when you build something if your ally gives a reclaim command to reclian a unfinished building of your HE CAN!! WHO THINKS THIS IS RIGHT??
+0 / -3
|
this thread is giving me deja vu...
+1 / -1
|
becuase your single minded and cant get over the past. this does post does not discuss all the issues that have happened in the past this adresses ONE specific issue.
+1 / -0
|
I think this is right. Like I said, finished buildings should be reclaimed too. Often players block paths, metal spots, geospots, turrets and other things with their structures. Most of the time they didn't mean to, it was only an accident. I'd like to be able to fix such mistakes without asking the owner to reclaim it, or without asking them to give it to me, so I could reclaim it. As long as things like these are blocked, proper teamplay is not possible. Come to think of it, this needs a "hardcore teamplay" modoption. Default enabled in pro rooms.
+1 / -1
|
guess I am single minded cause all I got to offer your new thread is this: 
+2 / -1
|
It is, as with other gameplay mechanics, abusable. Reclaiming somebody's fusion while they are building it is not good teamplay, no. If they are reclaiming a singu that was started and then the metal was needed elsewhere, then yes, that is fine. Also, you should really learn how to write in proper English. Reading that makes my eyes hurt.
+2 / -0
|
so reclaim of enemy structures is ok? are cons now offensive units?
+1 / -0
|
What do you mean "Is Ok"? Is it possible within the game mechanics?
+0 / -0
|
Yes, it is possible. In a game I had yesterday an army of enemy constructors kept reclaiming a nanoframe of a stinger my team was trying to build.
+1 / -0
|
We should probably remove this for any structure currently under active construction. Abandoned nanoframes or frames being reclaimed should be able to be reclaimed freely by allies, but if it's actively being built, it allows way more trolliness than it does any actualy legitimate use. So if someone wants to code this I'd encourage it's inclusion. Until someone can be bothered implementing this (Don't hold your breath) we'll just ban abuse.
+4 / -0
|
saski, i see your point. but if i see im blocking a fac or vital path and a ally points it out to me. i corect it. what i dont agree with is that any ally who thinks in his "OPINION"(doesnt matter how experiened he his, it is still his opinion) that a building is in a bad spot. he'd be able to reclaim it in turn denying me, my building and taking the rescource i used.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
What do you mean "Is Ok"? Is it possible within the game mechanics? |
yes. example: on ravager , when trolls come from surrounding sea and plop def turrets with their imba buildrange on supportcoms/shits on the cliff, the upper coms try to reclaim it faster than it is built (maybe this is the only way in this situation here) quote:
Abandoned nanoframes or frames being reclaimed should be able to be reclaimed freely by allies, but if it's actively being built, it allows way more trolliness than it does any actualy legitimate use. |
or nanoframes decay hitpoints over time if not being buit/repaired.
+0 / -0
|
Gee, stop saying "my", vltue. It's your teams! I think that if players are confused as to why allies reclaim a structure, they should ask them, maybe have a short discussion if need be and then accept decisions. Long discussions should be postponed until after the game and people should be more understanding of decisions in general. After all, everybody makes mistakes gauging ingame situations and whether or not certain actions are the right thing to do. There's a rule in a clan of another game I used to play. quote:
Listen to your leaders. If your leaders tell you to do something, do it. Combat is not the time to contradict a leader unless he asks your opinion. If a mistake is made, discuss it after combat is over. |
Try to understand the reason behind this. I think this fits here very well. Not as a rule, but as a suggestion. When you think an action is bad, give a brief explanation of your doubts so as to provide information, then go on.
+1 / -1
|
saksi agai about team work i am not discussing teamwork the fact of the matter is i use teamwork all the time atleast untill some one else isn't using teamwork then i usually let them fend for themsleves. i didn't state is reclaiming allied construct a team player move or not. i think we all know if its considered a teamplay or not. i started this forum to find out and to have the developers(coders programers,etc) have more of a idea of what the comunity wants. i see this as a issue on its own. it is not about teamwork or tking etc. it about having the ability in game to reclaim something that is another teammates. again i say ABILITY to do so. ie should there be a choice to be able to reclaim ally property??
+1 / -0
|
Reclaiming allied structures has everything to do with teamplay and tking. It has no effect on game mechanics or balance so what else would it be?
+2 / -1
|
vlute, YOU started talking about teamplay now, I had to respond to that. It's really hard for me to understand what you consider off topic or not. Anyway, this is what I was referring to: quote:
what i dont agree with is that any ally who thinks in his "OPINION"(doesnt matter how experiened he his, it is still his opinion) that a building is in a bad spot |
I gave an example for when the "allied stuff be reclaimable" game mechanic is NEEDED. There are reasons for why you can not simply remove it and even for why it should be expanded.
+0 / -0
|
first of i responded about team play to you adressing what you said about teamplay. please stop being so childish. you gave a example of when it might be aproperiat to do so. but what you alos suggest is that when you as a individual player on a team of many thinks a building is in a non tactical place or you just cant see why someone would decide to put it there. that it would be acceptible as well.
+0 / -0
|
of topic here but if you continue to wish to quelch me not going to happen you tee'd me off now. i'll just post another issue relating to the problem and next time ill be sure to do it when more are online to get even more views(i did it at night when les are on so we could adress it but sound like to me you just want to stick with the "my SH&^ don't stink. i dont have to prove to you admins my point. all i have to do is proove it to the comunity. as all that has really been included in my discusions are mostly admins and friends of them. and on this subject. i dout any one has the balls to question you guys.
+0 / -5
|
oh you poor misunderstood revolutionary quote:
all i have to do is proove it to the comunity. |
let us know how that works out
+4 / -1
|
king you have prooved it to the comunity for me. you gave me the info and said your words a s you did as well as other admins just becuase you dont want to admit your wrong and wish to continue to say your right. doesn't change the facts for example "it is isn't it oh wait its vulte" oh the time difference is becuase yours got put to the wayside but your sugestion he got mor consideration as did did is just wrong??. then saski saying he think he did get preferential treamment. that right there is the proof and you only sealeed the deal by locking the forum right after. but any ways back on to the subject as im sure you guy are tired of adressing this issue.
+0 / -3
|
