| Author |
Message |
|
|
As a genuine question we went from no player made maps being available for rated games to all being available. Is it possible to have some kind of vetting system? I.E. your player made map is not available for ranked games until it has been approved - either by getting a certain amount of thumbs up or by offering it up and having it play-tested and discussed here on the forums?
I know that would still be a huge job but maybe you could try something similar but the other way around where people highlight maps that are broken or unbalanced so they can made so they can only be played unranked? (though that does not solve the problem of people then making the same map with tiny changes).
Of course I have no idea if this is even possible......
|
|
|
Well i'm going to give my opinions no matter how spurious 
I do understand what an enormous task it would be to try and actually playtest 1000+ maps... Assuming you want at least 5 plays with each race combination that would be... erm.... lots and lots of games. I just wonder if there are more things we can do from our end? Me and a very nice player ended up in a map we had never seen before (cant remember the title) and ended up running through all the possible race combinations just to see how it played different ways round. That was just fun, it seems like there are bound to be players who would willingly do this and provide specific feedback - though now I come to think about it collating that feedback would also be a pretty staggering task.
I guess I cant help but see the perils of the yes/no feedback - people maliciously thumbs downing after losing matches is surely just a start... i cant help but feel we could do more help from the player end.
|
|
|
Can i just add my thoughts.
I'm inclined to be wary of the notion of weighting peoples votes based on their rating. As a notably "casual" player I don't think my opinion is less valid than that of the "hardcore" just because I'm not as good at the game. I recognise that my understanding of the fundamentals may be less deep but equally i imagine there are a lot more people who approach the game as fun way to pass the time than as a challenge to be mastered.
I understand this is not exactly what your saying but if the rating system is based on a democratic approach (i.e. how many people say what) then there may have to be some recognition that many, perhaps even a majority, of people are not the elite. If newbies are getting destroyed on a map and so rating it poorly and you have a high ratio of newbies to elites then the map is going to get scored poorly.
I must admit im assuming that the population of the game follows a fairly standard curve for "skill level" but that seems to me pretty reasonable. In order to give the higher ranked players more "weight" for their opinions you would surely have to skew things so much that you might as well change the system so you can only rate a map if you have a score over a certain amount?
I'm not having a go im just trying to point out that better players don't nessisarily have opinions that are more right (Im not even opening the can of worms about people with high scores through cheating etc).
Obviously something needs to be done to weed out the maps that hugely advantage / disadvantage some races etc and im sure the dev's dont have the time to extensively test all the extra maps for balance but there are a lot of intelligent, articulate people on these forums and clearly there is a good channel from here to the Devs.
Would it not be possible for the community to play test the maps?
This seems like a good place to post opinions and that way you can get a broad sweep of feedback from the experts who will likely be able to tell you a statistical breakdown of why a line of mountains breaks the map to people like me who are more likely to say things like "i cant win on this map but i love it"
You would also get engaged, active players being able to try various parings both ways round to try and remove personal bias.......?
I know it would likely take more organising and effort but i expect many people would jump at the chance to help improve the game...
|
|
|
|
Well, for what its worth when i get into aerial conflicts playing Sapiens against Khrals it tends to be 50/50 which way its going go. Positioning, what other units are about etc seems to be the big factor in who wins i think its just fine as is.
|
|
|
|
Wow... I didn't know people do this... Its sort of disappointing.
|
|
|
So i have been playing for a while now and found my "level" - for the moment at least. I'm sort of curious as to the way people who are very very good at this game approach it. There are obviously a lot of people out here that know the stats for the units intimately so do the high level players have so much of an understanding of the mechanics they can predict the exact outcome of any given unit vs unit interaction?
Is there a chess-like approach which works on plans 3,4,5 moves ahead of the current position?
Im happy being an enthusiastic semi-casual player im just curious about how people who are very good at the game approach it.
|
|
|
How this is pretty awesome and entirely not what i was expecting to get to when i looked at this thread.
Belief (and particularly religious belief) is innately personal and one of the most subjective aspects of all our experiences of life. Of course everyone will have examples that support their viewpoints, that's how having a viewpoint works. You can't rationally debate a point of faith and things like the origin of life ARE a point of faith since we are unlikely to ever know for sure.
Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a theory.
I think I'm suggesting "live and let live" on an internet forum which (in my experience) is tantamount to madness but you all seem like very nice people in danger of getting cross with each other over a subject where you have a vanishingly small chance of persuading the other people of anything....?
|
|
|
|
I have to say i would also really like to be able to play on my laptop as a secondary option. Pretty much the first thing i did when the new "play" option appeared on the Google front page was to check and see if Uniwar was available to play on the computer.
|
|
|
Greetings.
I am pretty new to this rather wonderful game (which I am generally describing to people as "like chess but with monsters and robots") and while I have learnt some of the basics - Marines in mountains good, Pinzer in forest bad - I am very aware that my play is pretty basic.
What I was wondering is if some of the more experienced/advanced players would be willing to volunteer to play matches with the specific intent of providing comments, tips or advice as we play. I'm not talking about a blow by blow assessment of every move but knowing things such as "now is the time to stop spamming basic units and start saving for artillery" or "that's an unfortunate placement of that unit - here's why" would really help me (and perhaps others) improve.
I know it would be a bit more of an investment of time/effort but would hopefully promote the development of more dedicated, courteous players (and they seem to be at something of a premium).
Any takers?
|
![[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
