Discussion: Early Game Commander Rushes

I don't see how there's an argument here.

Maybe you guys play in some different community, like closed-loop IRC based groups?

Because where I play, which is the general open rooms of US Central, any time two players start near each other, there's a very high chance it will turn into a comm rush. A lot of times it starts as a Pelter rush but what do you do when your enemy is building a Pelter within range of your base at the start of the game? You send your commander to deal with it. And what does he do when this is happening right outside his base? He sends his commander to counter yours because the only answer to an early commander is another commander.

Are we seriously disputing the factual basis of this?

I see comm rushes all the time. I don't see how anyone doesn't. It generally just ruins the match, turning it into an early micro battle instead of a game of interplanetary war. I try to avoid it by playing large maps but with higher numbers of players and random spawns, you can't avoid starting near each other sometimes and then it's all about commander micro.

Its a (bit smaller) issue there as well, dont just limit it to larger teamgames.

I commrushed myself and got rushed, though I dont record my games - Im neither that good nor that full of myself.

And please accept it has a huge effect of gameplay, IMHO a lame one. Its not something Id ever want a game to be as its over quickly and even if I win by a commrush theres no fun in doing so as theres just a bit of micro invloved, no greater strategy or anything that Id think PA aims to be.

If spawning quite near to my enemy, theres no real risk involved in sending the comm, some fighters, fabbers and a smallish blob of tanks over there. The fighters pick of anything that could scout the rush too early.
As long as there isnt a line of pelters or some walled laser towers theres no danger. All fire is concentrated on the comm automagically as it seems to have higher target priority while the tankblob happily eats through the base. Early game most people dont have enought units to do anything against that.

As said, it isnt unstoppable but very powerfull and kind of random for the one who gets rushed. Have the comm in the right position, might defend it. Comms too far away, call it gg.
I dont hope that to be what PA envisions as final gameplay.

So, its bad even in 1v1.

Total Annihilation essentially solved this issue 16 years ago, or did everyone forget that game existed?

No. Please, enlighten me. I've never played it, though i have dabbled in zeroK a little.

TA Commanders are fragile but have a 1 shot, instagib weapon that is tied to your energy reserves. Any point-defence greater than the initial LLT kills a Commander in about 3 seconds flat or less, and all of them out-range the Commander's 1 shot instagib weapon. When Commanders explode, they take everything nearby with them, including other Commanders.

If you lose your Commander in any way, shape or form, you lose; there are no ' ties '.

Commander rushing is a lose-lose scenario. He's not a fighter. He's a builder with a defensive option.

The only thing ComRushing achieved in TA was labelling you as a jerk. If I played against such a player I added them to a black-list of players I never played again.

The problem is that people are playing this like it's SupCom...TA may have been a better game, but SupCom is what got more players. And as such, people are using the commander more offensively. That's my opinion, anyway. But to say that the Commander's not a fighter undersells him somewhat. He's not meant to be on the front lines (without upgrades, which won't be in PA) obviously, but to lead a small incursion team to a new base or planet? You don't have the offensive power combined with buildpower in any other unit, so the commander is the best option for that kind of situation. But I definitely agree with you that there should be no "tie" situations. Either losing the commander should fry you or it shouldn't, period. And that should be determined by game modes, and thus, up to the player's whim.

Well, in FFAs you usually don't have a problem with the individual, you have a problem with the scenario. Like if I spawn, build 2 structures, and run into an enemy commander, that's obviously limited the successfulness in that game to "can I kill him or not", with no chance in hell to actually come out winner overall. Same with him, if you spawn nowhere near him, and he himself spawns near 3 other guys, you were really just given a more lax scenario.

I wouldn't think he is so easy to 1v1 either. Even 2v2 or 2v2v2 or 1v1v1. It is only the scenario of a 6 player royale that the situation tends to bleed out the threat of any single opponent.

BUT BACK TO THE POINT.

I agree with nano that if the commander did more damage to be able to take another commander out if attacked with a commander, it would help being rushed by multiple commanders. That doesn't require a lot to change, the com explosion already kills everything but other coms, so it really only requires a com health reduction and/or explosion damage increase, as well as point defences to be able to do enough damage. Because right now, you can build an early few units of attack or turret or two, and technically, that should tip the odds in favor against a com rush. Like nano said, it did in TA.

I neither have actually seen this tactic. Commanders are good, and I have seen 6-7 commanders duel it out with guns ablazing, but never right off spawn, and never in high success of any one player or another (because a 6 com explosion definitely counts as a greater loss for the person who lost more coms).

Then gameplay must be used to teach them that's not how you play. TA did that. I see no reason why the same gameplay can not be used again.

Agreed of course with the option to turn it off so you continue playing after death or whatever. Non-standard rules can do whatever they like, but the standard rule needs to be;

Commander = Your conduit to the battlefield.

No Commander = Loss of control of all units.

Yes, TA had that solved nicely. Commanders one-shot each other, ineffective against point defenses and the fighting power available was better suited to defense. Exactly whats needed for a unit designed to start bases.

Id strongly vote for something like this in PA.

Anyone rushing into such a one-shot-to-kill duel, especially on engines that arent as critical about timing like some shooters, is completely nuts.

Bring the D-Gun back, blue fluffy is nice but doesnt fit.

I agree, but (and I'm speculating here since I don't actually have a game), but isn't that what this beta test is all about? To iron out kinks both in the underbelly of the game (hardware and such), and tweaking how the game plays? (More like Supcom, more like TA, or more like itself?) I mean, if the game was fully-balanced, all we'd need to do was bugtest.

When in doubt, take option ' more like TA ' every time.

Hah, I'd personally be inclined to disagree with you on that--SupCom made several improvements upon the TA formula.

Mostly.

At least I agree with it here, as far as it being nifty if commander weapons mostly didn't outrange the impending explosion that will kill themselves in the process.

Like I said, trading 2 commanders to kill 1 should be viable. Really, trading 1 for 1 should be considered possible. It just isn't a problem, not like 3 commanders can go in and reliably mop up 1 without taking losses right now, but if they could then upping the explosion damage should theoretically help.

However, lets not talk semantics about TA and SC and stuff. TA had the basic vision and anything moving torwards SC is considered a change but it is hard to tell which ones were good additions and which ones ultimately doomed the series.

I would disagree paperthinarmor and list my reasons for doing so, but this isn't the thread for that.

If one would take my comm for suicide then i would definitively consider him a jerk ... but if they want to go out fighting on a losing battle with their comm then fine by me ... in war everything is alowed ...

But yeah +1 for playerkick on commdeath, one comm per dedicated player -control and propper combatcommbalance
im done with this one for now

Once again, you obviously haven't read this thread. I have been commander rushed and I have watched many matches with commander rushes. I have stated that before in this thread.

I also did respond to that thread. If you don't bother reading my responses, what's the point in writing them?

That is 100% not true, as I have stated in this thread. I wasn't going to create this thread originally until igncom1 brought up this very issue in a different thread so I decided to create this thread because of his post on the forums.

i have solved the issue!!!!!!!!!!!!! make all units target comms over any other unit!!!!!!

This would so screw up micro and it really doesnt solve anything but....I like it.

* Reduce commander walk speed by 15%
* Make commanders spend *0* energy when building
* Increase commander metal expenditure by 30%

This will make them vastly more useful as a builder. It may not end comm rushing but the guy who sees you coming and builds defenses can do so much more quickly and cheaply with his Commander in-base and on-the-job. The guy who walked over to attack you wasted a lot of free building time to do so.

This will also speed up the early game.

It really is tough to find a fix because you don't want to overly weaken the commander so that he's worthless as a counter to early T1 unit rushes or Pelter rushes, or too easily bombed to death late game, but you also can't have a 12500 hit point death machine that throws the rest of the game into irrelevance when he's used early on for offense, which is the current problem.

I also don't think it's a "1v1" or a "5v5" type of problem -- it's a "start position distance" problem. Comm rushes are just as stupid in 1v1 as they are in 5v5, it's just much rarer to start out next to each other in a 1v1 situation.

???? how does it screw up micro??? naturally units would still force target but if a comm rush happens admist a bunch of units the comm will be removed first.... idk youre right probably wouldnt fix anything