| 1 |
Mmm
this
is
the
first
thing
Google
and
I
discussed.
|
1 |
Mmm
this
is
the
first
thing
Google
and
I
discussed.
We
figured
all
this
out
already.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
An income structure needs to have all the defensive abilities of a comm to prevent early rushes destroying a player, it needs to have the same mobility as a comm or your start position gains arbitrary importance so... it needs to be a comm.
|
3 |
An income structure needs to have all the defensive abilities of a comm to prevent early rushes destroying a player, it needs to have the same mobility as a comm or your start position gains arbitrary importance so... it needs to be a comm.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Innate player income removes the 'soft comm ends' of losing your comm. Risking your comm in a rush or such early on is meant to be a gamble beyond losing their offensive power. Walking them straight into the enemy base becomes way more attractive.
|
5 |
Innate player income removes the 'soft comm ends' of losing your comm. Risking your comm in a rush or such early on is meant to be a gamble beyond losing their offensive power. Walking them straight into the enemy base becomes way more attractive.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Frankly this was not even a problematic issue for us. With multiple comms, only the first need make resources. With 1 comm per player it's not even an issue, as long as we solve the capture/res/share thing to ensure the max number of comms never exceeds the starting number of players.
|
7 |
Frankly this was not even a problematic issue for us. With multiple comms, only the first need make resources. With 1 comm per player it's not even an issue, as long as we solve the capture/res/share thing to ensure the max number of comms never exceeds the starting number of players.
|
Reclaiming commanders option