YokoZar wrote:I was originally going to suggest naming your friends but figured this was simpler. As you point out it may be necessary.
So I type: !coop TheFatController, and he types !coop YokoZar, and then we're together. One of us (but not both) types !coop bibim, and you type !coop YokoZar, and then all three of us are together.
That pretty much solves it. I think keeping it to "one person on the team's permission is enough" is ok - If we require every player to type every other player it quickly gets hard.
From what I understand, the
!coop <name> command would then add a player to the list of players who can share ID with you (transitively). But then, wouldn't we also need a
!uncoop command to remove a player from this list ? What would you do if you change your mind and finally decide to coop with someone else ? Maybe
!coop without any parameter would reset the list ?
YokoZar wrote:bibim wrote: If you can trust players concerning this, then it may be simpler to just do "!balance" and then adjust your ID (not your ally team) yourself if you want to share ID [...]
Hmm, seeing as it's hard enough to stop people from spamming !cbalance a million times even before the game has enough players, I don't think this is workable unless support for coop is coded in.
Yep, this method only works if you can trust players, which doesn't happen very often unfortunately...
YokoZar wrote:You could, of course, just treat the !coop id's not as separate clans but instead on a per-team basis. That way if everyone in 6 person clan foo types !coop 1 then there will be two separate coops on the different teams when it's a 4v4. So here you'd balance normally and only afterwards look at the !coop requests. I think that works pretty well, other than the possible "I don't want him in my coop" problem above.
Ok so basically you would wait for the battle to be full and balanced, and then you would enter the
!coop <nb> commands ? The problem is that usually when the battle is full and balanced, there are still players leaving and joining it, and thus the battle is rebalanced. So I think we would end up with lots of
!coop commands each time the battle is rebalanced, with players taking the same numbers by mistake etc...
Personnaly, instead of a
!coop command, I'd go for adding a
shareId SPADS preference (= by-user setting) and an
idShareMode SPADS setting:
When the
idShareMode setting is set to
auto, current behaviour is used. SPADS tries to respect target battle structure (
nbTeams /
teamSize /
nbPlayerById) as much as possible, regardless of the
shareId user preferences.
When the
idShareMode setting is set to
manual, SPADS ignores the
nbPlayerById setting and it only makes players of the same team share ID if their
shareId preference contains the same string. So basically, the
shareId preference would be like an identifier for the ID, which must be known by the other players if they want to share ID with you.
Players would be able to set their
shareId preference like any other SPADS preference:
!pSet shareId <value>.
If a player wants anyone to be able to share ID with him, he can say the
!pSet command publicly in the battle lobby (or can simply give the current value of his
shareId setting in the battle lobby).
If a player wants only some other players to share ID with him, he can say the
!pSet command in private to the AutoHost and then give his
shareId preference value to selected players.