Game should not end when you have teammates

[YokoZar]

Imagine a large 8v8 game in Commander continues mode. Then imagine someone commbombs your base at the very start.

If he does it right, he might kill every unit you have in one blast, knocking you out of the game entirely. You then have to watch your teammates collect the wreckage and carry the rest of the game.

If, instead, one of your teammates had given you a wind generator hidden in their base at the start of the game, you'd be just fine. Eventually one of your teammates could give you a con unit, and you'd be right back in the large game.

This is silly, and it certainly isn't fun getting kicked out of the game early. Teams shouldn't have to frantically share a wind generator or a land mine to prevent one of their partners from getting kicked out early by the software.

Thoughts?

[Snipawolf]

I agree.

[trepan]

You could probably set that up with the current version.
(LuaRules created hidden units, etc...) To make it cleaner,
allow the user to decide whether they want to remain as a
teammate, or bail out and become a spectator.

[MR.D]

Play com ends, then assholes that Combomb are also out of the game.

The game can't decipher would may or may not be a lame occurrence.

[AF]

I can go on to win a game long after someone has destroyed my commander during battle (Im not talking about combomb).

In the mean time the BA commander explosion is too powerful, I dont udnerstand why youve all complained about it yet you dont dare change the explosion for it, Id make most of its damage emp rather than damage.

[Pxtl]

Imagine a large 8v8 game in Commander continues mode. Then imagine someone commbombs your base at the very start.

If he does it right, he might kill every unit you have in one blast, knocking you out of the game entirely. You then have to watch your teammates collect the wreckage and carry the rest of the game.

If, instead, one of your teammates had given you a wind generator hidden in their base at the start of the game, you'd be just fine. Eventually one of your teammates could give you a con unit, and you'd be right back in the large game.

This is silly, and it certainly isn't fun getting kicked out of the game early. Teams shouldn't have to frantically share a wind generator or a land mine to prevent one of their partners from getting kicked out early by the software.

Thoughts?

Some of the first units you should be building in a comm-continues game are weasels and radar. The commander is f'in slow, so it's not too much trouble to say - ooh, radar dot approaching slowly, I'll send a unit to check out what it is... z0mg, COMM. Then you set up some advanced LLTs to block his approach with your own comm (or just sacrifice your comm against his if you can do it far enough from your base). In the meantime, his base is crippled since he is missing his prime-builder in the long walk over to visit, while you had your comm available.

This is not hypothetical - I just did the "comm tradeoff" last game.

edit: I completely missed the point of his post - never mind my rant about comm-bomb protection. Real point: yes, you should remain as a allied-player in allied-games. In fact, I'd like there to be an option to join his "team" in such an event - that is, convert from allied-play into team (shared-comm) play.

[manored]

I agree with that, and I also think that people should be able to join team as allied spects if they wished so (Something like a player that starts the game winhout any unit but can only see what his team sees and can receive/take units)

[Neddie]

I can go on to win a game long after someone has destroyed my commander during battle (Im not talking about combomb).

In the mean time the BA commander explosion is too powerful, I dont udnerstand why youve all complained about it yet you dont dare change the explosion for it, Id make most of its damage emp rather than damage.

I agree with the first part, but the second I'm pretty neutral on. My personal opinion is that the BA explosion is actually too small but if it were larger, it would need to be less effective at the edges.

[REVENGE]

Lets fix the problem where specs can't take control of teams without .cheat. You could probably put up a solution along with this problem as well.

[Pxtl]

Lets fix the problem where specs can't take control of teams without .cheat. You could probably put up a solution along with this problem as well.

Specs have a god's-eye-view of the map, and thus shouldn't be able to enter the game. If there was an option to be a team-affiliated spec (as above) then that would be a different story.

[manored]

Lets fix the problem where specs can't take control of teams without .cheat. You could probably put up a solution along with this problem as well.

Specs have a god's-eye-view of the map, and thus shouldn't be able to enter the game. If there was an option to be a team-affiliated spec (as above) then that would be a different story.

Hear and obey! :)