Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math

@arma473 Wrong. Economy scales exponentially. Just set up the differential equation and solve it.
But I don't quite get how the math is helping here at proving a point. Losing a base is setting you back quite a bit in time if you see the economy as an exponential function of time. It sets you even more back, because you have to spend all your mass into units afterwards to close the huge gap in the front line.
@Pure
I kinda see your point. When I was 1.2k rated I loved to play wonder and the air player meta was to go for a t2 air snipe (back in 2019). Nearly every game was decided via t2 air snipe in combination with an acu push. I quite enjoyed that type of game play back then. It felt like action! But the problem is that this tactic stays the meta even with higher rated players. It is so strong it kills nearly every other tactic, or the game just devolves even harder into an eco/ turtle fest.
The reason why t2 air snipes are so strong is because they are comparatively cheap. This is due to them being balanced around 1v1, where we want them to be a viable comeback strategy and 1v1s are generally played on a way tighter margin in terms of how much you can afford besides land units.
So the thing is we want to have more viable strategies in team games and most FAF players prefer the death of a thousand slices as Blodir would say. We do not want every game to be immediately decided by one mispositioned ACU.
The one thing I really dislike about full share game is when you intentionally leave a lower rated player alive to not give a stronger player the double base. This is only viable when the rating difference is quite significant (more then 500 I would say). Otherwise you really notice when a team is down a player, at least in the higher rated lobbies. In the lower rated Lobbies this isn't that obvious because the effect of being down a player is just drowned in the noise of varying player performance.

So the thing is we want to have more viable strategies in team games and most FAF players prefer the death of a thousand slices as Blodir would say. We do not want every game to be immediately decided by one mispositioned ACU.
The one thing I really dislike about full share game is when you intentionally leave a lower rated player alive to not give a stronger player the double base. This is only viable when the rating difference is quite significant (more then 500 I would say). Otherwise you really notice when a team is down a player, at least in the higher rated lobbies. In the lower rated Lobbies this isn't that obvious because the effect of being down a player is just drowned in the noise of varying player performance.

This can easily be fixed by giving the base to the lowest rated player, instead of the highest (as it is now).

That would just be annoying since the the lowest member would be then asked to give the base manually.

@jip said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

So the thing is we want to have more viable strategies in team games and most FAF players prefer the death of a thousand slices as Blodir would say. We do not want every game to be immediately decided by one mispositioned ACU.
The one thing I really dislike about full share game is when you intentionally leave a lower rated player alive to not give a stronger player the double base. This is only viable when the rating difference is quite significant (more then 500 I would say). Otherwise you really notice when a team is down a player, at least in the higher rated lobbies. In the lower rated Lobbies this isn't that obvious because the effect of being down a player is just drowned in the noise of varying player performance.

This can easily be fixed by giving the base to the lowest rated player, instead of the highest (as it is now).

That "fix" can be fixed if the lower-rated player just gives their base to the higher-rated player.

In fact, you can get the same result without an ACU dying, if the lower-rated player just gives their base at any time.

I mean, let's be honest. The base goes to the first person willing to keep it. Be it lowest rated or highest rated. So you will often see it juggled regardless of who got it.

@tagada said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

That would just be annoying since the the lowest member would be then asked to give the base manually.

You assume that the lowest rated player is willing to do so

90% of circumstances base is given to dude that is next door to the guy that died.

Depends on the ratings. Majority of the times i've seen it stays with whoever receives it (that's TMM around the 1k level).

Also if it does then have to switch from the lowest ranking to the highest ranking manually, that takes up time and attention, both meaning there's a longer period of that base doing nothing, and the player it goes to doing much less (and hence more of a benefit/less of a penalty to killing the enemy ACU).

It would at least slightly reduce the incentive to leave an ACU alive when it's exposed/vulnerable to being killed. Particularly at the ranks I play at/skill variance, there's a massive difference between say a rank 500 and a rank 1k, and I am likely to cost my team the game by killing the rank 500 if they leave their ACU exposed (unless I can follow through and kill the entire base at the same time).

How explored has that mode been where it gets given to civilians? So instead of rebuilding everything, stuff just has to be captured. Or maybe half to a player, half to civilians? Somewhere in between full and no share.

That would be even more game ruining than no share.

Best compromise between full share and no share would be some equivalent of losing some % of units but not losing the base itself.

@ftxcommando said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

90% of circumstances base is given to dude that is next door to the guy that died.

@Jip Wouldn't it be possible to automatically give the base to the player with the closest spawn?

That's not desirable and just trying to artificially make full share worse by making the experience worse/more annoying for the players. If the base is received by lowest/ wrong player then he will be prompted to give the base to someone else, if he doesn't comply he will probably get pinged, the game will be stopped, the chat will be spammed and someone may even flame him. Doesn't look like a good solution to me. Also Full share promotes somewhat agressive pushes that don't need to be all iny/ coordinated with the whole team. As long as you do enough damage and disrupt your enemies even you dieing in the end isn't such a big thing. That's a good thing in my book. The main problem with full share is suiciding ACUs to kill armies (mostly small water maps where the navy can't get away from the ACU). If you try to abuse ACUs a lot and go for some combined push then you risk losing the game anyways since ACU that are clumped together can easily chain explode.

Too many games are already ruined because of the absence of Full-Share.

This rant covered in a fake scientific flavor just is the current 'thing'; hating on Full-Share.

I can't believe most people think the human limit of APM is like 180

Why does clicking 180 times in a minute matter in a game with a 500 m/s delay

@ftxcommando

It's true that each unit can only benefit at most from being issued roughly two orders a second, and in most cases this is completely superfluous, but I don't understand how that hurts my argument that getting gifted another base in eco is more than worth the additional APM requirements (completely dependent on map, I concede.)

@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

@ftxcommando

It's true that each unit can only benefit at most from being issued roughly two orders a second, and in most cases this is completely superfluous, but I don't understand how that hurts my argument that getting gifted another base in eco is more than worth the additional APM requirements (completely dependent on map, I concede.)

I have no clue how your previous post is supposed to entail everything you wrote in this one when it didn't make any arguments at all. Not even sure how sarcastic it was supposed to be considering the way it was worded.

Also you are really undermining how taxing 2-3 bases are on a single person, especially when opponents keep the pressure up. Just yesterday I nearly lost game due to enemy ASF initiating fight against mine when I was occupied dealing with 2 other land players pushing my base. I could have lost the game here and there even though apparently I should be crushing with 3 bases.

@i_forgorthescene

Well my original argument can be found in the second post I made in this thread.

@i_forgorthescene said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:

Also you are really undermining how taxing 2-3 bases are on a single person, especially when opponents keep the pressure up. Just yesterday I nearly lost game due to enemy ASF initiating fight against mine when I was occupied dealing with 2 other land players pushing my base. I could have lost the game here and there even though apparently I should be crushing with 3 bases.

Wait so you barely won a game that you surely would have lost if those 2 other bases got turned to reclaim and that's supposed to be an argument on why fullshare is just as punishing as noshare?

No one has yet to explain how no share leads to any vibrancy of gameplay when full share still sees t2 air snipes as incredibly powerful in the meta when they dont carry an immediate 20-40k of infrastructure/unit deaths once you kill the enemy acu.

“just protect acu 4head” doesn’t work when you got 4 acus to protect and oftentimes maps dictate you to go into acu v acu situations to control reclaim. If you give up the reclaim then you just auto lose unless you specifically coordinated some immediate snipe.

Not to mention coordinating ints so you can stop an attack is significantly harder than coordinating a t2 air attack, especially on larger maps.