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

So this has been talked about in at least 2 other threads one being mainly bout early commrush and how to ballance it.
But i want to have a propper discussion about this particular statement that has been brought up and hear what the community as a whole thinks about it, hence the poll.

Why i think it should be included:

To fit with what the commander is about
the commander represents the player on a battlefield in every other game were it is about assasination when a commander is destroyed the player who is represented by it loses and is out of the match be it 1v1 or ffa or later likely in 2v2, 3v3 or 2v2v2 etc. Alliancegames. The commander is meant to be a liability he is meant to be secured
from as much battledamage as needed to keep him through.

Currently the way teamarmygames work one commander can be destroyed without having much of a consequence as in the player that is meant to be out still stays in game. To me this weakens what the commander is meant to be.
far worse since commanders also are the first unit to spawn with combatcapabilities
They can be used very early to attack the enemy by just one player. This might not be much of a problem in a 2v2 game but in games where are more players on each team enemy commanders could be easily destroyed by simply being outnumbered by commanders of the other team. this may even happen on multiplanetmatches with more starting planets depending on how the team intends to spawn and what buildorder it uses since stargates will also be a thing. This doesnt take away though that people still may want to play on only few planets or even just a single planet and it still would be a problem there ...
so it's not only a imo drastic change of commgameplay but also a bit of a balanceissue
that depending on how a game is set up may have impact of varying degree
so there is inconsistency ...
in a alliance or teamgame as we know it in supcom which obviously was only one map for such a early commrush to pull of all players were needed and it also brought the risk that at that time because you had to micro the comm the enemy players if they scouted the rush had the potential to counter in destroying the base while still spaming some units ... that risk is not given in pa teamgames on single planets as it requires just one player to do a all except one comm -rush while the others still push eco and army production ... i imagine that risk will be a factor in alliancematches again unlike teammatches which i consider a flaw for teammatches...

One question is how much does this matter to competitive play what will
competitive players play more on in tournaments ... will they use broader systems with many planets or do they prefer to play on a few planets with one big mainplanet as that influences how much impact such a commrush has and how easy it can be pulled of..

Aside from balance
I personally think that including playerkick will make for more intresting and more tense teamarmymatches simply because players dont want to get kicked out of the game early In which case i imagine there will be even more teamplay to ensure players stay in
to keep as much of the control of the army as possible ...

i also think it kind of allows for a broader range of commballancing but i'm not sure on that one ...

That is not to say that teammatches shouldnt or couldnt be played with the players continuing to play after commdeath and then lose if all comms have been destroyed instead, having different options/rules for the gamemodes
the question is how should competitive teamarmyplay look like ...

So i think i said everything i needed to say about it .. so what do you guys think?

a no playerkick poll option?

you don't seem very opinionated at all /sarcasm.
this is what I tried to tell people when they told me my polls were biased: "you'll see..."


anyways my stance on this is exposed here.

"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."

there is a reason why team armies and team alliances are split into two and this is the main one.

the spread of attention.

People have said this and said it well before: the third resource people never think about is attention (I believe this is Zaphodx in the text.) If you want for the attention resource to be attackable in the game: Play team alliances. If you don't want that, play team armies.

If both play with attackable attention then there's no point in team armies even existing.

This is what I sold to my friends as the revolutionizing factor behind team armies. If you can split your attention different ways. You can effectively fuse your brains into a super-opponent for others to face.

This is a hard concept to formulate and to grasp.

I would like for team armies to remain untouched as it is pure gold and all that you ask in the OP is available through team alliances with fullshare on (fullshare is a game option in FAF SupCom where allies are given all units and structures over when a player dies (specifically to the player with the highest ingame score at the time)).

Oopps .. there should have been a no to both option
can i edit the poll somehow? Or a mod? maybe fix the spelling in the poll aswell?

noooooooope. also a missing feature from the old forum. It would reset the poll.... but at least you could do it.

..... God damned .... first thread and i mess up -_- ..


Ok now to answer your qestion
since everything in teamarmies is shared by default there is a NECCESITY to work together
thats why the split attention aswell .... in alliance where everyone has his own infrastucture a player can work on as he pleases ... not so in a teamgame every decision you make in a shared infrastucture influences everything of the team the simple fact that if one player builts too much killing the eco of the team is the best example ... it is however a non factor in aliances as it effects only that one player who just needs to focus on his own stuff.... not yours or the other alliacemates ...

And this what makes team more intresting. Even more when playerkick is included
you want to keep the control thus you wont want to commrush
and if you want to commrush you can do it only with your own comm
same for the enemy team .. if they wannt to commrush with many comms they would need more players to do so thats a penalty while the other team depending on how its comms are stationeted might be better on focusing on the army to counter the commrush

I am going to do a sit-in in this thread to protest at biased poll.

This post shall remain in this thread forever.

Again screwed up with the third option
but thank you for beeing prejudice before asking ....

I read through the thread.

That post is entirely in jest.

Can I have a milkshake please?

Me hate you soooo much

*gives milkshake*
(picture to be edited in ... i hate phones ..)

Added "no to both" as requested

said no to both.


I get the player kick idea, and it certainly solves some issues, the more precious the unit the greater ‘tension’, reward for snipes, dissuades early com-rush etc. However ultimately I see the idea as a half-way-house to alliances, whereas I like the change in gameplay the current iteration provides. Don’t get me wrong, change is not always good, but I think this deviation from the norm works and is mostly enjoyable.
Perhaps a question for Uber is whether it is a purely an either or issue – could we not have all 3 variations of – share all, share army, share vision?

The poll is missing an option.. Too many people do this. Ex. Agree with my opinion, or have some ridiculous opinion that I thought of.
When you open a poll be ready for criticism instead of just trying to get people to back you up.

what option is missing?

have currently 3 that should sufice

yes to both
only yes to the first ( i consider the other on its own rather useless)
no to both ... rather simple

anything else you want to add ?

and yes i´m totaly ok to take criticism since its also feedback ...

dammit. I wanna change my vote. can you please remove one "player kick but" and add one "no to both" for me?

and this is where you forgot to read me. this isn't true not in the case where you have fullshare. in which case you can also imagine surplus economy goes to teamates. this is a choice of gameplay of course. ....but it invalidates your concern. this is probably the gamemode you'd be interested in.

And then you go on ripping on how, in teamarmies, somone kills your eco neglecting that this gamemode will not be the most widespread or popular if and when team alliances with fullshare is introduced and that this gamemode is not concieved for mr. Casual playing with randoms.
It's not. It's Not-Not-Not. It's just not. ok?

you wanna play that game mode you play it with your yang, with you negative, your clone, the nail to you piccolo, the trunks to your gohan, the... ice to your whiskey?
anyways at the VERY LEAST you play it with a voicechatt. you have been avoiding this very important point from the start.

why didnt you just wait???? what sense does is make if the option you want to vote on isnt there?

I don't see the point in this, there will be plenty more game modes as development progresses. The two game modes we have now aren't perfect for every occasion but both are fun and serve a purpose.

No to both but yes to plenty of game modes and lots of choices to cater to all play styles in the future.

because I didn't know if this was possible or not.

THIS!!!

it's what I've been saying from the beginning!

errrr .. you were aware that both answers are basicly YES with the later being half a no on a less significant part?

yea.
see. if democrats and republicans each propose their respective programs for the years to come. one says "torture for everyone! " the other says "half as much torture for everyone, but still torture, yay torture! ". I'll vote for the latter.

I'm a firm believer that not voting is the worse you can do.

the point of it is to decide how the competitive part of it should look like as i imagine people would want to play that in tournaments as well
and again as i stated in the OP i´m totaly ok if there would be options to change that for fun games
but as it stands for me personaly a cant take teamplay in its current form as competitiv since
it doesnt keep the main endingcondition for each player and that kind of alienates it for me

depends ... not giving an answer in politics could give the sign of ... all your proposals are bull we dont want you nor anything of that ...