SUGGESTION: Enable fully shared unit control

[Neco]

^ you can already do this with normal shared control, no?

Also, the bug in the current version of Warcraft III will prevent any titan -> minion or minion -> titan sharing :/.

[Burn]

I can see how this can be useful, and also how it can be abused (essentially "multiboxing" without both people being local).

As Burn said, it is moddable server-side so it's really up to you guys if you want it or not.

Personally, I just want the -builder command back.

I want to see the -builder command re-implement regardless of the fully shared unit control.

Does fully shared unit control have a limit to how many people you can share with?

No, it's exactly the same except you get to build buildings - that's about it.

-Burn

[Roxen]

Hmm the cage sharing seems to be great for titan too. In my opinion it is an advantage for pub builders and an advantage for Pro Titans. Instant punish, nuke etc.

[aRt)Y]

and an advantage for Pro Titans. Instant punish, nuke etc.

Read the posts above..

[TimmyTheTauren]

@neco

Player 11 can't share control, if you select the box it just auto-deselects. However, a player who -titans can share control of cage and mound.

[Burn]

and an advantage for Pro Titans. Instant punish, nuke etc.

Read the posts above..

Yeah, people obviously aren't going to test it for themselves, so I'm here if you want to ask any questions about fully shared unit control.

-Burn

[seacow]

if it is going to be implement, would it be like a game mode or game command? As so that the player is liberal to choose

[Burn]

If it is implemented, it will be applied to the actual bot, not the map, so it won't be a game mode and be compulsory, unless ent decides to code it into the ghostbot.

-Burn

[seacow]

i would prefer if it is voluntary, you wouldn't want some unknown player molesting your builder.

[teller55]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Enabling full share means IF YOU SHARE CONTROL WITH ANOTHER PERSON, they get more control than typical (depending in how the game is coded). It does not mean every person in the game gets shared control of your units. Thus if this was enabled in the map cfg, it would only affect those people that normally share control with others.

[Burn]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Enabling full share means IF YOU SHARE CONTROL WITH ANOTHER PERSON, they get more control than typical (depending in how the game is coded). It does not mean every person in the game gets shared control of your units. Thus if this was enabled in the map cfg, it would only affect those people that normally share control with others.

I don't really know how I can make it any clearer. Thanks for trying.

-Burn

[teller55]

Yeah, I'm trying my hardest to make it clear for people

I know what Full Shared Control is because every Swat: Aftermath game that I used I have FSC activated. (It allows you to do things that regular shared control doesn't, like view and control player controlled units, etc.)

[Roxen]

i still like the idea

[Marked]

Besides the title being as clear as day what it is, everyone knows shared unit control, but added Enable fully and people just lose it.
I support the idea, ID could use this in plenty of ways when AFK's and people who'd like to stay because they're the last base and leave their computer on, but cannot do anything, in that scenario the shared person could still upgrade, and control the players base, if that player chooses to do so.

[Germaphobe]

Besides the title being as clear as day what it is, everyone knows shared unit control, but added Enable fully and people just lose it.
I support the idea, ID could use this in plenty of ways when AFK's and people who'd like to stay because they're the last base and leave their computer on, but cannot do anything, in that scenario the shared person could still upgrade, and control the players base, if that player chooses to do so.

i wont share control w/ you ever again </3
you killed me super cow