playerkick on commdeath and commcontrol by dedicated to comm player in teamarmygames

Moderators cannot manipulate the results of polls like that.

I'll throw my suggestion in from the last time we had this discussion. One comm per team everyone else spawns as a special con bot, with the same efficiency as a comm construction wise. Perhaps this bot could have a weapon idk how that would be balanced so we don't end up with the same situation as now.

If you kick players for loosing their comm tho the game is thrown heavily to the favor of those with remaining players as their attention can now be much more widespread compared to the guy left by himself now. I think player kick would only increase the comn rush as teams would immediately try to eliminate the other players so their team can have the numbers advantage.

How does one protect against early raids though with a con unit with no weapons?? This I really have no solution for..... maybe an advanced laser spawns with the special con unit??? Perhaps another specialized team armies static defense with an increased range??? Idk but I feel one comm per team is a step in the right direction..... please feel free to elaborate on my idea.

including the comm control where every player can only control his comm larger commrushes would requiere more players to do it, that means at that time their attention will be focused on their comm instead of their base ...

i can see that as an option aswell but i simply prefer to have each player be represented by his comm

People can compete in any game mode, i still don't see the issue. As long as the starting options are fair it will do well for competition.

Heck, if someone wanted they could stage a who can build the most eco in 10 min competition not allowing any fighting, the player with the most +m or +e wins.

I realise this is probably to get at comm rushing and / or bombing, but in a competitive setting it won't matter much as long as both sides can do the same thing. Sure 3 comms can gang up on one comm but both sides can do that and both teams have equal opportunity calculating and valuing risks.

you're just handicaping yourself even more versus the player who are playing teamarmies like they should.

well this is what i´m trying to get that mode to ... to be fair and intresting
multicommrush to me is too easy to pull of currently and it has basicly no consequenses
aside from losing a bit of builtpower ... it is like the worst kind of cheese being straight out unfair on small systems or single planets imo ... so it realy needs a propper consequence (playerkick) to justify it when a comm is lost in the process or a control limit (or handicap as has been said) to be harder to pull of but better imo both ...

i mean consider it like this ... why would you ever want to be blown up or blow up yourself
no matter where you are participating in ...

currently its like "oh i lost my comm, no problem still playing just build a energygen and a couple fabs" ... i mean ... what?

"oh i have been killed but i´m still there so no problem, no need to cry for me guys" WHAT???

or if you want it less rediciulous " ohh my toy has been wrecked, no problem i have money and can still do something ... i get some new toys "

nothing realy happened !!

You wouldn't but picture this: team a spawns together while team b picks multiple starts. Play commences, scouts go up. Team a finds that team b is separated and a comm is relatively close. So team a simply rushes that lone commander, easily overpowering him. Now team a holds the advantage as team b now has a much more difficult time managing their empire, plus the most efficient builder they just lost.

You say it takes attention off to base which is true but how much does it really??? Not much imo. Its simple to issue a move order beyond the opposite edge or to the closest edge of their base and return to your base to issue orders while your comm s make the journey. You're right that it requires more players now to be involved in the attack but really I think it still requires the focus of just one player who simply asks his teammates to occasionally make a new move order here or there, then they can return to what they were doing. Especially if the attack is properly orchestrated and the multiple comms flank the one.

yeah but there in lies the challange and the risk, doesnt it? the team with the better communication and coordination wins ... and even if one or two players are out initialy that doesnt mean the team with fewer players cant win ... it may just get more difficult depending on what they exactly lost which means they would have to increase engagement or be wipedout entirely ... now you may say " the same is true in alliance" right but since
in team games you have full share by default it is what makes the game more challanging actualy
the ammount of production doesnt change when a player would be kicked in a teamgame in a alliance game however either the player AND his stuff is lost or he shares it to one of his mates which would be an addition to production on one of the other players.
there in lies the very difference in those two modes
as i said before comrush/bombing can still be a viable thing to do but not without having some propper risk to it which it currently doesnt have imo

there's no NEED to change team armies when multitudes of other game modes are on the conveyor belt to our doorstep.
what you should probably be focusing on is campaigning in favor of changing team alliances so that it has a fullshare option.

do we know what those new gamemodes will be?

what does a fullshare option make alliances different from teamgames then ?

why not have it as option to teamgames that the player continues after commdeath but team loses when all comms of them are destroyed? because thats how they currently are ..

You haven't played a team game where a teammate disconnected??? It's really freaking hard to rout the win in that situation, when the enemy can be 2,3,4,5....... etc. Places at once and your team can only manage one less or two or three less depending. You're right its not impossible but the odds are very heavily stacked against you very!!!

I agree something should be done but it must seems its best left without the player kick imo, it does essentially become alliances at that point except you get to keep what your teammate built before his departure

i dont know ... i cant help but it feeling wrong to me from a lore and gameplay perspective ...

I would like a "player defeated" condition rather than a player kick condition, where they can still observe if they want but not control any units. As an option anyway.

For the base game mode I would just really like it if the 'c' hot key just selected my commander, generally everybody takes a commander to divide building labour and it's very easy to make a mistake and steal your allies commanders if you rely on hotkeys.

Yes. We know for a fact there will be a "team alliances" and "phantom", quite sure there will be a "sandbox" and perhaps some form of "supremacy" or "annihilation".

that is actualy the idea let the player still be in and only be able to see what his team does but have no direct influence in it otherwise as in not beeing able to produce or control anything ...

... ... that´s it? wow i´m impressed /sarcasm

well there are more suggested in the official thread.
but those are the ones it seems Neutrino has taken a liking to so far. I imagine he wants the modders to do the rest.

small correction it's "murder party" and there will also be "tech wonder".

I'm not sure what fair means to you, to me it means that all players have equal possibilities. My team can comm rush, but so can opposing team. Therefore, no problem, still fair.

That you feel it's against the lore or not enough consequence is an entirely different matter. Of course you can feel however you like about all game modes, which you enjoy or not, but it has nothing to do with being fair in a competitive sense of the word.

And in a tight game on a small planet, where this rushing and bombing might occur, the loss of a commander is quite the big thing. You loose not only build power, but one of your most powerful weapons as well as resource income and storage. It could definitely cost a team a game.

Anyhow, the biggest point i have against this thread and the concern it is trying to raise is that as far as i can see it's addressing a problem that is going to be solved once we have a few more game modes. Alliances is on the menu already although it hasn't been implemented yet. When you die there, you loose all your toys and all your money, game over.

Fair means to have moves that have a propper risk/rewardratio ... commrushing/bombing
has not enough risk to its reward that it is a joke imo ..

And I know how alliance works pretty well ...

what are the other gamemodes you talk about? The same as tatsu mentionet? That is standart stuff weve seen before and phantom aint that intresting to me honestly

i simply wanted something imo unique and challanging out of teamgames
weither those future gamemodes you talk of will solve what i hoped for teamgames remains to be seen ...

Bumb for more votes opinions or both so go for it
Be sure to look on the OP first

A strong no to both.

While there are some upsides, the downsides are far worse.

It'd make it so that the first person to lose a comm pretty much loses the entire game after that since they lost an entire player.

That would also greatly reduce the playability and enjoyability of the game – which is the most important part. Such a feature would drive away a lot of casual players.