Hello,

We primarily expected that newbees would be playing on small planets and 10 mins limit would be enough for them. I guess we will let players to customize time in turn vs AI and get default time limit increased.

"Infinite time" option for turns in game will be added for sure.

Regards,
Nick.

I suspect newbies will play with the default settings on the default planet. It's actually a good default planet to learn how to play though(a little sea, not too much, good mix of terrain, not too large not too small etc.)

The time limit thing is just stupid....Why won't these people listen?!.....What is the crazy notion of "getting a game over with"?....If you're in a big hurry, play Galaga...When will you understand it? ....
I got a kick out of rushing through HALF of my turn to fulfill ten minute limit, but YES, the AI wasn't doing so good and it didn't matter that I could only move 3/4 of my units and miss some reinforcements....I managed to win anyway, but it was silly.....(whew)

Read Nick's post before you start to flood your tears ..

I can tell you, as a newbie when starting MAN2 (never played man) I found the 10 minutes way too short. When you never have played the game, you make a lot of mistakes with unloading & loading units into transport, to mention one thing

Furthermore, what some people suggested, create a practice mode or something for new players, and make sure those games DON'T count on the score. I have lost 6 games against AI before I started to get the game a bit (thanks to Pitor), but they all count in my score

Btw, will the score ever be resetted?

I don't think the issue is with 2 vetern players agreeing to a turn timer in their game. The issue is making the game fun for new players so the player pool grows. Without being able to practice offline against the AI, the first time a new player sees a map is in a game with a time limit. How can they possably look over the map, look over the choice of units and have a chance of sucess while they are also looking at the clock. I played a map i did not play before, med size, and had trouble completing the turn in 10 min. I also have no idea about how the new units work or what they do so i did not bother to use them. The biggest drawback to the old game was the monthly fee. Many, like myself, paid about $35 for the boxed retail version of the game and just played the 8 ma planets without any other fee. The new one time fee is a great idea and will, in itself, bring a lot more players into the MAN2 world as long as the new game provides them with some chance of sucess. I think it is safe to say that most of the current players had some offline play against the AI before they started online battles. Why is this not an option with this new game. If it can not be added, at least take out the turn time limit when someone is playing the AI. Also, because the only reason to play the AI is to learn about the game, these games should not count as part of a players score.

Calm down... Nick the PR guy already said that there would be an option for no ingame time limit:



As far as having that option automatically enabled for playing the AI, I totally agree. No reason to have any time limit when you aren't playing against a live opponent.

This is the Massive Assault Network, a game entirely web based, so yes you will need to go online at least to send your turns, even against the AI. The tutorials are designed to get you up and running, then you can play against the online AI from then on.

I do agree that those AI games shouldn't count for your score.

Hopefully the one-time fee will encourage new "members"....
Playing online opponent is the funstuff, but if it's hard for green troops to fight other green troops, it will frustrate and run the new players off....I would like to see more people involved here, and I relate to bad feelings of "always losing" or feeling like "I don't have a real chance" to win or compete....Only by playing a whole lot can anybody get any good...but you gotta win a little to feel like continuing....
How about a "Handicap" option?....That would be excellent( I'm sure it won't be considered, just like they ignored suggestions about the timer).

So? There's nothing preordained that says "thou AI must be online". Why is the AI online ONLY? Then again, if you want the AI to count against score it has to be online only.

I like the idea of an online AI that counts against your score. When you hit the lobby looking for a game and there's no one around, it's an easy way of killing some time while still being in chat.

I also believe the AI SHOULD count against your score. Yes, as a new player you may well lose to it, but then what's the point of a score if it isn't an accurate reflection of your skills, and if you're not charting the players losses, even against the AI, then the score is no longer accurate.

The more games Glicko has to work with the more accurate it becomes, and excluding the AI from this is, IMO, a mistake. The way it works now is good, players just need more direction to face the AI.

Frankly, I'd say you need a lobby tutorial (skippable) the first time you hit the lobby which walks you through setting up a game with the AI, explaining all the settings). Right now the AI message flicks up and disappears before most people will have read it, and it never returns.

Okey so unlimite time is beeing added, which is good.
I like the idea that you can take ur time and so does the people i presented the game too. I play while i model and animate, so its a good thing i can take my time or my opponent can. I play MA2 cause i don't have to be quick with clicking.

I still think the game should have more units and second modes for the units.
Your asking second mode?

What i mean id love to see a submarine beeing able to go underwater (using a full turn doing so) to hide from the opponnent ( Opponent can't see the sub then, only the player. Unless you have added a new unit or addiontal function to an already unit to reveal it. (killerwhale)

The submarine getting a diving function balance the fight in water against PL if you ask me. PL already have powerfull units in water and on ground.

Another thing that would be nice is somewhat implenting more (reserves, surprise attacks, ambush, etc) into the game like giving submarine a dive function it adds more strategy and the opponent needs to also add more strategy and he\her needs to be careful venturing randomly into the sea.
But the he\her can still use the carrier cause sub can't hurt it.
So still stuff to counter it

Anyway, just ideas to hopefully give you all more ideas to build from.

I hope it was interesting, ill get back to more later.

Hidden units, fog of war, shroud and random events (beyond SAs) are four things I hope we never see in this game as I consider the "see all" and predictable nature of Massive Assault cornerstones of the game.

Well, if we do it should be additional feature which you can turn off and on.
But again, just ideas, nothing im dying to see.

Although more units would be cool.
Or another team for that matter would be even better.

I agree that they're pushing the existing setup a bit far, but I don't think breaking the formula which makes MA what it is is a good idea. However, I don't see why it couldn't be stretched to more players, or even new map objectives (e.g. one player has half the SAs of the other but wins by surviving X turns).

Okay people, if you want your ideas not to be lost in the mix, I'd suggest not continually posting to this thread. If you write a new thread your ideas can be properly considered by everyone. Yeah yeah call me a forum nazi if you want .



I strongly disagree. The AI is not a human. It does not accurately reflect facing a live opponent. I'd be okay with it if it was tracked seperately, but I don't think it should be part of your score.

People that get this game will probably play the AI first, and they will lose horribly. There are a lot of things you will not learn about the game until you actually play it. I really don't think these learning pains should affect your score, especially since you can't reset your score.

One more point... if people know that AI won't count against their score, they can try new tactics and approaches and experiment to change their strategy. I've found myself doing that, trying out the new units and such against a somewhat forgiving AI.


I think these options may add more realism and complexity, but not necessarily more strategy. The beauty of the MA recipe is its elegant simplicity, which is why it is different from every other wargame out there.

Also, all of these elements remove the deterministic aspect of MA, where when you do something you know exactly what will happen, and you know exactly what your opponent may be able to do in any situation. Thats another aspect of MA that sets it apart and makes it unique.

It doesn't reflect a "living" opponent in the same way that I don't reflect Tiger, and that Tiger doesn't reflect madmax, and that madmax doesn't reflect Pitor, etc.

Glicko works solely off their score against your score, how they play couldn't bee less relevant. You're also missing the point of Glicko, which is that it's not a fixed scoring system of + or - 4 points, which means that losing several times early on isn't career crippling as your next win is now worth all the more points due to your early losses. If the AI is slaughtering newbies then its score will go up and thus you won't lose many points for losing to it, but when you finally beat it you'll get an important boost.

People who reset their accounts and start again are, to put it simply, fools, as they're now going to gain less points, though possibly end up with a higher score, and then when they lose they will lose more points than they otherwise would have. In other words if they artificially inflate their score in this way then the Glicko system will punish them for it, because their play doesn't reflect their score and they'll just end up losing more points across less games and in about three games time they'll be back where they should be.

That's the point of Glicko, reseting your score is utterly pointless, and therefore every game should count against it as it can only make it more accurate. I think what the game needs to stress is that an accurate score is as much benefit to you as anyone else, as it allows you to know your level and against which players you will get a good game, and those who will slaughter you.

I hope the implementation of Glicko will be the same as we whipped up for Massive Assault, since that too into account the inequalities of the PL Vs. FNU, and the skills of people across maps, and it did so without screwing with the underlying math forumulas (which is important, no silly weighting).

Okey, i was just trying to help. heh.

Anyway, i think atleast an offline practice bot should be added.
Cause i still like the idea of bot making you loose points.
But that is cause i don't care about what rank I am cause i know the times i lost i was messing around with players trying stuff again players since that is when it works best.

OR you could add practice MODE vs PLAYERS. "hey you wanna practice stuff?" "sure". This might work well with clan members in the future, training each other without affecting point in each other clan.

How is that idea? :S

Again, me above.

This practice mode is nice thought....Also consider a "handicap" mode which players could agree to play, doesn't count to rating, for green trooper who doesn't want to get smashed every time.

IF more people agree to practice mode they should add it.

This is a very interesting view, I just don't get it . Since when do AIs get ranked in the same category as players? While it'd be interesting to see what glicko score the AI players will get, that would be a novelty to me, but not one that makes any sense to me to put in practice.

My point is that there is a learning curve in this game, and within a few games you have a basic understanding of how it works. Why should your inital learning curve fit in your score? I understand that it will work out over time, but MA isn't exactly a game where you can get a lot of games in to fix your score in a short period of time. This totally gives the advantage to people that have played MA before and have gotten over the initial learning curve.

That is the main failing of Glicko with MA... it really requires a lot of games before it can stabalize itself reasonably.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Every major ranking engine in Counter-Strike Source defaults to ranking bots.



If that were true then every player would have peaked after three or four games, something which blatently isn't true.

You talk as if people are suffering from losing points early on, but I think this shows you don't understand Glicko. It is designed to show how good a player you are as accurately as possible. To do this it needs as much data as possible. If you withhold your early games from it all you're doing is decreasing the number of points somone earns when they win. The amount they gain will depend as well on who they beat.



And that makes including the learning games all the more important. Veterans already have historical Glicko scores as the system has been running unofficially for ages. That system can (and does) track every game ever played on MA, so yes, Tiger/Pitor etc first games are all included.

I suspect the new Glicko system might well do the same thing.

Again, losing some points in your early games is not a handicap, they are essential data. I think you're massively overstating the cost of a couple of losses on Glicko. No one at the starting figure is going to lose enough points to mean much, especially if they play someone who is likely to beat them as they'll have a much higher rating.

The AIs will probably have a higher rating than your average starting player too.



Which is why you're supposed to include the "score could be off by up to this much" factor.

Glicko isn't perfect for MAN2, but I haven't thought of a better system yet.

I lost my opening games on MA, but it didn't stop me hitting the top 10.