Interesting anti-com bomb idea

So then you don't have the full experience yet.

That's your choice.

Mike

I admit I've not played a full shared army game yet, but is there any reason why the standard incentive not to com-bomb can't be integrated into a shared army game? E.g. Players share all units with the exception of their own commander unit. A commander can only be ordered by the player who owns it. Once a player looses their commander, they are out of the game.

It's still possible to com-bomb this way, but getting ejected for it really is taking one for the team. I can almost tolerate it if it's a last ditch heroic sacrifice.

But being a team game it is still a Team victory unless you take it that extra step and separate each player's Win/lose condition from the win/lose condition of the Team, which might work.

Mike

Can I block this tatsu troll? I'd like to never see a post from him again.

If you go to a User's profile you will see options to either add them as a Friend or Foe below thier Avatar.

Mike

Your cause and effect is mixed up. Combombing IS the ragequit. :lol:

Supcom had A way to handle comm rushes, and it was okay. But watering down the death nuke has to be one of the most boring ways to solve it. It doesn't show any creativity for one of the most iconic and memorable aspects of the Comm. Rather, it is better to encourage indirect solutions to keep Comms out of your base, and to let players stay scared and in awe of the blast.

I'd like to see this, at least as an experiment by Uber. The player should be moved to spectators, and (if this normally happens for spectators in the future), have their chat messages only visible to other spectators. Even if the team wins, the player looses (doesn't really matter for galactic war, unless Commanders are persistent like in FAF's Galactic War), but would be an excellent incentive to keep your Commander alive in ladders and ranked matchmaking where your E-Peen is your number one concern.

That's a lot of wasted effort for something that only encourages comm bombing a hated target even more.

It's so much easier to realize that every team has the same number of comm nukes, thus it is already balanced. The only concern is to make sure the Commander has other, more viable uses, so that he doesn't get thrown away as a bomb.

Walls are arguably balanced too, but it's almost a unanimous consensus - WALLS OP NERF NERF.

Same goes for naval units, Everyone has the same worthless boats, so it must be balanced. Except destroyers, which are pretty good for their price considering the range advantage, even if the vulnerability to T1 bombers I'd a bit lolzy.

The same argument can be made for... Let's see...

Bots, Early-Midgame transition powerstall, Hornets, Levelers, landed Air Scouts, Crevasses, Pelters in craters, Boomblebees, Etc. Etc. Etc.

"Balance" means something entirely different in a game where team/faction composition is objectively identical. Mathematically it is the frequency at which each unit is used; on average each unit should be used at an equal frequency, in a perfect environment.

A spare Commander is quintessentially a free nuke at the beginning of the match. And I'm going to paraphrase Mike in saying 'If you want to blow **** up, use KEWs/Nucks'. In a 5v5 you get 4 free nukes which you can use throughout the game, which can be used with next to no drawback aside from an increase in the possibility of loosing. Assuming both teams are of similar skill, you can guarantee Commander survival with appropriate defense, up until you are overrun by tanks.

In addition, due to the semirandom nature of PA's match balance, it is frequent for one team's entire economy to be wrecked by a single rushed comm bomb at the beginning of a match, giving the other team an exponentially superior advantage. This renders comm bombs by the economically trashed team less effective (still devastating mind you), though not to the game-ruining degree of an early comm bomb.

And the issue is only exaggerated in FFAs, the reasons for which I shouldn't have to elaborate upon. FFAs are admittably wonky though,

Anything good can be nerfed into the ground. All that gives you is a game where nothing is good and fun isn't allowed.

Walls are strong, yes. That's because there currently aren't any tools that handle them very well. There are solutions for it, though. Anything that can shoot over a wall won't care. Anything with a lathe can easily soak up the inanimate structure. Walls can also block friendly projectiles, dramatically reducing their utility on the defense. TA dragon's teeth were neutral targets, making them soak up shots on both sides.

Similarly, Comm solutions can be found outside the direct response. For example, a faster Comm lathe lets the player build more defenses in time for the rush. Smart base layout means that less damage is done overall. The Comm's resource generator provides an alternate level of utility that discourages throwing it away. Lastly, Comm blasting tools like turrets and mines can stop the rush directly in its tracks.

Going straight for the nerf is uncreative, lazy, and boring. Let Comm rushing stay a strategy. Let players defend against it, and use subtle changes to discourage it from being the all-win tactic. That's how you advance from making rock/paper/scissors to making a good game.