Econ Idea for Team Armies and Team Alliances

Right now most people have probably played a Team Armies game, and most likely had one player or more just destroy the team's economy. It is easy for this to happen right now because all players have their supply and storage grouped together where each player has access to it all. So with only one bad/unkind players on your team you can run into a ton of trouble.

To fix this I propose that only storage should be shared. This means that you can use your economy any way you want and any extra you have to store can be used by the entire team. This would keep the same team mentality play we have now, while allowing for a safe-gaurd for your own economy. (in Alliances it would be an option to share, or not share storage).

Let me know what you all think, seems like it should be a nice simple fix to implement.

That basically sounds like team alliances - you have your own eco and share overflow.

This would be horrible in team armies because you would be forced to build eco buildings and you couldn't delegate tasks/roles to players. Every player would have to have their own eco, their own production and their own tech. If you want that then play team armies.

You dont like what a player is doing? Talk to him ... he doesnt listen and is a d*ck? Kick! ...
the only thing i want to see changed is playerkick on commdeath ..... and commcontrol only by player deticated to it ...

Sorry I wasn't clear. Everything as it is in team armies now would stay the same with economy supply being the exception. The only thing I can see changing is that building storage would become more useful (though it already is very useful in team armies now).

In the new system I propose Player A could go all econ and defense while player B could go all production (after building a small starting economy... like the 4 mex 3 energy build order out there). Player A could spend its econ while staying in the positive, which is adding to storage, giving Player B that economy. This is not Surplus/Wasted Economy (supply when storage filled), just stored economy that is not being spent by player A. This easily gives player B a clear indication of how much he has to spend with no worry about messing up and keeping Player B from being able to keep expanding economy.

team alliances is not the same as team armies

Team armies is what we have now and team alliances is what both you and @zaphodx are talking about. It will be added before release

Unless ofc. if you mean still having the same units/structures. Then you can't share your personal overflow because all of the eco structures belong to everyone on the team. Therefore there is no way for the game to know what is "yours" and what isn't.

Doest seem like team to me but alliance ... in alliance everyone will have his own stuff own power own eco own army own production .... however you will be able to give control or gift resources to a player
teamgames are about exactly what it says you have to work even more together .. in alliances you can but dont realy have to ... goals can be archieved differently if you screw up in team you screw up with anybody else in your team .. in alliance you would likely only screw up yourself

Any player differentiation in Team Army, aside from commanders, is flat out impossible. If one player placed the factory, other ordered fabber ther and the thrird placed mex with this fabber, who's mex is this?

It also significantly negates the whole point of Team Armies mode. Everything is shared - that's the rule. Economy is like half of the game, you can't make exeptions that big.

Play Team Alliances.

The army game type is supposed to be shared. It has to be shared to have the epicness of the Army game type.

I'd recommend only playing Armies with players you know.

In the meantime, wait for the Alliances game mode. That's traditional RTS teams where only vision is shared.

Was thinking it was keeping track of this but you're right they probably don't have coding keeping users apart in team army games. Sorry

(Just angry when I try a pub team army game every once in a while and get stuck with people that don't understand and don't listen. Noobs are fine, they listen, learn and help. The others can just make you tear your hair out)

Join a clan or play with friends. It helps

leave player kick on comdeath to team alliances. there's a purpose behind each player still being able to play as long as the team has one commander alive in team armies.

Whatever purpose that is its extremly bad and totaly violates what the comm is supposed to be .. therefor i dont

well just wait for team alliance gameplay mode.

Doesnt solve the problem team army has in itself

your problem. I don't see a problem.

Being multicommrushed with 3 or 5 to 10+ comms by one person without any negative concequenses for him and his team when he loses one is not a problem? Yeah sure

you're suggesting it as a penalization to a specific situation not a gameplay mechanic. I might have bent had you argued it in favor of gameplay but here it just means a different playstyle is required.... and that you should really refrain from playing teamarmies without voicechatt, as otherwise you could orchestrate a proper response.

many missing elements seem really obvious to me though :
one : multiple planet spawns are missing from the game. with this you could balance team armies with many parties much easier and still have it be a quick engagement by making a two same small planets for each team ( added advantage of perfect symmetry) and both teams would then have to duke it out on a larger main planet. (and/or the start planets).

two : another approach is not playing those matches on small-a ss maps where your groups of coms can just waltz into each other.

three : is a "split spawn" host option which will probably be available in the final game. this would prevent coms from the same team from being able to spawn in the same zone and set a minimum planet size according to player count (I imagine unless the planet is HUUGE you would no have a choice for spawn in this game mode and hence you'd just hop right in)

with all this said, it's seems to me like you are being elitist in your choice of how o deal with com-bomb, or just trying to pick the first thing to throw the blame on. Either way, I'm positive if you think it through with me you'll look back on it thinking it isn't in fact a satisfactory solution.

think about it : guy com rushes with his ten coms. loose one or two, who can't input any more, you're lost five though. do you think the battle tide has swung in your favor now that their better players are out? they may not even have been their better players (considering the order they die in is either a set of coincidences, or the player threw this com in first then that). You see where I'm getting at?

it would just get you out and then you wouldn't be able to pull things back up from there.

That's why I stick to ffa..... occasionally I play armies only when I get a wild hair though

Feel free to call me elitist on that but the thing still is on every other match when a comm does get destroyed the player to it is out of the game he could only continue to spectate ... why shall that be different to teamarmy?
and who says people wouldnt want to spawn on one huge planet ... the same issue would still be there heck even then some people may wanna play on a normalsiced..
you still want to keep playing? Turn of commdeath ..
its a team game you are supposed to survive with your mates and destroy the enemy ...
you dont want to lose your com? Keep him save ... thats how it is everywere else
but here the comm is just a throw away unit ... in that case it might be better to start with just one comm per team and give a fabber to each other

So what you're suggesting is that player A and player B cooperate, and player A focuses on building eco, while player B focuses on production.

Player B focuses on building factories, and not spending more than the team is earning, while player A also requests a certain share of the economy?


I think the message we can take from this is

Communicate with your teammates.