| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Duaneski wrote:
(For the uninitiated: choose one of those people to "boff", one to Marry, and one to kill. You must use all three actions and all three people. )
Where does it say I have to be in the answer? I chose the garuda to boff, the pinzer to marry, and the plasma to kill. They were just the doers instead of the receivers. Also notice that my answer is not kill garudas now  I simply reversed the order of how most people answer. garuda boff, pinzer marry, and plasma kill.
|
|
|
|
Mentalist wrote:Kill Sparky. Again.
Dammit Mentalist. As sparky's actual murderer, that answer is reserved for me  I was very disappointed after reading the question and finding out you took my answer. 
I don't really know what to think about the rest. I guess marry the pinzer and boff the plasma. But then again if the pinzer gets mad I'm dead. But I'll probably die the other way too. Can I have sparky boff the pinzer, pinzer marry plasma, and then plasma kill sparky when it finds out about the boffing? You never said I had to be in the answer
|
|
|
|
But by the definition of a buildup game like you are describing the marauders can't get past. And comparing the price to marauders is not terribly helpful since they can't break through a tank unit wall no matter how many you have. Better comparison is that it is worth 3 plasmas or 2 walkers, and if you get three tank units or two artillery units behind, your opponent should have started attacking you anyway. The problem is that this doesn't prevent buildup, it just makes it so that the first person to try and bring this thing out is going to fall behind and get attacked.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't a unit with such a long range make base caps on some larger maps nearly impossible. I could place it way in the back of the map and still shoot next to my front base. Not to mention that that range is further than even marauder can move. The strategy won't be cover base with marauder anymore, it will be shoot whatever he builds from across the map.
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of the support units being able to boost allies from other races in some way other than healing. Don't think the extra attack is necessary though.
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing you're using willingham's calculator. That one doesn't include the full range of possibilities, since the odds of one of them happening is just so darn low. The calculator on Google play by cytivrat does indicate there is a 1% chance of that result happening, which just means that you may be the unluckiest player I've encountered. My advice: if killing that swarmer is necessary to your strategy, undo turn and change your attack order so that astronomically bad roll lands somewhere else. Technically, any damage is possible, it's just that the odds are so low that it will probably never happen.
|
|
|
That's about what I thought it was. However, if rate by matchup does get implemented, then it goes back to needing to play the game in order to vote on that matchup. I don't know about others, but I wouldn't like needing to actually play an obviously unbalanced matchup just to remove from the pool. If I know it's unbalanced before playing it I should be able to indicate so.
Edit: this is obviously looking ahead to if the feature gets implemented, but I really think it should and I like being able to vote without needing to play the map.
|
|
|
|
I understand practicality as a limiter, but I don't think it would really affect players much at all. If anything, it would make it easier to look up dedicated team or FFA maps. I'm not a map maker myself, but I think most would be glad to be able to just make a team map without worrying about how it works in FFA or vise versa. If it's too complicated for Xavi to implement, that's one thing, but can you tell me how it would make the game more complicated for ordinary players?
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote:The formula is :
vote power = (playerScore - 1500) / 100
Thanks for that, so my vote is worth 5 points 
Still doesn't answer how the per race vote stats work if I don't play a game though. From what Xavi said in chat it sounds like it's just a generic vote separate from races, which means once the maps are rated by matchup the no play vote won't even matter.
|
|
|
|
Apercent wrote:Do you think that this would make random ranked too not random? Perhaps it will. Still a good idea for Tournaments though.
Thanks for the response. I considered that, but the map and opponent are still random, and you can select your race for solo random anyway. To me team games are about communicating and working with your teammates, and this just adds another level. It's really frustrating to be in the middle of a game and get to a point where you're thinking "If I had a speeder instead of a swarmer my teammate could cap that base on his turn," especially when if you were able to look at the map beforehand you definitely would have picked titans.
It would also simplify the rating process for team maps so they don't have to do rate by matchup since everyone could pick what they think works best. In a 4v4 game there are 6561 possible matchups 
|
|
|
|
TheDragon wrote:Actually T(eam) F(FA) or B(oth) for those few mappers that take the time to make it good for both styles of play.
I covered that, but I'll edit to make it more obvious. There are definitely ways to make maps playable as both, and those are some of the most fun.
|
|
|
This is an idea that came to me from one of the team tourney games I'm playing right now. As it is now, team members select a race in the team profile, and then need to use that race for all games they play. Of course, the top tournament teams adjust their race choices to fit the map prior to each round, but even this has limitations, especially in random. For instance, the ideal race combination and positioning may be different for team one and team two. In the tourney, I would have liked to be krahls in the game where I was on team 1, but saps were better for my position if I was on team 2. Things get even worse when you start considering random games where you have no idea what kind of situation the map will put you in. The arrangement you picked for a tourney may be at a complete disadvantage on the map you get, which I can see being a huge turn away from rated team games.
So that's the problem. Thankfully there is a solution that i think should be fairly easy to implement, namely allowing each team to view the map and select races before each game. This could be accomplished by having the game show up like an invite in the games list instead of starting on it's own. Then each player looks at the map and discusses with their team using the new pre-game chat feature before selecting which races to play as. To be even more fair, it could be made so that you can't see what the other team has picked until the game has started, although I'm not sure how much work this would be seeing as we don't even have a hidden choice option for 1v1 invites.
So that's the idea. Vote and feel free to comment with any additional thoughts or ideas.
|
|
|
Right now all 4, 6, or 8 player games can be played as both team and FFA matches. However, there are some maps that were clearly designed as strictly for one or the other, and now that rated team games are back some FFA maps that got positive votes back when rated FFA was a thing are showing up in the random rated pool. To help prevent this problem from getting worse, I suggest that a map maker should be able to designate a map as team or FFA (or both) from the map editor and make the map only playable for that mode.
Edit: made the both option more clear.
|
|
|
|
I noticed with the new update that we are now able to vote for a map just by viewing it without needing to play a game on it. I think this is a great feature because now it is actually possible to just go through the rated maps list and downvote the obviously unbalanced ones, and I actually managed to remove a map from the list. However, I do have a question about how this affects the vote by matchup data, since it is eventually planned to allow a map to be rated for each individual race pairing. If I downvote a map from the list, does it count as a downvote for all race pairings? The most obvious unbalanced maps are ones that allow krahleans to capture a base a turn before the other races, but these maps could still be used for other matchups, so it doesn't seem fair to downvote all of them.
|
|
|
|
Michaelrn wrote:
I agree with all that. But the problem is, in order to scout, you have to send your high vision unit ahead. Of course a sane person will not send it full speed into the unknow, but just a few steps and it might end within the range of opponents scout unit (they have the same vision, so one must be seen if it wants to see the other), and you will not be aware of that because your vision is not updated. You moved to scout and yet you have no intel of the enemy's force to help you planing your moves. At opponent's next turn, he will be able to see your scout, thus he might be able to hit it, destroying your "eyes" and leaving you blind.
That would apply to your opponent too though. If all they can see is your single scout unit, it would be quite a risk to send in two or even three units to kill it without knowing what else is there. Even using heli or speeder move after attack couldn't hide the unit as long as you have another unit with decent vision behind your scout. Marauder could potentially hide, but it would take three marauders to take down one if you only use one attack each. And anyway, I think amidama is calling for vision to be updated at the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn as you seem to think. This means you could see the enemy as soon as you hit end turn so they can't hide, as well as use the turn replay to see what happened in the event your scout is killed.
|
![[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
