Feel free to flame me. I'm pointing out the idea is stupid and backing it up with arguments. 1. The situation happens very rarely. 2. The game is already lost by that point unless both teams are in this situation(has anyone seen this). 3. In the off chance it is used it will do nothing but delay the game. 4. Waste of time to code/implement. 5. I have never run into not having enough res for a refinery and not having a building that can be recycled for the resource. Ever. Unless maybe you count the last minute of a game and wth is that going to do for you?? 6. Potential for abuse, needs restrictions making it even harder to implement. Please feel free to address those points neatly ordered for you or you can just complain that I am making fun of your stupid ideas instead.
I'm not the one running into other threads that are trying to be constructive and screaming that everyone is an idiot. Rarely if you're talking about one or two servers half full; if the mod grows, you may only see this situation in 1/20 games - but as the mod becomes more popular, more matches are played and it suddenly occurs pretty often (IE, 10% of 100 vs 10% of 1000.) Esp with slightly more noobish commanders. Someone else also mentioned early round rushes, which you keenly ignored. Furthermore, what about when some dolt buys a jeep suddenly and you can't afford it? You keenly ignored someone's comment: Yes, lets just rush to the next round. And every time it looks like one team has lost, auto switch to the next round. Some people want to play it out...if the team has already lost anyway, fine - the CV will die soon enough...but if the CV is able to go place this rax and survive, there's still a chance. This is a moot point, you're trying to PROVE this statement. When I want to write a theorem, I don't use my own theorem to prove my theorem. My initial idea was to perhaps avoid having to decon everything - if you still have buildings, deconstructing them further pushes you towards a loss; in addition to taking more time (waiting for the building to decon and all. Either way, there are situations that I have seen quite a few times where the team has no rax, not enough res and yet plenty of players waiting to spawn. I already said this; and as rat pointed out, until Krenzo comes in here himself and attests to the amount of code work to implement, its a moot point. It could only take a few lines of code, or it could be an overhaul that is needed - all depends on how he's coded the existing stuff.
In no particular order. 5 or 10% grossly overstates your argument. I would balk at 1%. Even if it did occur what are the odds that it would happen against a team with a competent commander/team against a newer commander/team?? This is the only case where a comeback would be possible. Or more generally in the rare case this happens chances are your team/comm sucks and the other team doesn't suck and the chances of a comeback are even less. The situation pod is describing is the enemy would have to rush your barracks and ref kill them both AND you would have to have less than 100(or 200) resources AND nothing elsewhere of value to recycle to make up the difference. How exactly would the enemy do this unless your teams resources had already been squandered. I find it hard to imagine the enemy destroying your main base before you could build at least 1 other refinery or barracks. If this is the case game has already been lost. Actually my conclusion is the idea sucks, waste of time to code/implement is an argument that is derived from my argument about the frequency at which this occurs at and the fact it would very likely do nothing but delay the game. Therefore, not adding much to the game but to delay a very few games makes it a waste of time to implement and consequently your idea sucks. Even if "waste of time to implement" was my conclusion it isn't rendered "moot" because it is supported by other arguments, namely the one above. The logical fallacy you are looking for is "begging the question", feel free to look it up but it is non applicable here. You would have a point if I had said that "This idea is a waste of time to code/implement so this idea sucks" It would be a moot point and logical fallacy. (assuming of course that ideas are a waste of time to code/implement because they suck) If someone bought a jeep, you have a vf. Recycle it. There should be some loss incurred on your teams part for, I don't know, losing your ref/barracks? Yes if the CV can escape and your team has no refineries and nothing that can be recycled for res and not enough resources for ref/rax giving the losing team the ability to drop free stuff would technically give them a chance to win. But would more than likely just draw the game out. I'll give you that I don't really know how hard it is to implement. But at the very least it will take some amount of time(Dependant somewhat on chance depending on bugs/exploits that arise) that could be spent better elsewhere.
Instead of free refinarys and barracks, why not just have the commander give a small trickel of res (like half a refinary) whenever you don't have a refinary (reguardless of status of barracks). yes, this is "abusable" in that you could, potentially recycle your refinary at the start and use this smaller trickel of res to get money. Most commanders would much rather get some territory at the start, get more refinarys and not have to bother wasting their teams time when they do eventually need to build all the refinarys you deliberately made them miss.
Actually sandbags idea isn't that bad but brings up another issue kinda. What if commander always supplied 1 ref worth of res. It would give the teams with less refs a better chance. ie 1/2 is a greater difference than 2/3 but that is kinda a whole different suggestion. Blah Blah Blah but back on topic. It is the best solution I have seen offered IMO there isn't really much potential for abuse as long as the cost of recycling a ref is greater than the benefit. (you would have to give the comm like 2x res for it to be) But still depending on ease of implementation it won't really be useful for that many situations but that is one idea I would support.
Mapper can do this already, just look at escort. The way I see it is mapper can give teams a secret ref instead of the inital ref by the base like the current map standard to do. This would keep teams from recycling that inital ref while providing teams with a constant res.
