I realize that I did not do so well in that game. Time and time again, White had forgone the opportunity to reduce my base to rubble in his zeal to focus on my Commander. A number of times he went through the SW fortress and ignored the majority of my mexes there (and it was a near thing when I had my adv. Vehicle plant exposed and unprotected to a potential attack from him though, but no... he had to run at my commander once again).
White should have won, easily, but he was so focused on killing my Commander that he didn't.
[replay] The Travesty that is Comm Death = Game Ends
Moderator: Moderators
I had a inmense silly game today.
AA1.44 small divide:
http://lassie.student.utwente.nl/vliet/ ... 70b2-1.sdf
Watch the entire replay, it's not long.
Smile on your face guaranteed (or else you get a cookie)
AA1.44 small divide:
http://lassie.student.utwente.nl/vliet/ ... 70b2-1.sdf
Watch the entire replay, it's not long.
Smile on your face guaranteed (or else you get a cookie)
hehe, it's pretty funny. Looks like the two top players to die first weren't thinking. Don't drink and drive in a comm=end game, folks!Zenka wrote:I had a inmense silly game today.
AA1.44 small divide:
http://lassie.student.utwente.nl/vliet/ ... 70b2-1.sdf
Watch the entire replay, it's not long.
Smile on your face guaranteed (or else you get a cookie)
Commander death = ends certainly makes for superior play. Here's why.
1) Several centuries of chess can't be wrong. You might argue that TA is not chess, but I think all the arguments that have been made here could easily be made about chess to the same effect.
2) It means that a player is never totally eliminated until you get their commander. No matter how down and out they are, there is always a chance at a brilliant come from behind decapitation strike to take back the game. Since come from behind victories are the most exciting, this point alone should be enough to win the argument. It makes the game more exciting, and therefore more fun.
3) Clearly, you should never be able to give away your commander. I view this as a bug, at least in a commander death = end game. Giving away your commander should result in you losing (or even better, should give you an error message about how you ARE the commander and you can't give away yourself). Similarly, a .take command should not give you an ally's commander. Instead it should make the commander evaporate without exploding.
Similarly, once you are out of the game by virtue of having no commander, you should not be able to get any units from your teammates. If you are eliminated, tough beans.
4) Commanders should perhaps not be transportable by enemy transports. This would eliminate a tactic that makes the game less fun. The first time I saw this tactic tried (circa 1999), my reaction was "Cute. Now let's play a real game." I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but it seems like a enemy transportable commander just makes the game less strategically interesting.
4a) Point 4 is the only point you may argue over. Disagreeing with any point other than 4 means you are a clueless nube. Come back when you have a decade of TA experience.
4aa) Point 4a is a joke.
4aaa) Sort of.
1) Several centuries of chess can't be wrong. You might argue that TA is not chess, but I think all the arguments that have been made here could easily be made about chess to the same effect.
2) It means that a player is never totally eliminated until you get their commander. No matter how down and out they are, there is always a chance at a brilliant come from behind decapitation strike to take back the game. Since come from behind victories are the most exciting, this point alone should be enough to win the argument. It makes the game more exciting, and therefore more fun.
3) Clearly, you should never be able to give away your commander. I view this as a bug, at least in a commander death = end game. Giving away your commander should result in you losing (or even better, should give you an error message about how you ARE the commander and you can't give away yourself). Similarly, a .take command should not give you an ally's commander. Instead it should make the commander evaporate without exploding.
Similarly, once you are out of the game by virtue of having no commander, you should not be able to get any units from your teammates. If you are eliminated, tough beans.
4) Commanders should perhaps not be transportable by enemy transports. This would eliminate a tactic that makes the game less fun. The first time I saw this tactic tried (circa 1999), my reaction was "Cute. Now let's play a real game." I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but it seems like a enemy transportable commander just makes the game less strategically interesting.
4a) Point 4 is the only point you may argue over. Disagreeing with any point other than 4 means you are a clueless nube. Come back when you have a decade of TA experience.
4aa) Point 4a is a joke.
4aaa) Sort of.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
well...it went something along the lines of
1) Several centuries of chess? gameplay hasn't evolved much since then lol. if u want a mod that doesn't change go for it! Besides when was the last time u played chess?
King =/= Com
King is SLOW. WEAK. VULNERABLE TO ALL
Com is GOOD speed, STRONG, Vulnerable to certain units. Your best unit, you want to keep it alive
Queen is GOOD SPEEED (moves far) STRONG (very hard to kill) Vulnerable to certain units (Knights) it is your BEST UNIT and u will want to keep it alive.
Hmm
Seems Com=Queen to me
besides about the whole "u r teh com"
you aren't
the com is just another robot under the control of a non-localised AI (YOU) it is however very valuable (lose it in a mission and the ground u take is not worth it). Besides if he WAS the centralised AI...the scaling means that a Factory or tier 2 unit would be able to hold the same amount of stuff (taking into account com needs extra space for metal/energy production and backpack for Dgun)...which means as long as u had one of those u would be able to continue...
2) It means that a player is never totally eliminated until you hunt down their last unit. no matter how down and out they are there is still a chance of a brilliant comeback (or at the least help your allies in a teamgame. Since come from behind victories are the most exciting this point alone is enough to win the argument, it makes teh game exciting and therefore more fun.
3)Clearly u shouldn't be able to give away your commander, otherwise their would be little point in noobs com-bombing for the 'good of their team', just give the com to ur mate if u see it coming and know u wont have been knocked out be a useless noob in a unfair exchange.
And if your ally leaves in the middle of the game, for example he's got to eat/go out then OBVIOUSLY you shouldn't get his com! lol! that would be 57UP1D5!1!11 hell i think that even getting his units is a 0M9 H4X!11! i reckon that it should all spontaneously combust screwing ur allies, that would be cool.
Similarly, once you are out of the game by virtue of having no commander, you should not be able to get any units from your teammates. If you are eliminated, tough beans, sit back and 'enjoy' watching the game. helping ur allies by microing their units or scouts would be SO boring, who needs to keep on fighting lol! only noobs play on!
"Cute. Now let's play a real game."
Tell u what mate, YOU go and play a 'real' game, some of us enjoy the balance (harharhar th3y ar3 n00b!!1!! teh 0nly b4l4nc3d g4m3 is Battle For Middle Earth by the 4|| kn0w1n9 3A!11!!) -.-
I argueed other every damn point. go stick a house up yo' ass -.-
1) Several centuries of chess? gameplay hasn't evolved much since then lol. if u want a mod that doesn't change go for it! Besides when was the last time u played chess?
King =/= Com
King is SLOW. WEAK. VULNERABLE TO ALL
Com is GOOD speed, STRONG, Vulnerable to certain units. Your best unit, you want to keep it alive
Queen is GOOD SPEEED (moves far) STRONG (very hard to kill) Vulnerable to certain units (Knights) it is your BEST UNIT and u will want to keep it alive.
Hmm
Seems Com=Queen to me
besides about the whole "u r teh com"
you aren't
the com is just another robot under the control of a non-localised AI (YOU) it is however very valuable (lose it in a mission and the ground u take is not worth it). Besides if he WAS the centralised AI...the scaling means that a Factory or tier 2 unit would be able to hold the same amount of stuff (taking into account com needs extra space for metal/energy production and backpack for Dgun)...which means as long as u had one of those u would be able to continue...
2) It means that a player is never totally eliminated until you hunt down their last unit. no matter how down and out they are there is still a chance of a brilliant comeback (or at the least help your allies in a teamgame. Since come from behind victories are the most exciting this point alone is enough to win the argument, it makes teh game exciting and therefore more fun.
3)Clearly u shouldn't be able to give away your commander, otherwise their would be little point in noobs com-bombing for the 'good of their team', just give the com to ur mate if u see it coming and know u wont have been knocked out be a useless noob in a unfair exchange.
And if your ally leaves in the middle of the game, for example he's got to eat/go out then OBVIOUSLY you shouldn't get his com! lol! that would be 57UP1D5!1!11 hell i think that even getting his units is a 0M9 H4X!11! i reckon that it should all spontaneously combust screwing ur allies, that would be cool.
Similarly, once you are out of the game by virtue of having no commander, you should not be able to get any units from your teammates. If you are eliminated, tough beans, sit back and 'enjoy' watching the game. helping ur allies by microing their units or scouts would be SO boring, who needs to keep on fighting lol! only noobs play on!
"Cute. Now let's play a real game."
Tell u what mate, YOU go and play a 'real' game, some of us enjoy the balance (harharhar th3y ar3 n00b!!1!! teh 0nly b4l4nc3d g4m3 is Battle For Middle Earth by the 4|| kn0w1n9 3A!11!!) -.-
I argueed other every damn point. go stick a house up yo' ass -.-
Um... K?
You really need to lessen the bad visous you have towards people in general.
Now, never say that chess (or Go for that matter) never evolved. The rules just haven't changed.
And as often as I compare Spring with Go: there are to major diffrenses between them.
The thing about comm death = end, is made for every p-layer exept the owner of the comm. Unlike in chess where you lose your best unit. In Spring sacrificing the comm can give such an advantage that you win by it. Not jiggering about the state that you are in becouse you lose your best unit.
All the aspects of the comm are replacable exept the 'load HP+big boom' Thing.
In chess your queen isn't replacable. And the change that the saccrifice of it gives you the upperhand is smaller.
(At least in go, every stone is equall, only the placement differs in value)
End of rant
You really need to lessen the bad visous you have towards people in general.
Now, never say that chess (or Go for that matter) never evolved. The rules just haven't changed.
And as often as I compare Spring with Go: there are to major diffrenses between them.
The thing about comm death = end, is made for every p-layer exept the owner of the comm. Unlike in chess where you lose your best unit. In Spring sacrificing the comm can give such an advantage that you win by it. Not jiggering about the state that you are in becouse you lose your best unit.
All the aspects of the comm are replacable exept the 'load HP+big boom' Thing.
In chess your queen isn't replacable. And the change that the saccrifice of it gives you the upperhand is smaller.
(At least in go, every stone is equall, only the placement differs in value)
End of rant
Now, never say that chess (or Go for that matter) never evolved. The rules just haven't changed.
new moves etc have been added and new strategems thought up. the rules have changed (slightly)
In chess your queen isn't replacable. Neither is the com. WOW it looks like Com is like the queen.
And the change that the saccrifice of it gives you the upperhand is smaller.
depends at what point in the game it is in for both. losing ur queen in the first 10 moves screws u as much as losing ur com within the first 10 mins does. hey wait, looks like com is like queen
never mentioned 'go' no idea what it is.
certain aspects of the queen CAN be emulated btw
pawn-> bishop or pawn->rook
gives u PART of the goodness of the queen. (like getting a nuke gets u PART of the goodness of the com)
WOW
looks like queen is like com (AGAIN)
:)
new moves etc have been added and new strategems thought up. the rules have changed (slightly)
In chess your queen isn't replacable. Neither is the com. WOW it looks like Com is like the queen.
And the change that the saccrifice of it gives you the upperhand is smaller.
depends at what point in the game it is in for both. losing ur queen in the first 10 moves screws u as much as losing ur com within the first 10 mins does. hey wait, looks like com is like queen
never mentioned 'go' no idea what it is.
certain aspects of the queen CAN be emulated btw
pawn-> bishop or pawn->rook
gives u PART of the goodness of the queen. (like getting a nuke gets u PART of the goodness of the com)
WOW
looks like queen is like com (AGAIN)
:)
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09