New Game Mode : Team Mode

[PSBirch]

What d'yall think about having a "Team" mode where an Alliance shares a single score? It might not be overly interesting for some game modes, but in others, especially Survior and Genocide, it would certainly add another layer of strategy.

[Hyperion]

If it hasnt been said already its quite a good idea. makes you feel more for your comrades rather than if your score is ahead of theres...

[PSBirch]

If it hasnt been said already its quite a good idea. makes you feel more for your comrades rather than if your score is ahead of theres...

I mention this partly out of self interest -- I was allied with SA once as NA and expended a significant amount of my own resources to help defend his shores, only to have him stab me in the final moments.

But yeah -- the team play / camaraderie is one of the things I'm going for with this suggestion.

[Hyperion]

It's a nice idea, i don't see how hard it should be do. with 'defection' off the only thing needed is a joint score...and for the people that will say 'well why not just add the allies scores instead?'...its not the same as seeing a team effort score up there.

[Masaq]

It'd be good (and sometimes in a Diplo game it would be lovely to know I'm not going to get backstabbed), but I do feel it'd take something out of the game compared to standard matches- where part of the fun and overal strategy is that you can't trust anybody because at the end of the day, there's only one winner.

To my mind, if you expended all those resources defending your ally you should either have backstabbed him first (preferably while the other players were attacking him to help overwhelm his defences), or made a token defence so you could be seen to be doing something without leaving you vulnerable, or just plain ignored him whilst you set to work attacking his attackers on the basis they'd be concentrating on his continent during the attack and less observant of their own turf.

[Utini]

Definately gets my vote, something thats been needed for ages.
And i still cant see why you are allowed to nuke allies before leaving the alliance. Pointless option of the game imo and should be fixed. - And just to clarify that, yeah backstab fine, but i dont think you should be allowed to have nukes in the air to their targets before you do so.

[PSBirch]

Definately gets my vote, something thats been needed for ages.
And i still cant see why you are allowed to nuke allies before leaving the alliance. Pointless option of the game imo and should be fixed. - And just to clarify that, yeah backstab fine, but i dont think you should be allowed to have nukes in the air to their targets before you do so.

Yeah -- slightly off topic, but I agree that once a nuke has enters your radar range, your territory's "computers" (ie, the things that set up the traj. for your own nukes) should be able to detect it's destination and, if targeted to your or your ally's land, boot the launching team.

[xander]

Definately gets my vote, something thats been needed for ages.
And i still cant see why you are allowed to nuke allies before leaving the alliance. Pointless option of the game imo and should be fixed. - And just to clarify that, yeah backstab fine, but i dont think you should be allowed to have nukes in the air to their targets before you do so.

Yeah -- slightly off topic, but I agree that once a nuke has enters your radar range, your territory's "computers" (ie, the things that set up the traj. for your own nukes) should be able to detect it's destination and, if targeted to your or your ally's land, boot the launching team.

I disagree in the strongest possible way. This is not something that should be automated -- you, the player, have to notice that your ally is turning on you.

xander

[Smiling Buddha]

It'd be good (and sometimes in a Diplo game it would be lovely to know I'm not going to get backstabbed)

I'm not quite sure how a diplomacy game with a joint score / no defection would work.

[Deamon]

I agree with the original suggestion.

As to the Diplo. point sharing, I believe it will make sometimes make it more and less likely to betray.
I mean if the scores are high joined together you wanna stay, but if your ally starts taking hits and starts losing your shared score you might wanna join the barrages to get some yourself and secure a high place.

[Masaq]

It'd be good (and sometimes in a Diplo game it would be lovely to know I'm not going to get backstabbed)

I'm not quite sure how a diplomacy game with a joint score / no defection would work.

The original idea just said that team scores would be shared, not that "no defection" would be turned on. I meant that you'd be less likely to get backstabbed in a Diplo game if teams could win jointly because if say Green Red and Blue are all playing with 2 players in each, and Green's joint score is say 100 points higher than either Red or Blue, Player A in Green gains nothing by leaving and backstabbing Player B, because they'd a) gain no points for the kills so can't increase their score b) have to ensure that they wouldn't be exposed to incoming fire from all 5 other players that would reduce their score and c) have nothing to gain by wiping the floor with Player B/Green because they're already jointly winning.

The reason people tend to backstab suddenly in Diplo mode is down to the fact it's possible to force your ally from a score higher than yours to one lower than yours, leaving you the winner. If you're both winning to begin with, you'd gain nothing by doing it when those nukes could be used increasing the lead your team has over the others.

[Smiling Buddha]

It'd be good (and sometimes in a Diplo game it would be lovely to know I'm not going to get backstabbed)

I'm not quite sure how a diplomacy game with a joint score / no defection would work.

The original idea just said that team scores would be shared, not that "no defection" would be turned on. I meant that you'd be less likely to get backstabbed in a Diplo game if teams could win jointly because if say Green Red and Blue are all playing with 2 players in each, and Green's joint score is say 100 points higher than either Red or Blue, Player A in Green gains nothing by leaving and backstabbing Player B, because they'd a) gain no points for the kills so can't increase their score b) have to ensure that they wouldn't be exposed to incoming fire from all 5 other players that would reduce their score and c) have nothing to gain by wiping the floor with Player B/Green because they're already jointly winning.

The reason people tend to backstab suddenly in Diplo mode is down to the fact it's possible to force your ally from a score higher than yours to one lower than yours, leaving you the winner. If you're both winning to begin with, you'd gain nothing by doing it when those nukes could be used increasing the lead your team has over the others.

It was the 'no defection' that I was mainly concerned about, since everyone starts in the same alliance.

So what happens when you join an alliance? Is your 'personal' score added to the alliance's?

[PSBirch]

So what happens when you join an alliance? Is your 'personal' score added to the alliance's?

Certainly -- There is the added element then of all the little guys banding together to take on the leader. Say you had a bracket that looked like this:

- A 70
- B 58
- C 20
- D 17
- E 12
- F 11

In a standard Survivor / Genocide game the match would be all but over for 2/3 of the players, regardless of their allegiance. Oh, they might choose sides in the battle for first and second, helping or hindering either A or B, but otherwise -- eh.

Now, with a Team Score, say A and B are lonewolfs -- what if CDE made their own team? The scores suddenly change:

- A 70 (Team A)
- B 58 (Team B)
- C 49 (Team CDE)
- D 49 (Team CDE)
- E 49 (Team CDE)
- F 11 (Team F)

Not only are CDE suddenly a contender, but now brokering for the allegiance of Team F could put either of the other three teams into the top rung -- much easier to knock a 70 down to a 59 than a 48. But Team BF would have 69 points -- just one away from the win.

So the short answer is yes, but, like many things in DefCon the short answer belies a far greater depth to possible strategies.

[Hyperion]

So what happens when you join an alliance? Is your 'personal' score added to the alliance's?

Certainly -- There is the added element then of all the little guys banding together to take on the leader. Say you had a bracket that looked like this:

- A 70
- B 58
- C 20
- D 17
- E 12
- F 11

In a standard Survivor / Genocide game the match would be all but over for 2/3 of the players, regardless of their allegiance. Oh, they might choose sides in the battle for first and second, helping or hindering either A or B, but otherwise -- eh.

Now, with a Team Score, say A and B are lonewolfs -- what if CDE made their own team? The scores suddenly change:

- A 70 (Team A)
- B 58 (Team B)
- C 49 (Team CDE)
- D 49 (Team CDE)
- E 49 (Team CDE)
- F 11 (Team F)

Not only are CDE suddenly a contender, but now brokering for the allegiance of Team F could put either of the other three teams into the top rung -- much easier to knock a 70 down to a 59 than a 48. But Team BF would have 69 points -- just one away from the win.

So the short answer is yes, but, like many things in DefCon the short answer belies a far greater depth to possible strategies.

The no defection was my suggestion simply for this fact ^^ albeit teaming up to take on the lonewolves might be fun but wouldnt it make any game pointless as you could be robbed of an entire games work simply because 5 minutes into the countdown timer some of the other teams allied simply to not allow you the victory of your hard work? id see that as pointless and very frustrating.

By the time big enough point differences are established, you're essentially only giving the grunts of the game the chance to team up for only the right to say 'ha we beat you and all your hard work...the majority rules, we win!'...*shrugs* seems alot of people might be against no defection but id rather play with it and if im with a weaker (or stronger) player they help eachother out for the greater good.

I figure theres more strategy in having to help defend your ally if theyre committed what they have to getting the teams score higher...

[Smiling Buddha]

The no defection was my suggestion simply for this fact ^^ albeit teaming up to take on the lonewolves might be fun but wouldnt it make any game pointless as you could be robbed of an entire games work simply because 5 minutes into the countdown timer some of the other teams allied simply to not allow you the victory of your hard work? id see that as pointless and very frustrating.

By the time big enough point differences are established, you're essentially only giving the grunts of the game the chance to team up for only the right to say 'ha we beat you and all your hard work...the majority rules, we win!'...*shrugs*

Ditto. It seems this idea makes the actual game of Defcon completely irrelevant.

And I don't know about you, but a 'victory' by simply joining an alliance with other players seems hollow to me.