Tower Wars > General Discussion > Topic Details
カミナリ Jun 12, 2013 @ 4:23am
Make a choice!
Gamemakers make a choice in the queue, where we can limit rank point to play with!
Cause its very bored when play top-10 players versus top-20000...
Last edited by カミナリ; Jun 12, 2013 @ 4:23am
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
angelofd.gy Jun 12, 2013 @ 10:53am 
+1
I said it ages ago. With a symmetric rank limit it would be perfect. It would be great if I could declare I'd like to play against someone +/-80 scores. I don't like to be forced playing against someone far from my level. Btw I think I am on an upper-medium level I can't handle someone with 1500 scores and I don't like to bother with someone with 900 scores. None of them is fun.
zetthen Jun 16, 2013 @ 7:56am 
The problem with this suggestion is that it limits the amount of available players in certain brackets and will increase the waiting times dramatically (From a situation where a lot longer would not be accepted by most players)

Personally I think it is a lot better if players (both high and low) get games earlier and then can play through it quickly. As a low ranked player, there is a lot to learn in these games if you ask. As a higher level player it is better to play a low ranked player than no player. :-)
[PA] Pach Jun 18, 2013 @ 7:44pm 
I'd also like this feature, for the same reasons as angel.

" As a low ranked player, there is a lot to learn in these games if you ask."

... if high-ranked players answer. Some do (El Chihuahua is awesome!), but I gave up asking in games except with certain people because I'll say something like "I'll take any tips you give me"... and... nothing... and I asked a LOT when I started.

I suspect there are language barriers involved, but I don't know if there is any way to know that in-game...



angelofd.gy Jun 18, 2013 @ 10:17pm 
Originally posted by zetthen:
As a low ranked player, there is a lot to learn in these games if you ask. As a higher level player it is better to play a low ranked player than no player. :-)

People know what they want, do not force them to do that you think they want (or what is good for them). Lots of people are here just for fun and not to be the first in the leaderboard. If someone wants to play without limit, he will do. I someone don't want to play with someone who is far from his level and he must, then it is frustrating.
zetthen Jun 20, 2013 @ 9:52am 
Originally posted by PA Pach:
" As a low ranked player, there is a lot to learn in these games if you ask."

... if high-ranked players answer. Some do (El Chihuahua is awesome!), but I gave up asking in games except with certain people because I'll say something like "I'll take any tips you give me"... and... nothing... and I asked a LOT when I started.

I suspect there are language barriers involved, but I don't know if there is any way to know that in-game...

Well - I can't answer for everyone else, but I will always give tips and advice to new keen players. After all it is my interest to increase the skill of others to create a more skilled pool of plyers :-)

zetthen Jun 20, 2013 @ 9:55am 
Originally posted by angelofd.gy:
Originally posted by zetthen:
As a low ranked player, there is a lot to learn in these games if you ask. As a higher level player it is better to play a low ranked player than no player. :-)

People know what they want, do not force them to do that you think they want (or what is good for them). Lots of people are here just for fun and not to be the first in the leaderboard. If someone wants to play without limit, he will do. I someone don't want to play with someone who is far from his level and he must, then it is frustrating.

Well, I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. If players are here to just have fun and try different things and not to inprove their game, they shouldn't be surprised that they lose to players that want to play as good and efficient as possible. And the fact is that there can only be one players ranked number one - and to get there, the required skills to beat the top players such as Gallaorn, 25/17, QooQ etc will have to be learned.

If people only want to have fun and don't care about the result, then losing shouldn't matter anyway...
angelofd.gy Jun 20, 2013 @ 11:10am 
You are right on some points, but it would be just an option. How would an option be bad? Only those games would be filtered out when someone decided before queueing not to play someone against far for him. That would be probably a bad/frustrating/boring game. Btw I think I am a pretty good (but not pro) player (we had a few really good games) and personally I really do not care much about scores. It is just a measure. I would rather wait half an hour for a good game and lose than play 4 bad ones (and maybe win).

Usually I help beginners too, but sometimes it is really hard to understand them why they thought thier's move would be a good idea. Sometimes they are doing incredibly stupid things and sometimes I don't like to bother with them. Often they are ignoring the good advice. Saying OK, and doing to opposite :) Once I was even suspected to tring to mislead him :D
Gallaorn Jun 20, 2013 @ 12:56pm 
The problem remain the same just not enough players. Untill we achieve critical mass there will always be poorly matched players playing against each other.
Last edited by Gallaorn; Jun 20, 2013 @ 12:56pm
[PA] Pach Jun 27, 2013 @ 9:04pm 
Originally posted by zetthen:
Well - I can't answer for everyone else, but I will always give tips and advice to new keen players. After all it is my interest to increase the skill of others to create a more skilled pool of plyers :-)

Yes, and you are one of the people who have helped me a few times, Zetthen--if more of the top-ranked folks were like you and Chihuahua (and a few others who have helped me out--I wish I could recall the person I played my first game against, who kindly gave me time to figure things out, and gave me tips! They were awesome!)

However, there are people who play this game who are flat-out rude, and spend the whole game taunting their opponents. Perhaps they view this as a valid strategy, but it doesn't help build the player base. It's one thing to lay smack down to someone you have played dozens of times and know well--quite another to someone you've never seen before. And this is a small enough community that we all know who the "Frequent Fliers" are. :)

@Gallaorn:

I would love to see more people playing the game, too, because I think it's such a cool idea. However, I suspect that won't happen until the "game decided in the first few waves" issue is resolved--although the better players taking time to teach new folks will help this as well.

The Tower Wars mechanics are such that the game is like having a shoving match on the top of an ice-covered hill: whoever slips first is going to keep on sliding downhill with almost no chance to recover. In most other games I've played, you have some ability to "recover"--it may be tough, but it's doable. "ARG!" helps, but once someone gets a wave past your maze, they get more BP to make their next wave tougher still... and will likely get past your maze again, further expanding the "difference".

I've recovered from these situations, but always against players with far less experience--and almost never against someone of comparable skill.

Unless there's a way to fix the "one slip and you've lost" mechanics of the game, and the game isn't so much a race to get to knights/zooms to determine the winner, we'll have a hard time growing the population.

Just my two cents. :)
Last edited by [PA] Pach; Jun 27, 2013 @ 9:06pm
Willybach Jun 28, 2013 @ 3:10am 
agree totally with [PA] Pach.
zetthen Jun 28, 2013 @ 7:42am 
Hello Pach - and thanks for the kind words :-)

As for your points with regards to an icy slope towards destruction, that is a very interesting discussion.

From my perspective, I think it is actually a real strength with TW - let me try to explain why:
- TW is quite accessible, I just need 20-30 min to play a game and I can do it whenever I want

- Most RTS games are decided early in the game - turnarounds are not very common, and typically require the player who are ahead to make mistakes for the laggard to catch up.

- If I were paired with an opponent that is far better than me, I would rather lose quickly, and get a new game with someone who is comparable in skill levels.

- With the current setup, the risk is that improving the "turnaround" chances would also lead to significantly longer games - which I would consider against the spirit of the game. It would also lead to both the player ahead and the laggard to feel that time is "wasted" against an outcome that is certain anyway.


As for limiting the range of players to match up against - You can do it already today if wanted. The game will only match you against similar ranked players in the first 60 seconds. So, if you want to only match against similarly ranked players, then exit the queue and re-queue. After 60 seconds, it gradually increases the scope of possible opponents up to 2 minutes, when it is completely free. With the current amount of players, that still leads tio waiting times of 5-1`0 minutes at certain times.

So back to Gallaorns point: With the current amount of players, the filtering option doesn't currently work out perfect (as not everyone is matched within 60 seconds), and it would work even worse with an indefinite "narrow-mathcin" option.

One last thing to take into perspective: For the ranking to be truly reflecting skills of players, it should also be impossible to rig to avoid meeting a "favorable" opponent. The current status of the game does this relatviely well, but with a narrowed scope combined with few players, the risk is substantial that this would not work as well.

Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jun 12, 2013 @ 4:23am
Posts: 11