & run for saps, swarms of bugs for khals)
To me, the most problematic matchups right now are titans vs. sapiens and khral vs. khral.
The problem with titans vs. sapiens is that Titan's only counters to a sap tank rush are the Plasma Tank (which is more expensive and has a lower repair rate than sap tanks for a pretty moderate increase in firepower) and the Walker, which is inpracticable on small maps. Actually, at least 4 of my 5 rated defeats (I'm not sure about the fifth) were titans vs. Sapiens.
Sure, a well-fortified Titan can be a formidable opponent, but the map needs to be large enough for the Titan to reach this point.
The problem with Khral vs. Khral is that it is dominated by mass Garuda/Swarmers, which is a bit boring.
This is why I suggest three units (one per race) which might help with that:
- Titan MechWarrior:
Cost: 200
Mobility: 5
Vision: 4
Type: Ground Light
Attack vs:
GL: 5
GH: 8
Aerial: 3
Aquatic: 6
Defense: 4
Range: 1-2
Repair: 1
Teleport: Yes
Fire after move: Yes
This unit is designed as a light mobile artillery (bazooka-like), especially effective against GH. It's mostly designed to give a cheap counter to a tank invasion, while remaining vulnerable to marines or marauders. It's very slow and can only get into mountains by teleporting. Doing so however gives it a pretty nice attack point.
- Sapiens Bomber:
Cost: 800:
Mobility: 13
Vision: 6
Type: Aerial
Attack:
GL 11
GH 11
Aerial 0
Aquatic 11
Attack Range: 2
Defense: 1
Repair: 1
Actions/turn: 2
Move after attack: No.
Special: Destroyed if it doesn't finish its turn on a friendly base.
Very powerful late-game unit. It can bomb at a long range (6!) if the path is clear. Pretty much a nightmare for Titans. It blocks a base and is very vulnerable if the enemy can reach it. Ineffective against ranged units (except the walker) and air units. Can attack twice on a suicide mission, or if the opponent is two tiles away from the base.
- Khral Mosquito.
Cost: 200.
Mobility: 16
Vision: 6
Type: Aerial
Attack:
GL 6
GH 0
Aerial 10
Aquatic 0
Attack Range: 1
Defense: 4
Repair: 1
Move after attack: Yes (2 steps)
This unit is fast, vulnerable, and deadly for aerial units. Breaks the mass Garuda/swarmer.
|
|
|
![[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
