Idea: Marketplace Widget

[luckywaldo7]

Protip: don't expect anything new to happen in BA.

Dude you totally one-upped this idea. I'm not keen on the "area" one, but bounties on units? Woo that would be really cool. There's a Krog headed for my base!! $1000 bounty to whoever kills it!

Random thought, maybe this could be incorporated into planetwars gameplay also as the mercenary mechanic.

[Google_Frog]

Make an area command that lets you split, by cost, a certain bounty over all units in an area.

For example I see a raiding party of 5 units and want to set a bounty of 1000 for their death. I define an area with these 5 units inside it. Each unit then receives a normal individual bounty so that the more expensive units receive a proportionally larger bounty and the total set bounty adds to 1000.

[Jazcash]

Make an area command that lets you split, by cost, a certain bounty over all units in an area.

For example I see a raiding party of 5 units and want to set a bounty of 1000 for their death. I define an area with these 5 units inside it. Each unit then receives a normal individual bounty so that the more expensive units receive a proportionally larger bounty and the total set bounty adds to 1000.

So just multiple bounties?

[Google_Frog]

Make an area command that lets you split, by cost, a certain bounty over all units in an area.

For example I see a raiding party of 5 units and want to set a bounty of 1000 for their death. I define an area with these 5 units inside it. Each unit then receives a normal individual bounty so that the more expensive units receive a proportionally larger bounty and the total set bounty adds to 1000.

So just multiple bounties?

In an easy to administer way.

[JohannesH]

Hmm... Am I the only one who thinks this is a really ridiculous way to organise teamplay

It's like you were competing vs your teammates on who has the biggest econ or something... "I'll help the team win IF I get paid for it"

[Licho]

Yes, you are, because its for FFA and not team game :)

[Pako]

I think sharing units could be more convient but too market like selling would just bring unnecessary bloat and stupid meta-game. I can already see how some troll tricks noobs to buy DGun enlargements in CA.

I dont know what brainless idea this colluding in FFA is but it's oftopic and generally illegal with more serious games.

[SirMaverick]

I dont know what brainless idea this colluding in FFA is but it's oftopic and generally illegal with more serious games.

If you don't know anything about it how do you know/why do you think it's off topic?

[Google_Frog]

I think sharing units could be more convient but too market like selling would just bring unnecessary bloat and stupid meta-game. I can already see how some troll tricks noobs to buy DGun enlargements in CA.

FFA is a lot of meta game. Noobs will be bad at FFA regardless. To be good at FFA you need to know a game's high cost cheese and be able to predict the outcome of a battle without having the battle. You also need entirely game-independent diplomatic know-how and it helps if you know your opponents.

The only thing I really regard as trolling in FFA is not playing to win.

I dont know what brainless idea this colluding in FFA is but it's oftopic and generally illegal with more serious games.

Which games? Those games (or communities inflicting such stupid rules) suck.

It is impossible to stop colluding in general RTS FFA. Even without any chat players can still see who is winning and not attack each other to hit the winning player.

[aegis]

why yes I will buy that llt in your base for 200m

[Pako]

FFA is a lot of meta game. Noobs will be bad at FFA regardless. To be good at FFA you need to know a game's high cost cheese and be able to predict the outcome of a battle without having the battle. You also need entirely game-independent diplomatic know-how and it helps if you know your opponents.

I don't know what's this and where these FFAs even happen, is it some CA thingie which happens once per year? In BA there are many decent players but only few good players who are probably smurfing anyway so no need for fancy strategies.

The only thing I really regard as trolling in FFA is not playing to win.

Most FFA players don't play to win. There is only one winner in FFA and it's usually the best player. They play to:
-survive as long as possible
-learn to play
-win a fight
-kill most players

Which games? Those games (or communities inflicting such stupid rules) suck.

Collusion is an agreement, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage [citation needed]. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. [1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties."[2] In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Collusion in any competition is usually just destructive and therefore forbidden. Any relative examples where it's not forbidden?

I don't know why spring community have their heads so deep in arse that even common sense is not clear. Like [pink]triton is an admin in FFA host and he feels that he can share enemy com coordinates to other players. It is just what is tolerated. I personally totally accept it cause it's just a nice element for the game like specs telling who is winning. I think anything in public chat is fine unless it's too destructive but any private colluding should be forbidden.

Speaking of Triton, I remeber he had some real ideas for this topic like autosharing idle battle units to higher ranked players.

A share widget with support for requesting ally units and simple accept button would be a lot better than forcing players to make arbitrary prices for units.

[Pxtl]

In general, FFA games are not designed with one player helping another in mind. Everyone is looking out for #1 or the balance breaks. However, conventional RTS games suck, hard, as FFA experiences. Therefore, there is no balance to break. It's already broken. So allowing diplomacy, collusion, etc. is perfectly reasonable.

[JohannesH]

Specs telling who is winning, or actually specs every speaking to players, is bullshit and should not be tolerated.

However players are able to do anything they like in an FFA game, why not? It's Free for all, that would mean there's no rules against allying or chatting or whatever. Just watch your back when you trust someone in FFA game.

[Google_Frog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Irrelevant. You are confusing business law with a ffa game.

A more general definition is needed. I think collusion is an agreement (secret or otherwise) between parties that benefits both parties. Collusion is often disadvantageous for the parties not colluding.

Most of your Wikipedia definition deals with business collusion which is illegal because it screws over the general public.

Collusion in any competition is usually just destructive and therefore forbidden. Any relative examples where it's not forbidden?

Basically every strategy game FFA. Namely RTS, TBS and diplomacy focused board games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_%28game%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_game

Like [pink]triton is an admin in FFA host and he feels that he can share enemy com coordinates to other players.

As a spec or a player? As a player it is entirely within his rights to give away any information he wants but as a spec it's breaking the game.

Maybe you should not take BA as an example of well played FFA.

[Neddie]

Actually, the phenomenon to which Google refers is common and necessary in free-for-all games across genre. However, it is not collusion as earlier defined - collusion assumes some level of communication outside the general discourse, a formal or at least explicitly cooperative decision to act for the benefit of those involved. Players often work together in free-for-all either through communicating directly through an acceptable/sanctioned channel (General Chat) or without any explicit agreement in the fight to survive. Formal collusion, with discussions and agreements drawn outside the game (In Lobby, Voice Chat, Etcetera) has always been frowned upon and when discovered is often sanctioned, either socially (As you will find if you look through various lobby logs and the forum...) or formally in many e-sport competitions.

[CarRepairer]

Maybe you should not take BA as an example of well played FFA.

A share widget with support for requesting ally units and simple accept button would be a lot better than forcing players to make arbitrary prices for units.

I don't know if you're still talking about FFAs here. If you are, and by ally you're referring to temporary ally, then that's worse. I don't know about BA but in CA we have gadgets to prevent sharing to enemies (optional, but default on) because it is more likely than not that sharing to enemies goes against the intended game rules.

1) (Not relevant to this topic) Exploit an unwanted game mechanic. E.g. share a shield and shoot at it to drain him of energy.

2) Sharing your units to an enemy (which may or may not be a temporary ally) with the intention of wanting him to win when you are not playing to win.

#2 is an example of what googlefrog mentioned earlier:

The only thing I really regard as trolling in FFA is not playing to win.

You call these concepts not serious or competitive and say it's brainless, which reveals you don't know what you're talking about and you're rude and unhelpful to the conversation.

Monopoly, Risk, Settlers of Catan, the list goes on of games that encourage players to trade for mutual benefit even though they are ultimately enemies and only one can win.

When you're developing your game, make any rules you want. Spring is not limited by what one person decides is "brainless."

[Google_Frog]

Formal collusion, with discussions and agreements drawn outside the game (In Lobby, Voice Chat, Etcetera) has always been frowned upon and when discovered is often sanctioned, either socially (As you will find if you look through various lobby logs and the forum...) or formally in many e-sport competitions.

Really, I never noticed or never played in groups that frown upon it. Spring has an inbuilt whisper function that can send a message to any player without any other players or spectators knowledge. When this was requested there seemed to be general agreement and it was requested to increase the diplomacy in FFA.