Should giving units to the enemy be possible?

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 15 May 2007, 18:53

Should giving units to the enemy be possible?

I might need to know what you think of this, because i might work on BA a bit.

So giving units to the enemy is a nice feature? or a easy way to ruin a game? You make your choice now

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 15 May 2007, 19:21

Only after .cheat

Then you can fix all those odd little misfeatures like disabling units that are given (if it hasn't been done already).

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 May 2007, 19:26

No, only with .cheat for testing purposes.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 15 May 2007, 19:32

I'd say that it shoudl only be possible if > 50% players on that team agree to it via a quickvote system of some sort... like a quick dialogue box pops up saying "XYZ, your teammate, wants to give untis to the enemy. Vote Yes/No"
in a corner of the screen.

I mean sometimes in friendly single player games its really fun if you've hada good battle to toss your enemy a bone and give them some units once in a while, same in team games.

and of course there is the occasional nutty team FFA where you want to team up against a stronger player and so swap units or soemthing >:)=D

Of course, its annoying whenever a guy tries to grief and gives all his units to the enemy in team games. but a quickvote system would avoid all that.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 15 May 2007, 20:34

better, put a tickbox in the battlelobby which the host can use to decide based on the players.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 15 May 2007, 21:33

I hand units to ai all the time when I am testing. I prefer it still be there.. perhaps a disable when NOT in .cheat mode?

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 15 May 2007, 21:33

Yes, giving units to the enemy should be possible:

- Many times, when I play a complete noob, and am about to unfunnily crush him, I prefer to give him half of my army, so we can have a least some fun before the games end. If that required .cheat, a confirmation from his part, or anything else, that wouldn't work. The newb would be too newb to click "yes, I accept new units". Yes, newbs are that newb.

- I guess it's all about flopflop ruining a game by moving into ally base, then giving all units to enemy. Well, point is, if someone wants to ruin a teamgame, he will. There's pleny of others ways for the wicked to ruin a team game.

- Many MANY times, it happens to give units to enemy by error. But between proposing first enemy name in H box and giving without confirmation, and outright forboding it, there is lots of room. I would support adding a little confirmation box for the one about to give unit when he's giving to allied, maybe a second safety override tickbox in H window in case popups are too annoying. But ask the giver, not the taker.

Battlelobby for such issues are FAIL, you'll never know beforehand that the feature will be needed, or that should be disabled. It would only result in the feature getting disabled half of the time when needed, or enabled half the time when going to get misused. It's commonplace for people to even forgot to change between choos/box or random pos when hosting, so any arcane lobby tickbox is an utterly bad idea.

Ingame vote wouldn't work because poeple would be too busy to notice the vote or reply it, or wouldn't answser intelligently, or ........

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 15 May 2007, 21:45

Maybe there should be some confirmation thing:
1) Asks you do you want to give your units to enemy.
2) Asks from enemy does he want to accept your units.

Tim-the-maniac · Post by **Tim-the-maniac** » 15 May 2007, 21:50

I dont think it should.
The only times ive seen it used have been to piss the enemy off (depriving them of kills - less fun)

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 15 May 2007, 21:54

No, only the 1) confirmation, not the 2).

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 15 May 2007, 22:15

Well, the problem is people giving away units in allied games. So perhaps confirmation-from-allies is the proper solution? In a 1v1 or FFA game, the player can do it unanimously, but not in a team-game.

Perhaps a command like ".allowenemyshare" lets allies signal that they allow their allies to share with the enemy? Otherwise sharing with the enemy produces a message that states "all members in alliance must select allowenemyshare before sharing with the enemy".

Of course, allowing sharing with the enemy is still a problem with units that are a resource-drain even when turned off (which does not occur in TA, but is possible).

Post by **trepan** » 15 May 2007, 22:27

Current solution:
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10407

1. Default state is:
- you can not share units with enemies
- you can not share resources with enemies

2. You can share units and resources with enemies
if cheating has been enabled.

3. The host can disable the enemy sharing block by
enabling cheating, changing the share mode, and then
disabling cheating again.

Current share_control.lua commands:
.sharectrl none
.sharectrl ally
.sharectrl full
.sharectrl <u|r> [e] [0|1]
u: units
r: resources
e: enemy qualifier

The share_levels.lua gadget commands are:
.sharelevels on|off|list|toggle
.sharelevels <e|m|*> <on|off|%>
e: energy
m: metal
*: energy and metal
%: the forced sharing percent (0 - 100)

The share_delayed.lua gadget commands are:
.sharedelay [0|1]
.stopshare -- cancels all queued shares for the team

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 15 May 2007, 23:11

What if we just could change the sharemode without .cheat command? Its kinda annoying to put .cheat when everyone starts making their .give 100 corkrog commands.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 15 May 2007, 23:12

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:better, put a tickbox in the battlelobby which the host can use to decide based on the players.

+x^34

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 15 May 2007, 23:15

Yes.

I like giving all of my mines or infra to the weakest foe in an FFA after I get beaten down. Especially if I have to go.

Boirunner · Post by **Boirunner** » 16 May 2007, 03:03

imho you should not even be able to give units to allies.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 16 May 2007, 03:20

Boirunner wrote:imho you should not even be able to give units to allies.

Dead, dead wrong in my opinion. Units to allies makes the game more social, thus less predictable, thus more interesting.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 16 May 2007, 03:27

You could allow your ally to capture a bunch of your units so what's the point. It's only faster this way.

Boirunner · Post by **Boirunner** » 16 May 2007, 05:35

i'm not thinking of giving 10 tanks to your ally to micro. i'm thinking of it being possible for three players to all assists on a t2 lab, and then the guy who owns it can give t2 builders to his allies.

imho a team game should be three seperate, individual players. if you want to share units like that, you should be in the same team and share everything.

in practice, ally sharing rewards clans who trust one another and penalizes random teams in which many people wont simply give away t2 units or help one another because they for some reason feel that they are in competition with their teammates (see disputes over mex spots).

all in all, share all or nothing. the whole point of team games is that each player plays for himself, but with teammates.

edit: this is all imHo, as this is a purely subjective subject where there is no right or wrong.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 16 May 2007, 07:12

Boirunner wrote:i'm not thinking of giving 10 tanks to your ally to micro. i'm thinking of it being possible for three players to all assists on a t2 lab, and then the guy who owns it can give t2 builders to his allies.

imho a team game should be three seperate, individual players. if you want to share units like that, you should be in the same team and share everything.

in practice, ally sharing rewards clans who trust one another and penalizes random teams in which many people wont simply give away t2 units or help one another because they for some reason feel that they are in competition with their teammates (see disputes over mex spots).

all in all, share all or nothing. the whole point of team games is that each player plays for himself, but with teammates.

edit: this is all imHo, as this is a purely subjective subject where there is no right or wrong.

Uhh, so you want to penalize trust and teamwork. Sounds like you have no friends

Spring RTS Engine