| Author |
Message |
|
|
Account: Sphink
rating:2040
expierance: 50 months
|
|
|
I've never had a game last 4 months! Most people I play resign when the advantage is overwhelming. And 1d turns or less go pretty quick for me. But I could agree with 180day resets...
Also I did give the option instead of resetting the current ladder/ranking... Add two more ranking systems to go with the current one for a total of 3 ranks. One global (the current ladder/rank), one for team games (popular idea that has been proposed before), and a third for "seasons" that get reset every 90 or 180 days...
|
|
|
There are currently over 650,000 players!!! There is no way there are this many active players. All these extra accounts need to be deleted, there is no reason to waste server space on a bunch of inactive accounts.
These accounts are littering the ladder.
I'm sure a dev could tell me how many downloads this game has. Probably no where close to 650,000!
Like I said most of these have to be multiple accounts by the same user...
|
|
|
I would like to beat this old horse back to life. I think there have been some good points and ideas raised in this thread. I'm not quite sure what gspy was talking about, I think he misunderstood the points I was trying to make. I never said anything about removing the scoring system (although he did) or any feature of the game.
Besides that, sims had a good idea with the hall of fame.
Somebody mentioned 90days wasn't long enough with the regular 1d per turn games.. 90 days just seems like a good number to me, 4 quarters in a year.. Maybe every six months would be better and just have 2halves? Idk I like 90days/4quarters personally.
Some people disagree with resets altogether. To that I say there are a LOT of games that have a similar ranking system. They call them "seasons". Starcraft obviously comes to mind first off.. Clash of clans (mobile game) is another that uses seasons"
Last thought, a lot of people have mentioned separate rankings for team games...
How about 3 separate ranking systems? Keep the original one everybody has and loves now. Add a separate one for team games. And add yet another one for the "seasons"...
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is pretty unlikely. But it will happen. I continued testing and haven't got another in about 50+ attacks... But I did get the one which means it is completely possible. Now if it happened like 3+ times in a game... Then you MIGHT have something. But even then the odds of winning the lottery are pretty unlikely too. Lol someone is gonna win.
|
|
|
It is 100 percent possable for a 10 walker to hit a plasma tank for 1 health regardless of the tanks health.
Edit: you never said sand terrain in your other posts... I didn't test that... But it does not effect the tank any... Just uses more mobility.
|
|
|
|
After I did a little offline testing on bog. Building plasmas with one and walkers with the other. I had a 10 health walker hit a 4 health plasma for 1 point... I don't believe you tested this over "200 times" I got my hit after probably 10 rounds... I'd appopoigze.
|
|
|
Well first of all a 5 health is just as strong defensively as a 10 health tank. Attack wise, the 5 health is weaker.
And it's my opinion that if the average attack delt to a plasma tank by a full health walker is 2-3 with a "random number" hit of +1 for four... I dont see why the random number couldn't go the other way on a 2 hit and -1 for a hit of one... Make since?
The average is 2-3 then the random number generator might bump a 3 hit up to for, or a 2 hit down to 1..
I never tested this out and that is purely guesswork. But when I here the average is 2-3 then I have to think random number generator could affect it +or- 1 point... That's my opinion, but I never did a single test.
|
|
|
The terrain layout will most likely favor a certain race in each map. If the terrain is most suited for khraleans then it wouldn't make sense to play as Titan or sapian, as it would be unbalanced. Likewise if the map terrain favors sapians, you wouldn't want to play as khraleans or titans...
Just because the terrain of specific maps favor a certain races mobility, or ability to turtle. Does not make the map unbalanced, it means you are playing as the wrong race. With the current strengths and weaknesses of mobility vs defense certain maps will favor certain races...
So NO map will ever be completely balanced across all races. If you think a certain race can beat another on a certain map, try it. If not pick the same race as your opponent and it will be balanced for the most part.
Either that or get rid of most of the differences in each races units, and make them almost exactly the same... Then there will be more balance.
|
|
|
This is exactly like the people who think skipping is dishonorable.
If you play RANDOM you should accept that the matchups are RANDOM! sometimes you get good matchups, sometimes you get bad matchups. If you want games that you KNOW will be balanced, play custom rated games... Random games are for people who want truly random games and accept whatever they get.
How many ppl on average accept your draw? I guarantee it's probably less then 50%... and if that's the case, then why would you ask for pitty from your opponet when you know that if they got a bad matchup and asked for a draw, it will be declined over 50% of the time...
As much as you care about losing points, there are 5 ppl that don't care how they get your points. You can call them dishonorable, but they really don't care.
What I see as dishonorable is to "shame" (your words) a MINORITY of uniwarriors into accepting your draws, when they have the same odds of having their peace offers declined.
You have your opinion, this is mine. I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you how it feels from the other side of the offer...
|
|
|
Hahaha! The "point" is that you gain an attack multiplier from surfacing and attacking a underling. The "purpose" of burried underlings is NOT complete stealth.
I think you would agree that if there were no indications that burried units were nearby that you would win more of your games. And if you played VS khraleans you would lose more games... That makes not showing burried units nearby unbalanced.
Keep playing, you'll figgure out ways to out position your opponet with your burried units. Don't just march them into the back of your opponents base and place them next to your opponents most expensive/weak units. They will be expecting that and position accordingly.
They are great for "mind games" with your opponents. The more you use them (and play against them!!!) the more you'll see their strengths and weaknesses, and how to position/move them with minimal information given to your opponents.
I will give you one small example of how to mess with your opponet: Idk how many times I've surfaced an underling a few tiles away (still in capping distance, but not directly next to) for the sole purpose of making my opponet spend credits at that base to build a unit. That could stop them from getting a plasma tank that round on a different base to stop your attack there.
I know this isn't the answer you wanted to hear... Think outside of the box, don't just put them next to a unit you want to attack and commit them to attacking that specific unit. think mind games... Not just attacking.
|
|
|
1) more like a code of conduct or ethics. Player 1 and 2 are the first to move for their team so it is polite for them to ask what the teams strategy will be, but it shouldn't be forced on players to chat before the match begins... Idk, it's good in theory
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
5) idk... This could cause a lot of arguments, flaming, trash talk, and all sorts of other stuff... Idk if I want that in my games... But sometimes it would be interesting... I mean you already know it probably wasn't anyone on your team, so does it matter if you specifically know which one of your opponents did it. Maybe if it only told you "YOUR OWN TEAM SKIPPED YOU!"
6) I don't care...
7) I don't care...
|
|
|
This is another number that should be taken to the chopping block.
If I had to guess I would say about 10% of that number consistently play the game... That leaves what? 270,000 inactive accounts? And to me 32,000 Players sounds reasonable...
I personally probably have over 20 dummy accounts I've created over the years to start over with a new win/loss ratio and other things... So I know there are alot of dummy accounts created by other player, a while back ppl used to play games vs their own dummy accounts to gain points on their main account. To sabotage team games... All sorts of reasons.
So if the account hasn't logged on in the past 90 days, it should be deleted... Along with my rating reset every 90 days it shouldn't matter if your account get deleted as long as you can ge the same name (someone might take it and pretend to be you)...
But there is no need to have 300,000 accounts taking up server space.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
What is the point of have over 600 open rated games? Most of them are either the same 5 maps, 3 minute games, or were created days ago!
I can understand having a 12/24hr game be open for about 3 days... If nobody joins after that long it should be deleted, nobody want to play that map/matchup.
A 3/10 minute Should be deleted when the host goes offline! There is no reason to have that many open rated 3m games from hrs/days ago with the host offline. That's an exploit people take advantage of hoping people forget and then start the game at a later time when player 2 is offline and just kick the player first round and take their points.
And do people really join game the were created over 10 days ago?! Let alone 16-35 days ago?!!! The last 4 pages are blank anyway because there are so many games!
600 open games that nobody is ever goin to join seems like a wast of space to me. Taking up server space and whatnot...
What do you guys think??
|
|
|
A few other thoughts...
3 months of playing time just sounds like a nice amount of time to establish a nice consistent score (reach a score where you win and lose games but your score stays around the same +-100)
It would create a "surge"'of new games as ppl are trying to up their score, instead of now just playing a few games while they sit on their "mountain" of points. So there would be more incentive to play/create more games to boost score.
The community and amount of games being played seems kinda stale these days. This would freshen things up and spark renewed interest in the game. (more games being played)
|
![[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
