Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-06T00:28:24+02:00

Nukes don't leave wreckage. Or not a lot anyway

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 06 Apr 2014, 00:28

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-04T19:25:48+02:00

Sounds like a case of different strokes for different folks.

You should always have some engineers and transports ready for reclaiming stuff though! What if you win a battle somewhere?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 04 Apr 2014, 19:25

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-04T17:19:51+02:00

Mycen wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Then captured units should also die...

And what about factories those given/captured units build?

Personally? I think that would be really awesome. Very fitting.

E8400-CV wrote:
Then deal with the higher rated opponent first or kill off all the eco of the weaker enemy. It's not that hard to get objectives straight.

I always have a good laugh when I'm playing setons (full share) and the enemy team kills off a noob in my team. Some time ago they sniped my rock player, then did not attack anywhere. I could upgrade all the rock mexes simultaneously and ultimately rolled over that sea. If the other team had a good priority list, they would have not sniped that ACU, but picked off his eco.

Yeah, see? That's an example of bad play. But how different would it really have been if you had lost all of your noob ally's stuff? I'd like to know what you think of the following point:

Consider the case you describe, where your opponents didn't push at all after the snipe, but with Share Until Death instead of Full Share. You still would have been able to go over there and reclaim everything, ending up in almost exactly the same position. You might have even been better off than with Full Share, because you could still rebuild the mexes right away, and all of the useless structures and units that your ally built would be ready to reclaim and recycle into your economy instead of having them mess with your unit cap. But if your opponents had followed up the attack as they should have, they would have had a much greater reward for their effective play because they would have been able to roll over the now empty area and have those resources ready for them to reclaim. Is this wrong?

I would have to airdrop in non-existent engies from my side. Depending on the stage of the game I either have next to no engies or a shitload of SCU's. In the time his mexes are death, they don't bring in any income. His useless crap eating at my unit cap is irrelevant, since I play with Share unit cap = Allies. Meaning on setons, if all my teammates die, I have a unitcap of 4000. CTRL+K'ng unwanted stuff is easy enough; no reason to have the game do it for you.

Mycen wrote:
I've mostly been playing ladder and 1v1s lately, and what I've noticed in those games is that the focus is on finding, isolating, and destroying the enemy ACU. How many ladder matches have you played where you've ignored an exposed ACU in order to go about decimating as much of the enemy base as you can? I'm guessing none, right?

Rounded on integers gives me 0% ladder games out of my total of ~1000 games. Actually, it seems the leaderbord can't even find my nick for 1v1 rating. I really couldn't care less for 1v1 ladder. It's like singleplayer; no teammates, no fun.

Mycen wrote:
I feel like these arguments about how Full Share only punishes people who don't work well as a team could certainly work for Share Until Death too. If you allow your allies to get sniped, you weren't working with them either, right?

Usually the one that gets sniped is the one that's not working as a teamplayer. Usually ignoring my "suggestions" to move ACU further back / build omni / get SMD

Pope_Melvin wrote:
What is annoying is (afaik) there is no way of checking which mode you are playing. Having to ask 'is full share on?' in general chat is a great way to tell everyone that you're planning a snipe.

Can't you just, umm, look at the game settings before the game starts?[/quote]

He refers to in-game.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 04 Apr 2014, 17:19

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-04T16:08:03+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
Then captured units should also die...

And what about factories those given/captured units build?

Personally? I think that would be really awesome. Very fitting.

E8400-CV wrote:
Then deal with the higher rated opponent first or kill off all the eco of the weaker enemy. It's not that hard to get objectives straight.

I always have a good laugh when I'm playing setons (full share) and the enemy team kills off a noob in my team. Some time ago they sniped my rock player, then did not attack anywhere. I could upgrade all the rock mexes simultaneously and ultimately rolled over that sea. If the other team had a good priority list, they would have not sniped that ACU, but picked off his eco.

Yeah, see? That's an example of bad play. But how different would it really have been if you had lost all of your noob ally's stuff? I'd like to know what you think of the following point:

Consider the case you describe, where your opponents didn't push at all after the snipe, but with Share Until Death instead of Full Share. You still would have been able to go over there and reclaim everything, ending up in almost exactly the same position. You might have even been better off than with Full Share, because you could still rebuild the mexes right away, and all of the useless structures and units that your ally built would be ready to reclaim and recycle into your economy instead of having them mess with your unit cap. But if your opponents had followed up the attack as they should have, they would have had a much greater reward for their effective play because they would have been able to roll over the now empty area and have those resources ready for them to reclaim. Is this wrong?

I've mostly been playing ladder and 1v1s lately, and what I've noticed in those games is that the focus is on finding, isolating, and destroying the enemy ACU. How many ladder matches have you played where you've ignored an exposed ACU in order to go about decimating as much of the enemy base as you can? I'm guessing none, right? If your opponent gives you the opportunity for the kill, you go for it. That's the type of game I enjoy playing even in a team setting, so that's why I prefer Share Until Death. If you want to play a game where the focus is more on defeating your opponent economically, with large battles (and if you don't want to have to worry so much about dropped connections) then Full Share is probably more appropriate.

I feel like these arguments about how Full Share only punishes people who don't work well as a team could certainly work for Share Until Death too. If you allow your allies to get sniped, you weren't working with them either, right?

Pope_Melvin wrote:
What is annoying is (afaik) there is no way of checking which mode you are playing. Having to ask 'is full share on?' in general chat is a great way to tell everyone that you're planning a snipe.

Can't you just, umm, look at the game settings before the game starts?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 04 Apr 2014, 16:08

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-04T13:15:22+02:00

Then captured units should also die...

And what about factories those given/captured units build?

Mycen wrote:
I've usually found cross-faction unit sharing to be repugnant to begin with. It's one thing to hand over control of some of your units for your ally to use, it's quite another to share engis so that you both are building units from both factions. Using Kennels powered by a Paragon to spam Yolona Osses? Ugh.

E8400-CV wrote:If you play 2 v 1 with the one guy having double base, you should work together and harass the heck out of your enemy. Given equal skill levels, your (plural) teamplay is just garbage if you don't win.

That sounds nice and obvious when you say it, but I'm not clear why it's a "given" that you're at equal skill levels.

Remember, most games are between randomly composed teams. (Whoever happens to be logged on and joins your game.) In fact, the method I most often see to balance teams is to put the lowest and highest rated players on one team, and the middle-ranked players on the other team. The entire purpose of that arrangement is that the player who's really good has to also work with players who are not so great.

With Full Share, if you then go and kill those players who aren't so great, their resources are diverted into the economy of a player who could easily be better than any of you - would you have joined the game if it was intentionally set up with a superior player taking on more than one inferior opponent? You can of course, try to wait to kill the lower-rated player's ACU (assuming you actually can afford to wait, because you do have to deal with their highly-skilled teammate at some point) but don't you find it rather perverse that players would be incentivized to not kill each other?

Of course, this point is often moot if the players are all relatively equally-matched. But as I said above, that's far from the norm. I would like to say that most of the time it really is difficult for a player with double eco to take advantage of that boost with the attention advantage multiple players have, but given the faf community's propensity for chokepoint maps of all varieties (not just setons, but gap, thermo, fort rockstone, etc.) it often isn't that difficult, since it's not like they can be easily flanked or harassed. But on more normal maps the full share advantage is usually easily negated, that's certainly true.
[...]

Then deal with the higher rated opponent first or kill off all the eco of the weaker enemy. It's not that hard to get objectives straight.

I always have a good laugh when I'm playing setons (full share) and the enemy team kills off a noob in my team. Some time ago they sniped my rock player, then did not attack anywhere. I could upgrade all the rock mexes simultaneously and ultimately rolled over that sea. If the other team had a good priority list, they would have not sniped that ACU, but picked off his eco.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 04 Apr 2014, 13:15

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-04T11:18:54+02:00

I don't see what the argument is, both modes are very different and reward different styles of game play. I don't see why one mode *has* to be the 'wrong' mode. If you don't like one mode, don't play games of that mode.

What is annoying is (afaik) there is no way of checking which mode you are playing. Having to ask 'is full share on?' in general chat is a great way to tell everyone that you're planning a snipe.

With share until die, any units that you give are effectively doubly vulnerable to being lost to a snipe, as they die if either the recipient or the donor ACU dies. IMO, units should only die if the original owner dies, this way units only die if one of the ACUs dies, but it stops the 'giving stuff away before you die' tactic.

Statistics: Posted by Pope_Melvin — 04 Apr 2014, 11:18

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T23:43:35+02:00

*Sits down with some popcorn to watch the carnage

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 03 Apr 2014, 23:43

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T22:36:16+02:00

I've usually found cross-faction unit sharing to be repugnant to begin with. It's one thing to hand over control of some of your units for your ally to use, it's quite another to share engis so that you both are building units from both factions. Using Kennels powered by a Paragon to spam Yolona Osses? Ugh.

E8400-CV wrote:
If you play 2 v 1 with the one guy having double base, you should work together and harass the heck out of your enemy. Given equal skill levels, your (plural) teamplay is just garbage if you don't win.

That sounds nice and obvious when you say it, but I'm not clear why it's a "given" that you're at equal skill levels.

Remember, most games are between randomly composed teams. (Whoever happens to be logged on and joins your game.) In fact, the method I most often see to balance teams is to put the lowest and highest rated players on one team, and the middle-ranked players on the other team. The entire purpose of that arrangement is that the player who's really good has to also work with players who are not so great.

With Full Share, if you then go and kill those players who aren't so great, their resources are diverted into the economy of a player who could easily be better than any of you - would you have joined the game if it was intentionally set up with a superior player taking on more than one inferior opponent? You can of course, try to wait to kill the lower-rated player's ACU (assuming you actually can afford to wait, because you do have to deal with their highly-skilled teammate at some point) but don't you find it rather perverse that players would be incentivized to not kill each other?

Of course, this point is often moot if the players are all relatively equally-matched. But as I said above, that's far from the norm. I would like to say that most of the time it really is difficult for a player with double eco to take advantage of that boost with the attention advantage multiple players have, but given the faf community's propensity for chokepoint maps of all varieties (not just setons, but gap, thermo, fort rockstone, etc.) it often isn't that difficult, since it's not like they can be easily flanked or harassed. But on more normal maps the full share advantage is usually easily negated, that's certainly true.

-_V_- wrote:
Full share makes you force to be smarter when you play cause you have to evaluate the consequences, and you just don't go in gambling and only think about the snipe. Maybe it's just that seeing the bigger picture is not the forte of way too many players ? Ahem!

Play smarter? I don't know about that. How "smart" you play isn't going to change based on the game mode, just what you focus your skills on. Play differently? Sure. But it's not like playing to beat your opponent economically is any more or less valid than playing to destroy your opponent's ACU, it just takes longer. For games that are quick and decisive, I find no share to be much more enjoyable.

-_V_- wrote:
I do not recall that many players complaining about the fact we could MANUALLY give our units when we were about to die , during GPGnet times. CTRL-X, F4, GIVE . Remember ?

Perhaps not. But what I would want to know in that case is: How was it decided that share until death was to be implemented in its current for on faf if everyone was fine with what you describe?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 03 Apr 2014, 22:36

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T17:19:32+02:00

i was talking about the actual story reason

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 03 Apr 2014, 17:19

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T17:14:08+02:00

Golol wrote:
-_V_- wrote:How to explain no share actually ?

Because units got their commander dying, they just suicide ?

IF THAT makes sense, then you can just imagine than once you give a unit, it gets reprogrammed to be linked to another commander, therefore shouldn't die when the original commander dies.

the units suicide after their commander died so other factions can't steal technology.

Not really. If you use a given engi to build a factory and the ACU that donated that engi dies, the engi dies, but the factory won't.

To make it consistent, captured units should die as well...

Aurion wrote:
-_V_- wrote:
Aurion wrote:no share means you actually get an advantage when killing an ACU.

In full share also if you do it right. But agreed it might take a bit more thinking.

How do you explain two proven equally skilled player losing to one player with almost double eco? It's a lot easier to fund lots of eco in one project and then another if you only have to work together with yourself.

* stupid play / retards ?
* the sole player is just better ?
* you sniped one ACU when you were already losing ?
* you didn't use proper team play ?
* you did poor decisions ?
* ultimate solution you didn't just give your base to the best of the 2 remaining ?

and so on ...

Well, I'm pretty sure that if we would do statistics on this (in anything other Seton's, again) I'm sure in games where one guy gets a huge eco there is too often (statistics) a comeback to use the excuses like you did. You have to kill the eco first in full share (effectively removing snipes as a possibility, because killing eco and then sniping an ACU isn't really very useful).

Because often they kill the lowest rated player with the result of giving his stuff to their highest rated player.

If you play 2 v 1 with the one guy having double base, you should work together and harass the heck out of your enemy. Given equal skill levels, your (plural) teamplay is just garbage if you don't win.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 03 Apr 2014, 17:14

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T16:21:34+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
Aurion wrote:no share means you actually get an advantage when killing an ACU.

In full share also if you do it right. But agreed it might take a bit more thinking.

How do you explain two proven equally skilled player losing to one player with almost double eco? It's a lot easier to fund lots of eco in one project and then another if you only have to work together with yourself.

* stupid play / retards ?
* the sole player is just better ?
* you sniped one ACU when you were already losing ?
* you didn't use proper team play ?
* you did poor decisions ?
* ultimate solution you didn't just give your base to the best of the 2 remaining ?

and so on ...

Well, I'm pretty sure that if we would do statistics on this (in anything other Seton's, again) I'm sure in games where one guy gets a huge eco there is too often (statistics) a comeback to use the excuses like you did. You have to kill the eco first in full share (effectively removing snipes as a possibility, because killing eco and then sniping an ACU isn't really very useful).

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 03 Apr 2014, 16:21

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T13:59:37+02:00

genius

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 03 Apr 2014, 13:59

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T13:52:18+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
How to explain no share actually ?

Because units got their commander dying, they just suicide ?

IF THAT makes sense, then you can just imagine than once you give a unit, it gets reprogrammed to be linked to another commander, therefore shouldn't die when the original commander dies.

the units suicide after their commander died so other factions can't steal technology.

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 03 Apr 2014, 13:52

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T13:51:35+02:00

Aurion wrote:
no share means you actually get an advantage when killing an ACU.

In full share also if you do it right. But agreed it might take a bit more thinking.

How do you explain two proven equally skilled player losing to one player with almost double eco? It's a lot easier to fund lots of eco in one project and then another if you only have to work together with yourself.

* stupid play / retards ?
* the sole player is just better ?
* you sniped one ACU when you were already losing ?
* you didn't use proper team play ?
* you did poor decisions ?
* ultimate solution you didn't just give your base to the best of the 2 remaining ?

and so on ...

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 03 Apr 2014, 13:51

Re: Donated Units

2014-04-03T12:34:21+02:00

Seton's players support full share, players of other maps generally don't. Can't we not get into this discussion once more? I guess with Seton's it has a purpose, but no share means you actually get an advantage when killing an ACU.

The x2 excuse is just plain BS. If ONE player manages and BALANCES the eco of two bases, and at the same time handles the units perfectly on TWO bases, well he deserves to beat you 1v2.

As far as I'm concerned it's pretty much a proven fact that full share turns around games more often than not (not talking about Seton's). How do you explain two proven equally skilled player losing to one player with almost double eco? It's a lot easier to fund lots of eco in one project and then another if you only have to work together with yourself.

Even though I'm discussing this right now I really think this is a matter that doesn't need discussing. Obviously because it's a setting you can choose whatever you like (and you can join full share games or not). I don't think there's an easy solution for no share if you don't share untill death (about the GC being donated dying).

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 03 Apr 2014, 12:34