Diversity in Victory Conditions

I'm sure that this has been discussed a couple of other times throughout these forums, but I was wondering if anyone has any idea when more victory conditions will be added to the game; and if so, what conditions. I don't know about anyone else, but I for one absolutely adored the ones from Supreme Commander 2. Supremacy specifically... I'm missing the days of teleporting my commander into another player's base and self-destructing him. Come to that, any idea if we can self-detonate units currently or when it will be added?

I was also thinking that achieving control of a large enough percentage of mass points on a world might be an interesting victory condition as well. It would require a different style of play than a standard game which might be interesting, more of a territory control type of victory. Thoughts?

You can self-detonate your comm...but you then lose......or tie

There will be more game types. They haven't mentioned too many of the particulars, but there will be more.

Assassination is the core game type, so it was the first to be created.

I'm also sure there will be mods adding more. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a capture the flag game type with re-spawning commanders or something.

if both commanders blow up at the same time it's a tie right?

The instant the enemy commander dies, you can upload your consciousness directly to your army and the condition of your Commander body becomes irrelevant. Just build a new one.

In game, this can be represented by delaying the Comm's death explosion by juuuuust a second. Last survivor wins, to hell with your silly "tied" conditions.

What's to stop your opponent doing precisely the same thing?

Because he's deeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Because draws are stupid and no fun for everyone involved. Because let's face it, this double death scenario only happens during a duel between two Comms, and it's usually because one side is trying to suicide bomb. If he's trying to suicide bomb, it's because he already lost and wants to go out with a bang. So treat it like the loss that it is. And because [anything I can pull out of my ***], for example...

While there is an overt gun slinging war that we get to play, it is also a fight between machines. There is an infinite array of subversive hacking and cracking that is an inevitable consequence of total war. As the housing of the army's conscious AI, the Commander is the de facto secure net that enables his army to function. To leave the digital security of the Commander's body in front of an enemy Commander is pure suicide. The instant the enemy Commander dies he loses his infinite crack net, and it is safe to do whatever.

I would think that having your commander within explosion range of a losing commander is your fault and avoidable.

Just curious:
Why is the Commander limited to uploading his consciousness after the enemy Commander is dead?
Why can't he do it beforehand?

Obviously having commander within range is avoidable, but your base being pillaged by that commander on most occasions in early game will not be avoidable at your fault.

Why don't you play poker with your hand face up on the table?

Because REASONS.

Comm rushing is a Comm balance issue. It can be fixed with Comm fixes and good T1 design.

Bullshit. Gotcha.

C'mon, at least try to work the poker angle for a few seconds. It felt pretty good!

Why doesn't Google protect their source code by splitting it into a hundred packages and store them on servers across the planet? Because it's a hundred ways for things to go wrong. A single, dedicated solution will beat out a dozen half assed approaches any day.

In the end, what really matters is making a game that plays well. The reasons behind various things don't matter.

I was just wondering if you could rationalise it without being particularly arbitrary.