The most important thing in the new update...for you?

Alvendor · 09-26-2012, 06:50 AM

Destroyable terrain sounds like a really good idea!

A widening of the matching criteria for high ranked players is high on my list even if it is only a problem for maybe < 20ppl.

That the new special can switch places of any two units (opponent's included, maximum range 3), could create some crazy strategies!

awpertunity · 09-26-2012, 07:31 AM

(09-26-2012 06:50 AM)Alvendor Wrote: A widening of the matching criteria for high ranked players is high on my list even if it is only a problem for maybe < 20ppl.

I agree with this too. Or at least a progressively growing matchmaking system rather than a "try for 2 days then give up and find anybody" system.

synphonics · 09-26-2012, 08:30 AM

what about a map where all the bonus spaces are in the middle? (cannot reached by runner on FTA tho) seems pretty fun haha

CombatEX · 09-26-2012, 12:05 PM

The player who goes first will still get to the central spaces first even if s/he can't get to them on the first turn.

synphonics · 09-26-2012, 01:02 PM

(09-26-2012 12:05 PM)CombatEX Wrote: The player who goes first will still get to the central spaces first even if s/he can't get to them on the first turn.

yes but if they do that then p2 is able to counter them if p1 doesn't strike with his/her units that's why I said that P1 isn't able to step on the panels on the first turn.

GreatGonzales · 09-27-2012, 03:35 AM

You know what would be fun? Not sure if it would be game-breaking, but:

1. A 1v1 map with 3 boost spaces, 3 spawns per player
2. A 2v2 map with 2 boost spaces, 2 spawns per player

MASSIVE ARMIES! Smile

Ravernoth · 09-27-2012, 08:19 AM

(09-26-2012 06:50 AM)Alvendor Wrote: That the new special can switch places of any two units (opponent's included, maximum range 3), could create some crazy strategies!

Very cool idea.. that would be like the Swiss army knife of specials.. very flexible for any situation.

Samura| · 09-27-2012, 07:29 PM

Boring i know, but some change in the ranking system would be nice.

Firstly, as we all know, points determines ranking in a particular league, but that's got nothing to do with skill or actual rankings.

Secondly, the importance of the first 5 games is the single largest imbalance in this game. Win all 5 and you could be in Masters immediately. Lose a couple, and you could start out in Fluffy. And after that it will take you about 100+(!!) games to get to Masters. That's my estimate as it's taken me about 30-40 wins to get promoted to Clever, then another 30-40 to get promoted to Gifted, in each case maybe with 1 loss.

I wouldn't complain if that's what it takes to get to Masters for everyone. But it seems arbitrary the massive weighting that's placed on the first 5 games (and I was silly enough to jump into league in my very first game)! Shouldn't a ranking system be based on the most recent games, e.g. the last 50, rather than weighed down by the earliest games? Take something like tennis, you can lose to the lowest ranked player in the world every game in the prior season, but win a couple of major tournaments and you're quickly in the top 20 in the world. I just think there are lots of good players out there who simply don't have the time to play their way up to Masters (or indeed ST).

How could this be improved? One option is a complete overhaul of the points/ranking system. Perhaps an easier alternative is a fasttrack system, whereby someone on say a 10 game streak then gets immediately matched against much tougher opponents for the next 3 games (say one or two leagues). Clearly if you can win all 3 or even 2 of 3, you should be promoted. Winning even 1 of these games means perhaps you should still be given a chance to 'jump' to a higher league by being matched against tougher opposition for a couple more games.

Ravernoth · 09-27-2012, 08:36 PM

(09-27-2012 07:29 PM)Samura| Wrote: Boring i know, but some change in the ranking system would be nice.

Firstly, as we all know, points determines ranking in a particular league, but that's got nothing to do with skill or actual rankings.

Secondly, the importance of the first 5 games is the single largest imbalance in this game. Win all 5 and you could be in Masters immediately. Lose a couple, and you could start out in Fluffy. And after that it will take you about 100+(!!) games to get to Masters. That's my estimate as it's taken me about 30-40 wins to get promoted to Clever, then another 30-40 to get promoted to Gifted, in each case maybe with 1 loss.

I wouldn't complain if that's what it takes to get to Masters for everyone. But it seems arbitrary the massive weighting that's placed on the first 5 games (and I was silly enough to jump into league in my very first game)! Shouldn't a ranking system be based on the most recent games, e.g. the last 50, rather than weighed down by the earliest games? Take something like tennis, you can lose to the lowest ranked player in the world every game in the prior season, but win a couple of major tournaments and you're quickly in the top 20 in the world. I just think there are lots of good players out there who simply don't have the time to play their way up to Masters (or indeed ST).

How could this be improved? One option is a complete overhaul of the points/ranking system. Perhaps an easier alternative is a fasttrack system, whereby someone on say a 10 game streak then gets immediately matched against much tougher opponents for the next 3 games (say one or two leagues). Clearly if you can win all 3 or even 2 of 3, you should be promoted. Winning even 1 of these games means perhaps you should still be given a chance to 'jump' to a higher league by being matched against tougher opposition for a couple more games.

Yes agreed! This is a big problem. The promotion system is really, really slow especially for someone who messes up their placement as a beginner.

Many players are likely to drop out rather than continue playing games without being challenged. Whats the point of letting a player accumulate 20 game win streaks without moving up?

I think this deserves its own thread.

pookywb · 09-28-2012, 03:43 AM

While I don't think the numbers are exactly the same in 2v2, imagine if you had to win 30-40 games to move up. o.O

Coupled with the fact that quite a few of my 2v2 placement matches with various partners were significantly underwhelming (went 5-0 against all fluffy and clever teams) that could prove to be quite frustrating for 2v2 grinding.