The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger...

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Going for a draw should be a logical tactic, as should protecting your commander to prevent a draw. Draws gain nothing, and thus will only be used if you are already fairly certain to lose. If you're fairly certain to lose, your enemy has the resources to stop a com-bomb.

In team games . . . shrug, com-bombing would count as a loss for the player, so that leaves people who are playing for their friends or something similar. Again, stopping a com-bomb is fairly possible, air transports aren't that durable. I think basically you're trying to make a crutch for people who don't bother paying attention.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

And in a game where TEAM statistics could potentially be tracked... as they are in many games and tournaments, Com-Bombs count as a win for the team if they work.

The individual player doesn't care about the "loss" on his profile if his team wins $10,000 at the end of the tournament.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

No, it really shouldn't. Draw conditions are awful, and a great many games avoid them at all costs. When the victory condition is met, that's it. The stack stops resolving, no more cards can be played, and the game ends.

One of the biggest reasons to nerf the Comm nuke in Supcom was to avoid draw conditions. But it's completely unnecessary. Whoever gets the first kill should win, because they were the better player. The end.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

I say it again, if despite all your efforts to the contrary the match comes down to commander vs commander then you're probably evenly matched enough for a draw.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Well then, since we're down to just stating things without any pretense of discussion or argument;

I say to you bmb, Codswallop.
Getting your Commander near the opposing Commander is a trivial action, easy to the point of laughability.

---

Has anyone got a rational and thought provoking stance on the topic?

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Forgive me for what may be rampant ignorance, but in soccer, teams are not only ranked by W-L-D (and they *do* have draws), but they're also tracked by the number of goals made. So... what if something like that is implemented in team games too? Not only are teams tracked by W-L or W-L-D or whatever, the number of players left standing on the team is also kept track of. That way, a team that resorts to Com-Bombing wouldn't necessarily be ahead of another team that doesn't use that tactic.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

That would only be enforceable by the individual tournament organisers.

I don't want Planetary Annihilation to only be played fairly at tournaments, Why can't I play it fairly ALL the time?

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

But suicide bombing isn't a winning tactic. It is more often done by the losing player to force a draw. So if we already know the guy is losing(no matter how barely hairline it is), why call it a draw?

A Commander rushes 5 minutes in and blows up, taking the enemy Commander with him. That's not a draw. He took a risk rushing, and couldn't do it without dying. Loss. That just solved 90% of the issues with Comm rushes.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

So then keep track of when each Com blew up? If one explodes before the other (as would be the case for Com-Bombing) the game should know that, and the one who blew up first is the loser.

I guess in this case, it would be better to avoid a draw so that could be facilitated.

EDIT: I guess to be perfectly clear, I agree with you bobucles

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

And what about team games where one Commander goes rambo in the first 5 mins and turns the game into a 1v1 when we should have been having a 2v2?

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Then a com shouldn't get a win for ctrl-king at an enemy's doorstep. That could be factored by the system into determining the final score? A com dies to com-bomb, his score is automatically null and void and not entered into the final equation. The one on the receiving end is still in the running though.

Of course, this system would rely on a more complex means of tabulating final score, but I'm just throwing out ideas here, and maybe one is worthy of building upon.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

I don't understand why we are keeping "score" like this anyway. Stats are fun but the end goal is to kill the other dude and it doesn't really matter how you accomplish that in the end.

Certainly not suicide though.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Give each team one starting Commander?

Play a better defense, since you had time to build 2 bases when the rusher only has 1?

Make the early game faster than a Comm rush?

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

That is a very limited view and as I said earlier, Full strenght Comnucks are fine in 1v1 as the Commander dieing ends the game, the EFFECTS of the blast are irrelevant. The issue pops up in Team Games where Multiple Commanders are present, because the game doesn't end until all of a Team's Commanders are dead.

Mike

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Your opponent has T2 air transport (T1 shouldn't carry commanders) and able to evacuate his commander from under the fire and, comepletely avoiding all your AA, brought him directly to your commander? I think he deserves the draw.

And that just created 1000% more issues with Comm rushes. If CommVsComm doesn't result in a draw - on a small maps it will be zergling rush all the time. Just build factory, two bots and attack - you will win, because your opponent built engineers and - gasp - tried to develop economy. Two bots and a commander are stronger than two extractors and a commander.

The explosion should be strong enough to kill booth commanders if they tried to engage eachother directly and it should result in a draw. But radius should be small enough, so panic-attacks in an attempt to pull draw in a lost match won't be very effective.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Yeah, you might be able to just slow down the com a bit. From my (admittedly hazy) memory of TA, the com constructed things quickly enough and moved slowly enough that a competent player could have a few units moving about for defense by the time a com was able to come by and try to harass them.

This just comes back to the other discussion though about com balancing. Also, it touches another issue about people just being asses.

If you can't handle an additional two bots with a com, then you've got bigger problems.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

If you can't kill them booth before at least one of them will shoot you - you're skrewed. Your opponent will have one tank shoot advantage in damage - not a lot, but enough for your commander to blow up first.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

So then you use your engies to build a missile tower or LLT or something. Besides, we don't know how exactly the Uber Cannon is going to work. Maybe you can just UC the tanks before they even have an opportunity to do anything about it.

Also, hey, you've got a factory right there. Build a tank or bot or whatever and bring it over to help. Keep that build on auto repeat and keep throwing trash units at him. You're not out of options.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

Again, why should com-bombing not be a valid tactic? It can be countered, it does indeed take skill to use, especially when you're losing. Being able to turn a game into a draw is indeed evidence of skill, which is rewarded by not having a loss. Also, if your ally goes Rambo and suicides with an enemy, then that happens. **** happens.

Nobody likes getting com-bombed while they're winning. It feels like your win was stolen. However, no one likes losing, either. And com-bombing does require skill, and skill should be rewarded. In a 5v5, if I'm about to go down, but manage to get close enough to two enemies so they chain-react and get two kills, that is skill, and the reward for the rest of my team is valid. If I am losing and manage to take an enemy down with me, that is also valid skill.

To those who want to play the game 'fairly' I say the burden of proof is on you. What is unfair about forcing a draw that isn't unfair about any other tactic? If I'm losing, but manage to sneak in bombers that destroy your commander, is that 'unfair'? Stopping a single air transport is much easier than stopping maybe 30 bombers. If I manage to get anywhere near you when I'm losing it's because you screwed up.

Re: The Commander Should Explode More Violently and Bigger..

You lose a head though and that's a fair tradeoff.

Then you'll say that the team still has the advantage of the units and resources. And then I say but then don't play with that option.

And then next thread you will have completely forgotten this conversation.