Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49 Location: Core Prime IA
I agree, this server is fun as are FFA games :)
btw to create ingame alliance type: /ally team# 1 (ex /ally 5 1 )
to unally : /ally team# 0
beware, when u are allied, ally can nuke you as your antis wont react. IMO is still better to make gentlemans no attack agreement if needed
One game Yog had 18 nukes and i ran out of antis - bad luck. Last game i am proud to say i produced 1000 M and 60k E and spend it all to win teh game without nukes.
Our new FFA-Host with Spads is online since this evening. Now it supports native Random Startpositions and we have about 20 Maps running at the moment. If you find any errors with the config, report them here or contact me in the Lobby
no we don't use special stuff, perhaps you don't have the ota-content or the map? For all players that have a valid spring version with all needed files it works fine.
The bot is [exe]ffa, its online with all the other [exe] bots all the time. Lately a spike of sync issues with 78.1 caused a drop of popularity, but these issues seem to be resolved with 78.2.
It doesn't stop griefing, griefing is done with combombing. It's a FFA game, each player has no obligations to the other players and that's the way it should be. They should be able to do whatever they want.
yeah everyplayer may do what he want, but ever player should play his own game and gather his own ressources / build his on base - you still have the opportuity for tactical things like dynamic allies if you want to. but allowing sharing to enemies would enbale again some possibiltiy to cheat like sharing the com direct after the gamestart for example
yeah everyplayer may do what he want, but ever player should play his own game and gather his own ressources / build his on base - you still have the opportuity for tactical things like dynamic allies if you want to.
That's the thing: there's no reason whatsoever each player should play their own game as they are all part of the same FFA game. Not a bunch of 1vs1 games that happens to take place on the same map. They should have every ability to do manipulate any part of the game towards their goal (if it's victory or revenge against the player who killed them).
Quote:
but allowing sharing to enemies would enbale again some possibiltiy to cheat like sharing the com direct after the gamestart for example
I can think of tons of other ways to cheat in a FFA game, poor argument.
That's the thing: there's no reason whatsoever each player should play their own game as they are all part of the same FFA game. Not a bunch of 1vs1 games that happens to take place on the same map. They should have every ability to do manipulate any part of the game towards their goal (if it's victory or revenge against the player who killed them).
No, they should have the choice and vote on it before the game. I see nothing wrong with both allowing and disallowing sharing to enemies in FFA, but it's a preference, neither side is wrong. I personally prefer not allowing sharing, especially now that CA has an interface for ceasefires and teaming up against stronger players during the game, rather than the post-death way of sharing all your stuff to someone else.
Again, players should always have a choice in the matter. Think about allowing sharing to enemies in a 2-team game. One might say "the game is clearly intended for one team to defeat the other and not let one player ruin it by sharing to the enemy." But one might see a 3way FFA the exact same way. Ruining the game by sharing to an enemy and doubling his army, effectively ending the game can seem just as bad as in the 2team game.
Ok, like CarRepairer suggested, i've made the no-sharing option now voteable, so the players can decide before the game what they want - but default stays "no sharing to enemy"
Again, players should always have a choice in the matter. Think about allowing sharing to enemies in a 2-team game. One might say "the game is clearly intended for one team to defeat the other and not let one player ruin it by sharing to the enemy." But one might see a 3way FFA the exact same way. Ruining the game by sharing to an enemy and doubling his army, effectively ending the game can seem just as bad as in the 2team game.
If you're playing in a FFA game you need to expect to be attacked by multiple players. If it's one player controlling two coms or two players, it makes no difference at all to the player being attacked. FFA games are very random by nature, this is something you need to get used to, not something you need to prevent. If you want predictable games, go play 6vs6 BA DSD.
Quote:
I personally prefer not allowing sharing, especially now that CA has an interface for ceasefires and teaming up against stronger players during the game
It makes about no sense that you're against sharing yet you support teamwork, sharing units is an important part of teamwork.
Quote:
Ok, like CarRepairer suggested, i've made the no-sharing option now voteable, so the players can decide before the game what they want - but default stays "no sharing to enemy"
Pretty much useless if you allow ingame allying btw, you can just ally, share then unally.
I don't know why you're arguing with me. All I said is people have differing opinions and they can vote for the type of game they want to play. I never said your way was wrong.
ZellSF wrote:
If you want predictable games, go play 6vs6 BA DSD.
That's my point. And if you want to play FFA your way, vote for it or host it yourself.
ZellSF wrote:
Pretty much useless if you allow ingame allying btw, you can just ally, share then unally.
Incorrect, any rules can be specified in the game by way of lua.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Home
Download
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
