Forged Alliance Forever

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-25T12:22:34+02:00

Gorton wrote:
Another point on what Mycen said is in larger games the possibility of it going on for longer is more likely.. which will result in more discons/crashes. Or even people leaving due to causing game slowdown/lag.

Yes when we first did share until death on setons upon coming to faf, it was never fun when people suddenly had to go/disconnected and 1/4 of your map control vanished.

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 25 Jul 2013, 12:22

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-24T19:17:15+02:00

Another point on what Mycen said is in larger games the possibility of it going on for longer is more likely.. which will result in more discons/crashes. Or even people leaving due to causing game slowdown/lag.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 24 Jul 2013, 19:17

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-24T17:45:29+02:00

Another main function of full share is to limit the damage done by players disconnecting. Nothing is worse than when your team is doing well, and then one player drops, eliminating a large fraction of your team's forces through no fault of their own. Full Share is practically a must for team games where some players don't have entirely stable connections.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 24 Jul 2013, 17:45

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-24T09:08:05+02:00

Retnut wrote:
The idea here is that when people complain about full share, they complain about the huge eco advantage suddenly afforded to one player. If all but eco structures were shared, the build capacity and defenses would be in place to replace and defend them, but it would not be an immediate bonus. I agree that it doesn't make any real narrative sense, though...

...My thought was sort of tangential to this: if they go to the lowest player then they have the highest chance of sitting idle, thus reducing the impact of full share on the game and, in some senses, bringing full share play a bit closer to no share play.

Then we have a basic clash of objectives. It is not possible to find a satisfactory solution to a problem if we have different understandings of what that problem is. We must decide what full share game mode ought to be like and what the problems are before we start suggesting changes.

Full share is deliberately designed to minimise the impact of the snipe on the team. It was also intended to counteract the abuse of shared units within team games, back in 3599. Where a player units would self destruct when he died, but if he had the presence of mind to give before he died, they did not... Which actively rewarded Com-bombing.

It is also intended to minimise the impact of a snipe in team games where each player is assigned a specific sector to cover. Such as Seatons Clutch... Where the death of units causes a drastic reshaping of events. Because there is now a hole in the defence which cannot be covered. In these games, death of player = defeat. Which inevitably means that games will rarely be played out to completion. But the team to first loose a player will either:

a) Rapidly counter-snipe to equalise the game; or
b) Quit the game.

Even in circumstances where that team may be wining. The objective of the full share mode is to minimise the impact of chance. By awarding victory to the team which can effect a military conquest. It minimises the impact of the snipe, and places better emphasis on the conquest. While still allowing an avenue for sniping as the final game ender. Generally I find it more satisfying to play Seatons Clutch with full share.

***

The problem which you described. With one player getting the full eco, and pumping that into a single project can still be countered by a team with all their players alive. There is nothing stopping the full team from pumping all their eco's into a single project. Higher level teams do this. So there is no reason why you can't. It just means you need to better communicate with your team.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 24 Jul 2013, 09:08

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-23T18:29:50+02:00

Firewall wrote:
a) I don't think it would may sense to do this. Why not for instance kill the military units, while leaving the engineers and factories instead? If units self destruct, it would make sense for them all to self destruct.

The idea here is that when people complain about full share, they complain about the huge eco advantage suddenly afforded to one player. If all but eco structures were shared, the build capacity and defenses would be in place to replace and defend them, but it would not be an immediate bonus. I agree that it doesn't make any real narrative sense, though.

TBH, I am perfectly fine with those units going to the highest scored player. Because, that means they have the highest chance of not sitting idle.

My thought was sort of tangential to this: if they go to the lowest player then they have the highest chance of sitting idle, thus reducing the impact of full share on the game and, in some senses, bringing full share play a bit closer to no share play.

I think the points that have been made about a high ranked/skilled player being able to absolutely roll a team of 2-3 once they get 2x-3x resources are valid in many cases and there are replays to prove it. If it went to the lowest player, this is much less likely. It also means that it's pretty unlikely for anyone to ever get more than two bases as getting one should bump them out of the lowest ranking pretty quickly.

And if the lowest player sits around ineffectively with his new units idle, their team only has to wait for the guy to be taken out (they're often targeted because they're seen as the easiest target), then all his units, inherited or otherwise, are guaranteed to go to someone playing better. Would it be annoying to see units going to waste if they go to somebody on your team who's short stacking the rankings pretty hard? Yeah (queue everyone yelling "share to me if you can't micro, loser"). Would it be less annoying than full share in its current form? I duno, just a thought.

Statistics: Posted by Retnut — 23 Jul 2013, 18:29

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-23T09:41:07+02:00

RoLa wrote:
Firewall wrote:
Retnut wrote:b) Shared units with the player with the lowest score instead of the highest? This would, on average, make the shared base less effective against the team who got the Comm kill and also make it very difficult for one person to pick up 3x/4x eco by collecting several bases in large games as the 2x eco would likely bring the lowest player up in the rankings pretty quickly, putting someone else first in line for when the next teammate pops. This obviously wouldn't do anything in 2v2, but it might be an interesting compromise for big games.

b) This would most likely lead to friction within the team. Because the lower skilled player is more likely to allow the units to stand idle. Generaly, when I am the recipient of a full share, I will get the units working straight away. Or hand over the units to the player best suited to control them. If you want another player to be the recipient of your units. It is always possible to give your units before you go pop. That way they go to a player of your choice.

Perhaps it would be an idea to share all eco buildings and units evenly between remaining team. All other units go to the best player(highest score).

If eco buildings and factories, etc, are to be sent to a different player they should go to only one player. Because adjacency bonuses. For instance, if eco buildings are shared it is likely that mass storage and the mexes to which they are adjacent will be given to different players.

I would suggest sharing along the following lines:
- land units & factories to the player with the most land;
- air units & factories to the player with the most air;
- naval units & factories to the player with the biggest navy;
- economic structures, defensive structures and engineers to the player with the smallest economy.

With this arrangement, units can then be integrated into a seamless operation. The only shortfall will be getting that lowest scored player to reassist the factories with the engineers... But if there was some way of sharing units without undoing their assigned commands that would be superb! (But there is probably something in the game engine which prevents this). TBH, I am perfectly fine with those units going to the highest scored player. Because, that means they have the highest chance of not sitting idle.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 23 Jul 2013, 09:41

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-23T08:04:19+02:00

Firewall wrote:
Retnut wrote:b) Shared units with the player with the lowest score instead of the highest? This would, on average, make the shared base less effective against the team who got the Comm kill and also make it very difficult for one person to pick up 3x/4x eco by collecting several bases in large games as the 2x eco would likely bring the lowest player up in the rankings pretty quickly, putting someone else first in line for when the next teammate pops. This obviously wouldn't do anything in 2v2, but it might be an interesting compromise for big games.

b) This would most likely lead to friction within the team. Because the lower skilled player is more likely to allow the units to stand idle. Generaly, when I am the recipient of a full share, I will get the units working straight away. Or hand over the units to the player best suited to control them. If you want another player to be the recipient of your units. It is always possible to give your units before you go pop. That way they go to a player of your choice.

Perhaps it would be an idea to share all eco buildings and units evenly between remaining team. All other units go to the best player(highest score).

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 23 Jul 2013, 08:04

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-23T03:43:57+02:00

Retnut wrote:
What if full share:
a) Shared only non-eco units, letting eco structures go pop with the Comm? Engie/factory build queues would need to be cancelled and structures like radar, arty, shields, etc. would need to be toggled off automatically to prevent a massive eco stall.

b) Shared units with the player with the lowest score instead of the highest? This would, on average, make the shared base less effective against the team who got the Comm kill and also make it very difficult for one person to pick up 3x/4x eco by collecting several bases in large games as the 2x eco would likely bring the lowest player up in the rankings pretty quickly, putting someone else first in line for when the next teammate pops. This obviously wouldn't do anything in 2v2, but it might be an interesting compromise for big games.

a) I don't think it would may sense to do this. Why not for instance kill the military units, while leaving the engineers and factories instead? If units self destruct, it would make sense for them all to self destruct.

b) This would most likely lead to friction within the team. Because the lower skilled player is more likely to allow the units to stand idle. Generaly, when I am the recipient of a full share, I will get the units working straight away. Or hand over the units to the player best suited to control them. If you want another player to be the recipient of your units. It is always possible to give your units before you go pop. That way they go to a player of your choice.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 23 Jul 2013, 03:43

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-22T21:36:07+02:00

What if full share:
a) Shared only non-eco units, letting eco structures go pop with the Comm? Engie/factory build queues would need to be cancelled and structures like radar, arty, shields, etc. would need to be toggled off automatically to prevent a massive eco stall.

b) Shared units with the player with the lowest score instead of the highest? This would, on average, make the shared base less effective against the team who got the Comm kill and also make it very difficult for one person to pick up 3x/4x eco by collecting several bases in large games as the 2x eco would likely bring the lowest player up in the rankings pretty quickly, putting someone else first in line for when the next teammate pops. This obviously wouldn't do anything in 2v2, but it might be an interesting compromise for big games.

Statistics: Posted by Retnut — 22 Jul 2013, 21:36

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-19T06:53:39+02:00

However, bad full share may be. The old GPG days of give before death were even worse. Essentially, the only way to kill an ACU was to do it suddenly and with no warning. For fear they might F4 >> Ctrl + X. Which rewarded deliberate ACU rushing.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 19 Jul 2013, 06:53

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-18T20:30:19+02:00

The thread I tl;dr'd because it would likely generate into a setons bashing, versus setonphile & the subtext being :My way of playing is truer than yours.

In my opinion, its rarely good for small and can be good for larger maps. It's effectiveness is dependent on how easy it is to trade/ to threaten to swap ACUs basically, which is usually correlate with map size (this 'can be offset by lots of reclaim but becomes increasingly less viable with size). Often on the larger maps, which can involve lots of frantic ecoing and teching, pplayers are unlikely to get their acu in a position to swap, unlesss in the rare case its a 'trade up' and they take one for the team.

The other thing is: Full share isn't "legal" it's a mod made by on of the old ui modders. Normally, you'd have to give before, or immediately after you died, or all your stuff went boom, and even that could be turn iirc. So it's not canonical by anystretch, no matter what you say.

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 18 Jul 2013, 20:30

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-18T16:32:59+02:00

Gyle wrote:
Firstly its not that simple. At the begining of the game for instance the role of team mates is far more important. You have to get out and grab map controll and if you dont have even teams you are in high danger of auto gg. But as the game progresses onward to the mid game and the point in time where snipes are likely to occure, the role of a team mate (often the weekest since he was the most vulnerable) becomes less important. Especially when you consider that his eco is going straight to the guy with the highest score on their team, possibly the most competant.

I dont any figures to give you or anything but I do have an intuative perception based on the replays I get that in full share there is a hugely significant statistical increase in the amount of games that get won by the team who are first to loose a player. To me that seems wrong. If you have managed to eliminate somone from the game, that should give you an advantage. Not allow one guy to start spamming asfs and build a bug and pwn your whole team. If the players good and the guys base is nearby it can be tough to stop him reclaiming the base and doing somthing similar anyway. Of course sc accounts point is conceded and its hugely map and situation dependant.

Yea, thanks Gyle. I do understand that the initial startup phase is most important. However, I have successfully won 2 full share games, where my teammate ejected in 30 seconds with only a factory given. In both these games, I built Rock and Beach positions on Seatons Clutch (from scratch). Controlling two separate naval engagements, with two different factions, against two other opponents. And STILL won! Mind you these experiences taught me the value of having those extra ACU's.

I think my comments on pooling economy is most relevant for that middle phase of the game. Say for instance, I don't need all of my eco to control my little part of the map. I could choose to spend 20% of my eco on units that I control. With 80% of my eco invested in some major project which my teammate is working on. Effectively, I would be giving my teammate that exact same full share advantage. But without having had the displeasure of actually dying. So I would still have some units under my control.

The advantages of the snipe are mostly intangible. It is a demoralising act, and often sets the tone for what will happen next. It also overloads the attention of the surviving players. So It is important after the snipe to punish such inattentions, with drops and raids. Sitting back is the worst thing to do after a snipe in full share. The game mode is actually not imbalanced. It is the metagame that needs to adjust to it... If teams know to expect that concentrated eco in a project. They should identify that project and pool their resources into the appropriate counter. I see this only as a phsycological problem with Team dynamics.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 18 Jul 2013, 16:32

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-17T17:22:34+02:00

Sup com is like a mixing of go and chess strategy game. You have the board control (like go) and destroy all the pieces on the board (like chess). We got this in a fast pace real time game....

When the share is off. The commander get a lot more value. No need to explain. But the wrekage after death are now a part of the strategy. You can have a lot more mass inject in the eco to the player does the reclaim. More reclaim= more chance to win (voodoo in the last gyle cast is a good exemple). This is more about a go game

When the share is on. I find the commander is not a valuable target (not that much when the share is off). All the ressources go to the allies (build,tech,ener,mass) are more valuable to target. Your first mean objectif is to cripple the eco before to kill the acu to prevent a mass ressource dumping to the allies. You have to think differently to be sure to not give any ressource before the kill. This is more about a chess game

For me, same game but with 2 differents way to play. That make the game a little more deep

Statistics: Posted by Circuit — 17 Jul 2013, 17:22

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-17T15:36:07+02:00

I actually don't care if it is full share or not, although I clearly see that share untill death promotes team play and focus on the game.(this however is useless if the other guy sleeps at his corner dreaming of "epic" strategies)
Much of the agitation I see about this matter is that a single player can humliate a team of 2 or more (and this is somehow unacceptable.) Which troubles me more, because you clearly state you like epic games, and coming back after having lost an ally, under seemingly unsurmountable difficulties, and because of cunning deeds, is the definition of epos.
In full share, a problem usually arises when the "winning" team decides to step back to play it "safely"or build some "epic " experimental(lol). In such cases it is possible that the lonely opponent is such a good ecowhore and the reason why he wins; or it is possible that he has a better understanding of the battlefield and doesn't waste his time on dreamy things and this is the reason he wins.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 17 Jul 2013, 15:36

Re: A humble argument for Full Share

2013-07-17T10:17:24+02:00

Firewall wrote:
I actually don't understand the agruments saying that a high ranked player with 2x eco is OP. If that were the case, why not just give them your stuff at the very beginning? There is no rule sayiing that team members can't pool their resources into a common project. It is actually stupidly easy to do. You just shut down your production and give resources in the diplomacy window. Or, if they lack the build power, have your engineers assist them.

Firstly its not that simple. At the begining of the game for instance the role of team mates is far more important. You have to get out and grab map controll and if you dont have even teams you are in high danger of auto gg. But as the game progresses onward to the mid game and the point in time where snipes are likely to occure, the role of a team mate (often the weekest since he was the most vulnerable) becomes less important. Especially when you consider that his eco is going straight to the guy with the highest score on their team, possibly the most competant.

I dont any figures to give you or anything but I do have an intuative perception based on the replays I get that in full share there is a hugely significant statistical increase in the amount of games that get won by the team who are first to loose a player. To me that seems wrong. If you have managed to eliminate somone from the game, that should give you an advantage. Not allow one guy to start spamming asfs and build a bug and pwn your whole team. If the players good and the guys base is nearby it can be tough to stop him reclaiming the base and doing somthing similar anyway. Of course sc accounts point is conceded and its hugely map and situation dependant.

Statistics: Posted by Gyle — 17 Jul 2013, 10:17