you can fix the map triggers like i outlined on SEN or you could just have some incentive to move into the middle of the map.
For example,
extra resources for controlling middle (add a turtle-checker and only implement this when it is detected a player is turtling)
or perhaps an area that will allow you to transfer your units to the other side in case your partner needs it -> if you own most of the map, and you control the 'area' and the other player is turtling, you can send your units to the other players side and effectively 2 vs 1 the other player.
if you have absolute control of the center for 20 minutes you win automatically by absolute i mean at most 0 enemy units enters the radius of the center
Chill wrote:I pushed to my fourth and then I didn't move all game. I spent all my money on Turrets. After I was ready, I just pushed out and raped. Since intrigue's main was Protoss, there was nothing he could do.
This establishes that your enemy is Protoss.
You: T Enemy: P Ally: Z/T Enemy Ally: T/Z
You kill a P unit. It transfers to your ally. Your enemy's ally kills that P unit, and it transfers right back to your enemy. It should have been impossible for you to obtain protoss units in any way.
Yeah that was what I was thinking... Even if there were only one Terran in the game...
You: T Enemy: P Ally: Z Enemy Ally: P
They kill a probe, you build a DA, you MC the enemy's drone that was transferred from your ally. You would have had to tech up for both Protoss and Zerg. If they let you do this, they deserved to get buttfucked like that.
Chill wrote:I pushed to my fourth and then I didn't move all game. I spent all my money on Turrets. After I was ready, I just pushed out and raped. Since intrigue's main was Protoss, there was nothing he could do.
This establishes that your enemy is Protoss.
You: T Enemy: P Ally: Z/T Enemy Ally: T/Z
You kill a P unit. It transfers to your ally. Your enemy's ally kills that P unit, and it transfers right back to your enemy. It should have been impossible for you to obtain protoss units in any way.
What if unit deaths only count at certain locations? That is, expansions, or at least chokes to expansions, do not follow the rules of Tandem SC. But units lost in the middle where wars are raged and units have to move DO. That would mean you could attack an expo without fear of screwing over your ally. The only draw back is that peon harassment won't give your ally workers, and likewise, defending peon harassment (such as reaver drop) won't give your ally the reaver (which makes it a bit more of an attractive strat).
I think this is the first solution I've been able to see that actually solves the turtling issue without breaking the fun of Tandem. Plus is makes getting rid of excess workers possible.
Brainstorming possible solution to immortal units recirculating forever. I didn't run across a suggestion like this but it may be here. If so, sorry
units transfer once
Your opponent makes a zealot. You kill it. Your ally gets it. Then if your ally loses it, your opponent doesn't get it. It goes away. Your opponent only gets units made originally by your ally. You only get units originally made by your teammate's opponent. Units you make never come back to you after you lose them.
Hurting your opponent still helps your ally: he gets units. But only if they were made by your opponent. If you kill a unit your ally lost it is now gone. I think I'm just restating this over and over
How to do it? Units that get transferred are hero units, and hero units don't transfer? Is there a way to edit what spells heros have?
******
this way, units are not forever. Resources will have to be used to replace them as they go away, perhaps making people need the resources more. It will also mean resources will eventually run out. There is a possible endgame of no more resources and dwindling units, which might help put a cap on max game length., Combined with building destruction giving your ally resources, it might mitigate turtling a little. Mostly just about taking units out of circulation though
Suppose there are two teams T1 and T2 if A, B, C denotes races, and the teams are composed of these races:
T1: A B T2 : B C
Then players of race B are at a huge disadvantage, not because of the lack of mixed units, but because of supply. If B = protoss, and they can only get an influx of protoss units which take up supply limits, players A and C can get ahead simply because they don't have to accommodate for two player's worth of supply (and in the current method, the units cannot die so eventually there will be a point where theyll be maxed with protoss units but the other player will be maxed with his own race plus have the extras from his partners winnings)
In all honesty the hero system works best because they dont take supply and they only transfer once.
I just though of a possible though iffy solution.
What if unit deaths only count at certain locations? That is, expansions, or at least chokes to expansions, do not follow the rules of Tandem SC. But units lost in the middle where wars are raged and units have to move DO. That would mean you could attack an expo without fear of screwing over your ally. The only draw back is that peon harassment won't give your ally workers, and likewise, defending peon harassment (such as reaver drop) won't give your ally the reaver (which makes it a bit more of an attractive strat).
I think this is the first solution I've been able to see that actually solves the turtling issue without breaking the fun of Tandem. Plus is makes getting rid of excess workers possible.
probably the worst idea ever
But whatever. Most of the fun of this game is from the fact that it is a team-based game, but it borders on the familiarity of 1v1. It's something you can play with your prac partners and friends and at the end of the day, balance isn't going to be all that important.
Harsh considering you're the one who's brought up an idea suggested so many times, I've given up on explaining why it doesn't work lol. I'd like to know why you think my idea is so bad. Like what gameplay elements do you envision being made unfun because of it? If it's gaining/losing units from attacking/defending expos, well that's kind of the exact problem we're trying to solve and I think it does a nice job of that.
sorry I didnt read all of the thread but is the way that multi-race 2v2 works is it would be like a TZ team vs a TZ team and its a zvt on each side, so if I kill a medic it will go to my teammate etc?
On February 18 2010 17:05 Chef wrote: I just though of a possible though iffy solution.
What if unit deaths only count at certain locations? That is, expansions, or at least chokes to expansions, do not follow the rules of Tandem SC. But units lost in the middle where wars are raged and units have to move DO. That would mean you could attack an expo without fear of screwing over your ally. The only draw back is that peon harassment won't give your ally workers, and likewise, defending peon harassment (such as reaver drop) won't give your ally the reaver (which makes it a bit more of an attractive strat).
I think this is the first solution I've been able to see that actually solves the turtling issue without breaking the fun of Tandem. Plus is makes getting rid of excess workers possible.
I suppose, but I wonder how often are there battles in the middle? All the ones I played, I essentially camped out in front of their expansion, expanded myself, before pushing in. Maybe it's because of the sort of players my friends are, but most of the battles seem to be at the choke. It would certainly make pushing up easier (a ling defiler push is not very cost effective right now), but would there be much Tandem switching?
The idea of holding multiple points before being able to transfer units to your ally would certainly put the impetus on being more aggressive- the 2v1 danger would be a big motivator. I wonder if it would change the game dynamics too much by creating more point to hold... unless the areas to hold were also x number of expansions in the middle. In this way you would be fighting over expansions as in a normal Starcraft game, only the stakes are raised. (Of course if you're both fighting over expansions, chances are you won't be able to spare units for a 2v1 tranfer.)
On February 18 2010 18:47 Koltz wrote: Suppose there are two teams T1 and T2 if A, B, C denotes races, and the teams are composed of these races:
T1: A B T2 : B C
Then players of race B are at a huge disadvantage.
Then each team has one disadvantaged player. Can't see what's wrong here.
Maybe the teams are equal but it becomes significantly harder for B raced players to win their 1 vs 1... do i really have to explain myself?
Maybe its counter-intuitive for you, sort of like a monty-hall problem.
Harsh considering you're the one who's brought up an idea suggested so many times, I've given up on explaining why it doesn't work lol. I'd like to know why you think my idea is so bad. Like what gameplay elements do you envision being made unfun because of it? If it's gaining/losing units from attacking/defending expos, well that's kind of the exact problem we're trying to solve and I think it does a nice job of that.
As for your concerns with hero units, is it really all because of upgrades? Because in all honesty thats really not a problem in my opinion. Who wants marines without stim/range, or lings without speed, defilers without consume, or hydras without range/speed?
And if you're under the assumption that hero units grant normal units their upgrades - they don't.
Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a problem anyways, since it would really only help players who have an opponent on the other side the same race as them, at which point they're at a racial disadvantage, and most likely have their upgrades already anyways.
And your idea is bad because it rewards macro based players more than aggressive harass-oriented players. In addition, suppose a battle takes place where one players units are in the location and the other players units aren't. I'm gonna go on a limb and assume you can draw your own conclusion from this. (And people WILL exploit this)
Harsh considering you're the one who's brought up an idea suggested so many times, I've given up on explaining why it doesn't work lol. I'd like to know why you think my idea is so bad. Like what gameplay elements do you envision being made unfun because of it? If it's gaining/losing units from attacking/defending expos, well that's kind of the exact problem we're trying to solve and I think it does a nice job of that.
As for your concerns with hero units, is it really all because of upgrades? Because in all honesty thats really not a problem in my opinion. Who wants marines without stim/range, or lings without speed, defilers without consume, or hydras without range/speed?
And if you're under the assumption that hero units grant normal units their upgrades - they don't.
Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a problem anyways, since it would really only help players who have an opponent on the other side the same race as them, at which point they're at a racial disadvantage, and most likely have their upgrades already anyways.
And your idea is bad because it rewards macro based players more than aggressive harass-oriented players. In addition, suppose a battle takes place where one players units are in the location and the other players units aren't. I'm gonna go on a limb and assume you can draw your own conclusion from this. (And people WILL exploit this)
The main problem is that not all units have heroes. Specifically important: there are no hero workers. Additionally, upgrades are kinda an issue early on. If you 4 pool and kill 2 marines, your partner shouldn't get two beefy hero 'rines.
On February 18 2010 18:13 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Brainstorming possible solution to immortal units recirculating forever. I didn't run across a suggestion like this but it may be here. If so, sorry
units transfer once
Your opponent makes a zealot. You kill it. Your ally gets it. Then if your ally loses it, your opponent doesn't get it. It goes away. Your opponent only gets units made originally by your ally. You only get units originally made by your teammate's opponent. Units you make never come back to you after you lose them.
Hurting your opponent still helps your ally: he gets units. But only if they were made by your opponent. If you kill a unit your ally lost it is now gone. I think I'm just restating this over and over
How to do it? Units that get transferred are hero units, and hero units don't transfer? Is there a way to edit what spells heros have?
******
this way, units are not forever. Resources will have to be used to replace them as they go away, perhaps making people need the resources more. It will also mean resources will eventually run out. There is a possible endgame of no more resources and dwindling units, which might help put a cap on max game length., Combined with building destruction giving your ally resources, it might mitigate turtling a little. Mostly just about taking units out of circulation though
The hero method won't work. Some units don't have heroes. Heroes will have some upgrades already. Some heroes attack faster [Zeratul attacks a crapton faster]
There is a way to do it but it would be very time consuming
Imagine P3 and P4 are on a team (I have not actually played the game yet, so assume it's TTvBB). Also assume it's PPvPP for simplicity.
1. P3 loses one zealot. 2. A zealot is spawned in P4's holding cell, as well as on P4's civilian. 3. P4 now loses one zealot. We are never sure if this zealot was the original, we just know he lost a zealot. 4. [important] the game now checks if P4 was "gifted" a zealot by looking for 1 zealot in P4's holding cell. If a zealot is found, it is killed in the holding cell. Nothing is gifted back. If a zealot is NOT found, a zealot is spawned in P3's holding cell, as well as on P3's civilian.
So to build a scenario, let's say P1 loses 2 zealots. That means P2 gets 2 zealots and P2 now has 2 zealots in his cell. Then let's say P2 loses one of the zealots. One zealot is removed from P2's cell. Now let's say P2 loses two more zealots resulting in -1 net zealots. The remaining zealot in P2's holding cell is removed. But now when the triggers check for the other zealot, nothing is found. So now P1 is given a zealot, and P1's holding cell has 1 zealot.
Some flaws with this...
1. The holding cells must be big enough to hold (maximum) 600 large units. But that is an extreme case where you have 200 ultras, 200 tanks, and 200 reavers, which can't really happen anyway...
2. The triggers could misfire if hypertriggers are not used, because the physical holding cells are constantly being checked and changed.
Some benefits...
1. This should solve the "huge army" problem because each unit type can only be traded back and forth once.
2. The middle area is no-man's land anyway, so putting the cells there is OK
I have not yet wrapped my head around what happens when all 4 players are simultaneously killing and receiving units. I want you guys to figure that part out =]
OMG, I already gave a solution that allows transfer only once WITHOUT USING HEROES, and it was ignored.
Simply put: for every unit transferred to P2, add 1 to P2's death count for the corresponding hero and give a regular unit. Next time he loses that unit, decrement both the hero and regular death counts and do not transfer.
For units without heroes just use the death counts of Alan Turret/Duke Turret/Jump Gate/Khaydarin Crystal Formation/Psi Disrupter/Power Generator/Cerebrate/Ion Cannon/Overmind/whatever.
EDIT: OOOohhhh... I feel dumb. I get it now. Each hero can have their own deathcount, that you modify to keep track of everything (which means no physical units lag up the game trying to keep track). Sorry excel excel. That makes sense. Someone implement this immediately lol. If you're doing it, post here so we don't have overlap of horrible, horrible grinding work (might be easier if you know how to use text trigger editors, but I don't T.T).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9504/tandema.jpg)
