Unsteady Alliance

[IonorRea]

GeneralSGJist: it is foremost priority of Generals 2 to get player into mindset of general, threre is no other way to make good war strategy, same way like Hitman will be fail if this game not allow you to get into mindset of assassin by limiting some key features or parts of story that depicting assassin life as it is.
Game have potencial to teach about bad stuff, but you can hardly force player with videogame making bad stuff in real life if this player isn't mentaly ill or too young to decide by himself and limiting some stuff in early age or due mental illness is job of parrents not developers... otherwise games like GTA, Hitman etc. could never exist.

This game begging to add some conspiracy, treasons, and more realistic shades of grey instead of black and white used in depicting world in Generals 2 story.
If treasons have to be everyday bread in SP is intensional removing them from MP just unlogical and pointless.

So enough OT and back to work on game mechanics...

[Firehawk17]

It's an awesome idea!! I think they should add this as a game mode.

[GeneralSGJist]

It's a game. Don't overdramatize it with moral decline and loss of values. The entire point of the game is defeating an enemy with whatever means necessary. It IS a war game, if you haven't realized.
Seriously, chill out, drop a gear. There's really no need for rhetorics painting supporters and players of such a mode as the next every-day-backstabber. 'certain types of people', WTF?

I seem to recall one time you thought that video games were an important form of expression since it’s the culmination of many works of art, and art’s purpose is usually a combination of entertainment, insight, and communication, among other things.

Although I may have gone overboard, by ignoring the social ramifications of a mechanic by pretending its “just a game” and what it explicitly or implicitly teaches is irrelevant, undermines the very idea of Videogames as a legitimate form of art expression.

And as upsetting as it is, there are people who think in such terms as to think they must deceive and compete to get to the top, selfishly not caring whom they potentially hurt, (such as the “Ends justify the means” people)

Even if I’m wrong, and my position is invalid, we should think why we would want such a mechanic: what makes it fun?

why is it fun?

And who enjoys such things?

Without such introspection, you are just playing “A game” and what do you hope to get out of that?

@IonerRea,
I trust you understand my point above, people need to understand that mechanics can’t be presented in isolation, my concern is not off topic.

Developers and artist of all kinds try to make things with specific symbols, messages and goals in mind, if they don’t, they’re end product no longer has the potential for depth that makes a piece great.

And Actually, studies have shown that Violence in games does effect real world outcomes. The US. Military uses this to great effect, but all this is a peripheral issue, and is why I dislike modern warfare.

But back on track, If we really wanted to instill the mentality of war and the decisions Generals and the military uses in games, then we need to add consequences (in form of game mechanics) to show the loss of life and resources.

Is the point of a war game and by extension war just to win no matter the costs? Or does the # of casualties matter.

The thing each of us need to determine is if we want C&C to be more of a realistic and grim franchise which deals with real world issues in a serious manner.
Or
A silly and crazy “just for fun” franchise that doesn’t deal with real world issues, and just messes around and blows stuff up for the luls.

We can’t have it both ways, if C&C is to return to its former glory.

[Golan2781]

I seem to recall one time you thought that video games were an important form of expression since it’s the culmination of many works of art, and art’s purpose is usually a combination of entertainment, insight, and communication, among other things.

Yes. So what? Insight also means realising that you are taking a point too far.
By the way, the important thing is to have this insight instilled in the players. You cannot get someone to think about the deeper ramifications of projecting his actions on real life if you never allow him to make them in the first place.

Although I may have gone overboard, by ignoring the social ramifications of a mechanic by pretending its “just a game” and what it explicitly or implicitly teaches is irrelevant, undermines the very idea of Videogames as a legitimate form of art expression.

It's irrelevant because of scope, not because "it's a game'. "it's a game" is why the scope is small, as the situation is well defined to the artificial boundaries of the game (like carjacking in GTA, joining the army in COD or launching nukes in Gen1). Again, this is a WAR GAME. If you have objections on the basis of people potentially taking lessons to heart, you should start on much more fundamental elements.

And as upsetting as it is, there are people who think in such terms as to think they must deceive and compete to get to the top, selfishly not caring whom they potentially hurt, (such as the “Ends justify the means” people)

Good god, really? Who would have thought?
I heard there are also people blindly adhering to existing social structures. So we should definitely remove fixed teams, it totally leaves people unprepared for the real world. Think of the children, will you?

Even if I’m wrong, and my position is invalid, we should think why we would want such a mechanic: what makes it fun?

The same as the rest of the game, what makes C&C so much fun compared to the over regulated high strategy games: dynamic game flow dictated by player actions.

why is it fun?

It adds more dynamic to the game by improving the already existing component of playing your enemy on a meta level. It is pretty much a control tool to help make 3+ FFAs less chaotic - the basic strategies are already possible.

And who enjoys such things?

People like me.

Without such introspection, you are just playing “A game” and what do you hope to get out of that?

Fun.

[IonorRea]

And Actually, studies have shown that Violence in games does effect real world outcomes. The US. Military uses this to great effect, but all this is a peripheral issue, and is why I dislike modern warfare.

Purposely showing violence in order to make people more psychically rugged to cope seeing violence in real world is used for training soldiers for centuries. You can see that even girls that play violent FPS aren't much of princess type that fall on floor after seeing blood. But you must have predisposition to like some kind of games like very violent one which can increase your tolerance to seeing violence in real world too.

By making this mode you don't make every player Kane's twin in real world, but allow specific group of advanced players seeking more thrill in game have fun.
I can assure you that this type of game mode will not be popular between occasional players that use to set 10min peace rule to better turtle his bases or people hating unexpected surprises.

As there will be probably T rating, no harm done.


There is no need for adding mechanics that will punish player for breaking alliance, making new enemy is fully suficient.
As its mode purpose to become only survivor, you can't punish player for breaking alliance by other means anyway, otherwise you discourage player to break alliance until is fully prepared, which end in boring arms race.

Breaking alliance at your will to use it for your advantage to become only survivor is everything that this game mod really need in my opinion.

[Borreh]

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days also had a multiplayer mode based on treason and it was praised as one of the best elements of the game.

Stop overdramatising.

[GeneralSGJist]

Alright then, points taken.
Anyways, guess I should return to helping develop the idea more:

Something that may throw a twist in this is the common demand to share resources among allies. This mechanic may make that concept an undesired feature.

Another thing is, should there be any form of warning or timer to signify a broken alliance?

If you want this to be realistic and retain the idea in its entirety, then no, but if you want this to balance easier, it needs to be yes.

[IonorRea]

Something that may throw a twist in this is the common demand to share resources among allies. This mechanic may make that concept an undesired feature.

Not really, if you need survive against two players it's better when enemies concentrate on your weaker ally or divide forces as long as possible. By supporting ally you can get more time to weaken enemies while controling strenght of your ally by providing sufficient amount of resources to become your frontal shield but not enough to become significant threat to you so long until opposition will be weak enough that you no longer need "ally" that planing your elimination too.

Another thing is, should there be any form of warning or timer to signify a broken alliance?

Well I think there can be maybe useful SW warnings - if you own radar that ally / enemy sending SW in your direction to have some degree of survivability in situation where multiple players start building SW at similar time.

So if your enemy don't already destroy your radar, you have still some chance to survive preemptive strike from ally that want turns against you by crippling SW strike against your offensive capability (mobile forces).
If this have to work SW and game mechanics must be balanced for it from start and work same in every mod in order to prevent chaos during learning game mechanics by players.

But question remain if SW warning is neccesery good for athmosfere in game and SW efficiency as implementing SW warning system not allow for instant SW like Particle/Ion Cannon.

Some kind of timer for breaking alliances is with SW and force fire mode for artilery units pointless anyway...

[GeneralSGJist]

1. Agreed, that would require much strategic thought, giving ally enough to help but not enough to regret it in the future.

2. My point wasn't specifically regarding SW, but yes, if an ally targets an SW on you, then you know the alliance is broken. My point was any time the player breakes an alliance, should the other player be notified? or is it something we should make the player keep track of by him/ her self.

3. Another point that just came to mind, is if the game has AOE weapons, which can do friendly fire, (currently in C&C not implemented) how should this be handled?

[Golan2781]

There's the regular 'unit under attack' messages which IMO would work for most people. Though of course it could be extended to a 'unit under attack by ally' for an added 'oh shi--' moment.

AOE weapons usually do friendly fire, to your own units as well as to allied units. I don't see a reason to change this for this mode.