Defeated enemy fund transfer

[Meyerm]

Subject:
A defeated player in skirmish or multiplayer having credits transfered.

Description:
Basically what will happen is in a skirmish or multiplayer game, when a player/AI is defeated, their funds won''t dissappear, but will instead be transfered. 75% of the defeated player's credits will go to whichever player caused the most destruction to the defeated player, and 25% will go to whoever made the finishing move (destroying last unit/structure of the enemy.) If the person that made the finishing move caused the most damage, they get all of it. If the person who caused the most damage is by chance defeated as well, whoever made the finishing move will get all of it. Funds will not be transfered to allies for betrayal kills, and if there is a tie for most damage caused or if no damage was caused to the defeated player (like if they resign) no funds are transfered. Transfers will still be made for resigning players.

Positive Effect:
1. Helps for matches that have limited resources.
2. Gives something the player can use in-game for defeating players.
3. Resource-hoarders will be made prime targets.

Negative Effect:
1. May give players unfair advantages.
2. Destroying just one unit or structure can automatically give a kill stealer 25% of a player's funds.

Media:
None.

[Lauren]

Can be completely overpowered in casual play. Good gamers would spend all their resources as fast as they can anyway.
Matches with limited resources are a design decision. They are there to end the game.

[GeneralSGJist]

I agree with the concept, but think there must be a better way of implementing it.

Maybe we can involve kill death ratios? per player on player? so whomever killed the most of that player's forces gets more money? Or you must tade their Refineries and or MCV?

[MILINTarctrooper]

You would also reward rushers, zergers, and spammers way to easily. If any of the RA3 games I have seen and been in show me. Too easily exploited, target the weakest player....snag all of his resources...and whoops overwhelm the stronger player.

Unfair advantage is not a balance thought process.

[You_Lose112]

This ^

[Commander32]

You would also reward rushers, zergers, and spammers way to easily. If any of the RA3 games I have seen and been in show me. Too easily exploited, target the weakest player....snag all of his resources...and whoops overwhelm the stronger player.

Unfair advantage is not a balance thought process.

indeed, IMO its better if u have a sharing eco feature like in SC2.

[panavia_tornado]

too much advantage for the winner

[Meyerm]

Hmm, how about the funds of a enemy player automatically being split and evenly distributed to every enemy player only if they resign without being killed down to the last man?

[Klandri]

You would also reward rushers, zergers, and spammers way to easily. If any of the RA3 games I have seen and been in show me. Too easily exploited, target the weakest player....snag all of his resources...and whoops overwhelm the stronger player.

Unfair advantage is not a balance thought process.

Quoted for truth.

[Commander32]

so in the end, i believe this will not work at all, as explained above, its just not gonna work.