[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Messages posted by: droidfreak36
Forum Index Profile for droidfreak36 »» Messages posted by droidfreak36
General Discussion » FYI - I'm working on a UniWar-like game for PC » Go to message
FYI, the game I'm working on now has a real name (Ground) and a few planned mechanics that will clearly differentiate it from UniWar. More of a UniWar/Scrolls/Risk hybrid. Full info here: http://www.interguild.org/members/forums/topic.php?id=69473&page_number=1&viewpost=1489063462#1489063462
General Discussion » FYI - I'm working on a UniWar-like game for PC » Go to message
We know you weren't, let's just try to support this game through some means if we ever get to make our games.

Yes, I'll be sure to mention that UniWar was the inspiration for a lot of my mechanics. And I did buy UniWar back when it was pay-to-play.
General Discussion » FYI - I'm working on a UniWar-like game for PC » Go to message
Plans change. You are dissapointed by something that was planned 7 years ago but no longer in the plans ahead?

No, not really. I hate Facebook. But what I am disappointed by is the way UniWar has remained exclusive to iOS and Android.

Remember that uniwar development team is actually only Xavier... He can only do so much.. and he has to prioritize what would be features and what is the most viable busines model. Uniwar is a niche game and neither flat payment for the game or an all advertising model work - it has been tried.

Well, let's just say that my motivations are different than Xavier's. It seems like his priority at this point is recuperate the time & money spent on UniWar development by trying out every monetization scheme under the sun without spending much more time & money on developing the game. For me, on the other hand, my expected ROI for my previous (still in progress) game project is a big fat zero. I'm not in it for the money, I just like great games. If Xavier really wanted to, I'm sure he could have ported UniWar to PC by now. But there wasn't enough profit in it to motivate him, I guess. So it's fallen to someone who doesn't care about profit instead.

I really wish you luck.. but i also tend to agree with Duaneski ... that making a post containing your negative feelings about certain parts of uniwar - on the uniwar forum - promoting your future competing game ...

I really didn't intend to be negative, I just like to explain my motivations. And I'm not really promoting my game, there will be time for that when I actually have a game to speak of. What I'm doing now looking for people who might be interested in giving me feedback during development. The sort of people who actually have an opinion on how a game like this should be run. What better place to find those people than here?
General Discussion » FYI - I'm working on a UniWar-like game for PC » Go to message
"You know that uniwar plays very well in a chrome browser window with the arc-welder plugin? And that the PC version might still be done at a later time ? "

I haven't tried UniWar specifically on arc welder, but I haven't been a big fan of arc welder when I have tried it. And while I have played UniWar on PC using bluestacks, it still doesn't work very well. Furthermore, when I get my friends into UniWar, they don't want to have to download a 3rd party android emulator just be able to run it.

And while UniWar might make a PC version at some point, a Facebook version was promised almost 7 years ago, and no updates on that have been made since. Source: http://forum.uniwar.com/posts/list/665.page

"I feel that I would be able to receive your letter more positively if you did not include a statement on how Uniwar has disappointed you."

It's not that that UniWar had disappointed me, per se, it's that UniWar's dev team has disappointed me. I still very much believe in UniWar as a game, I'm just not a fan of the decision to implement microtransation units and the decision to leave the game exclusive to a platform I don't really use. It seems like the dev is more concerned about his income than about making a good game and making that game available to everyone who wants to play it.

But really, the reason why I'm making this game is because I feel a desire to play a UniWar-type game but I feel like UniWar currently doesn't fit the bill. It's not on my platform of choice, it doesn't have a business model I believe in, and there's no way I'd be able to convince my friends to download an android emulator *and* buy the microtransation units. It's not that I'm angry, just... well, disappointed. UniWar is like the kid that I was so proud of back in 2012, but when it grew up and I was no longer proud of what it had become.

So I'd be lying if I said UniWar's development (and lack thereof) since 2012 wasn't a major factor in me making this game. If UniWar were still pay-to-play and had been ported to PC, I probably wouldn't be working on "hexgame" right now, instead I'd be trying to convince my friends to buy UniWar or buying it for them. But that's not what happened, so I'm left with a distinct lack of tactics-based hex-based TBS games on PC and a desire to fill that gap.
General Discussion » FYI - I'm working on a UniWar-like game for PC » Go to message
Hey there! Some of you may remember me from back in 2012 when I was active on this forum. You'll find me on the first page of several stickied posts. So it goes without saying that I'm a big fan of UniWar.

What I'm not so big a fan of is some of the dev's decisions, namely not porting the game to PC and giving the game microtransation units. So as a budding game developer myself, I've begun work on a UniWar-like game designed for PC from the ground up. Theoretically, it would be able to run on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, UWP, and HTML5.

Don't get me wrong, this will not be a straight UniWar clone. For one thing, I can't use the original assets; that would be copyright infringement. And while theoretically I could get away with making a game that's identical except for the paint job, I'm not. What I am doing is making a game that duplicates a lot of UniWar's mechanics and changes others. It will have a different setting, a different scheme for ranged gangup, and different units, including at least 3 units that have area attacks. This will add another game to the genre which UniWar falls into, which I feel needs expansion.

If I could get it, I would love to have some feedback from you, the UniWar community, during the development of my new game. I don't plan on posting any more about it on this forum (I don't think that would be very welcome). Instead, I'll post updates on this game on The Interguild (http://www.interguild.org), a fan community originally created for Hannah and the Pirate Caves, since they're already familiar with me from my work on Hannah and the Pirate Caves Reborn. Additionally, I'll set up a Discord server specifically for this new game's development (Invite link: https://discord.gg/4Hc6PUx). The working title is "Hexgame", but I know that won't be the final title.
General Discussion » Singleplayer challenge: Mission 21 w/o teleportation » Go to message
For those of you who don't know I used to frequent this forum but I sort of fell out of Uniwar due to lack of free time (and Minecraft. ). I'm back now, although I probably won't be as active as I was before.

Anyways, on to the main topic:

Those of you who have played Uniwar's singleplayer campaign may recall that in the final mission you play Titans vs Khraleans on a base-rush map specifically designed for Titan teleportation. If played as intended, it's extremely easy because teleporting mechas can capture the outlying bases to establish material advantage. It's all a bit unfair to the Khrals, who have to march underlings through the center to reach the outlying bases (and don't understand the concept of burylings). What if the Titans had to march through the center as well?

My challenge to you is to play mission 21 of the singleplayer campaign without using the teleportation abilities of your mechas and eclipses. In this scenario, the Titans can no longer reach the outer bases faster than the Khrals and must rely on turtleing techniques and underling extermination to gain and keep control of the center. This mission also has a 40 turn time limit, so Titans must move relatively quickly to take control of the map! Needless to say, this challenge is difficult, and it takes a long time to play through due to the large number of units involved, but I believe it is possible for an expert player to win this scenario on hard difficulty (despite the AI getting automatic material advantage).

Let me know what you think and how you did if you tried.
Tournaments » EvCatz 1650-2000 tournament registration » Go to message
Pretty good. Just started a new music YouTube channel.
Tournaments » EvCatz 1650-2000 tournament registration » Go to message
Score 1967 currently, although occasionally it dips above 2000

Glad to be able to participate in a tourney, thanks for hosting this.

Also, hi tzd.
Bug Reports » Problem starting random games » Go to message
EDIT: It appears to be fixed now.

There seems to be a problem with starting random games currently. As soon as it begins searching for a match it immediately gives "no immediate match". This seems similar to what it usually does, which is probably why it hasn't been reported yet, but two factors lead me to believe there's a bug:

1) It returns a result faster than it normally does (it normally searches longer before giving up)
2) It has been doing this for quite some time now.

This seems like a serverside bug, it could be as simple as the random game generation server being offline.
User Generated Maps » New fun maps, balance suggestions for Fortresstest » Go to message
The newest version, Fortresstest4, has 3 major changes. First, per StarryBlink's suggestion (in game) I changed some of the starting bases to be uncaptured with units on top. Next per simsverd's suggestion in our playtest I added some ports to the sides of the landmasses to allow ships to get to the middle faster. Finally I opened up the terrain a bit to allow ground units (particularly heavy) to move around more easily.
General Discussion » Attack strength vs. Defense strength » Go to message
A quick approximation of the damage dealt is [[Attacker HP (10 if full) + attack strength - defense strength] / 2] rounded down.

So assuming full attacker HP and no terrain or gangup effects, the expected damage values go as follows:

Attack-Defense _ _ _ _ Damage
_ _ _ -9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
_ _ _ -8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
_ _ _ -7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
_ _ _ -6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
_ _ _ -5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
_ _ _ -4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3
_ _ _ -3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3
_ _ _ -2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4
_ _ _ -1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4
_ _ _ 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5
_ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5
_ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6
_ _ _ 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6
_ _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
_ _ _ 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
_ _ _ 6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8
_ _ _ 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8
_ _ _ 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9
_ _ _ 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9
_ _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10

This is not always true, however, as the true formula includes terrain, gangup and randomness factors. For the true damage formula, see this quote:

simsverd wrote: First, the variables:

A = Attack strength of the attacking unit
Ta = Terrain modifier for the attacking unit
D = Defense strength of the defending unit
Td = Terrain modifer for the defending unit
B = Gang up bonus
H = The attacking unit's health points.

Next, the formula:
p = 0.05 * (((A + Ta) - (D + Td)) + B) + 0.5
if p < 0 then p = 0
if p > 1 then p = 1

This is how to figure out the damage:
1. Pick one unit to be the attacker and the other to be the defender.
2. Use the formula above to obtain p.
3. Take H and multiply by 6. This is the number of random numbers (r) generated between 0 and 1. For every r < p a hit is counted.
4. The total number of hits divided by 6 is the number of damage the defending unit will receive.
5. Switch roles between the units (attacker becomes the defender and vice versa).
6. Use the same formula above.
7. Once both units have attacked the damage points are calculated into their health points.

Translated into terms of my equation this is FLOOR(round down)[[Attacker HP + Attack - Defense + Attacker terrain - Defender terrain + Gangup bonus (see thread "Gangup bonus" for more details on that, including ranged gangup)] / 2] = Expected damage. Actual damage may still vary due to the randomness factor, but it's *usually* close to my expected value.
User Generated Maps » New fun maps, balance suggestions for Fortresstest » Go to message
The idiotic bots deal with Fortresstest by spamming infantry right from the getgo, there must be something about having free harbors available that makes them want to march in their troops and capture them. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good play testing if the bots insist on building only infantry and marching them straight across the killzone, because it's way to easy to just kill them all with ships. Perhaps the devs could revisit the AI sometime and make it legitimately smart rather than giving it extra credits in hard matches.
User Generated Maps » New fun maps, balance suggestions for Fortresstest » Go to message
That's some scary fast response time, and sure.
User Generated Maps » New fun maps, balance suggestions for Fortresstest » Go to message
I made two maps recently, I'd appreciate if you could try them out and give me advice on how to improve the balance of the second one.

The first is 2 player unrated spring and is called RegularName, it's intended to let you troll your friends. It puts all of player one's starting units on top of free bases and puts all of player two's staring units on a separate island where they are completely useless. As a bonus I wrote "umad bro?" in hexes onto the map. Feel free to "test" this map on your friends, though it's obviously intended for lulz rather than balance. As I state in the description it should not become rated, so even if you like it please downvote.

The second is still in testing phase and goes by the name Fortresstest followed by the iteration number (3 as of posting). It's 2 player unrated winter and is intended to be a fairly balanced map. I set it up based on the premise that there should be a sea battle followed by the winner of the sea battle invading the "fortress" of the other player. Each player has a main cluster of 7 bases surrounded by mountain with swamp entrances. Around this is a 4 unit band of land to make sure sea units can't fire on the fortress. Between the two landmasses is a bridge of unowned harbors, and at each end of the bridge there are 2 outlying bases owned by the player who owns that landmass. Behind these bases is a killzone made from two layers of swamp surrounded by a layer of desert and a layer of forest, this is intended to make it more difficult to swarm the fortress by land, just to shake things up a bit. On the opposite side of each landmass from the bridge are 5 ports owned by the player who owns that fort, and in the most recent version I added some forest between the ports and the fortress to provide help with rear infantry attacks.

The problems I want to address are the following:
1: Imbalances in the starting and sea battle (I realize sea combat in Uniwar is usually imbalanced, so I'll just try my best)
2: Inability of attacking player to take the fort (stalemate)
3: Taking the fort is too easy (defending it is too hard)

If you run into or foresee any of these problems with any race combo or have insight into how to reduce them, post on this thread. I'm also taking input as to the final name of Fortresstest because I'm pretty sure "Fortress" is taken and I don't want to leave "test" in the name forever. I appreciate your suggestions!
User Generated Maps » Round Maps » Go to message
Four edges? Uniwar maps are hex-based. It's an interesting concept, I'll give you that, but it's probably not worth the time it would take the devs to program.
Forum Index Profile for droidfreak36 »» Messages posted by droidfreak36
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website