Exchange/share resources amongst allied players?

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

that would be nice to share resources like give ur allies money to make a huge army of like ultralisks

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

Thanks for explaining exactly what I want.

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

yes....not only to create a huge army of units but also to assist a team mate to rebuild the base if he/she was attacked.

and say in a 3v3 game.....if we know FOR SURE that one player is gonna die soon, that one player can send all of his/her resources to the other 2 players, instead of having them wasted

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

/agree with the thought that a common resource pool would be a bad idea, at least as a static setting. People would be leeching their teammates' resources for their own benefit rather than that of the team; it doesn't matter if it's "good for the team" or not. An option to turn it on or off per game would be fine, in example, for clan matches and other games involving heavy team coordination.

Trading resources would definitely be well accepted, though.

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

I actually like mining more than I like fighting... I wouldn't mind specializing on mining to supply a fighter, but I 'm weird like that.

SpoonGaurd, if players are specializing, there should actually be more resources available between the two. The mining player can devote all of their resources to expansion and mining, save money on combat units and the structures and tech needed to make them, while the fighting player saves by not having to expand or make workers, and all of the upgrades made go to one set of units(this one is kind of huge). The real loss is the loss in micro.

If you've ever played a Team game (where players actually share one set of units, not just ally or share a base) you know that, while it helps to have one player building and mining, it forces the other player(s) to deal with all of the units, while the enemy has two players sharing combat responsibilities- microing two smaller sets and outmaneuvering the one larger set your teammate has.

The main problem with Team games(which is one of the reasons nobody plays them, apart from not knowing that they exist) is that players that do not know each other, or agree on a strategy, end up trying to spend the minerals on different things, end up canceling each others units and buildings for their own, etc. It gets very squabbly when people don't cooperate and I have seen entire bases just shut down from it. With two distinct players(as opposed to one "player" operated by two human... players) you at least cut down on the problems of the "shared unit pool", so a shared resource pool might work, if it is optional, so that people only use it when they actually agree on how the money should be spent.

In a non-team game this would be even worse, because you would not be able to build troops for your ally as well as mine for them, they would still have to manage their base. Not only that, they would have to defend two bases (because you are giving a large proportion of your money to them to spend on units), so unless the player receiving the money is an absolute god in battle, able to fight two(or more) enemies while defending multiple bases, sharing resources might not be the best idea. Of course, I have actually been in situations where my ally was capable of that(It would have to be my ally, as I am certainly not that good), so I am not saying that it would be absolutely out the door.

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

You probably misunderstood me then. I wasn't talking about team games as in the Starcraft version where you share one base. I know about that and wasn't speaking of it. I'm referring to the more general concept, where you have two guys with two bases and two money supplies. However, another feature I forgot to mention is the fact that you also get to have a box where you get to choose which allies get to share control with you. I do that with me friends from IRL, which is handy because you trust them. That way you can help him micro his huge army, etc. Plus help out during big battles. If you're an actual team, in a big battle, it helps to have two guys looking over the entire thing, both sides included.

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

(IRL? Are you from Ireland too?!)

I think it'd be cool to be able to share resources, but one large pool isn't a good idea. Maybe if you can ask one of your allies for say, 200 minerals and 200 vespene gas, they can give it to you, but as you mine more you have to gradually pay them back?

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

In Real Life

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

Rofl.

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

they had that in AoE, personally it worked out well tbh, if someone had alot of something they could fill in for somehing the otehr guy didnt have, etc.. it could really save someone if they didnt have enough money to build a CC and had a bunch of scv's lying around, though it would be kinda cheap, it might work.. as far as arguing about a resource collector, that'd be pretty dumb considering that 1 person no matter how many expos you had cant supply enough min/gas for 3 other people, never mind taking care of himself as well

 

Re: Share resources amongst allied players?

yes we've came into comclusion that SHARING is not a good idea
i'm going to change the title to EXCHANGING because it can be useful in the game

 

I am still of the opinion that pooled resources is doable if the team agrees with itself on how to spend it.

 

i don't have anything against pooling resources, so long i'm the one pooling 'em. hehheh

anyway, what's wrong with pooling resources? think of it this way, you're playing a 2 on 2 game. (i don't want to bring in the example of 2 on 1 just yet.) so what if you pass around resources? the build speeds and everything will still be the same. if you know how to do it, if you attack fast, to heck with passing around resources, you'll have no time to build them.

i think it only adds to the enjoyment of the game.

 

they could have a system where you could have a fixed team if you wanted and call your teammate to a battle. Then you could organize it with your teammate as to how you spend the resources

 

Yeah, this idea of resource sharing where they all bank and use resources from a common pool requires a lot of trust between the aliied players. Obviously someone will backstab others. But say If your playing with your trusted friends or people that you know in real life, then it's achievable.

 

fixed teams or not, if there are teams in the middle of the game which switch sides later, then... well, you're screwed. you'll just have to beg and weedle for any other opponent to join you, or try to stay alive.

i know, the feeling sucks, but think about that feeling you'll get when...

"hey, i've been watching that replay of our match again and again. and i find it especially funny, especially an that oart you switched alliances just to screw me, AND still ended up losing! hahahahahahaha..."

woot!

 

^ It would make a problem ^
If the resource can be shared in common pool, then probably they can't switch teams.
Or like what most people said it's better that they can click on options that give other teamate resources.

 

Resource pooling in real multiplayer wouldn't really work, all things considered.

In a 3v3 game one player would be the gatherer, cuz you'll need at least two people going combat to stand a chance. However, the one player won't be able to supply enough resources for all three players even if that's all he did. For a good while into the game, the gatherer won't be able to produce workers at a rate fast enough to cover for all three, unless heavy investment first went into the gathering to expand quickly and build enough worker buildings to gather and produce more workers.

At this point the pooling team is already under risk of losing, and this is only early-game, cuz this style of build is big risk early for stronger late-game, and the two players going combat have minimal resources for themselves beyond a minimum cuz most went into supporting early growth of the gatherer. If the pooling team took early risk into account and invested partially into some base defense, then this means it will take even longer for the gatherer to catch up to the growth and resource gathering rate of three separate players.

It's not likely the pooling team will last beyond mid-game. Against moderately skilled opponents, it is not likely that you will receive no attacks early on from anyone when there are multiple opponents. And it won't be hard to catch on to what's going on pretty quickly, the non-pooling team will just focus their attacks, anyone would when there is little risk of retaliation. Without much combat units the pooling team really don't have much chance on surviving 3 on 1 attacks or even 2 on 1. Even if things didn't go as bad as they could, ultimately the gatherer would not be able to defend the numerous expos he would have in order to support his team. Building enough defense for all the expos would defeat the purpose of pooling in the first place as well.

Wow, this got longer than I intended it to be. Anyway, I don't think pooling will work but sharing would be nice. Once in a long while you get a team mate who escapes death just to be short on cash for a main building or 50 minerals for drones.

 

I´m in a 50-50 situation here, The resource sharing would be great, but there´s a lot of things to take precautions about that i don't even wanna write them down, since you probably already know half of them
as of quoted "just as in AoE" is really what should be going on but with some changes.
You give your allies 2500 minerals and 1500 gas but you will lose 10% ekstra so you just can't change it back and forth as wanted. Now the question would stream to me with "why not, the other allies would use it anyway, not send it back".
That comes with an easy brain generated answer, with a resource-trade-script easily made (no i don't know exactly how / will not give information about it) you can bug the resource trade just as in AoE.
Bugging it in this way:
You trade 50 or 100 resources (doesn't matter how much, just it´s possible to trade and a low amount) a lot of times, making the trade system working on a lot of back and forth communication with their server and the other player (they have to register that you actually send the resources), if it is send fast enough, here comes in the program to do the work , it will not be able to register that you actually trade the resources, but it can tell that you are doing something in the trade system giving the resources to players. it will simply bug, it is easy to make the program, you just need to script as much useless info into it and it will somehow "crash".
If blizzard are able to implement a trade system not capable of bugging (requires constant updates to the game, and we don't like updating all the time) it would be cool

 

If you gave the system a 10% penalty, then one can send just 1 minerals (or at most 5), in which case 10% is negligible. You can just do this many, many times, or write a program that does it 10 times quickly or something.