Spring RTS Engine

You are not the comm. You are a player sitting at the computer. The game has rules dictating that if your comm dies X bad event happens to you. These rules exist for a reason, and an arbitrary rhetoric is not a valid reason, it's simply an explanation for the purposes of immersion.

There are a plethora of gameplay reasons why there should be immediate game ending consequences to losing your commander, I'm fine with the "you are the comm" thing as a story platform, but it's really not a design rational.

+1 for comm ends:
* more strategys(com dead is win) makes it more interesting
* no comboming

SwiftSpear wrote:You are not the comm. You are a player sitting at the computer. The game has rules dictating that if your comm dies X bad event happens to you. These rules exist for a reason, and an arbitrary rhetoric is not a valid reason, it's simply an explanation for the purposes of immersion.

There are a plethora of gameplay reasons why there should be immediate game ending consequences to losing your commander, I'm fine with the "you are the comm" thing as a story platform, but it's really not a design rational.

what the hell is the point of this?

The new game rules sound awesome. Commander mode - imagine a large team game where one team is desperately trying to protect their last surviving com.

Also, Commander Controls seems like the traditional comends minus the bad side-effects. Kinda like lineage, but better. By killing a single com, you kill that player, not the whole team (like in lineage/comends making a huge hole often does).

What i fear is lategame porcfests. Imagine DSD. The people starting behind will probably have at least 3 comms alive by the end. How many times and different ways can you break a late game porc to go assassinate a cloackable and decoyable unit?

Of course we can just ignore the comms and do the usual antinuke hunt. But i fear people will now attack even less if they dont see a comm target.

Also, the late game with many fighters lags. I know work was done on this, but in my opinion late game porc fests is where BA shines the least. So i avoid them.

SwiftSpear wrote:You are not the comm. You are a player sitting at the computer.

The commander is your Avatar, representing YOU on the game.

IIRC according to OTA storyline (lol) , the arm commander is unique, like you go around to find him from planet X in misson 2 to lead arm into victory.

and every unit in the battlefield is mechanic, controlled by the commander (YOU), So losing the commander should effectively paralyze/destroy your units ~~

LordMatt wrote:Do you have the latest springie?

yes i have, my springie just has an integrated GF 7050 Graphics board, perhaps some new lua effects arent compatible...
i disabled all i could in settings but im sure some lua is forced by ba, isnt it?

All units represent you on the battlefield not just the commander, the Commander is just a Flagship starting unit, albeit irreplaceable, but hardly required to finish a battle.

The Hover com mod proved that you can grow and sustain an army quite easily without massive explosions or a Dgun.

I would rather see the Corpse metal removed from the game, so the losing player doesn't get double shafted by both losing his commander, and feeding the enemy 2500 extra metal for the loss, that would make "com continues" less of a crazy com bomb affair, when there is nothing to gain by com bombing the enemy commander.

Nobody besides a tiny little handful of players want to play with COM ends, everyone else gets along just fine with Com continues and Dgun limits.

Let the other 95% of the BA community play how they want to.

MR.D wrote:All units represent you on the battlefield not just the commander, the Commander is just a Flagship starting unit, albeit irreplaceable, but hardly required to finish a battle.

No, the commander is the physical entity containing the commanding officer of the army you see fielded. If the commander is destroyed the commanding officer dies. Guess who that CO is?

If the reason to play commander ends is to avoid com bombing then I suggest just making an EMP commander explosion option. It worked fine for EMP Annihilation as I recall. A 15 second EMP really isn't going to be damaging enough to the other team to really make people want to com bomb when they could just use him as an ultra fast nanotower to pump out units.

I think it is to create a huge gamble in com pushing, you can win big or you can be eliminated from the game.

KDR_11k wrote:

MR.D wrote:All units represent you on the battlefield not just the commander, the Commander is just a Flagship starting unit, albeit irreplaceable, but hardly required to finish a battle.

No, the commander is the physical entity containing the commanding officer of the army you see fielded. If the commander is destroyed the commanding officer dies. Guess who that CO is?

Exactly. The commander is something else than just a piece of metal. YOU are the commander, YOU are inside it, building and controlling the units.

If you kill the controller, the units cease to work, which is shown by the "comm ends" effect

Would the commander be just a expendable random unit like a peewee, the missions in OTA would not fail if your comm would die ~~

The Hover com mod proved that you can grow and sustain an army quite easily without massive explosions or a Dgun.

The hover com was the most retarded thing ever invented.

Sure you lost evil death nuke and imba dgun and instead got gameplay where 8x8 maps consist of rushing your comm to other guy's base and building masses of llts in seconds and reclaiming your enemy's labs before he knows wtf is going on ~~

Let the other 95% of the BA community play how they want to.

Let the modmakers decide how they run their mods

Hovercomm was fine idea, bad implementation - Caydr didn't realize that the hyper-beefy nanolathe of the hovercomm made it an even better weapon than the normal comm. Look at EE for a mod that uses a similar (unarmed super-constructor) for its comm.

Haven't tried Commander Control yet. Question: when you lose the comm, is there any real drawback to the team (besides a player and a comm)? I mean, to the player it sucks... but to the units? If not, from a strategic stand-point (like if playing against AIs who don't have to worry about how many units they can manage) isn't it the same as the (team) Commander mode?

A nice 20-second stun of all the orphaned units would make the comm-death more important to attackers - you take down the comm and then rush the base.

KDR_11k wrote:I think it is to create a huge gamble in com pushing, you can win big or you can be eliminated from the game.

Or you could just eliminate com pushing by giving a few T1 units extra damage versus commanders, like artillery, missile trucks, and maybe some sort of kbot. Commander pushing is used because its damn effective, if LLTs and the commander got slaughtered by a few different unit types people would no longer bother.

special damages are counter-intuitive.

is there a specific reason WHY a particular unit should do more damage to llt's and comms than to anything else?

Could comm ends encourage combombing if the player being combombed is very good? (if someone in PRO or PinK or 7uP was playing and it was comm ends I would try to dgun their commander)

sillynanny wrote:Imagine DSD.

If BA's new rules don't work for 8v8 DSD failfests, perhaps you all will have to play some other map (or mod).

caldera wrote:perhaps some new lua effects arent compatible...

I don't think any new effects were added this version.

eyu100 wrote:Could comm ends encourage combombing if the player being combombed is very good? (if someone in PRO or PinK or 7uP was playing and it was comm ends I would try to dgun their commander)

You can try, but a good player will often see you coming, or protect their commander in a com ends game such that you can't even get close.

Sleksa wrote:Let the modmakers decide how they run their mods

+1 Also I haven't seen a single good player come out against these new rules and the nubs are up in arms. That proves its a good change.

el_matarife wrote:Or you could just eliminate com pushing by giving a few T1 units extra damage versus commanders, like artillery, missile trucks, and maybe some sort of kbot. Commander pushing is used because its damn effective, if LLTs and the commander got slaughtered by a few different unit types people would no longer bother.

Try either missile trucks or rocket kbots against compushing.

sillynanny wrote:What i fear is lategame porcfests. Imagine DSD.

I fear them too.

MR.D wrote:Nobody besides a tiny little handful of players want to play with COM ends, everyone else gets along just fine with Com continues and Dgun limits.

Let the other 95% of the BA community play how they want to.

Indeed. If BA game modes don't appeal to the vast majority, I'm sure someone will make a mod more suitable. How about BADSD, Balanced Annihilation (for) DeltaSiegeDry.

el_matarife wrote:

KDR_11k wrote:I think it is to create a huge gamble in com pushing, you can win big or you can be eliminated from the game.

Or you could just eliminate com pushing by giving a few T1 units extra damage versus commanders, like artillery, missile trucks, and maybe some sort of kbot. Commander pushing is used because its damn effective, if LLTs and the commander got slaughtered by a few different unit types people would no longer bother.

I think this is an awesome idea. After all the commander was there to defend your base with his HP and Dgun, but letting peewees rush him and set off a commblast in his base right at the start of the game instead is brilliant. Perhaps I should insert your suggestion in the Commander Silly Tree