Subject:
An effectively 2v1 (actually 1v1v1) game mode that doesn't allow allied victory
Description:
The heart of this idea is multiplayer game mode that forces players to ally early on, but does not allow allied victory, forcing them to turn on one another at some point.
Probably the easiest way to do this would be some sort of setup where there were two regular plays and a third, "king of the hill" "boss" play either sandwiched between them or off to the side. The two regular players have to team up to take out the "boss" player, but also has to find some way to undermine their current ally to gain an advantage when the match becomes 1v1.
To allow 4-player matches, the "boss player" could instead consist of two separate players who can have an allied victory. Here, rather than receiving special bonuses to compensate for being outnumbered, this allied pair would receive some sort of penalty to compensate for the fact that they don't have to turn on each other.
A more difficult and potentially interesting way of implementing the "unsteady alliance" idea is to have a regular 1v1v1 3-player match were something makes it difficult or impossible for any player to defeat any other without help. One possibility would be that each player starts with a different indestructible "Warehouse" (Warehouse A going to Player 1, Warehouse B going to Player 2, etc.), but needs access to at least two warehouses to tech up. Early game, players could only access other warehouses by allying with the owner (e.g., Player 1 allies with Player 3, so both have access to Warehouses A and C). Late game, one player would capture the enemy's warehouse before turning on their ally, while the ally would depend on the high-tech units that they've already built and the fact that the other player should be weakened from the offensive.
One aspect of all of these game-mode ideas is that players would have the ability to disguise certain units as belonging to other players. In other words, part of this idea is that the different players can pull false-flags against one another (to enable this, allies don't share vision). The boss/dogpiled player could of course do this to try to break up the enemy alliance by trying to trick one into thinking that the other has turned on him/her. Conversely, one of the allied players could use it to undermine his/her "ally" while passing it off as an attack by the third player.
Pros:
-Creates a new level of strategic depth (how much to commit you forces vs. letting your ally deplete his/hers, when to play along vs. stabbing your ally in the back, etc.)
-Could be fun to try to sow mistrust between two players allied against you
Cons
-Requires at least 3 players and might have trouble with 4 or more
-(2-v-boss variant) players might not ally properly, resulting in boss players winning too often. Alternatively, the 2 regular players might ally too will, keeping boss players from winning often enough
An effectively 2v1 (actually 1v1v1) game mode that doesn't allow allied victory
Description:
The heart of this idea is multiplayer game mode that forces players to ally early on, but does not allow allied victory, forcing them to turn on one another at some point.
Probably the easiest way to do this would be some sort of setup where there were two regular plays and a third, "king of the hill" "boss" play either sandwiched between them or off to the side. The two regular players have to team up to take out the "boss" player, but also has to find some way to undermine their current ally to gain an advantage when the match becomes 1v1.
To allow 4-player matches, the "boss player" could instead consist of two separate players who can have an allied victory. Here, rather than receiving special bonuses to compensate for being outnumbered, this allied pair would receive some sort of penalty to compensate for the fact that they don't have to turn on each other.
A more difficult and potentially interesting way of implementing the "unsteady alliance" idea is to have a regular 1v1v1 3-player match were something makes it difficult or impossible for any player to defeat any other without help. One possibility would be that each player starts with a different indestructible "Warehouse" (Warehouse A going to Player 1, Warehouse B going to Player 2, etc.), but needs access to at least two warehouses to tech up. Early game, players could only access other warehouses by allying with the owner (e.g., Player 1 allies with Player 3, so both have access to Warehouses A and C). Late game, one player would capture the enemy's warehouse before turning on their ally, while the ally would depend on the high-tech units that they've already built and the fact that the other player should be weakened from the offensive.
One aspect of all of these game-mode ideas is that players would have the ability to disguise certain units as belonging to other players. In other words, part of this idea is that the different players can pull false-flags against one another (to enable this, allies don't share vision). The boss/dogpiled player could of course do this to try to break up the enemy alliance by trying to trick one into thinking that the other has turned on him/her. Conversely, one of the allied players could use it to undermine his/her "ally" while passing it off as an attack by the third player.
Pros:
-Creates a new level of strategic depth (how much to commit you forces vs. letting your ally deplete his/hers, when to play along vs. stabbing your ally in the back, etc.)
-Could be fun to try to sow mistrust between two players allied against you
Cons
-Requires at least 3 players and might have trouble with 4 or more
-(2-v-boss variant) players might not ally properly, resulting in boss players winning too often. Alternatively, the 2 regular players might ally too will, keeping boss players from winning often enough
Comment