29. Unable to Observe games from the Challenge page, even though this is a far more logical area to launch Observe from than Chat, and the Challenge page even displays who is in a game currently!

30. Either an option should be given to filter out in-game opponents, or the Challenge opponent button should be greyed out when selecting someone in-game (assuming that's a real time challenge).

31. Make the menu slightly transparant (or optional)..
Now I hear a lot of explosions in the background but I don't see anything..

32. Another hold over from MA, it is still possible for a rocket launcher/annihilator to fire on a target (opponent's turn/replay) without you being able to see said target.

wow....very thorough... ....
I have an old whine I'd like to bring out of the cellar....
Please....give me an option about the furshlugginer TIMER...!!!!....I may need more than a *!!^#-**! hour.....yes, I really enjoy the leisure of being able to take a phone call, get into a tv show, read something on the throne.....the timer is something that matters to very few specialized players...the guys with long braces of medals on the chest....and the most advanced brains in the universe.....which excludes many of the puny humans.....like I.....much love, warriors and remember a little tenderness

They've already said they will have an option for an unlimited ingame timer

33. Postion doesn't tell you how many players are ranked. Is 500th good or bad? Who knows? If there's 50 000 players it's good, if there's 500 it's bad, but without an indication like 500/4530 then you're in the dark.

I had the same thought about the ranking place.

I asked around and I think 1500 is the lowest place you can go.

The ranking system is a funny thing...Best example I think : A player not ranked last , who has never won a game....There is such an example, which I find funny....maybe it's still there....If I live long enuff, even I can become a marshall....or not....I think there's a point level to reach for that....so correct me if I'm wrong...(Need I ask?)

But it would all depend on who they lost to, which is rather the point of such ranking systems, they aren't just win/loss mechanisms, but rather, take the skill of the players into account.

Okay, I'll belabor the point....(what's new?!)...Really!....Never won a game!!!....Who cares who he lost to! ?:-? ....ha....I understand the gist of the system....but doesn't this example show a real weakness?...Hey!...I'm not real serious about it, I don't really care....It's a flukey thing.... ...and
Back to a previous line-of-thought: If there were a map designed like a chess board, with asymmetrical design, there could be an even playing field....(almost a pun)....and all the randomness would be washed out...like a chess game.

Glicko is based on the principle that if you lose to a great player its not nearly as bad as losing to a poor player. You will never gain points by losing, but someone that lost 12 times to Tiger would be better off then someone who lost 12 times to a player that has a terrible record.

Yeah, randomness has some effect, but that washes out in the number of games you play as well.

One of the key designs of MA is the fact that no game plays the same twice.

No, if I lose 3 games to top ranking players then that doesn't show that I'm a worse player than someone who lost 12 games to average players but managed to scrape a couple of wins, it just shows that I may still have potential but that the other player has just played long enough to score lucky wins.

Right, anyone has "potential" , actually everyone....okay, I don't know why I'm even wasting my breath on this....The rating doesn't measure how well the game was fought that was lost....and the worst player can lose to the best, as well as everyone in between....I must live in a different dimension of reality....to be making such effort at a seemingly obvious point.....that if 0 (zero) games have been won, there is no reason why the player shouldn't be in absolute last place....it's oNLY a fluke of the rating system, which really doesn't even matter....but hey, I'm very guilty of loving a good argument!...."That's down the hall.It's being hit-on-the-head lessons in here!"....

There's no fluke about it, as you lose more games your rating drops further. There's no way someone losing their first three games should be at the bottom of the rankings at this stage because there are people out there who have lost far more and only won a couple. Winning more games because you played more games does not equal better player.

Anyway, the Glicko discussion should be for another thread.

34. Camera returns to position you left it at the end of (AI's?) turn. I find this annoying and would like an option to disable it.

I watched a few MAN 2 games today, and noticed that I can use the camera freely until a player makes a move...then the camera is jerked from whatever I'm viewing to the unit being utilized. Is there an option somewhere that will stop this and just allow me to look whevever I want regardless of what is going on in the game? If not, could it be added?

35. You appear to need to setup your options twice: once from the main menu and then again when you get into a game.

There are a lot of options to remove the fancy camera movements and stuff.. Try something there.

No, he's right, the game will always steal the camera from you.

Yep, this is pretty annoying especially if one begins watching a game where the two players already have units all over the map. You are basically forced to watch the unfolding action and can't look around to get the big picture! (Turning off fancy camera options doesn't help, it always steals the camera when any unit is used.)