Unit Sharing

[:1]About 35 minutes in Chris makes a note about implementing the ability to take control of someone else's units after you have been knocked out of the game as a means to still participate. He mentioned that he would like to see it used in 8 player games. What do you think?
http://pod.icast.co.il/Media/Index/File ... .icast.mp3|||I like it. Players leaving the match randomly won't ruin everything.|||AI wins... period.|||If what that means is that someone could donate to you some resources, a worker, and some economy buildings, then *stamps in approval*|||The impression I got was, say you have a team of 3 and one of your buddies gets knocked out really early. You can give him control of some of your units. As Chris said, its like being demoted from the supreme commander to a two star general. It would allow for easier microing of multiple armys (since two people instead of one are controlling them).
P.S. I enjoyed the aspect of gifting units, buildings, and resources to allies in SupCom and truly miss that aspect in SupCom 2.|||-The-Baron-|||OrangeKnight|||I like the idea, but it nullifies the idea of a "the king dies, you lose" type of gameplay, since one person can just gift their base to an ally. I would suggest adding either:
-A max amount of resource worth that can be gifted
-Unable to gift resource buildings
-Resources take time to travel/has a cooldown per 1000
OR
Making resource trading an in game unit, ie, the market must send carts of gold to your ally, and each one takes 20 seconds per 200 gold.|||Grim Tuesday|||or just make it gifting only when already dead.|||spuddyt|||Grim Tuesday|||I think it's a great idear. you could do something similair in aoe2. you could both be the same guy. you only had to be the faction, team and color. it was briliant. you would effectifly play 1 faction with 2 people. one could do eco while the other went of killin.|||Dodanodo|||If a feature along the lines of "Donate unis to a dead ally", it needs to be made sure that death still has a penalty. To this end, I would not allow builders or resources or buildings to be gifted, only combat units, and only in very small numbers. I think that as well as giving an eliminated player something to do, this gives players an oppurtunity to try a different playstyle, using only a few units to their best ability rather than building a whole army|||Grim Tuesday|||what's to stop one player for doing a cheese tactic. KnC's ACU rush, combomb, 6pool, or whatnot, while the other focuses on eco. Sure, the cheese-er might die and lose his few starting structures, but being that it's cheese, there's not a big loss and it could potentially have a huge reward of severely screwing the enemy up or even killing one.
Yet now he can come back in the game with player 2's superior eco and really causing trouble for the other team with raiding and constant micro.|||I think the point of this idea is that if you die, there is no "coming back to the point of where you left off". Especially if you can only gift to dead allies and only units of a combative nature. Or hey why limit what units you can give to a dead ally, just make it impossible for a dead ally to gain resources or add a tax to giving resources to dead allies.
I'd imagine this as you have a 3v3 going on with team A and team B. Player 1 of team A dies early on. That's a lot more land for the other two players to have to try to cover and manage. So player 2 on team A gives player 1 occasional raiding parties to harass the enemy while player 2 can focus on holding lines, and building up, etc.
As far as units requiring resources to cast spells or abilities, allow the gifting of resources to dead players as well. But tack on like a 25% resource tax. Of course dead players should not have any way what so ever to generate their own resources. That way it encourages only dead players as generals and not this crazy fall back plan.
If the above paragraph was true, you could give a dead player some builders, resources, and some units and give him an objective of building up a far off base to amass units for some large scale flanking.
Talking about this and thinking about this some more, another idea is that when a player dies, he can freely choose a surviving player. He then becomes a general for that player. Then only the commanding player can give units and taxed resources to the general(dead player). Also any resources the general produces goes directly to the commanding player. But what if the commanding player you're helping has got it all under control and doesn't need any help from a general. The general could switch to another surviving player becoming a general for them. This would mean that all units would go back to their original owners. So the general could only ever control units and resources from 1 player.|||liliban|||-The-Baron-|||As long as its UNITS!
Not buildings etc.
Just UNITS|||Only a slight difference. Units come from buildings and buildings come from units.|||OrangeKnight|||Sharing control of an extant army is one thing, transferring from one army to another is another thing. There's no reason why player B should not be able to help player A after his death.|||DeadMG