Commsharing/Archon mode

[Forboding Angel]

I really think that we as a community should be pushing this gameplay fairly hard. It is late in the tournament, but here is red bull esports sc2 LOTV archon mode tourney.

http://www.twitch.tv/redbullesports

This tourney is doing a good job of being a perfect example of why commsharing can be a huge player draw. Not only pros, but also just average players, and average players is exactly what all of us need.

[code_man]

I havent watched the video, but i also think commsharing is a vastly underrated feature.

I think online rts in general is underpopulated because a single player has huge importance.
Compared to say fps games where a player can just come and go there is next to no presure, whereas in an rts if you even go pissing wihtout pausing the game you lose and your team is fucked on the other hand if you pause a huge game you might piss off a lot of people too, which might leave a bad impression on people, particualryl in a small environment like that of spring.
I doubt too many people can or want to devote their time to games in such a manner.

Id sure like to see commsharing implemented in spring games some day.

[Silentwings]

BA and others have had it for years, in form of both "coop mode" and full comsharing. I'm actually not sure a Spring game can avoid supporting comsharing (just set two players on the same team+allyteam to cause it) although coop mode needs extra lua. And if you want to make specs into players, it's already supported by Spring.AssignPlayerToTeam.

The trouble is, its only wanted by players who know each other a bit and then (because when teamwork works, it works really well) its a huge advantage unless the other team has something to compensate, which they usually don't. But it is fantastic in cases where it doesn't imbalance games.

[code_man]

I tried commshareing in s44 a long time ago, but it didnt go so well.
What it needs is showing what you partner does more efficiently, in particular which units he has selected and i think which orders he issues iirc, and maybe a "team chat", as in team team.

Also i shouldnt brag now, but i have a interesting idea for galactic conquest in this regard, but it may or may not backfire.

The trouble is, its only wanted by players who know each other a bit and then (because when teamwork works, it works really well) its a huge advantage unless the other team has something to compensate, which they usually don't. But it is fantastic in cases where it doesn't imbalance games.

Quite so, tough im not sure if classical rts games can really accomidate the commshareing model to its fullest, maybe some rts/? experimental hybrids are the way to go here, i suppose only time will tell.

In any case its nice spring has that capablity, even if it needs tweaks.

[Silentwings]

BA actually has widgets to do all the things you suggest there But yes, I also think the feature has more potential outside of classical RTS games.

[PicassoCT]

ComSharing as in two Players per team?

Problems there:
-> No clear indications of responsibility - units are not assigned to one players commands once they got them.
-> How do i know the guy who i team up with is good at his job? No seperate Battle-Elo, no Base-Build-Elo.
-> Not everybody average knows how to join a teamspeak channel for just his team during the game.
-> If one player is sub-par, he needs to be mentored. Meaning, the better player, should be able to override his commands. This should be something that is opt out so beginners have it but veterans not.
-> Battleplan layer (similar to drawings) that is only visible to same team - [Check]

-> Clear way to show responsibilitys during a replay. Meaning teamcolour variation by player for units & commands
-> Same goes for ingame - a tuber or twitcher that casts the game needs to identify the who does what to who, without reading or unit selecting

BAR release postponed!

[Silentwings]

Although some of those things are possible, I think it would be better/easier to somehow force comsharing players to verbally communicate while they play. But I don't have any plans to implement a way to make it work.

[code_man]

Yes, players should cooridnate among themelfs, but still the engine could make improvments in that regard.

For example it should atleast show what units are selected by your partner(s), i cant come up with others right now.

Easier said than done, i atleast couldnt imagine such a system from the bat.

[Silentwings]

It already exists, http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balates ... dUnits.lua, although you are right that its not the easiest widget to write.

[PicassoCT]

verbally makes a lot of limiting assumptions:
fluent english language skills
able to communicate efficiently
able to remember what units belong to whom, and what tasks where assigned

all of this unneeded if visually displayed as part of the units teamcolourplate
PS: Also wrote that widget part and posted it on #badev

[PauloMorfeo]

I seem to remember comm-sharing existing either right from the start or from a very early age, when Spring was still at its peak (~200 users actively playing during rush hours). Even more, I seem to remember it existing in oTA (oTA was light-years ahead of its time).

At the time of early Spring I was playing abundantly, frequently with 3 friends and we founded the clan "PT" (apologies for all the stupidities those 3 unruly guys might have done), one of the first clans, and we'd frequently play together (as in: in the same room).

Also to me comm-sharing feels pretty much underused and undervalued. Yet, for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, it never really caught on. I mean, not even with my friends playing in the same room - we were friends, we got along, spoke natively the same language, were present in the very same room 1~2m away from one another. Not even playing Chickens. Nor in those massive 5v5 / 6v6 Delta Siege.

I think we'd usually not play comm-share because it'd be disadvantageous for the others not comm-sharing, and they wouldn't want to do it.

Oddly enough, I remember playing comm-sharing with that Chilean dude, Mong(?) and Pintle but only very infrequently.

I reckon PicassoCT made a good summation of the problem but I'd add that probably the major factor is social awkwardness, that discomfort of having to deal so closely with someone who isn't your personal friend (I can't conceive it working well without voice chat the likes of TeamSpeak), of you failing so closely others with your mistakes, of not knowing whether you're stepping your mate's toes or in any other way annoying him.

---

Having said that, I'd like to watch a tournament of 1v1 comm-sharing matches (though, yet, once again, I doubt I'd like to participate).

[zwzsg]

Even more, I seem to remember it existing in oTA (oTA was light-years ahead of its time).

No, there was no commsharing in OTA.

[8611z]

I too had fun with comm-sharing. Imo there were two reasons why it did not caught on:

1) Many matches were instantly quitted/restarted because of players accidently comm-sharing.
Even if two players were comm-sharing on purpose, others do know know if willingly or accidently comshare. So someone shouts "omg comshare newbs again!!" and game is quitted. I think chatting is not good idea to solve that, only works in small groups with known players. For public hosts is too choatic, always some who do not read chat or join late.

Now (most) autohosts are configured to prevent accidently comm-share but it prevents willing comshare too.
Imo to be useable needs some feature where you can ask a player to comshare and then they can accept or deny.
That way other players can also be sure that all comsharing is willingly.
Player Supernoob wants to com-share with you. Accept? Yes/No
ProRusher is now com-sharing with Supernoob.

2) There are so many other ways to 'play together' and coordinate:
Sharing resources & units is super easy, drawing on map,..
There are widgets that show allies mouse pointer, their selected units, their orders,..so you cam track what they are doing.
It is not quite the same, but in a game where you can already do these things so easy comm-share is not that nessecary anymore.

And today some lobbies do not even display the player's teamID anymore (only allyID) so it is not possible to set up comshare if some players are using such lobby.