Surrender - give buildings about openra

[bellator]

I think the buildings should be sold and the funds would be given to all team mates evenly.

[Carko]

I think transferring the ownership would be better.

Selling all the buildings would seriously cripple the team. Imagine instantly losing all the defense structures the disconnecting teammate owned. In case all buildings got sold the remaining teammate(s) would have to rebuild (almost) everything that was lost.

[xan2622]

I like this idea.

[cjshmyr]

I think distributing cash makes sense and is probably a good start. Buildings and units is different - a subtle pop-up the team sees with a "take ownership" button for assets (buildings, units, or both) would be nice.

[cjshmyr]

Maybe instead of transferring ownership, make the buildings/units shared among everyone allied, but no idea if the engine can do that cleanly

[Mailaender]

No, we don't support #3793 yet and I smell problems like: What if a units gets contrary commands from multiple players at once.

[cjshmyr]

Two people sending conflicting orders to the same actor (imo) shouldn't behave any differently from one person being indecisive

[Mailaender]

I am more concerned about desyncs.

[chrisforbes]

No factor.

All orders for a tick are collected [and sorted] before any of them are
executed. There should be no risk of desync.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Matthias Mailänder <
[email protected]> wrote:

I am more concerned about desyncs.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2022#issuecomment-27343423
.

[pchote]

Disconnects are reported by an immediate order. I accidentally introduced a desync the last time I touched this code :/

[chrisforbes]

That's a good point. We used to handle disconnects via a special protocol
frame. It's unfortunate that we have a weird orders-based mechanism as well.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Paul Chote [email protected]:

Disconnects are reported by an immediate order. I accidentally introduced
a desync the last time I touched this code :/

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2022#issuecomment-27362637
.

👍 to Carko

[GSonderling]

How about giving those buildings to AI instead? It wouldn't be effective as a human player, but it would at least fight.

From my experience in RTS, when I get bunch of buildings suddenly, I need some time to take account of them. Not to mention the obvious fact that my base just got way larger and harder to defend.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, if you know what I mean.

[Carko]

@GSonderling that is true, but on the other hand, you would have to completely change your strategy (the one you were working on with a teammate) as the AI won't care about what you intended to do.

I don't think there is a win-win situation here - you either get to manage more resources suddenly, you lose them completely, or AI (which you have no control of) gets them.

[MustaphaTR]

I should note that this is possible just with yaml changes now, at least to Neutral, so people can capture an use them.