-
Ive cn alot of test between units. The tests have bn in custom games 1vs1 units. Isnt that only a waste of time.
I mean back when i played in STW (I mean only STW not MI) i also used to test units in custom games. But when i applied that to MP games it never worked cuz the units behaved different with other units arround mostly i never got the effect that i wanted and got in a test.
The ashis i.e. (remember STW not MI) I never used them (more then in really low koku games) cuz they never did any good on my tests. If u remember Isuck, he used them alot and did great with them.
So isnt it just a waste of time doing all this test.
Just wondering.
------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.
-
Hi there,
First my standard question to Swedes... do you know anyone with the surname Stenbeck?
Just a thought you could try testing 3v3 units, 5v5 etc.
The most successful testers actually use two machines in lan configuration and manipulate both sides.
-
nope dont know anyone with the name stenbeck.
What i also ment with my post is that the a.i. dont stand a chance against the human brain. And in that way the tests must b useless. even if i should do a 16v16 units against the a.i.
for me i.e:
after i played STW for awhile i kicked the a.i. all the time even if i was heavily outnumberd. So I went online ready to kick all buts there were. But the first month I was an online player i got so badly beaten (exept when i was allied with much more experienced players) that i was ready to give up the online games.
My point is:
the things that i learned worked very well against the a.i. cuz its thinking the same way all the time. and when i first met a human players i didnt stand a chance cuz they behaved much more different.
So a test vs the a.i. aint that valuable then a test vs a human. So it must almost b a waste of time testing units against the a.i.
still just wondering.
------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.
[This message has been edited by TheViking (edited 10-15-2002).]
-
The main reasons for the 1v1 testing is to identify a unit's cost effectiveness which is very important in MP, and see how strong the rock, paper, scissors system is. It's only a first small step to learning how to play a full scale battle. I would say it jump starts you on the MP learning curve.
Of course, you can do all your learning by way of battles, but you are going to loose a lot until you figure out what the most cost effective units are. Once you understand each unit's capabilities, you can concentrate on tactics. Some people pick up on the unit properties very quickly just by playing battles. It helps if your opponent analyzes the battles with you afterwards. Once the replays and logfiles are working, you'll be able to analyze your MP battles offline, and that should be of tremendous help to players working on improving their game.
The only other reason I can think of for doing 1v1 testing is if you want to change a unit's stats. You have to test the change to be sure that's it's having the effect you want. You're right that 1v1 tests give a false impression of a unit's resilience to routing. A unit that looks resilient in a 1v1 test might rout quickly in a full scale battle where there is a complex interaction of morale penalties. A ranged unit that looks fragile in 1v1 might stand too long in a full scale battle because it's usually positioned just in front of other units where it picks up morale bonuses. So, the way a unit works in full scale battles always has to be the final test, but it's also the most difficult thing to evaluate because of the interaction of so many factors including the differences the players themselve inject.
