valid New game mode: DM-TDM crossover

[ESM_Unbeatable18 34]

I'm not sure what the issue with my idea is. I even specifically stated in the first post that if this was to ever be implemented, there would be an option to play normal DM without alliances.

 

Or perhaps this could be added as an alternative for TDM instead.

It's the idea of teams in DM which is confusing us

[TheBlackChick 319]

Are you being serious?

I am. I don't find anything wrong with teamming in DM. Mainly, because there is no rule against it. If you ask me, it's just like in real life. You find people that you cooperate with so that you increase your performance.

Edited April 27, 2017 by TheBlackChick

[ESM_Unbeatable18 34]

I am. I don't find anything wrong with teamming in DM. Mainly, because there is no rule against it. If you ask me, it's just like in real life. You find people that you cooperate with so that you increase your performance.

Who knows, people make their teams them agree not to kill each other to have advantage over the remaining few in teamed players

[Maf 32,300]

You find people that you cooperate with so that you increase your performance.

And that way together you can murder people much more effectively! That's how this applies to real life, right? :ph34r:

[HAPPSHOT 2,029]

And that way together you can murder people much more effectively! That's how this applies to real life, right? :ph34r:

:ph34r:  No offense. Close this

[Maf 32,300]

:ph34r:  No offense. Close this

Valid topics in I&S don't get closed.

[maryam98 1,171]

You know, I've had this idea myself because I love teaming, but I never posted it and I didn't think about the damage removal. I used to think of it as CTDM mode (Custom Team Death Match), meaning you could choose who was in your team.

[TheBlackChick 319]

And that way together you can murder people much more effectively! That's how this applies to real life, right? :ph34r:

Yes. You increase your effectiveness by working together and sometimes others have to suffer because they don't perform just as good. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by TheBlackChick

[Maf 32,300]

Yes. You increase your effectiveness by working together and sometimes others have to suffer because they don't perform just as good. 

So, you're just gonna completely gloss over the fact that murder is actually kind of a bad thing to do?  <_>

[TheBlackChick 319]

So, you're just gonna completely gloss over the fact that murder is actually kind of a bad thing to do?  <_<

Murder itself is bad, while destroying tanks isn't. 

[D.a.n.t.e 475]

Murder itself is bad, while destroying tanks isn't. 

Let's say someone creates a DM battle expecting a battle where everyone will try to kill everyone, then 2 friends join that battle and they only attack him. Is that fair to you? Simple yes or no.

[Maf 32,300]

Let's say someone creates a DM battle expecting a battle where everyone will try to kill everyone, then 2 friends join that battle and they only attack him. Is that fair to you? Simple yes or no.

Yes.

[TheBlackChick 319]

Let's say someone creates a DM battle expecting a battle where everyone will try to kill everyone, then 2 friends join that battle and they only attack him. Is that fair to you? Simple yes or no.

Yes. However, there is still a problem. People play DM because of the gameplay it offers. People expect every single tanker to fight for himself and himself only. I think Maf's ideea is good, but not for DM. Why would we change a gampeplay that many seem to enjoy as it is?

I think it's better to create a new game mode or change how TDM works because TDM needs to get more popular one way or another.

Edited April 29, 2017 by TheBlackChick

[person_that_is_weird 1]

I like this idea alot!

[D.a.n.t.e 475]

Yes.

 

 

Yes. However, there is still a problem. People play DM because of the gameplay it offers. People expect every single tanker to fight for himself and himself only. I think Maf's ideea is good, but not for DM. Why would we change a gampeplay that many seem to enjoy as it is?

I think it's better to create a new game mode or change how TDM works because TDM needs to get more popular one way or another.

No, it is not fair.

 

fair (comparative fairer, superlative fairest)

 

    Just, equitable. 

 

        He must be given a fair trial.

 

(Wikipedia)

[oon_GT 2]

You have TDM mode so there is no point in having this.

[r_waterblade_on0 7]

There is a point, it allows you to CHOOSE your teammates.

[D.a.n.t.e 475]

I'm tired of seeing the Isida Protection inversion idea.

[Maf 32,300]

I'm tired of seeing the Isida Protection inversion idea.

Huh? What does that have to do with this idea?

[wolverine848 13,097]

• If you destroy a tank together with your partner, you will get 30 xp points divided between you two depending on the damage each of you dealt (like in team battles)
• If the two of you completely kill an enemy tank from full HP, each of you will get a kill

 

How much xp for killing 1 tank (normally)?

How does killing one tank provide 2 kills?

What do the partners get if a third party also damages the target? Is that 3 kills?

 

Sounds too much like the NHL current point system - with the "loser" point.  Some games worth 2 pts and some worth 3.

Just does not add up.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Only problem is in a 4 player map, and you have two other buddies, then the person getting the abuse is just likely to leave since it won't be fair to them.

[Maf 32,300]

How much xp for killing 1 tank (normally)?

How does killing one tank provide 2 kills?

What do the partners get if a third party also damages the target? Is that 3 kills?

If you destroy a tank alone and your partnet(s) don't help you, you get 10 exp and +1 kill. They get nothing.

If you destroy a tank with your parnter, you get 30 exp distributed between you two (e.g. 18 and 12). Each of you get +1 kill. It's not that one tank give two kills, but you both get a kill because you both killed that one tank together.

If a third member also participates in the killing, they also get +1 kill. In that case there will be 45 exp distributed between the 3 of you.

[Maf 32,300]

Only problem is in a 4 player map, and you have two other buddies, then the person getting the abuse is just likely to leave since it won't be fair to them.

Don't forget that there's a damage reduction, so that one player will be against 3 enemies with only 60% power in their turrets. Equivalent to playing with M4 against M2. Should be quite balanced.

[D.a.n.t.e 475]

Huh? What does that have to do with this idea?

This idea is far better than that one. ;) :)

 

Don't forget that there's a damage reduction, so that one player will be against 3 enemies with only 60% power in their turrets. Equivalent to playing with M4 against M2. Should be quite balanced.

But what if there is an unofficial alliance as well as an official alliance, meaning two of the player officially team up and another just teams up unofficially to the team of two? (officially 2v1v1; unofficially 3v1)

 

Or what if that third player officially teams up with the other unlucky guy just to sabotage him, what are you going to do then? (officially 2v2; unofficially 2v1+mult)

 

Now I want to post in the Isida protection topic... :(

Edited June 13, 2017 by D.a.n.t.e

[Maf 32,300]

But what if there is an unofficial alliance as well as an official alliance, meaning two of the player officially team up and another just teams up unofficially to the team of two? (officially 2v1v1; unofficially 3v1)

 

Or what if that third player officially teams up with the other unlucky guy just to sabotage him, what are you going to do then? (officially 2v2; unofficially 2v1+mult)

That's a good point, but the whole purpose of this feature is to make it more favourable to get into alliances, rather than unofficially teaming without it.