Make the ability to attack/bombard an implicit requirement

[ender516]

The fact that this would only be feasibly applicable, without affecting game play, in 2 player, standard, non-nuclear games on a just a few maps seems like it should merit very little importance.

I'm not sure why it would be a problem in standard games of any size, and I must say I am a little surprised how much concern people show for the effect on nuclear games. I don't see that it would make much difference. Some difference, on occasion, but overall, not much.

[demonfork]

Retarded suggestion that makes no sense and has no support whatsoever (I think greenoaks pretty much broke it down for you).

Cut your losses dude!

[Metsfanmax]

in team games that player can still contribute to their teams deployment

A fair point which has been raised already, but not a deal breaker in my mind. Would you routinely allow one of your teammates to get into a spot like this?

Also, this isn't a reason not to implement the suggestion, it's just a reason why gameplay would be different as a result of this change. Of course, if the OP was not intending to change gameplay, then this is a reason not to implement this suggestion from that point of view.

The points in a terminator game would be handled just as they are now in any map with a losing condition: the player whose action triggered the elimination would get the points. So, instead of the points going to the player who took Alcatraz away from the stuck player, they would go to the player who took away the stuck player's second-last territory. Not much of a difference.

What happens if, in nuclear spoils, the player causes himself to get locked on Alcatraz because of a forced spoils cash? Do the points go to the gamewinner?

[ender516]

in team games that player can still contribute to their teams deployment

A fair point which has been raised already, but not a deal breaker in my mind. Would you routinely allow one of your teammates to get into a spot like this?

Also, this isn't a reason not to implement the suggestion, it's just a reason why gameplay would be different as a result of this change. Of course, if the OP was not intending to change gameplay, then this is a reason not to implement this suggestion from that point of view.

The points in a terminator game would be handled just as they are now in any map with a losing condition: the player whose action triggered the elimination would get the points. So, instead of the points going to the player who took Alcatraz away from the stuck player, they would go to the player who took away the stuck player's second-last territory. Not much of a difference.

What happens if, in nuclear spoils, the player causes himself to get locked on Alcatraz because of a forced spoils cash? Do the points go to the gamewinner?

I don't know. I expect it would be the same as if you end up in a losing condition because of a killer neutral.

[ender516]

Retarded suggestion that makes no sense and has no support whatsoever (I think greenoaks pretty much broke it down for you).

I have had some support for this idea in some situations, and I think I can responded pretty well to greenoaks. Thanks for your considered response and valuable input. How are your suggestions coming along?

Cut your losses dude!

I have lost nothing of value.