| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Randomizing doesn't fix the imbalance, but it prevents anyone from taking advantage of it unfairly. In the long run, you'll come out on the long side of the imbalance as often as you do on the short side.
|
|
|
|
wookieontheweb wrote:
Isn't this idea slightly derailed because of the undo problem? Especially now everyone has infinite undo. i.e. Move marine to mountain "oh look scary stuff, undo."
If that were true, then normal visibility limits and Fog of War would be entirely derailed, which they aren't.
So yes, undo allows you to see further than you should, but your vision is still limited. You use your marauder for long range scout-and-undo? Well, it's vision where-ever you send will be further limited by terrain visibility, So in fact, this actually reduces the problem created by unlimited undo!
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote:
I love the idea.. but i dont think it will be done.
It will be a big rewrite and it will also complicate the game.
Glad you love it 
Xavi doesn't seem to think the feature difficult. His comment on LkASr's thread last year:
xavi wrote:
I like these ideas a lot. There is a possibility that we implement them after testing and validating them. Before that, we will certainly adjust the vision of most units that currently see WAY TOO FAR!
simsverd wrote:
It will be a big rewrite and it will also complicate the game. For the common user (wich is the majority), uniwar is already very complex and hard to learn , and any changes to the game must be evaluated with that in mind...
It seems intuitive rather than complex to me. It works exactly like mobility. Let me highlight what I wrote in the proposal above:
Little Omar wrote:
It adds a strategy dimension to the game that is very intuitive. (The game today is a little bit too heavy on precision tactics. One wrong build decision on many maps dooms you).
Making Uniwar more about strategy and less dependent on precise moves and precise knowledge of minutia will make the game more accessible, not less. IMHO.
|
|
|
Actually, it was suggested 8 years ago (http://forum.uniwar.com/posts/list/128.page), and the reply I quoted from that thread was from me, under my account name back then, The Dogalyst. I am simply trying to resurrecting the idea, making a better case for it this time.
But it is good that multiple people are thinking the same thing! It must be a good idea 
|
|
|
|
If there was a concern that this would break existing maps, terrain visibility could be made a setting on the map design itself. I'd prefer we not do this, but it's an option.
|
|
|
Imagine not being able to see past mountains at all. There could be an ambush waiting on the other side. Or an enemy that can't see you coming. Your options are to send a scout around the mountains, or to send a unit to scale their peak. Once you get on the mountain (or to the far side of a range more than one-wide), not only can you suddenly survey the landscape below, you also get a range boost.
Imagine sending troops into a deep forest, not being able to see more than two deep. Unless you have an engineer, who's got the equipment to see twice as far.
I think it's time to reconsider the idea that terrain ought to affect visibility, just as it affects movement. As Dogalyst put it 8 years ago:
The Dogalyst wrote: This is an excellent idea. In other words, treat visibility just like mobility. Each unit has a vision strength, and each terrain has a vision cost.
For example, a marine could have a vision of 8, but the cost to look over flat ground would be 2, so they could see 4 spaces away if it were all flat, just like they can today. But the cost of forest would be 4, so they could only see thru 2 cells of forest, and the cost of mountain would be 6, so they could never see past a mountain range. Aerial units would typically not be affected by terrain, except perhaps mountains because these are not high altitude units and mountains have lots of nooks and crannies -- maybe they should only be able to see across two mountain cells.
The advantages of terrain visibility in terms of gameplay:
It adds a strategy dimension to the game that is very intuitive. (The game today is a little bit too heavy on precision tactics. One wrong build decision on many maps dooms you).It enables tactics like ambushes. Scouting abilities become even more important.It makes map design a lot more interesting.
Requirements
We'd want to design it to be intuitive. For example:
No units can see past mountains, even aerial. High seas limit visiblity even for aerial, etc. If visibility represents a unit's ability to scout its surroundings, then at least visibility should never be greater than movement range past mountains. Only on flat lands should visibility be greater than movement.
We'd want the design to keep the races balanced. For example, give Titans some vision technology to make up for their lack of aerial unit
|
|
|
Team and multiplayer games can be unfair for a number of reasons:
1. Teams are lopsided
2. The team map favors the first (owner's) team's position.
3. The FFA map favors the first (owner's) position.
It's a problem when this happens unintentionally. But it's even worse when an unscrupulous game owners takes advantage.
The solutions are easy:
Auto-balance Teams
Say I only want to join fair games, where the teams are relatively balance. If I am the third to join an 6 or 8 player game, I have no way to know if it will be balanced once the slots are filled and the owner presses Start. I am also at the mercy of whether or not the owner makes an effort to balance the teams, and far worse, owners who deliberately make the games lopsided, even easier now that they can rearrange teams at will.
An easy solution is have an "auto-balance" setting. When the game is started, an algorithm automatically creates teams as equal as possible in terms of combined player score. It also randomizes the team's position (see below). Games with this setting are clearly marked, so that players have the option of avoiding games without this setting.
Randomize Player/Team Position
On some maps, a certain position (e.g. Team 1, Player 4) has an advantage. The solution is easy: Have a Randomized Order setting for FFA games (for team games this comes with the Auto-balance setting). When the game is started, player positions are randomized. For team games, team position is randomized, and player positions within a team are randomized.
|
|
|
|
Yes, this would be extremely valuable. PLEASE add this. It would be so trivial!
|
|
|
There's no point in adding more ranks if the existing veterancy ranks continue to be mostly irrelevant to the game. Veterancy will remain irrelevant until the cost-benefit balance tips in its favor, either by reducing the cost (easier to gain) or by increasing its benefit (giving it more oomph), or both, thereby incenting players to use it in their strategies.
If we go with the reducing cost option, it is as as simple as giving units experience for all damage inflicted, including defense. Or give experience for net damage, so only whichever unit deals more damage, whether attacker or defender, earns experience. It never made sense, anyway, that only kills and only offense got experience -- though the kill getting a bonus does make sense.
The experience earning rate can be tweaked each update until the right balance of oomph is found.
Giving veterancy enough oomph to become relevant will impact tactics a number of ways. The game will become more strategic and less tactical. Players will be incented to think more about the long game than the short. Players will be incented to treat their units less as expendable tactical cannon-fodder, more as strategic assets to be protected and advanced. When you lose a unit you lose not just its credit cost, but all its earned experience. Kills become even more valuable: both because you deny the enemy veterancy and because your unit earns a bonus. But because your own experienced units are valuable, kamikaze tactics will probably become less frequent, usually only using fresh units. Tactics will revolve around highly experienced units much as they do around strategic map tiles. You'd have two ways to increase relative strength: (1) accumulate credits (bases/cities) and (2) accumulate experience. The player who has more bases but sacrificed many units to cap them might end up being weaker than the player who built up veterans. I think the tension between these two factors will add a great dimension to Uniwar.
Finally, in games where there are more than two players, players who avoid battles while other players destroy each other don't earn any experience. The fly-under-the-radar tactic will continue, but it will work less.
|
|
|
Sapien units have serious military names:
Marine, Engineer, Marauder, Tank, Helicopter, Battery and Destroyer
But now we have:
Marine, Engineer, Marauder, Bopper, Tank, Helicopter, Battery and Destroyer
How about a new name for the new unit before it's too late?
|
|
|
LkASr wrote:
xavi wrote:Apple iTunes - build under review
Google Play – UniWar is Live
Amazon Appstore – UniWar is Live
apple's bs, they're always way behind schedule
Cut it out with the "apple's bs" BS. It's insulting to people and Uniwar players who chose an Apple product and prefer the additional safety the App Store process provides, even if imperfect. New tiles/units have been in the works for a very long time (years?) so it's childish to carp about a few days.
|
|
|
iOS 10.0.2 on iPhone 5.
Crashes instantly. The Uniwar app icon expands to screen size, then the app crashes. The icon doesn't do the loading animation.
1.9.43 was working fine.
Happy to join your beta / TestFlight program.
|
|
|
Crashing on launch just as it did with 1.9.42. 
Delete, reboot iPhone, re-install... no effect.
I am in a few tournaments and many rated games with deadlines.
|
|
|
So what are the latest (Sept 2016) Gang Up bonus rules? The help documentation is very vague. Is the chart posted above accurate? Can a veteran confirm?
Is this calculator (http://uniwar.willingham.net) accurate?
|
|
|
I got the following message from xavier kral (Uniwar developer):
We are working on a client & server fix to be released ASAP. We will prevent skipping & kicking players in the meantime.
|
![[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
