Introversion

Ive posted this in this section since there are few things that i would prefer to be implemented on ranked servers.

Personally i like multiwinia for its basic elements of "real life" strategy aka formations vs turrets are bad, suicide attacks are good, the more the merrier etc etc hence certain amount of skill, logic and sense is required to play. But more i do play more it seems that luck decides the winner in all 1vs1 games (specially blitz) and most of "threeway" games (coops and 4 players games are too chaotic due to retribution to be judged). Maybe its not always been like this, maybe something have been fixed, maybe players got better, but getting evilwinians twice in a row in one game (like i did), getting one nuke or shower and placing just one turret in good spot (which still requires logic and sense) currently decides the outcome of a battle.

So i wonder what others think about this. Imo rate of diseases/viruses/nukes/showers should be lowered. Spawn gates should have impenetrable fences and rockets should have fences with recaptureable generators.

2P: Usually skill, luck tends to tip the balance. Sometimes luck is the strongest factor (thank you, enemy flame turret burning the only realistic means of egress with this statue).

3P: Skill, where luck would have that the other guys aren't nearly as skilled as you, else luck. (See Pursuit of Victory)

4P: Luck, more luck, added luck for better effect, and finally something with a nametag reading "maadd sqiilz" finally drops in unannounced, and completely stoned. (See Holy Tree where guy to your left attacks you, the guy to his left attacks left, and the guy on your right gives someone who isn't you all off their spawns)

I agree with Mas here, 2 Player is defenitely skill for the most part, only when the two players are each equels, only then luck can tip the balance.

Well 3 player is more "dynamic" and there is afcourse more luck involved in what your both enemies gonna do, but generaly I tend to keep an eye on the balance of power.

For 4 player this counts even more and its harder to keep an eye, and indeed keep a equel power balance, so yeah I would say 4 player is kind of chaotic, it's mostly the question whether you get chances and if you grab those chance succesfull, I think.

Cant agree with 2 player statement. Two equal players usually stumble at even number of points and then one with any lucky crate wins(in domination) and in blitz its just a matter of one lucky shower/nuke. If players are not equally skilled then usually one that got more spawns at the beginning wins(in domination, unless ofcourse you get just one virus or other less skilled player gets just one shower/nuke), i really think that game should not be THAT dependent on THE ONE lucky crate (or unlucky depending who gets it)

hence i think that showers/nukes should be disabled completely in blitz 1vs1 games and infection in 1vs1 domination games. Or atleast they should be severely lowered in rate so they wont occur twice on same map.

So, given two equally skilled players, how would you like to see the game decided?

My take. In duels, crate luck is only the tipping factor, extreme cases ignored. Three and four player games are, by nature, not controllable by a single person; you can lose them even if you don't make a single mistake. Theres nothing any sensible game design can do about that, so no complaining there.

bert_the_turtle wrote:So, given two equally skilled players, how would you like to see the game decided?

I didn't say remove all crates, i said lower amount of showers/nukes/viruses and give rocket and spawn gates shields. This would provide more room for skill and logic to decide the outcome of a battle. Small forces would be used more frequently than hordes and careful planing of turret placements still will be tipping factor in such games. This would be both realistic and will reflect actual amount of skills of both players.

Ofcourse one meteor shower crushing few hundreds multiwinians along with spawn point is spectacular view and phun yet in my opinion this doesn't take any skill at all.

Personally, I would like to see a blitz server with basic crates only. Nukes and meteor showers are just too powerful on both Confrontation Point and Apex of Infinity, and can be overly powerful on The Bleak Mountains. I have twice played against Lelouch on Confrontation Point, taken the middle flag, controlled the extra spawn point, then been taken out by a nuke strike followed by two completely full armours and two turrets on the spawn. Both of those were games that I felt I could have won (or at least had a chance at), but got raped by power-ups, with no way of coming back.

To that end, I would like to propose a set of "tournament mode" settings for two player games. First, basic crates only. A well placed squad or turret can change the balance of power, but two skilled players ought to be able to overcome those obstacles. A nuke, on the other hand, can lead to a lasting and irrevocable handicap. Second, for the modes that matter, there should not be handicapping for spawn points. If you manage to grab a bunch of spawns, while your opponent idles, I think that you have demonstrated your skill. Handicapping is meant to balance out differences in skill, whereas tournaments are meant to demonstrate skill. Finally, random crates, for the same reason as no handicapping.

xander

I support Lelouch!!

Tho I don't entirely agree, I agree for the most part and I would definetely would like some features that can increase the skill level-cap of this game.
But first of all when you play right in the beginning you shouldn't have so much mwg's spare to get a crate somewhere, second its a calculated gamble if you leave a crate uncontested.
That being said crates can indeed let you win a 2 player game in wich you where losing or equels.

Besides crates tho, grenades seems an increasingly more important gameplay element for me, especially in the beginning. Placing your troops at the right places, for example on hills, forcing you enemy to go to bad places and using the right amount of troops is in my opinion a key element in early game. Standing on higher grounds is a great advantages and spreading your forces helps decrease the damage inflicted by grenades, also you can micromanage to avoid grenades as much as possible. You could afcourse also use formations to throw grenades, tho I almost never do that, so I don't know whether that's a great advantages. What I do now is that sending smaller troops to big packs of mwg's help because they tend to almost anyways throw a grenade (tho I use little micromanage for this, won't tell what ), and I am beginning to think that when you withdraw your forces they have an added chance of throwing grenades.

Well anyone has to add something to this? I am curious in how far other players tend to micromanage.

Btw. I a very early post there was some tips, I can't remember from who, from a beta tester there whre quite a few little tricks. He didn't reveal all then because he sad he wanted to have the skilled ones some fun with the noobs. That was fine then, but now I think its time to release all because noobs are to easy anyway, because they haven't so much experience, so IV pls post all the little tricks that were hidden in this game, so that we ave extra stuff to practice on! Thanks.

Cyan. wrote:...(tho I use little micromanage for this, won't tell what )...

...He didn't reveal all then because he sad he wanted to have the skilled ones some fun with the noobs. That was fine then, but now I think its time to release all because noobs are to easy anyway, because they haven't so much experience, so IV pls post all the little tricks that were hidden in this game, so that we ave extra stuff to practice on! Thanks.

An interesting way of asking people to post gameplay tips you have...

Also, I doubt IV really hid tricks in the game - odds are a basic system was created with completly unknown nooks and crannies of behavoir. That system was then revised until it did generally what was wanted, with those cracks still in place. They might now KNOW the majority of them through excessive playing, and how to make use, but I don't think they were deliberately hidden.

Finally, I'm seeing a lot of people talk about 4 player maps really being decided by luck. Aren't all the maps being played in IV's G15 tourney 4 player? I can understand that 4 player maps get the most people playing in the least amount of time, but, doesn't that mean that really it's just a luckfest with some free prizes?

I pretty much take this whole game as chance based skill game. Basically, backgammon in an RTS digital format.

I rather like that about the game most times, sometimes get a little frusterated with multiple bad luck sprees.

That's also why I don't concern myself or worry about the ladder or tournaments etc.

However, you could turn it into a pure skill only game. Turn off crates and you're done. I'm not sure how the start with X powerups work. If they give the exact same power ups to all, then it could be used for a skill only game too. If it's random powerups from the getgo.... That would be a crap shoot.

Then if you go for skill only, most of the maps would need a touch up as far as DOM/KOTH/CTS maps are concerned. Almost all the maps have a handicapped spawn.

So really, I think playing the game as a hardcore all serious RTS player is self defeating. Play defcon if you want chess. Play Multiwinia if you want backgammon.

The GoldFish wrote:Finally, I'm seeing a lot of people talk about 4 player maps really being decided by luck. Aren't all the maps being played in IV's G15 tourney 4 player? I can understand that 4 player maps get the most people playing in the least amount of time, but, doesn't that mean that really it's just a luckfest with some free prizes?

There's three forces in a for player game: skill, politics, and luck. You don't lose in spite of your skill if your opponents get good crates; you lose if they decide to use those crates on you. Overall, the tournament has to be compared to the Football World/Continent Cups (Soccer for those thinking Football is better used as a name for a game where you mostly use your hands to handle the ball) in terms of luck vs. skill. Yes, there is going to be luck and other factors involved, but to get a price, you'll definitely need skill. (Plus, tournament formats with duels and tighter organisation of who plays against whom, which definitely would be more focused on skill, are simply not doable within the given constraints, and unconstrained duels would just end up getting won by the guy who only played against unskilled players.)

I make my own luck.*

Quality may vary.

Regarding xander's suggestions, I only partly agree with them. Random crates is a given. Weighted crates simply don't help anyway, they come too late and are so close to your spawns that if they're bad, they really hurt. Turns out my servers accidentally had random crates enabled all of the time The handicap is a complete non-issue, IMHO. I never saw anyone win a duel because he got more reinforcements due to handicap, the effect just kicks in too late and is not strong enough.

As for the crates, instead of trying to cut down the game to eliminate as much of the luck factors as we can, I rather say we should adapt our tournaments to a reasonable amount of luck. The G15 tournament does this by eliminating everyone's worst game. Double knockout for tournaments bases on fixed duels also works, and the Ladder handles it by the sheer amount of games it indexes.

Still, let's give it a spin. 'Dedwinia Test Duel' is up (replacing regular 'Dedwinia Test'). Duel maps only, no Assault, no Hamburger Hill, no handicap, random crates, basic crates only.

OK, I'll buy that - sorry if it looks like I'm constantly digging at this or anything, I can only assume then that some people really overplayed the luck aspect of 4p!

bert_the_turtle wrote:

The GoldFish wrote:Finally, I'm seeing a lot of people talk about 4 player maps really being decided by luck. Aren't all the maps being played in IV's G15 tourney 4 player? I can understand that 4 player maps get the most people playing in the least amount of time, but, doesn't that mean that really it's just a luckfest with some free prizes?

There's three forces in a for player game: skill, politics, and luck. You don't lose in spite of your skill if your opponents get good crates; you lose if they decide to use those crates on you. Overall, the tournament has to be compared to the Football World/Continent Cups (Soccer for those thinking Football is better used as a name for a game where you mostly use your hands to handle the ball) in terms of luck vs. skill. Yes, there is going to be luck and other factors involved, but to get a price, you'll definitely need skill. (Plus, tournament formats with duels and tighter organisation of who plays against whom, which definitely would be more focused on skill, are simply not doable within the given constraints, and unconstrained duels would just end up getting won by the guy who only played against unskilled players.)

You really cant compare soccer or even US football with 4 player MW games. Both of those sports is one team vs one other team. Not a 4 way.

Maybe you could compare it to various multiperson track events like the 100 meter dash, or certain swin events. But not Soccer, US football, baseball etc that are purely a 2 team matchup.