Moderator: Moderators
How is that a problem that needs countering?Beherith wrote:Why not? It counters quitters giving to someone else.
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).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.
I can think of tons of other ways to cheat in a FFA game, poor argument.but allowing sharing to enemies would enbale again some possibiltiy to cheat like sharing the com direct after the gamestart for example
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.ZellSF wrote: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).
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.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.
It makes about no sense that you're against sharing yet you support teamwork, sharing units is an important part of teamwork.I personally prefer not allowing sharing, especially now that CA has an interface for ceasefires and teaming up against stronger players during the game
Pretty much useless if you allow ingame allying btw, you can just ally, share then unally.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"
That's my point. And if you want to play FFA your way, vote for it or host it yourself.ZellSF wrote:If you want predictable games, go play 6vs6 BA DSD.
Incorrect, any rules can be specified in the game by way of lua.ZellSF wrote:Pretty much useless if you allow ingame allying btw, you can just ally, share then unally.
