Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite)
-
@deribus maybe it could be trialed in place of the share until death 4v4? "4v4 Decapitation" The fourth matchmaker was somewhat intended for casual and experimental stuff...
Did I duscuss that with you once @Emperor_Penguin ?
-
@valki said in [Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite)]
Did I duscuss that with you once @Emperor_Penguin ?
I don't think so.
-
@emperor_penguin (Now have a PC and time to search) I see you once suggested a casual matchmaker once.
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1599/create-a-casual-noob-friendly-matchmaker-queue-to-increase-player-retention/33?_=1644676849180With Share Until Death apparently not being popular for 4v4 (I myself asked for it in 2v2), the fourth matchmaker is "available" for repurposing. You could go back to your previous suggestion of a casual matchmaker, and I would suggest this as a nice start.
-
sorry for reviving a dead thread but this sounds like a great game mode for playing with my non-pvp playing friends when we play against the AI or a survival map.
Also in pvp both teams will have the same ability to com bomb and you can still be punished for it. If the rest of your team com bombs then your team is much more vulnerable to sniping.
I don't think there's any suggestion this would become a serious competitive game mode, so why focus on that so much?
-
We must ask ourselves, would this "Regicide" mode be better than the 'traitors' share on death option?
-
@kalethequick said in Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite):
We must ask ourselves, would this "Regicide" mode be better than the 'traitors' share on death option?
I have created the traitor share option.
It is intended for games against multiple AIs. With every destroyed AI Com you get the AI army as a reinforcement.But it sounds like you find it useless ?!?
Could you explain me, why ? -
@uveso said in Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite):
@kalethequick said in Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite):
We must ask ourselves, would this "Regicide" mode be better than the 'traitors' share on death option?
I have created the traitor share option.
It is intended for games against multiple AIs. With every destroyed AI Com you get the AI army as a reinforcement.But it sounds like you find it useless ?!?
Could you explain me, why ?You are incorrect good sir, I find it "awesome" and "badass"
I use it occasionally and it's always a blast!
And I this regicide option would be an option on par with it. No reason to not expand the options available.
You must deceive the enemy, sometimes your allies, but you must always deceive yourself!
-
You could make it so that you only keep playing after your ACU dies if you have at least one SCU. That would stop Rambo com at least until the T3 stage.
I still wouldn't play this mode though. I like shorter games.
-
@kalethequick said in Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite):
You are incorrect good sir, I find it "awesome" and "badass"
I use it occasionally and it's always a blast!That's great, thank you!
-
I say bring it, new ways to play and adding more content to the client will never be a bad thing. its not like your forcing people to play like that, just giving them more options to keep their interest.
-
@stlng said in Gauging interest for new gamemode (Full Share-lite):
You could make it so that you only keep playing after your ACU dies if you have at least one SCU. That would stop Rambo com at least until the T3 stage.
I still wouldn't play this mode though. I like shorter games.
This makes the most sense to me. The commander is still fragile and valuable until the late game where SCUs come into play. More SCUs make the player harder to snipe because an SCU can take over the 'commander' role, but Players still lose something important if the ACU dies (certain upgrades and things like telemaser attacks).
It would probably get out of hand though. I see some hourlong games where people never build SCUs, and others where people have 30 or 40 of them.
