FFA with multiple Commanders/Thugs

[Zero Angel]

I tried the map the other night (mostly just tested it, did fly through, built base, etc). It's a nice map, visually. Not sure about how the scrap is set up on it (pools, loose) but I guess the best way to find out if it's good or not is to get live games on it.

14 bases is over kill. Nobody will ever use that amount of bases and such a high amount of bases isnt really needed for the purpose of testing out commander/thug setups since if you have 10 players, most likely they are going to split off into 4 or 5 teams each with a commander and thug.

[MrTwosheds]

try making a 4 team strat map, people usually dont like 14 player /base maps.

Its deliberately 14 players just in order to test your code GBD

There is one pool per base area and the loose is just a medium scattering I did before posting it. The biometal nodes are a new item, You have to shoot them, they drop 100 loose and then respawn a bit later. It is designed to be played by 2 - 14 players, the base area's are small, just large enough to build a full base and have to make a choice between number of gt's or bomber etc.
Its meant to degenerate into an all out fight for pools and control over the nodes. 14 bases is too many, so you had better make sure some disappear quickly.
One idea I had that would make this game style even better, would be if defeated players could then Ally themselves with a survivor and become a their thug. But I am guessing that this would actually be very complex to implement.

Alterations can be made if required.

[Red Spot]

On the side:
It would be nice if the dll forced a player who's base is destroyed to become an ally/thug of the weakest commander (without thug).

[MrTwosheds]

But very hard to code I would think, It would have to be something like Notexists recycler & factory, display screen to pick a new team to change to, list active teams with recycler or factory.

[General BlackDragon]

Not hard at all.

If NotExists Recycler & Not exists Fact,

Find team with least objects, ally team, that team+allied teams, unally previous alliances,

But, whats the point of that?

[MrTwosheds]

The point is the major failing of ffa mode, you get your base destroyed, you leave, anyone else joins(that empty slot), they got no base.
If the server gets their base destroyed first, generally the game ends suddenly for everyone else because the host is not prepared to just watch for the next hour or so. The point is to keep players engaged in the game. Maybe this should be an optional function so the existing behaviour is retained.
This might actually result in some major epic battles (that some of us do actually like) where say you start with 6 players and bases and gradually the game evolves down to a conventional strat style 2 bases and 2 thugs each.
Epic battles are very rare in strat, as the balance required for both teams to survive long enough is quite difficult to achieve.
It would probably be better if there was a system where both thug and new-team commander have the option to decline a particular alliance. Not sure about just doing it based on how much stuff they have, this is no indication of how well they are doing, it might just indicate a noob hiding in a corner building nice lines of guntowers in front of their base.

[General BlackDragon]

in game ui can't make changes in mp, the i/c vars dont get changed, and the dll can't read client only changes, once the game starts. It can only read things happening in the world, such as a ship blowing up or having been created.

[MrTwosheds]

But you could do it based on lowest scrap capacity first and then on keeping the team sizes equal (ish)?

[General BlackDragon]

Well yes, i could do that. Point is, the user wouldn't have any control over which team they got put on. it'd be circumstantial

[Zero Angel]

Usually people will choose to join the enemy of a team that defeated them. I think that's fair enough.

[General BlackDragon]

Fixed client ffa cfg, again....

[Red Spot]

Well yes, i could do that. Point is, the user wouldn't have any control over which team they got put on. it'd be circumstantial

Exactly the reason I mention it. Life isnt fair to start with
Besides that, by making it happen you can make sure certain players dont combine forces and finish a game that is already decided, but create a situation that makes a game that may already have been decided undecided again.

Also as 2Sheds already mentioned, to keep the server in the game and hopefully preventing him leaving after he loses, or even worse, nobody targeting him in fear he may simply quit once he (starts to) lose(s).