Exchange/share resources amongst allied players?

Also some people are able to gather resources faster than others. so having a function similar to this can allowed the slower gathering players to grow just as fast.

Remy, it doesn't necessarily have to be 1 player solely on gathering and other 2 solely on combat. Like players 1 and 2 can gather resources at the same time as combat. whilst player 3 will also create combat units, but focus more on expansing to new resource clusters. that way players 1 and 2 can better micro manage on the battlefield and have a higher chance if winning.

 

i fink if they introduce that type of system at all that they should base it off the wc3 model
that worked out pretty well
be like
oh hey can i borrow 600 miners and 200 gas for the mothership
oh sure, just pay me back later

 

mc2, I guess you play too much Dawn of War Well, I think perhaps like Dawn of War, this can be included as an changable game option. Some people like it, some don't. Personally, I dislike resources sharing, an option to ship free resource to allies is sufficient for me.

 

Two out of three players playing balanced builds, while one gets ready to bring the hurt late game. How is this different from a regular game? When I team with my friend, we would very often designate one guy to expand and tech while the rest of us keep the pressure on the opposing team. With the game playing out like that, it is not much different from any normal game with the addition of resource sharing(as opposed pooling).

 

Whenever I play Protoss I often run short of gas in late game, while having excess minerals.
My cousin said he always run short of minerals in late game using Zerg, while having excess gas.

If that's the case and I teamed up with him. Obviously it'd be an advantage to have a resource sharing system to counter the imbalances.

 

I really can't see how they wouldn't include resource sharing in SC2. It's only logical.

 

Yea ok, I did not give any minimum amount of resources shared each time, but of course sharing 1 mineral/gas shouldn't be bossible, that´s why i said 50 or 100 to keep it at a rate where it´s usable. How many times have you seen people asking if they can have 1 gold in WC3? xD

 

It's a hypothetical situation. ;D

And it would be nice for when a dying player is about to be eliminated, he sends all of his resources to his ally who sort of uses it to avenge him. If you play 2vs2, and one gets eliminated, the remaining one will get a small advantage to offset his being outnumbered.

 

That brings up a good point Reject. Umm... I feel rahter uncomfortable both calling you "reject" and "666" btw.

But anyway, in a 2v2 if one player disconncets, it would make sense in this case to pool the resources so the remaining player has full access to both player's resources in addition to full control over the disconnected player's units. This would be making the best out of a bad situation it seems.

It's been a while since I've played WC3, even longer than SC so it's a little hazy, but IIRC back in WC3 in this situation you were only given unit control and had no control over the disconnected player's resources other than spending them. If this happens pretty early in a game, this hurts way more than it helps, if it even helps at all. The only realistic way at equal skill lvls for the lone player to have a chance against the team of two would be pooling all resources to boost one player's build out of the two remaining, then at least gain an advantage on faster tech and/or more units for one force. But no, it just left you with two player's worth of unit control doubling your need to macro and micro, without the resource pooling. It made you slow down on both bases and overwhelmed with tasks. You can't even abandon one of the two because it would be free XP for your opponents. It was really stupid, lose-lose all around.

I think that would be nice to have in SC2 in the case of disconnects. However, to make it work for 3v3, 4v4, etc. just as it would for 2v2 I think it needs to continuously distribute the disconnected player's resource income equally among remaining players. Meaning all the remaining players would receive a slight additional income based on the disconnected player's partial resource gathering. Then, anytime one of the remaining players wish to build with the disconnected player's units(probably for more gathering) he would use resources from his own pool, since he's been receiving his share the whole time anyway.

I think situations in team games larger than 2v2 is why Blizzard ended up with the crappy system in WC3. This would be reasonable in disconnect situations to give the disadvantaged team at least a slim chance at winning in roughly equal skill level situations.

 

It's ok, I'd rather be called just reject too. The _666_6 is a long story, but just reject will due.

I agree with your idea. When I played Wc3 and my ally suddenly disconnected, having his units was really weird for me. I just made him a small base and just used his heroes to bolster my army. I almost never won in those cases, so giving me all of what he had and joining them together in the same pool is a much better bet.

 

yeah, i totally agree. i feel getting resources is pretty useful, much better than getting your friend's units. wasn't sharing resources good for wc3?

(anyway, in wc3, when you get your friend's units when he quits, you get all of his heroes right? then you'll get 6 heroes right? hmm... never thought of it that way before... but pretty hard to manage i think.)

 

yes you get all his heroes, buildings and stuff. but his minerals and his gases(gold and wood for wc3) isnt put into your bank but a seperate one


Edited out quotes. Please read the forum rules and refrain from quoting unnecessarily.

 

Resource sharing won't be good... because can't they just pool all resources to one person? And potentially win?

 

It seems like most of us here (including myself) have concluded that sharing or pooling resources isn't a good idea.

l)4rk, it doesn't necessarily have to pool towards one player. Say in a 4v4 game, the pool means the 4 allies would use resources from that single pool, and all the resources they've gathered would go towards that pool. Of course this would probably only work if the allied players trust each other and will not go ahead and abuse this system.

Exchanging on the other hand, has lots of advantages. What I had in mind is a completely free exchange system. No fees, nothing deducted when making an exchange. The players can give minerals and gas to their allies whenever they want, any amount they want. And it will happen instantenously through a click of a button, no need to construct special structure to perform an exchange.

This one, if one player has excess minerals, and its ally has excess gas, they can balance things out.

 

Blizz said there will be resource trading.  Now we'll just have  to wait and see exactly how it works in SC2.

I think everyone will love having resource trading for SC. I've always wanted it.

 

Yea me too, like if you are a protoss and you're like asking your zerg partner for some cash to build a mothership... hey i give him some so he can own some along with my minions hehe.

 

3 words. shared mineral hacks

 

In my opinion resource sharing should be allowed but only between allies. Sort of like in WC3. You can't send resources to someone who isn't an ally. I think it'd be useful in combating during a 3v3 game, like lets say all 3 members of the opposing team target you're ally's base and wipe out 30-50% of it but you manage to wipe out all enemy forces with you're other ally. Now you two are out for the counter while your attacked ally is left to rebuild what has been lost. Being able to send that ally some minerals/gas allows for a quick rebuild of his base and remove the crippling possibility of him being unprepared for a counterattack should you and your other ally lose the counter.

Edit: In other words, allies have to be determined prior to the game and not changed during the game play itself. You are set and stuck with the team you received. This shouldn't be a problem IF...Blizzard decides to utilize a leveling system so that players of the same level play with other players of the same level.

 

In my opinion this will be a costly mistake of new people out to exploit resource sharing. Think about it, the person who is being pooled will have to construct different buildings to build up advance units OR he would have to focus on massing one/two types of units. The thing I noticed the most when I watched the replays was that the units in SC2 are made to balance each other out indefinitely. So lets say a player is pooled and masses one unit. If its a 4v4 two players can mass one of types of units and the other 2 players can mass the other type of unit. Having the ability of versatility they can easily exploit the weakness of the massed unit and the other massed unit that was held back and not used to destroy enemy units can be used to demolish at least 2 of the ally pooling bases.

On the other hand the pooled ally could easily go to advance building and get advanced units. However what we've learned from SC1 is that having a few advanced units is no match for a swarm of smaller inexpensive units (demonstrated by the swarming tactics of zergs). The possibilities of having army made up of different units and then being able to utilize that advantage over 4 other players is difficult in my opinion so I don't think its a big concern.

 

What I did in WC3 was utilize 2 heroes from my allied leaver 2 of which had channeling spells (example like POM and her starfall or KOTG and his Healing Rain) and then mass a specific type of unit. Like if my units were comprised of mainly high dmg low hp units then i would obviously use my ally's base to create a damager absorber. Etc. etc. for what ever weaknesses i feel my units carry that need to be compensated for. I've won at least 40% of my games where allies have left in this manner. Mostly because the players on the other team feel they have an advantage and stop taking strategy into consideration and go for pure brute force to annihilate me.

Edit: I basically think that receiving you're allies resources into your pool but having control of a leaver's base/units/etc. would be the best situation. However some people might argue that based on the level of the player this might give them an overwhelming advantage. But in retrospect, if i normally harvest 500,000 minerals just my base/race and then my ally leaves and suddenly I'm pulling in 1,000,000 minerals. Its not any different because i have two bases to run, so its just spilit down the middle. 500,000 per race/base