• 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    By your measure, my comments alone occupy more than half of this thread, therefore I would count as over 50% of your users just by myself. Please show me some of the players that complained about the computer owning leaver players units - I would like to read what they had to say about it.

    In any case, I can see how the vocal minority would be annoyed because they would then not be given something for free. But the fact remains that you tailored this "feature" to make sure that huge players can't wall off entire sections of the map and then leave. You have stated this is the reason already, but correct me if I am wrong.

    The problem is that that kind of situation happens rarely in a game. Usually that player is so strong he will win and never leaves. So when one of his opponents gets demoralized and leaves, he has no fight to make - the territories are free. If that opponent was the driving force behind holding the next largest player back, the game is now over because one person left. This kind of system is like taxing the poor to feed the rich. Since the rich always have extra units with which to take free stuff, and the poor players rarely do.

    Since the popularity of this map has already decreased significantly (I now have a hard time finding enough players to play anymore), I would kindly request that you make this change and get some feedback from the core players and see what they say, not what the noobs who clicked on Fun or Not have to say about it.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    Can you please stop destroying leaving players units and instead give the units and territories to the computer player? At least give it a try and see what kind of feedback you get?

    The problem is that in almost every game somebody leaves and suddenly their defending units get destroyed and the terrorities become free to grab. Almost every game this happens and in most of the time the effect is unbalancing to that game as the nearest player goes for the power grab while remote players have no opportunity.

    I understand your concern that you don't want massive defenses left blocking players. But I would argue that this is a rare occurance. So you are penalizing 95% of the games played with unbalancing to keep 5% (or even less) of the games from unbalancing.

    Can we please, please just give it a try and see if we get any negative feedback?

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    Regarding the Goliath air range, and your suggestion to add +1 to it, that is simply not enough. In the original SC1 risk map Goliaths had air range of 8. You have nerfed it to 4. Adding a +1 only gives 5. The air range really should always just be 8. Or, at a minimum, able to get back up to range 8.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    Something has got to be done about this ridiculous aggression bonus. The aggression bonus was designed to give a *SLIGHT* edge to players who are aggressive and not camping. This means it should be only a few minerals. It is inconcievable to me that you should get a return in minerals equal to half the number of units killed that turn. In most games I play, the aggression bonus is always the biggest factor for the winner. In some games, I have personally been able to achieve an aggression bonus numbered in the hundreds of minerals in a single turn. Please, PLEASE, cap the aggression at something like 20 minerals per turn.

    When players leave, their units and territories should become computer owned/controlled. The territories should get an extra marine every turn. The current situation of destroying all units when a player leaves and then making the territories free to anyone is completely unbalanced. I will give you an example that keeps happening - consider a game with three players remaining. One player is very large and owns half the map to himself and the other two players split the remaining territories between them. They decide that the only way to win is to team up and attack the larger player. So the first player sends all his units to attack the larger player, the larger player is severely hurt but wins the battle. Now the second player sends his guys to attack the larger player in a different place. Upon seeing the team-up, the larger player decides to leave. Now the first player has no units left because he fought it out. The larger players units are destroyed and his countries suddenly become free. Only the second player has many units left since he didn't get his chance to fight. So he gets all the countries for free. The units *MUST* remain to keep the gameplay balanced after someone leaves.

    Please add the marine range upgrade. This was in the original SC1 version. Why not add it?

    Please make the goliath air range longer. You nerfed the both the ground range and air range. But the air range should be increased again. The air range is so small that I could not kill a dropship from what seemed to be right next to it.

    Please make the choke point between south america and africa smaller.

    Please move the east africa territory to be closer to the asia choke point.

    Please add a mineral count to the leader board. How many minerals a player has left is crucial information when deciding to attack, and should not be a secret.

    I don't understand why africa gets THREE zerglings per turn. It should get 5 marines and 1 zergling. Currently it has a bigger bonus that europe, even though europe is considerably harder to take and hold. Australia has 1 point of attack, it gets 1 zergling and 1 marine. South america has 2 points of attack and gets 1 zergling and 3 marines. North america has 3 points of attack and gets 1 zergling and 6 marines. Africa has 3 points of attack and gets 3 marines and 3 zerglings???? Europe has 4 points of attack yet gets less of a bonus. Europe should get around 2 zerglings and 5 or 6 marines.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    This aggression bonus is just ridiculous. Why on earth should I get $1 for every 2 marines I kill? That basically gives me half my units back for free. On the other hand, if my marines are way strong, I may not lose any during a fight, but get 50% more units than I kill for free EVERY TURN.

    Please cap the aggression bonus at like 20 or less. You should get most of your minerals from holding territories, not by fighting.

    Also, please add a gas <-> minerals conversion. Something like 3 minerals == 1 gas, and vice versa. Or, alternatively, 1 gas cost 5 minerals, and 3 minerals cost 1 gas.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    It is getting better, but still has some bugs:

    - The text that says "you are receiving bonus units for XXX continent" is wrong. It shows continents I do not own.

    - The marine stimpack ability should not count as an action. But it does, so it stops my current action. The result is that if I attack to a location my marines start moving there. When I use stimpack on them when they are close, they stop in their tracks and stand there doing nothing while stimmed, even though I told them to attack first.

    - When I am the first player, the zerg upgrade building hotkey is not set.

    - You should not destroy the units of a leaving player. I have played many games where someone has a ton of countries and units/tanks/etc. and several people team up to try to stop them from winning. If they leave in this situation, everything is destroyed and all their countries become freebies to the first person to take them. Nearly every time this causes problems. Just leave the units there and start adding a marine to every country.

    And, of course, please give 3 rebels each turn not just one. I suggest giving 3 and reducing life down to a base 200 or so.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    So with your new fix, how is the aggression supposed to work? How much aggression should be given out in a normal game?

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    This aggression problem is so annoying. It ruins pretty much every game. How are you calculating aggression?

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    Wow, this aggression bug has to be FIXED! I just finished a game where the guy got 450 minerals IN ONE TURN!

    Another bug:

    - If I have a rebel already and another rebel spawns for me in the same spot, it kills my first rebel?!?!

    Perhaps the rebels can spawn cloaked for the 5 seconds? Everyone just camps the spawn locations. So they should either spawn cloaked or just randomize the spawn every turn.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    Regarding the beacon problem, there is an event for when a unit dies. You can trigger off that event to check if the unit death should hand the territory off to a new player. You should also verify that you are correctly handling the unit-leaves-region event so the territory ownership changes properly if you are on the beacon and the owner runs away.

    - Can you please make the beacons not selectable? Currently it is hard to select units on a beacon.

    - It should spawn 3 rebels each time, not just one.

    Regarding the goliaths, yes if a player has a ton they are definitely over fed. Increasing the minimum minerals will help keep this balanced. But the goliaths themselves attack much too fast. Keep in mind that in SC1 the goliaths had an autocannon attack that fired a sequence of three shots (with corresponding sound effects). The cooldown did not happen until after all of this. I'm guessing the actual attack speed in SC1 would be something like 2.0 to 2.25. If you are willing change this I can spend some more hours with the map and see if that fixes the balance issues. In any case, we know there is a problem. I vote for correcting it (maybe even overcorrecting it) and rebalancing it back the other way if you went too far.

    Regarding the marine range, why would you exclude this upgrade just because it has other upgrades available? The SC1 risk map (which I used to play for hours) had both range and stimpack upgrades available. They provided unique changes to the unit. Besides, for a cost of 25 gas, you are paying a lot for it.

    - I believe the rebels in SC1 risk had super long range. Maybe like range 8? They didn't outrange a sieged tank, but they outranged everything else by far.

    - The leader board should show total units and total minerals/gas too.

    - One of the SC1 risk maps had a trigger where if you got more than 100 gas, it would subtract 25 gas and give you like 50 minerals. I think it was called gas hoarding.

    Regarding the gas, what is the rate of gas accumulation? In the SC1 risk map, you got 1 gas per 10 minerals worth of kills. So killing 10 marines gave you 1 gas, killing 2 zerglings gave 1 gas, killing 1 tank gave 1 gas, killing one goliath gave 5 gas. How does your map handle this?

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    After playing for several more hours with the new version, it still needs work.

    - Several territory beacons do not work properly. For instance, if you are already on a beacon and kill all enemy units, you don't get the territory until you leave the beacon and move back on it. This does work correctly on some territories though.

    - The golaiths. OMG the goliaths. In the original SC1 map, the goliaths were very strong, but nothing like this. They need to do less damage to light and the attack speed needs to be slower. They are so powerful that it is unbalanced. In the SC1 map, they were useful but not overpowering. In this map, every single game ends because someone goes only goliaths. Please balance them. EDIT: After looking into this some more, it appears that goliaths did do full damage to light, but their attack speed may have been significantly slower in SC1. They had a cooldown of 22, which is approximately 1.5 like you have in your map. But in SC1 the cooldown didn't seem to start until after the weapon animation finished. This additional delay may be the cause of the goliaths new found powers in your map. Try setting the goliath weapon speed to 2.5.

    - I didn't see a marine range upgrade.

    - You need to get 1 gas every turn, ALWAYS. Without this gas is nearly impossible to get. With it, it will still take 25 turns to get enough gas to use, but at least you will eventually get there.

    - The MINIMUM minerals per turn should be 9. Unless you have rebels only. If you have no territories it should be at least 3. But if you own any territories you should get a minimum of 9. Anything less than that makes it too hard to win back anything.

    - The Greenland territory should be part of North America, not Europe.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • 0

    posted a message on RISK! Action Edition!

    This map is good, but there are several bugs:

    - The original map always gave 9 minerals at a minimum. You could get more by taking a lot of countries or continents, but you never got less than 9.

    - Armored units (i.e. tanks/mechs) did half damage to light (i.e. marines/ghosts)

    - The marines had a range upgrade that you forgot.

    - The stimpack ability needs to be hotkeyed to T

    - The rebels should give 3 units per turn, not 1.

    More suggestions:

    - The game timer is very long. Longer than most of the SC1 Risk maps. The game timer should be configurable by the host or via in-game voting options.

    - The leader board is very much in the way, please move it to the top-left or top-right corner and make it smaller overall.

    - Antarctica anyone?

    With the really really long game timer, very low minerals per turn, and armored units doing full damage to light, it is very hard to play a balanced game against someone who goes only armor from the start. The result is that you end up fighting like normal and then someone pops out a mech and you can never catch back up from there.

    Posted in: Map Feedback
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.