Should Commander loss in Team Armies boot that player?

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by Quitch, November 29, 2013.

  1. Quitch

    Quitch Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,886
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    This is just a thought I had which I wanted to discuss because I'm undecided. I was wondering if, to give the Commanders in Team Armies games a little more meaning than simply a lives counter, whether it would be worth stopping a player from controlling anything on their team once their commander has been killed.

    It could potentially introduce a more exciting dynamic where you want to kill certain commanders more than others in an attempt to take out the strongest player from a team, it would also mean there is a punishment for comm bombing. On the other hand, does having less commanders and therefore less people fighting for control, actually benefit the team? I thought also whether this makes it too similar to Team Alliances.
    Last edited: November 29, 2013
  2. zaphodx

    zaphodx Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    2,409
    Not by default but it should definitely be an option. It adds some extra layers of strategy and makes killing or losing a commander a Big Thing.
  3. beer4blood

    beer4blood Active Member

    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    201
    Hmmm interesting......I was going to say no but the points you've presented seem really cool. Being able to remove who you think is their strongest player sounds awesome. But what of the stuff built for the team by said player???? Does it disappear to???





    And stopping comm bomb as that is cheese on the Velveeta level....
  4. Teod

    Teod Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    268
    Interesting, but it should be paired with inability to control other people's commanders in this gametype.

    And nicknames over commanders heads.
    beer4blood and jodarklighter like this.
  5. ghostflux

    ghostflux Active Member

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    108
    I wouldn't really like this. It seems to me that it just becomes 10x easier steamrolling the enemy that way. The player that gets booted out can't spectate or ghosting becomes too easy, he loses the ability to micro the units and communicate with his team.

    Basically this would bring it closer to what alliances are when you don't include the option to leave or join an alliance.
  6. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    This idea makes perfect sense in the scheme of the game.

    The Commander is YOU. When YOU die, YOUR game ends.

    Curious why this isn't the norm. Perfectly shared assets are a huge factor that favors comm bombings.
  7. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    I think most definitely no.

    Maybe as a different game type or game setting.
  8. cptconundrum

    cptconundrum Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    Why would they have to lose the ability to communicate with the team? Just make them keep the team line of sight and don't let them control any units. Dead commanders would then become just advisers to the team. I definitely don't want this option on by default though.

Share This Page