Why does Fullshare exist?

I don't agree with your premise that full share = annihilation.

I would argue that the full share is a compromise between annihilation and assassination. therefore, it should exist as a legit option to play with.

also, the replay you shared doesn't prove anything. I don't have the statistics ready but I imagine that most of the time when an entire army goes poof! . the game collapses quickly after in favor of the team who scored the kill.

@zob said in Why does Fullshare exist?:

" I don't think you can find a battle in human history where one guy died and the whole rest of the army went, "ok, fuck it" and went home. "

WW2 (hitler) and chess, many other wars and battles

Hitler died April 30. Combat operations ceased on May 8, by order of the German High Command. There was still someone at the top issuing orders after he died.

Is that why fullshare exists?

@thewheelie Yes, Hitler died to give FAF fullshare.

Well there's a sentence I never thought I'd type.

EDIT: I think this thread has long since run its course and probably should just be closed.

Fullshare sucks, because it basically punishes snipes in many instances by giving the best player, furthest away, even more eco. And the way eco scales in this game is exponentially, not linearly. I don't tolerate it on anything other than Setons, where I suppose it kind of makes sense.

Eco does scale linearly though. If you have two people with equal eco and one of them dies giving the other player their eco, that player now has 2*x their original eco, not 2^x their original eco.

Math aside, if you take advantage of it snipes are still worth it unless there is a massive rating disparity. Just because someone doesn't understand how to capitalize on snipes in a certain game mode doesn't make that game mode bad. It would make for garbage gameplay to have anything other than full share in TMM for example.

@exselsior said in Why does Fullshare exist?:

Eco does scale linearly though. If you have two people with equal eco and one of them dies giving the other player their eco, that player now has 2*x their original eco, not 2^x their original eco.

Yes, when I say scales I mean the player who got 2x eco now has much more base income to make upgrades, which do exponentially scale. I'm referring to the economy scaling in the future past that point.

@zeldafanboy That's not how it works though. They have to maintain not only at least the same level of unit production that was originally being made, but often slightly more to offset the fact they now have one less ACU in combat. That's if you actually take advantage of the snipe though. If you rest on your laurels then yeah, you're putting your team on a massive disadvantage.

The eco advantage comes from the higher rated player using the eco better than the lower rated player. Only very good players can simultaneously eco two bases and fight on all the fronts better than two players each trying to do their part. If you let a 1k player do this then well it's kinda on you for letting them afk manage their bases.

The ACU that was sniped isn't necessarily integral to the frontline defense though. On a map like Canis River the other remaining teammates can quite easily fill the hole, while the air player now has double mex and power.

It's not very hard to upgrade eco when you're in the back slot... simple math and making enough buildpower.

Stuff like Canis, Dual Gap, and any Astro map are generally exceptions to normal gameplay. Canis less so, but still any team game map that has teams spawning very close together with most the mass there and far away from the enemy team are pretty cancerous to play with full share. This is very different from most of the more competitive team game maps and TMM where it switches to being cancerous to play without full share.

Not really, maps like Wonder, Diversity, Twin Rivers etc. are almost never played with fullshare in my experience. Canis River has pretty dense spawns but it's definitely not a cancerous turtle map like Astro Craters or Dual Gap...