New gameplay style "Communist Mode" (multiple comm share)

[Beherith]

Teut, that is implemented in advplayerslist. You even see if allies are stalling and can quickshare res too.
Press ctrl+f11 to enter tweak mode and enable these buttons.

[Teutooni]

Hahahah.

Harder part would be to make people notice and use it.

See?

[YokoZar]

Hahahah.

Harder part would be to make people notice and use it.

See?

Also see here for more on the H key: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18504

[TheFatController]

For self-D's so far all i'm going to do for this mutator is broadcast a team message "[l33t]sniparkiller has ordered self destruct on 4 units." etc.

Then at least you can ban any griefers from future games.

[CarRepairer]

Imo this is the biggest rts gameplay revolution since team games.

No it's not, see next quote:

First of all, fucking awesome. I loved playing starcraft with shared unit control.

You and three others. I never saw a single game of shared melee SC (or if I did see one or two I have no memory of it from within the thousands of games I've seen/played).

I hate to be a downer but someone in this thread made a good point that this would be about as popular as comm sharing.

Consider that in team games such as 4v4, the poorest player can hold your team back. But if the other three players are really good, they can pull off a decent game. In commshare or "communist" mode, the poorest player will hold you back far worse than in normal games. So the weakest link is even weaker than before. There's far less margin for error for his mistakes.

[YokoZar]

Imo this is the biggest rts gameplay revolution since team games.

No it's not, see next quote:

First of all, fucking awesome. I loved playing starcraft with shared unit control.

You and three others. I never saw a single game of shared melee SC (or if I did see one or two I have no memory of it from within the thousands of games I've seen/played).

Did starcraft pool resources between the sharing players? I know Age of Empires had a coop mode, but you only got one town to start with. Warcraft 3 had shared unit control, but the two players had separate economies. This is the first implementation I know of that has both shared econ and unit control.

I hate to be a downer but someone in this thread made a good point that this would be about as popular as comm sharing.

I imagine current comm sharing isn't so popular because 1) you only get one comander at the start, so you have to fight over it/wait for something to be built 2) the autohosts don't know how to handle comm sharing players and 3) other players don't know how to handle it - it seems like giving a small advantage to the other team, so the only way to balance it is to have someone on both teams comm sharing.

With co-op mode, it's perfectly feasible for only one team (or only part of one team) to be sharing.

Consider that in team games such as 4v4, the poorest player can hold your team back. But if the other three players are really good, they can pull off a decent game. In commshare or "communist" mode, the poorest player will hold you back far worse than in normal games. So the weakest link is even weaker than before. There's far less margin for error for his mistakes.

I'm not sure that's true. In a normal team game you rely on the poor player to build up his base, make some defenses, and contribute directly somehow to the team. In commshare mode it may be perfectly acceptable for him to do almost nothing.

Now, if "poor" means "tries to control everything badly" then you have a point, but I suspect many bad players are bad precisely because they have little ability to control so much at once. Put them in charge of something specific and they might be more useful.

[CarRepairer]

Fair enough. I'd like to see how it goes. From the spectator's booth.

Did starcraft pool resources between the sharing players?

Yes, in shared melee mode (or was it called team melee?). It was identical to commshare, but in SC you start with 4 cons so everyone can grab a unit.

[BaNa]

Fair enough. I'd like to see how it goes. From the spectator's booth.

Did starcraft pool resources between the sharing players?

Yes, in shared melee mode (or was it called team melee?). It was identical to commshare, but in SC you start with 4 cons so everyone can grab a unit.

team melee and you could make dual race teams for epic wins. i never played SC online , but i assume it would have been a big gamble with all the asshattery goin on online. we may have a better chance here cause we all know one another. well that and teamspeak.

[TheFatController]

Released version 1.00 as a mutator for BA 6.91

http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18587

[el_matarife]

team melee and you could make dual race teams for epic wins. i never played SC online , but i assume it would have been a big gamble with all the asshattery goin on online. we may have a better chance here cause we all know one another. well that and teamspeak.

One of the first few Starcraft games I ever played online I did in Team Melee mode and it was amazingly awesome. The cooperation of a team is really enhanced when you're sharing the same units, even if you aren't on voicecom.


Anyway, with regard to griefers: Most of these guys will strike in the first few minutes of a game. If you lose a game because someone self-destructs all your gear at 5 minutes, you can just ban them from all subsequent games and restart quickly. Losing 5 minutes of game time isn't that big of a deal when it take so long to start games anyway. If they wait longer into the game then strike, usually one team will be almost winning or losing anyway so it won't be a big deal.

It's going to be VERY hard for them to figure out the proper time to strike to really get people angry, and if you don't take it seriously the griefers won't get the emtional "kick" they need to continue. Eventually they will get bored and go do something else, especially since many of them have short attention spans.

I suspect people will just not let brand new accounts (Which may be smurfs or actual newbies) or players with an established record of ragequitting and com-bombing play on their teams in this mode.

[momfreeek]

I played a couple of these games and it was great fun.

The odd thing was, there was a much greater sense of cooperation but much less direct communication than most games. No need to spam points everywhere.. if there's an issue, fix it yourself.

There were a few times when units were momentarily wrestled for control, but it was never a problem.. and it gave me insight into how other players use their units that was oddly unfamiliar from simply watching others play.

While it (arguably) opens new avenues for griefing, it also neutralises some of the roots of teamkilling, ie: you can't take all the mex spots / dgun your allie's base / etc..
You really are all on the same side. There's no you vs your teammate.

[Spawn_Retard]

After a few games of this Co-op BA mod i have found some strong and weak points about the mod.

1. This version of BA has reawakened me to the now stale BA gameplay of DSD.

2. It brings heavy teamwork, which is what was needed in the beginning from maps such as greenfeilds and DSD, and not just procing and making 7 fusions so you have a small erection over the large and useless economy you have just build (noobtrap)

3. This is great for Teamspeak use.

4. Great for shared roles (e.g. people with simbase skills, and then micro players)

5. shared and improving skills from watching other build cues, commands, micro managements. ( no more lonely fights or build options)!


I could go on with several points, but id rather get to what needs to be done.



Your starting com should be the only com in which you can use.

Would stop ass hats dgunning each other, combombs with no one to answer for it

Something needs to be done about names, we need specific names over commanders from players.


Integrated voice over protocol integrated so that typing and playing aren't hindered


The new teamspeak updated allows teamspeak to be put into other games.

would be awesome :D

[el_matarife]

Your starting com should be the only com in which you can use.
Would stop ass hats dgunning each other, combombs with no one to answer for it

Problem is that friendly airtransports will be able to pickup an "exclusive" commander. You could send them away from your commander, but it still won't be that easy to figure out who's trying to ruin the game.

The self destruct accountability has helped a lot, but unfortunately it has just forced rage quitters to get more creative. Now they're borrowing commanders to d-gun factories, com-bombing, and similar antics.

[==Troy==]

a log file with name : order for the host could be a solution :)

[el_matarife]

a log file with name : order for the host could be a solution :)

I've been wondering about how technically feasible that would be. It would probably be the best solution, assuming the host goes through it after a disaster game. Unfortunately, with the prevalence of autohosts I'm not sure if that's a solution unless everyone gets a copy somehow.

[Pxtl]

Need to filch the show-friendly-cursors widget+gadget thing from CA, if it will work with this.

Then it would be trivial to watch the replay and see whose cursor gave the order.

[YokoZar]

One reason people ragequit is that they want the game to end. Using the quit button doesn't do this; you have to sit there and wait while everyone else still plays. At worst, you have to spectate the game that got you mad in the first place.

Killing your team, however, does end the game. I suggest that making it easier to end hopeless games would help here, as it would reduce the incentive for team killing. The autohosts have a !voteexit command, which is nice, but perhaps we could do this with lua itself.

[Pxtl]

Add a team "vote surrender" command to BA?

I mean, it would be redundant with ctrl-A-ctrl-D, but it would be democratic. If they get majority vote, then everything on the alliance blows up. Would be useful for normal games, not just Commie mode.

[CarRepairer]

Add a team "vote surrender" command to BA?

I mean, it would be redundant with ctrl-A-ctrl-D, but it would be democratic. If they get majority vote, then everything on the alliance blows up. Would be useful for normal games, not just Commie mode.

Do like I do. Spam the message "Let's kill ourselves" until my teammates comply. Or, if I already died or I'm a spec, instead I spam "ctrl+ad" when a team is sure to lose.

I'm such a happy person.

[Spawn_Retard]

The one thing i like about this mod is that you can carry on when you've lost your base or com by controlling other units from other bases within your alliance.

You should never give up, 8 people microing 8 units is better than 30 macro'd units imo.

Sitting their dgunning your allies bases to get the game over faster is not how you should play spring, and even in such circumstances as known defeat, you should never just blow your own stuff up.

If you play, start to lose and blow all your shit up your only having half a game, and your taking the victory away from the other team, no matter how painful, or how much damage it does to your ego. (ego being the main reason here)

If you cant wait an extra 5 mins for a game to finish when it takes 40 mins for a game to start up again anyway, then you shouldn't be playing anyway.

People like to play to the end.


I think the allied cursors should be different ingame than everyone on your team being blue, or even have names underneath them.

I think the team should get a team colour that the enemy will see, but your cursor colour should be different to your allies. (dont know if this can be done)