"Annihilated" requirement Change and Commander Explosions

I think it would be interesting if instead of declaring a player "Annihilated" after the death of their commander, the game would declare it after the death of every single unit, structure and entity (i'm considering nukes and anti-nuke missiles entities, because I don't think they are units) that was owned by that player/team. This would mean that a game would not be able to end until every thing was destroyed and every nuke/anti-nuke missile has been detonated/destroyed.

Now, i'm not suggesting that you need to go and kill everything the enemy has before they die. Everything would still start exploding after the death of the commander, however instead of things randomly exploding, they should explode in a slowly expanding sphere pattern, originating from the commander.

I believe this next bit is already implemented, but in case it isn't: Units and structures should continue their last orders until death, either by the commander's "self-destruct triggering shockwave" or by other means. this would allow an army to do a last assault before they die, or T2 bombers to finish their last attempt at a commander snipe. This would discourage players from simply sending all the units that were defending their base to attack the opponent, leaving themselves defenseless, as it would actually matter if the enemy had their own army incoming from a different direction.

Games would not be able to end until, say 5 seconds after the end of a commander's death shockwave, in case any other commander death is about to start.

Any suggestions/opinions?

Seens an interesting idea and it will prevent players from ignoring an enemy attack

This is a good idea for another game mode, but I don't think it should change the victory condition for EVERY game.

It doesn't change the victory condition. That's the point. It just slightly changes what happens when a commander dies, and how long it takes for the game to end after the death of the last enemy commander.

I don't like this, it just increases the potential for draws, which aren't fun for anyone.

Mike

Really? I think draws are kind of fun in this game. That's just my opinion though, but it would change how people attack, so a ball of fighters and T2 bombers becomes a little less usable, since they can do the same thing to you while you are undefended.

Do not want.

Losing your commander shows that your enemy has superiority over you generally or you have neglected your commander or some form of defence. Cleaning up every single unit is not fun. It'll be like going back to C&C Red Alert online games where players would hide a submarine somewhere on the map and refuse to surrender forcing you to search the oceans for 30 minutes to find it for a win.

Perhaps some other victory condition is warranted though as watching 1 v 1 advanced bomber snipes over and over is kinda boring. It's a lot more interesting watching 2 v 2 - 4 v 4 games where teams can lose a commander or two without much concern but once they're down to one it gets tense. I like this. Perhaps just start 1 v 1 players off with 2-3 commanders instead of just one.

The way you're explaining it, yes it does.
A player wins when the enemy is "annihilated", as such, making annihilation happen after EVERYTHING is dead instead of just the commander changes the victory condition.

Except killing the commander kills everything, it just would take a little longer. So the victory condition would remain the same.

I see what you mean, but I've had many games where I simply lost do to a brief burst of lag during which my fighters lagged out for a sec, or something of the like, while I had a commander snipe of my own which didn't end up working out because I lost my commander, due to lag. This change I don't think would change too much, it would just make people be more apprehensive to leave their base undefended.

Does it still kill everything? I thought that stopped happening.

But it still does, the Victory condition goes from;

"Kill the Enemy Commander"

to;

"Kill the Enemy Commander, Survive until all enemy units Self Destruct"

Yes you still need to kill Commanders, but your proposal does change the Victory Condition.

Mike

The game already does what I suggest, just not as extensively. I'm only suggesting a 10 to 20 second increase in game length here, during which actions that the opponent already started have a change to finish. The opponent doesn't get to start attacking after death, his attack gets a chance to finish. Most of the time this wouldn't change anything, other than make the explosion of all the units look better.

Who cares then? The game is already over, move on so you can get into the next match quicker.

Mike

Like I said, I've seen many games where loss was just an issue caused by a burst of lag, or a moment of misfortune, that happened to occur during an attack of your own. The extra few seconds could allow your attack to succeed, thus making the game end in a tie, which is better than a loss for the loser, otherwise it just makes things look better. It's not something that should necessarily bet a "top priority", since it is mostly visual, but it does help balance some aspects of the game a bit more, and would make more strategies viable. It's really a very minor change, that wouldn't be hard to implement, and wouldn't unbalance everything or wreck the game in some way, while making the game look better and balancing out in certain situations.

In what way does a tie look better?
Being able to get far enough to kill a commander basically says "I was able to get past your defenses/build a powerful economy and large army before you."
If the self-destruct was delayed, it would be brought down to luck whether or not the true winner would still win.
It's basically saying "You beat me, but I still deserve a second chance because I was moving an army to your base!" which really comes off as a bit sore-loser-ish.
It's far from a minor change, and in some aspects is unbalanced due to the fact that any player that feels threatened by loss could track an attack with radar and just send over a bunch of T2 bombers/bluebottles/any other really powerful unit seconds before an attack and snipe the opponents commander, ending the game in a tie for the sole purpose of "it looks better on my w/l ratio".

this is nonsense, if they could have done this they should have anyway, and they're still going to be 'annihilated' first.

I think the current system is better for establishing draws.
Randomly destroying units means that a relatively strong push will still be a relatively strong push for a few more seconds no matter where it is, whereas a sweeping distance of destruction, especially on a system wide scale, means that only fairly distant armies stand any chance of surviving for long.

I'm fairly sure you can still do damage after being marked as 'annihilated', and maybe you can even be granted a win.

Dude that's a game MODE called "annihilation". Currently you're playing "assasination".

This WILL be present in the final game (as well as "sandbox", probably "supremacy", and it has been confirmed; "phantom") stop posting in other places than the game mode thread : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/what-game-modes-should-we-start-with.43223/

No, actually read his post, that's not what he's talking about.

In response to the idea, I don't like it. If I have the military intelligence, timing and confidence to send all my units in a big push to take out a comm, I want to do that. I don't want I have to factor in an extra 20 seconds after the comms death at which I'm still at risk.

Also, in 95% of cases this would change nothing and just be a boring wait period. Mod it in if you want, but it doesn't need a place at release I think.

The game is over. Why drag it on longer? Also how would this work with a multi-planet army? Explosions can't transfer from planet to planet.