| Author |
Message |
|
|
I built a nice capture the flag map with 8 players, and there are one glaring bug that came right up:
When one of the players quit the game all their bases turned to flags!
That kind of destroys the whole idea of the carefully designed map.
Request:
I know it is easy to just make neutral bases the flags, but it really would be much better to have a first citizen element. The problem is you still need regular neutral bases to help balance out starting credit advantages.
Doing this would also solve player quit problems. That is, on the create map screen there would be a normal neutral base you can drop and a flagged neutral base you can drop.
Other missions:
Some more helps on the create map screen for how the other missions work is needed.
It's not clear at all just from their names. For example:
Survive X rounds? In a multiple player battle, which player wins if more than one survives? Which by the way, on normal maps, is almost always going to happen. Does this mean that you are allowed to create unbalanced starting player maps?
Destroy enemy units? Okay the one that destroys more units wins. But then when is the game over?
Also note that "Play" on the create map screen immediately stops if the mission is capture the flag.
Thanks,
Doug
|
|
|
Gathering it all in, here is my revised proposal:
BORFLY:
GH & AA -1 to overall average damage delivered to GH to AA. This might mean a simple lowering of the AP%. I would have to analyze the code to be sure.
Def -1 to defense rating.
Rationale: for the cost, the unit simply should not be as versatile against all units as it is. There is a nice balancing that it is still vulnerable at range 1. But it still feels like is delivering too much of a punch for the cost.
PLASMA:
Defense increase.
Movement increase by 1.
Passive healing if it means this: after repair is issued, the unit can still move some at reduced rates. No attack though.
Rationale: It doesn’t seem appropriate to increase heal for the Titan race. Doesn’t fit what this race is about. The defense increase would be such that it takes one less damage from tank busters.
TANK:
+1 movement increase.
Defense increase.
Rationale: emphasizes what is already appropriate for this unit. I think adding additional healing capability would be too ridiculous.
PINZER:
+1 movement
Increase defense.
Rationale: this unit is already pretty good. But if the other heavies get increases without this unit enjoying some love, this unit may pout too much. I would not want near one if that happened.
WYRM:
Move after attack
Rationale: moving after attack is pretty powerful. Not sure you would need a heal +1 as well. But it could be added too I suppose.
ECLIPSE:
Amphibian attack +2
Heal +1 maybe. Perhaps passive healing as well so that Titan doesn’t feel too like Khal.
BATTERY/WALKER:
Increase attack damage OR perhaps introduce splash attack damage
Rationale: I really like the balance of cost and the limitations in place for these units. However, if they are falling behind, increasing attack power seems appropriate for these units. Yet, they already hit pretty powerfully. Increasing the damage more doesn't seem interesting enough. Therefore I propose adding splash damage when they strike. That is, when they hit a unit the surrounding units also take some minimal damage. I am thinking the lighter surrounding units take anywhere between 0-2.
|
|
|
Thanks for all the replies. Especially Duaneski which went the extra mile to acquire more responses. Overall I got 15 replies, many of them from very high ranked players. I am now aware that Simsverd is officially in charge of monthly adjustments. That’s awesome and encouraging.
First some follow up questions:
Simsverd, you say the balance group is public, where can I find that?
Simsverd, can you elaborate what you mean by passive healing?
What that sounds like is healing is done even though you do another command like attack or move.
If that is the case, it sounds too powerful. I would propose that it means you get to move a reduced rate after a Repair command.
The Impaler, can you eloborate what you mean by splitting the classes into light medium and heavy ground units?
This is a complex nuanced issue. Most folk agreed some adjustments were appropriate, though two liked things they way they are. All from top tier players. The most universal agreement (6 folk) was that the Borfly was over powered for the cost.
The next (4 folk) was that all the tank buster units perhaps could be reduced by 1 point against heavy ground.
I will post my revised proposal in a separate post because apparently there is a limit to the number of characters a single post can have.
|
|
|
I think the problem I am having now is I was expecting more agreement that the tank buster units are over powered when I posted this.
I don't know how I can approach Xavier with a proposal unless I have enough community backing.
|
|
|
BORFLY
If a Borfly and a Swarmer have a stand off, I feel the clear winner should be the Swarmer. The Swarmer's whole thing is fighting in the air. But a Borfly is in the Tank Buster class. It's design should be such to pack a significant punch to the heavy, but at the cost of not having a great hit against the lighter units. Note here, that the lighter units can virtually do NO damage to a heavy. To counter a heavy without Tank Busters, you would need other heavies and expensive artillery, and strategically placed lighter units. But now, because the Tank Busters cost so little I am not seeing the heavies at all in many games. I would say no more than 25% of them, if that. Not because of well honed strategy but because Tank Busters are just so darn cheap. These units are dominating. In the games where they don't appear, it's only because nobody is bothering with heavies.
So a Swarmer should deal more damage against the Borfly, than visa versa. By 2 points I think. Against the Copter I agree it should do something. Right now a Copter can expect 3 points of damage from a Borfly. But really I think 2 is more reasonable. That still would give Copters a pause. You can buy two and half Borflys for one Copter. A Borfly is cheap and it's focus should be Tank Busting, so it's advantage should be there, and not in other areas.
Perhaps this then:
Ariel AP% from 50% to 40%. Defense drops from 2 to 1.
BOPPER
They are already well balanced with a limited range of 3. The only reason I brought it down a little is to encourage the spawning of more heavies and artillery in the game.
Before the Tank Buster came on the scene the feel of the game was such you would bring in the low costing units and work your way up to the high costing units. If you could get an early heavy and artillery in the game, and were able to protect it, you had a significant advantage. To properly counter the heavy, you really needed artillery. Not all the time, but that was really the deal. To do that was expensive and required strategy and planning.
Now, to counter the heavy it's almost trivial. So trivial in fact, that in well over half my games now I don't bother. My team mate told me he NEVER builds a heavy. The heavy used to be THE defense unit. If you wanted defense, and could pay for it, you would have your defense in the heavy. Now, if you want defense what do you do? Well if you are Kharlean, you spawn a wall of Borflys. If you have some credits to burn, go ahead and buy that Pinzer. As kind of an expensive adornment to your armada of flys.
GUARDIAN
It's seem right that the Titans should have an awesome attack piece. So I only proposed a drop in one point for the base attack. This won't affect the damage they could put out at all with that 45% AP. Their low range and no regen ability seem to be adequate compensation for their power. Though perhaps you could drop their terrain bonus down a bit.
|
|
|
Okay, thanks for the reply Duaneski and Pento. I studied it quite a bit and I have a very detailed sheet of example damages, but the bottom line is the following suggestion.
Given that the Borfly is the main offender in being OP, and the Guardian and Bopper less so.
BORFLY:
Heavy ground attack from 6 to 4. Heavy AP% from 50% to 40%
Ariel AP% from 50% to 35%
Light ground attack 4 to 3
GUARDIAN:
Heavy ground attack from 5 to 4. AP% remains at 45%
BOPPER:
Heavy ground attack from 5 to 3. AP% remains at 35%
That is, small adjustments trying to increase the importance of the heavy and artillery unts.
|
|
|
So we have had the tank buster units out for a while. Bottom line I think they are too overpowered.
At this point in many games I find I just skip over heavies altogether as not being worth it. I see other players doing the same.
When judging if I should spawn a heavy, I frequently just decide against it, because it's too easy and cheaper for tank busters to counter it.
This has flattened the game to a mass of the middling units in many of my games. I don't think Uniwar is better for it.
It is true that on some maps and situations some units don't do as well, but I think this is more than that.
I would like to see the heavies have more legitimate reasons for their existence than they do now.
What do you think? Could the tank buster units use some re-balancing?
Do you think a poll is in order?
|
|
|
One more feature to throw in there that I find very annoying not to have:
The ability to shift the entire map down gaining fresh hexes on top.
Without this I have to do it manually. Very exhausting.
|
|
|
I have designed a non-symmetrical map for 3 players (called Siege Peak 3a).
The problem I have is I would like to try out how the game feels as Player 2 or 3.
But I am only allowed to start this custom game as Player 1.
Can you allow it so that if I create a new game I can be player 2 or 3 please?
[Never mind: I went through the google sheet and see that is already on it as of June of last year]
Thanks,
Doug
|
|
|
I am trying to work with the Map Editor, and the fact that you can only work on one map at a time is fairly limiting.
So my recommendation is to break the Map Editor into a separate app. This way it can grow and get as big as it needs to without growing the main app at all.
The current MAP EDITOR function in the Uniwar APP would simply list all the maps you have developed in the Uniwar Map Editor APP. It could be very simple and light weight.
This could also serve as an additional income stream. For example, the default ability of being able to work on just one map at a time could be the free behavior.
For some UNICOINS you could work on multiple maps at a time.
And perhaps eventually other purchasable options could be added that would be nice to have but just bloat the main app. For example, like a combat analysis tool similar to the Uniwar Damage Calculator APP.
--WormDog
|
|
|
Well said. Your pretty much nailed my frustration.
Thinking it over I am likely to be persuaded to your position that Uniwar is not best thought of as a static Chess like game. As long as, as you point out, that the elements introduced truly do add to the game in a balanced and fun fashion.
Right now, problem #1 is still an issue. I hope they do fix it. I can only afford two tank busters for two of my races. That means all the games I am playing right now with the 3rd race are likely lost. And I am unlikely to feel free using the units until it is clear my opponent has the same option.
|
|
|
I'm sure I will adapt to the new Uniwar.
I think I am just shocked because I really liked the old Uniwar.
There can be no doubt that these units have altered the game quite significantly.
It is no longer the same game.
Problem #1: Someone now can legitimately say they lost not because of inferior strategy but because they couldn't afford too. This moves Uniwar away from being chess like to more Video game like.
Problem #2: It took centuries for the game of chess to evolve into what we see today. It had more pieces and more complexity until it was finally streamlined to be "just right" as you see it now.
Likewise Uniwar is evolving. But new units and complexity does not necessarily make for a better strategic game.
Is the overall game experience truly better with these units included? I can clearly say yes for the other units in the canon. Evidenced by the immense popularity of Uniwar today.
First impression right now is the tank buster is like a cheap artillery unit. Which affects the value of the normal artillery units.
Proposal:
1. Permit the tank buster units only if all players have access or perhaps don't even allow the game unless all players have access.
2. Permit the tank buster units only if a certain terrain feature is available on the map.
|
|
|
I have been playing for over a year. My score is 2214. I know what I am doing with this game.
However, the tank buster units seem to throw everything in un-fun chaos. How is my Titan army supposed to defend itself now?
No, I do not quite have the cash to purchase all three new buster units. Just two of them.
I thought Uniwar was about a well balanced chess like game where once you figure out the nuances you can do well. You know, STRATEGY.
Now all that is out the window.
I was in the midst of a game where I was hanging on by well placed line of plasma tanks.
Well, no more. Here they come. Boom! There is no adequate response. I suppose I have to spend my coins on the Guardian unit to even have a chance in that one.
But then what about my other games?
So you need both skill AND cash to win a tournament game now?
So folk really just thought that Uniwar needed these units? That using heavies to defend your army led to unfun games? Wow.
I quite liked the balance. Use heavies for defense, and then artillery to bust things up. With a LOT of strategy and good moves in there as well mind you.
|
|
|
In version 1.9.52 a new bug has been introduced: if player is defeated the game no longer automatically skips his turn.
While you are at it, another bug that has been around forever is this: in multiplayer games, if a player has no units and all his bases are covered by enemy units, the game should automatically skip his turn.
|
|
|
- During chat composition, I find I need to have easier access to hex notation while constructing my messages. It's hard to remember the exact hex location after bringing up the window. Thus, could the following be done: when you hit "cancel" in the chat window, remember the current message that is being written, so that when it is brought up again the message is right there. That way you can easily pop back and forth between the map and the chat window for the purposes of extracting out hex notations.
- I frequently forget which tournaments I am waiting for the next round on. Should I sign up for the next 2x2? Or do we already have something going? The only way I know to answer this is to exhaustively look for my team name in the listings. Rather than this, in your profile underneath the tournament listings, could you also include the tournaments you are waiting for the next round on? Perhaps saying "Next round begins in 3 days" or something?
- One more thing, for some reason when the tournaments do pop, they all tend to pop together so that I suddenly go from a few games to a full rack of games in my queue. Can all the tournaments be more scattered time wise so that the next round you are in and the new rounds you begin are more distributed through out the month?
Thanks,
Doug
|
![[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
