Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T20:46:28+02:00

PhilipJFry wrote:
Would be interesting to see/play some setons games with different game options

Mostly cause random spots (or rather random teams) is restricting the amount of early cheese a lot since you cannot coordinate with your team before the game begins

Share until death can work but you need to have a reasonable balance especially on the air slot otherwise the game will turn into a one sided slaughter (even more so than it already can)

You mean like, Finstack level of cheese?

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 31 Oct 2018, 20:46

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T19:03:07+02:00

seton without fullshare is not senton

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 31 Oct 2018, 19:03

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T18:53:47+02:00

Would be interesting to see/play some setons games with different game options

Mostly cause random spots (or rather random teams) is restricting the amount of early cheese a lot since you cannot coordinate with your team before the game begins

Share until death can work but you need to have a reasonable balance especially on the air slot otherwise the game will turn into a one sided slaughter (even more so than it already can)

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 31 Oct 2018, 18:53

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T18:35:08+02:00

×º°”˜`”°º× What the f*** ×º°”˜`”°º×

Statistics: Posted by EcoNoob — 31 Oct 2018, 18:35

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T15:43:00+02:00

I'm 100 % on your side Wingflier but you won't find enough setons player for a game. I played a lot of setons in 2009/2010, about 30 games a week or so and we played without full share. It was just awesome. I loved it to be the front player. Your were able to win the game for your team with killing your opponent. But then all changed. All players are playing with full share now. I asked them why? The answer is easy. They don't want to lose if one player makes a stupid move with his Acu. Also they hate it to get sniped. But that is a main part of the game for me. That is also a reason why I stopped playing setons.

Setons is the only map where 99 % of the games are played with full share but the players are happy with it. So all we can do is to host our own setons.

Statistics: Posted by Voodoo — 31 Oct 2018, 15:43

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T15:19:29+02:00

Let me tell you one reason to not play supremacy:

Stealth units underwater

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 31 Oct 2018, 15:19

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T07:55:48+02:00

We've been over this before, setons with full share is the only way to play setons

This question pops up now and then so instead of giving another answer I'll just link some old thread I remembered: /viewtopic. ... full+share
Especially this post /viewtopic. ... 10#p156026 is worth reading.

There are more if you want to search...

Statistics: Posted by Viba — 31 Oct 2018, 07:55

Re: Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T06:48:37+02:00

Wingflier wrote:
In any case, from now on I'll be asking the hosts of big games to use Supremacy as opposed to full share to balance the map. What are your thoughts?

Why not just host your own lobby with supremacy then?

Statistics: Posted by moonbearonmeth — 31 Oct 2018, 06:48

Discussing Full Share on Setons (and alternatives)

2018-10-31T04:51:10+02:00

I've noticed that people like to use Full Share on Seton's team games (and usually on other big team maps as well).

This practice strikes me as utterly bizarre. Generally speaking, one of the Commanders in the front positions dies first during a skirmish in the middle (either to carelessness, or being sniped by an airstrike, overwhelmed by ground forces, etc.)

This means that on the default mode, Assassination, their entire starting base would be destroyed as well as their commander and their army. Now while this isn't impossible to come back from for an organized team, it does put the team that lost a commander first at a large disadvantage. Presumably, this is why Full Share is used to mitigate the damage of the first commander dying.

Here is what I want to argue: Full share does more than mitigate the damage of the first commander dying, it actually gives the team that lost the first commander a huge advantage. Let's say that the first player to lose a commander (usually in the mid) is only a mediocre player. He doesn't have much of an economy because he's spent most of his resources fighting for control over mid, and due to his lack of experience or skill, he dies. Now most of his remaining infrastructure is transferred to the best player on the team, with the best economy. Let's not mince words: By destroying a bad player's commander, and giving his base over to a player with a much better economy and higher skill level, you are doing their team a huge favor.

Which generally means that on maps like Seton's, using Full Share, you're actually benefiting the enemy team by killing the Commander of a mediocre or inexperienced player, or even a good player with a lackluster economy. It's the equivalent of, in Chess, a novice losing their Queen and then having their board taken over by a Grandmaster. Obviously losing the Queen sucks, but a Grandmaster without a Queen is still in a much better position than a novice with one. Except in this case, the player who takes over the novice's base still has his Queen (Commander) for all intents and purposes.

The reality is that destroying someone's commander, even in a team game, should lead to a large advantage for your team. If killing an enemy commander actually benefits their team, the game rules are utterly broken and nonsensical.

I realize that Assassination with no share is perhaps too much of a penalty for losing a player in a team game (though again, a good team can still win).

How do we find a compromise between the ridiculousness that is full share, and the potentially unfair penalty that is Assassination with no team sharing?

I argue for an alternative that is a compromise between the two: Play Seton's and other large maps with Supremacy on and no team sharing.

This way, when a player loses their Commander they aren't out of the game, and it doesn't hurt the team as much as if their entire base was destroyed and everything was lost. However, they are at a significant disadvantage just like losing a Queen in Chess.

This makes so much more sense. It is a fair penalty to the team whose member loses a commander, without creating a potentially insurmountable disadvantage as Assassination could.

In any case, from now on I'll be asking the hosts of big games to use Supremacy as opposed to full share to balance the map. What are your thoughts?

Statistics: Posted by Wingflier — 31 Oct 2018, 04:51