@Jip
The regular units would be handled just like they would if they were gifted manually. To address your examples:
(1) When is a unit still considered linked to the UEF ACU? As an example, when I construct an extractor with UEF engineers is that structure linked to the UEF ACU, or linked to the Seraphim ACU? And what if I upgrade an extractor or an HQ, is that still linked to the UEF ACU or is it now linked to the Seraphim ACU? What about units made from factories?
It would function the same way as manually gifted units function with respect to ACU death. The extractor would be linked to the Seraphim ACU. The upgraded structure would be linked to the Seraphim ACU. If you owned the factory when it made a unit, that unit would be linked to you.
(2) Say an UEF unit can't be upgraded - it therefore remains 'linked' to the UEF ACU because you can't apply any of (1). Would you reclaim these units, and rebuild them with Seraphim engineers? Why would you not do that?
You could do that, but it would probably not be worth it in most cases because it would probably be inefficient and unnecessary in general. I have experienced many no share games where 1 player suddenly has to go or doesn't want to play any longer and gifts all of their units except their ACU and just parks the ACU in a relatively safe place and goes AFK. I don't recall ever seeing a player decide to go and reclaim and rebuild some of their newly gifted units in that situation for the purpose of them not dying if that player's ACU dies. Besdies, if that player's ACU dies, the wrecks would still be reclaimable anyway.
(3) And last - how does it work with UEF units that are shared manually? Do those transfer suddenly too, or are those destroyed too when the UEF ACU is destroyed? And then you end up with the choices regarding (1) - when are they still 'linked'?
It works like one should expect. If a UEF player gifts some units to another player, those units are still linked to the UEF ACU but are controlled by the player they were gifted to, even if the UEF player drops. If the UEF player drops and another player ends up controlling it, the units gifted from the UEF player are still linked to the UEF ACU. They would not suddenly be destroyed unless the UEF ACU was killed or they died normally (ieL by being shot to 0 hp).
(4) However from the opposing team’s perspective it wont be clear what the impact of an ACU snipe would be.
By that logic, one could say that it's already not clear what the impact of an ACU snipe will be since players can gift units to each other. This wouldn't be a new problem. Heck, I've seen no share games where at the beginning of a game, a player gifts everything they make to another player right after they make it and then goes rambo with their ACU after the first minute or so.
ftxcommando said in Should all of a player's units including the ACU be transferred when a player drops/quits?:
Actually it brings up the issue of your ACU being a lot of your early mass and e storage, you could probably hardlock yourself accidentally by doing this.
Ah, you also just totally destroyed matchmaker ability to prevent slot imbalance and significantly buffed premade teams. Best player gets most important slot at game start with pretty much zero loss in efficiency.
I want to clarify that these potential issues voiced by FTX would not be with what I suggested in the OP. While the ability to manually gift ACU's is an interesting idea worth discussing and others have mentioned it in this thread, it was not part of my OP because it would add some additional concerns. That could be discussed further in another thread.
Regardless, with my suggestion, it would still technically be possible for a 2k player to team up with 3 500's and get them all to leave the game at the start so that the 2k player can control all 4 bases and all 4 ACU's. That is not so different from what they could do now with full share, having the 500's gift all their units to the 2k and then them just micro'ing their ACU's the whole game while the 2k does everything else. One could also argue that both of those things are cheaty, but regardless, my point is that my idea wouldn't really add much to that sort of attempted abuse of the system, while it would help a lot in many cases, as I outlined in the OP.