Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math

3

NOTE: I wrote portions of this prior to realizing FTXCommando wrote a white paper on the history of Full Share.

I have to write this topic on full share because of my full frustration watching this cancer slowly seep its way further and further into FAF. First it was just isolated to setons. Then, after the mapgen was created, it became popular there because players could not handle the fast pace of death. Then a ranked 4v4 league was created. Soon, most online game replays cast are full share because the audience demants artifical "ePiC" plays that are more about achieving T4 than comebacks from the brink, or well though out exploits or clever teamwork.

I know this will likely go nowhere, but its the only thing I can do.

I would like to base my argument in that this is not a subjective A or B, it is quite literally built into the game because of Math, Exponential Growth, Unit Options
and core goals.


Math and Economics

The math in eco in Supreme commander is exponential. Early to Mid game CO deaths create natural snowball eco-effects.

When I first started playing and didn't know what I was doing, I did quite a few games of Setons, where I was mostly mid. Being low level most of these games were No-Share / Standard. Mid was fun, as it was high risk. Lots of mass in the mid to
grab, with potential threats from ground, air and sea. Could it lead to quick deaths and a early end of game? Sure, but this is a single map, with a single scenario. People like it because of the "lanes" it provides. It can also be stale, like any other map done over and over. It is not inherently bad or good, just a scenario where "lanes" don't interact with each other until a surprise attack comes. No surprise therefore that this map became breeding ground for fullshare.

(as a sidenote - it is just a scenario, and personally I don't think deserves as much time spent on it as other scenarios / maps do. Can't
balance the whole game off of one map and situation)

Thus, when I first encountered full share, it was of course on Setons. A few years ago that was its primary residence, the one place the cockroach could stay and hide. My first thought when I saw a CO's base not explode, is that tt was the dumbest thing
I had encountered, especially as someone who had enjoyed the front / middle position. It was obvious the best strategy would be to collect as much mass from the shipwrecks as you could, upgrade your Mexes to T2, then suicide your comm in the best way possible. All the extra eco would go to your air player, inheriting 4 to 6 T2 mexes, giving them a significant mid game eco advantage over the enemy Air, and the risk of having your front line open was low, because your base and units would still exist, and because Setons has "lanes", the middle is a natural choke point. Its fairly long, giving plenty of time to react, and pushing through is even longer,
so any thrusts could be contained. And if you suicides good, you blew up a few enemy mexes or something.

Likely my experience was at low level, and did not see crazy spam over the large distances that FTXCommando wrote in his paper. But there
is something to be said about giving up distance / terrain to buy time.

This is proven as a good strategy for Full Share Setons, as everyone will yell at you if you kill the enemy mid comm early.

Think about this for a moment. A grand strategy battle game, where killing the enemy is bad. How? What? Why?


Offense v Defense

It is also obvious that one of the best elements of FAF is how the units and structures are balanced so that significant investments in defense should generally loose to a competent player significantly investing in Offense, as they will competently scout, find your weak area (what you didn't invest in), and exploit it. There always is a opening for ground, or air, or tac missiles, or artillery, or terrain; if you
are keeping up with eco. You simply cannot build all of them at once in all key locations. This is the basic game theory.

This is supremely fun because base-builder games are dime a dozen, and aren't interesting from a comparative standpoint or a "Art of war" standpoint. Coupled with the comparative lack of micro needed in FAF vs other games, and we get ourselves a very theoretical game where your effort may be spend looking for ways to exploit the enemy. There are more ways to kill the enemy than they can defend themselves. Death finds a way!

What is fun, is the parallel to real life. Scouting. Finding a weakness. Exploiting it. Flanking the enemy. Defense in Depth vs Deep Battle. FAF brings to the table what only some of the best military simulators manage to do, while being a RTS. The key being that the goal is singular, and that is to kill the enemy COM. This allows for those brilliant plays, those epic moments. The comeback potential.

Now the "epic" casts of fullshare only got that way because a few people died early and everyone else eco'd into T4. That's artificial. Of course I understand why those are the ones that are shown - they get the views because everyone gets to throw T4 toys at each other. However it IS SO MUCH MORE EPIC if a teamgame naturally progresses to that point, with COM's being assassinated, the game balance thrown back and forth as players gamble on risk/reward plays because they put in the effort to notice a weakpoint or hole in the enemy lines.


Exponential Growth to force Endgame

Combining the two chapters above, we come to another realization of the exponential economy and the unit design. As the game goes on, more opportunities end up presenting themselves to kill the enemy CO, albiet being higher risk (time + mass) vs reward. A wave of Tacs. A wave of Strat Bombers. A Experimental. A Nuke. T3/4 Arty.

THIS. IS. THE. POINT. They are called GAME-ENDERS for a reason!
If you have failed to thus far eliminate the enemy, and have Eco'd the game rewards you with shortcuts to wrap things up. The bombs are bigger, the units are bigger, the weapons more devastating. Eventually, something breaks and it all come crumbling down. This isn't Civilization or the Sims. Dying is the point. Your opponent will literally not be able to defend every threat, they may be able to choose 2 out of 5,
even with proper recon and notice. It is winner takes all, with no in between.


Dying

At the end of the day, I can't help but ignore that folks are just upset that they died. Yes, your COM exploded. Your team is now at a disadvantage...and thats the literal point isn't it? You don't get rewarded or come out neutral for screwing up. The unit cost and types of units were all balanced around this.

Yes, you are tired of playing another team game where another player did something silly, died, and now its a 3v4 5 minutes in. I take those opportunities to see what I can do to turn it around. Or get friends or a clan to play with. These will lead to your most favorite moments in the game. But Full Share team game isn't it. "Be sure not to kill the enemy CO" isn't it.

Pick up games are chaotic, and silly, and rank doesn't imply skill and sometimes players are experimenting with wierd strats. Your answer isn't full share. If you want to play sims, there is a beautiful scenerio for you: Dual Gap. With two chokepoints and a huge middle space, even the most amatuer of scouting will see anything coming. Plenty of time for you to prepare. Hell, the space in the middle is so large, and the chokepoints/gaps tight enough, that it sometimes isn't even worth fighting in the middle vs actually just ecoing before your opposition reaches your base. Nice and safe. You don't even have to worry about contributing because someone else likely took the mantle of building 4 Novax.


Willow's Duality video / General Counter Arguments

Willow recently had a video. It even had a poll. I have seen this movie before. Back when first-person shooters had dedicated servers, things followed a trajectory. Dust2 for Counter Strike. Facing Worlds for Unreal Tournament. Strike at Karkand for Battlefield 2. We all know where this goes. The safe, cuddly, familiar experience. Over time, more and more servers become 24/7. The map that was included in the demo ends up reducing the full game back to just being a large demo. Hence, no surprise that the poll showed people wanted simply more large-unit count battles, and are less interested
in other nuanced stuff. Sorry folks, ya basic!

Anyway, some of the arguments brought up in the video:

a) Death Impact too high.

-Well yes, that is what loosing is. You are loosing the game. Sorry.

b) Encourages Snipes & Passive ACU Play

  • Regarding snipes, see above. A horde of strats is a Game Ender considering how much mass was spend. Same with 8 tacs launched at your CO. Perform recon & exploit. This is the basis for warfare, and is the basis for FAF. Whether it is elegant or not is beside the point. All is fair in love & war.

  • ACU play isn't really a fair point for all situations. Early and Mid game ACU have plenty of firepower. You could balance ACU's to be more tanky for late game, but it would make them extremely tanky for early. A more sound solution would be so find a way to make T1 and T2 last longer, but lets step back on what this "Passive ACU Play" really means. Later game in a 4v4 or 5v5, there are a lot of threats that
    grow in magnitude so your ACU runs and hides. Isn't this the purpose of the "GAME ENDER" mentioned above? The enemy COM SHOULD BE SCARED!

    Forcing your opponent to react is a valid strategy!

c) To win you need to fight through

  • In terms of gameplay, quite honestly based on above the balance isn't set up around it. It isn't that you cannot defeat-in-detail it is that through forcing that as the only possibility, it becomes really obvious what the enemy will do (DiD), and much easier to defend, typically leading to more eco and a drive for game enders.

d) There is plenty of penalty dying (Despite your base being donated)

  • Objectively, as noted above, simply no. There are objectively significant advantages that occur, especially if you die early to mid game. Especially (and ironically) in the birthplace of full share, Seton's, where it is practically abuse-able to die on purpose.

e) Doesn't like snipes as main point

  • This is kinda on the author bud. Scouting will prevent this. Picking your own strategy and forcing the opposition to react will prevent this. Further, the game is inherently balanced around 1v1, and hence the ACU kill. Chaotic Team games are a bit bigger in scope. Even super cheesy snipes have consequences. I can for example, if on air slot, rush T2 gunships at 5 minutes. It may work in a large map where there isn't enough air cover to go around. If I fail however, I will be facing an enemy air player with T3 in 10 to 12 minutes and I will be about 2 to 4 minutes behind. Big risk reward. If you die, I deserve reward commensurate to risk. If I fail, your team gets a HUGE boon.

Making calculated risk/reward decisions is a cornerstone of life. That line is different for everyone. You don't have to try a snipe strategy, but if your opponent fails to notice a wall of tac missles being built at huge cost and fails to exploit the enemy pouring all their resources into 5 lanchers, that is on you. You kinda deserved to loose. Sorry.

f) Nobody played 4v4 Ranked No Share

  • Yes, because it replicated basic pick up games in the custom lobby. Its hard enough to find some ranked 1v1 or 2v2 partners. Honestly, 4v4 or 5v5 pick up custom games are kinda chill anyway. The 1v1 is really where (I at least) make sure I am up for the focus and challenge. Even if it only lasts 5 minutes, it is a very awake and exhilarating panic-striken five minutes.

G) Not enough Depth with Air + Setons

  • As noted, Setons is one map, one scenario. A game should not be balanced on one scenario. I can only image in Unreal Tournament was balanced based on Facing Worlds. This can be extended to many maps being popular because they have a dedicated air slot.

Lets be honest for a moment - there isn't much depth in air to begin with in terms of mechanics. Control skies, then bomb. Having a dedicated air slot on many common maps does inherently reduce the depth. Host and play more maps where everyone is responsible for air.


Ende / Closing

At the end of the day, because of Math and, Inherent Balance Design, the are objectively not "equal ways" of a preference. One of them has the entire
base of code behind it, and has created one of hte most unique and exciting RTS's that is still relevant and holding strong. The other exists because watching rockem sockem robots is the fantasy while avoiding "stress" and anxiety of having to contribute to a team effort.

Recently, I ended up in a game that I didn't realize was full share, and I was surprised to see when my COM died defending my base...it was left intact
and donated to a teammate. The first thought was "lame". Mostly because I felt robbed. I had fought honorably, and I was denied a honorable death. Most dishonorably, because despite failing to hold my flank and going down in a last stand, all of my resources were now given to another player, who proceeded to quickly tech up and winning the team the game. I did not deserve that win, or those points. I died fairly after fighting a fair fight. My team deserved the opportunity to try and patch together my failure, hold the line, and make something out of it. This happens more often than not.

It all felt so fake. So Artificial. All in the name of memes, a sad, desperate search for "ePiC" moment, instead of actual epic ones.

Back to First Person Shooters for a moment, one criticism Valve has gotten with regards to CSGO is when they try and make "Every gun relevant", despite the game being heavily based around the cost and function inflection point of the AK47 and M4 Rifles. Everything else being situational items. At present, FAF is similarly balanced around units and economy being good for the winner-take all COM death is GG.

Obviously I mean nothing, and if I stop playing it means nothing, but for what it is worth if the only thing people play becomes full share, I'll just stop. There won't be a point really. I'll find a different game. I refuse to feel dirty for dying, or feel like I fucked up for winning my front. Racing games don't tell me to drive slow unless there is some consequence (tires wear, fuel). Shooter's don't tell me to NOT kill an oponent when they walk into a tactically awful situation because they rest of the team gets all their ammo and items transferred (Actually, Doom Eternal did force me to avoid killing demons in certain situations, and it is much worse off for it. Poor Gameplay).

TLDR, Thanks 4 listening to my TED TALK. Math exists and you can't get around it. Shout out to FC clan for hosting different, fresh maps and keeping things spicy.

6

Skill issue.

3

Error 1: "Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math"

There is no math

Error 2: "People like it because of the "lanes" it provides. It can also be stale, like any other map done over and over. It is not inherently bad or good, just a scenario where "lanes" don't interact with each other until a surprise attack comes. No surprise therefore that this map became breeding ground for fullshare."

Senton is not a lane map, lane maps don't exist aside from misunderstandings of how teamgames actually work. Any high level senton game is ultimately decided by questions of mass concentrations, in particularly competitive (read: tournament) games this can be seen by players optimizing gameplay around extreme air heavy gameplay, walking 2 acus mid, and massive land spam including early bombers/labs from the front player. Fighting over the mid reclaim becomes equivalent to fighting over the central 4 squares in chess and every piece coordinates to make sure you express control there and later jump from that to control elsewhere.

Error 3: " It was obvious the best strategy would be to collect as much mass from the shipwrecks as you could, upgrade your Mexes to T2, then suicide your comm in the best way possible."

Your idea of the optimal strategy does not play out in any high level senton game. You can go ask Yudi, Nexus, Farm, Foley, or any other flavor of top player about how easy it is to micro 4 bases against 4 players, even if those 4 players are actually a deviation worse than you in skill. Either you are wrong or you believe you have better game sense than all top 50 of FAF. Which is it?

Error 4: "This is proven as a good strategy for Full Share Setons, as everyone will yell at you if you kill the enemy mid comm early."

Nobody yells at you for killing a mid player early in (high level) Sentons. In fact one of the greatest copium memes is "I have nice eco" after dying early and now your team needs to delay their scale in order to make sure the game isn't completely over. Mid player can abuse this by going hard eco if enemy overinvested into defenses. Mid player can get ACU upgrades and push directly in with a late t2-early t3 force. Mid player can get TML and cancer bases. Mid player can get t2 air and drop tons of his units he made past the mid base and cancer mexes. And so on.

Error 5: "What is fun, is the parallel to real life. Scouting. Finding a weakness. Exploiting it. Flanking the enemy. Defense in Depth vs Deep Battle. FAF brings to the table what only some of the best military simulators manage to do, while being a RTS. The key being that the goal is singular, and that is to kill the enemy COM. This allows for those brilliant plays, those epic moments. The comeback potential."

You didn't address any of the gameplay elements I wrote about in my pdf you were talking about. The point of No share is that there is no "epic gamer tactics" because killing an ACU carries an inherent 40k mass loss for the enemy team if you succeed. It is basically impossible to imagine a mass investment in a snipe that is not worth it in any 20x20 map. Suiciding 20 corsairs to kill enemy mid on sentons so all infrastructure blows up is not even a question. This is not strategy. This is so powerful it isn't even really something that makes sense to defend against because you could simply do the same to your enemy. Either they equalize with a kill on your team or you win the game automatically. Less risk than you trying to prevent the snipes and potentially risking a game loss because someone was asleep with their 10-20 ints for the 15 seconds it takes a snipe to get to an ally ACU anywhere on the map.

Error 6: "At the end of the day, I can't help but ignore that folks are just upset that they died. Yes, your COM exploded. Your team is now at a disadvantage...and thats the literal point isn't it?"

Yes, that's literally what happens in Full Share. Want me to show you streams of Farm and I playing 2v2s where one of us dies and we give up because it's a hugely complicated position and one of us doesn't have the apm to handle it unless we can quickly equalize by killing an enemy player?

I completely skipped everything where you started talking about Valve and Counter-Strike balance.

0

Hate to see it. Being gate kept at 900 due to everyone playing pussy ass fullshare instead of omega beast no-share.
Would be 2k rated beast in no-share only scenario!

9

Anyone find it weird how like every post railing against full share never explains the ease of managing multiple bases? It's always some dude explaining how he died early and some dude on his team got his base or how he killed a dude on enemy team and his base didn't blow up.

Where are the dudes giving the step by step instructions on how they inherited 4 bases and hard carried a game themselves?

0

Yudi needs to make a guide

I’m a shitty 1k Global. Any balance or gameplay suggestions should be understood or taken as such.

Project Head and current Owner/Manager of SCTA Project

5

People say they play faf for the strategic decisionmaking but then get upset when killing the lowest rated enemy isn't always worth it but a situational decision smh

5

Firstly, there was a disappointing lack of math in this. I think that's because what math there might be here doesn't support your premise.

Secondly, have you tried... not killing the lowest rated enemy ACU and instead go kill eco or something actually useful to kill? Or maybe tried pressuring the apm of the person who gets the base because managing two bases well is hard? You know, the strategy part of the strategy game?

1

Yet another post railing against Full-Share with out even talking about any of the downsides & difficulties faced when losing a teammate with full-share on.

Getting another base's eco doesn't matter if you're not good enough to or have the APM to utilize it. As FTX said, I've also quit plenty of games as the last or one of the last players alive because I simply did not have the APM or energy to manage so much despite the game technically being winnable still.

Also, newsflash! No one is stopping anyone from playing no-share. Play whatever you want, let us play what we want. What's the problem?

0

Leave team games to ladder if u hate full-share

1

Fullshare is bad on most land maps. It seems like most of these posters mostly play Setons so that’s why I’m assuming there’s so much disagreement.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

1

ftx, famous sentoner

1

@zeldafanboy There’s not a single person who has posted in this thread who exclusively plays setons, and there’s at least one person who famously doesn’t play setons who posted in favor of fullshare. Losing an ACU on a land based map is a large blow, both in terms of the acu itself and the apm it represents. If you can’t capitalize on that then don’t kill the acu.

1

@exselsior

A lot of land maps create static fronts where there's already defensive infrastructure that you inherit after the teammate dies. If the teammate next to you dies it's really not that hard to consolidate, especially if they were playing the same faction. And if they weren't next to you usually the person gifts the base to the adjacent player.

Supcom is really not a very high APM game, sure fullshare doesn't really help when you're the last player on your team inheriting the other 3 bases, but losing one commander isn't that eventful. A highly skilled player can easily benefit more than suffer when they get double eco and have to double their APM from 80 to 160 (which is like... platinum league in starcraft 2)

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

2

good job u just ignored almost all arguments made in the thread

1

@exselsior

I said mostly (meaning there are some who dont) people who mostly (meaning sometimes they play other maps) play Setons. I didn't say everyone here only played Setons.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

0

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

Error 1: "Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math"

There is no math

Look at how much Mass a T1 Mex vs a T2 Mex vs a T3 Mex provides. Is it a linear relationship, or exponential? Do I need to spell it out?

Senton is not a lane map, lane maps don't exist aside from misunderstandings of how teamgames actually work. Any high level senton game is ultimately decided by questions of mass concentrations, in particularly competitive (read: tournament) games this can be seen by players optimizing gameplay around extreme air heavy gameplay, walking 2 acus mid, and massive land spam including early bombers/labs from the front player. Fighting over the mid reclaim becomes equivalent to fighting over the central 4 squares in chess and every piece coordinates to make sure you express control there and later jump from that to control elsewhere.

In the initial stages of that map one player is going mostly ground, two are going mostly naval, and one is going mostly air/eco. These domains are isolated from each other, and in the middle is a giant chokepoint. I don't need to be more pedantic about this. Like with any large map, losses even in No-Share are negated by large distance. On this map it is generally safer for each player to eco. No need to risk assaulting the enemy ACU either.

Its just a single scenerio that honestly isn't that amazing, despite the hours spent on it. Its very specific and provides a single type of game. It inherently provides a "coziness" around ecoing in your base, which attracts those who enjoy eco, which feeds itself into the type that would enjoy Full share (that promotes eco).

Your idea of the optimal strategy does not play out in any high level senton game. You can go ask Yudi, Nexus, Farm, Foley, or any other flavor of top player about how easy it is to micro 4 bases against 4 players, even if those 4 players are actually a deviation worse than you in skill. Either you are wrong or you believe you have better game sense than all top 50 of FAF. Which is it?

I didn't say it was easy, just simple or straightforward. If the community only wants to promote gametypes that favor APM, I'd rather go play starcraft.

Nobody yells at you for killing a mid player early in (high level) Sentons. In fact one of the greatest copium memes is "I have nice eco" after dying early and now your team needs to delay their scale in order to make sure the game isn't completely over. Mid player can abuse this by going hard eco if enemy overinvested into defenses. Mid player can get ACU upgrades and push directly in with a late t2-early t3 force. Mid player can get TML and cancer bases. Mid player can get t2 air and drop tons of his units he made past the mid base and cancer mexes. And so on.

I'm glad nobody has yelled at you in the niche of Setons. Guess what happens everywhere else? I have had plenty of teamgames where my team wins because I died.

Error 5: "What is fun, is the parallel to real life. Scouting. Finding a weakness. Exploiting it. Flanking the enemy. Defense in Depth vs Deep Battle. FAF brings to the table what only some of the best military simulators manage to do, while being a RTS. The key being that the goal is singular, and that is to kill the enemy COM. This allows for those brilliant plays, those epic moments. The comeback potential."

You didn't address any of the gameplay elements I wrote about in my pdf you were talking about. The point of No share is that there is no "epic gamer tactics" because killing an ACU carries an inherent 40k mass loss for the enemy team if you succeed. It is basically impossible to imagine a mass investment in a snipe that is not worth it in any 20x20 map. Suiciding 20 corsairs to kill enemy mid on sentons so all infrastructure blows up is not even a question. This is not strategy. This is so powerful it isn't even really something that makes sense to defend against because you could simply do the same to your enemy. Either they equalize with a kill on your team or you win the game automatically. Less risk than you trying to prevent the snipes and potentially risking a game loss because someone was asleep with their 10-20 ints for the 15 seconds it takes a snipe to get to an ally ACU anywhere on the map.

This is the scenerio of Setons. Large and dedicated enough that there is high risk. It is a o.k. map. Trying to "patch it" with Full-share is an "o.k." fix.

The more players and larger the map is, the more risk this carries. That is why it is such a breath of fresh air when a map doesn't have a dedicated air slot. Going all in on air requires more risk of time and eco for lower likelyhood of reward.

Players generally do not want responsibility to contribute to air, so they favor maps with a dedicated slot. They can ignore air responsibilities, then blame air when it goes wrong.

This is why these poorer maps and scenarios are popular. They are easier to avoid blame/responsibility. More players, more dedicated air / naval slots. Huuuuuge size.

Error 6: "At the end of the day, I can't help but ignore that folks are just upset that they died. Yes, your COM exploded. Your team is now at a disadvantage...and thats the literal point isn't it?"

Yes, that's literally what happens in Full Share. Want me to show you streams of Farm and I playing 2v2s where one of us dies and we give up because it's a hugely complicated position and one of us doesn't have the apm to handle it unless we can quickly equalize by killing an enemy player?

"My teammate dying didn't benefit us enough, so GG"

I completely skipped everything where you started talking about Valve and Counter-Strike balance.

Cool story. Etiher way, FAF community isn't different to other game communities. The community will at large tend to settle on a few popular maps that also happen to be the "warm and fuzzy-est" Anything that is large with a tight gap, chokepoint, or huge physical obstacle that allows for more eco. Anything that has a dedicated air slot.

These maps inherently promote a move to full share.

Likewise, other games also tend to be balanced around a core concept. Since you aren't interested, I won't spell it out for other games, but it is clear that FAF does have them. one of them for example, in most other RTS games, counters are much "hard-er" counters. In some games, an anti-air unit will obliterate any and all air threats that so much get an idea to move towards them. FAF is on the softer side, more like Sins of a Solar Empire. By keeping things on the softer side, and having simple unit types, really narrows and focuses the gameplay. Less micro, more options.

==============================
Other Rando Comments in No Order

Don't kill lowest enemy: Not a problem in Normal Gameplay, only a problem in Full Share. For all the complaining about teammates dying, how is that worse than having a teammate that has poor eco or whatever and your opponent leaves them alive because full share and rather let them waste of 4 to 6 mexes? If it always comes down to "my teammate sucks", this isn't fixed in full share. You just remove the reward for a gambit.

Lack of Math: Go to any FAF wiki, review how much resources and units are produced and cost at T1, T2, and T3. Do I need to make a graph? This is pretty obvious, and no it isn't vaguely higher or a straight line.

Math, again, for those who missed it: FAF, at present, scales tech in such a way to provide higher and higher risk vs reward tradeoffs until one side cracks.

2

@pure So u are saying FA scales exponentially, but how does this have anything to do with full share vs non full share? Either way you get exponentially compensated in the form of a base or in the form of reclaim.

Look at how much Mass a T1 Mex vs a T2 Mex vs a T3 Mex provides. Is it a linear relationship, or exponential? Do I need to spell it out?

U write this like everyone disagreeing with u is dumb but u don't even have a point. Like i said the exponential scaling exists in both modes.

This is why these poorer maps and scenarios are popular

Who are u to say what maps are poorer? Just because u don't like a map style does not mean u need to go on the forums and write a rant about how they suck.

Math, again, for those who missed it: FAF, at present, scales tech in such a way to provide higher and higher risk vs reward tradeoffs until one side cracks.

Wdym? I think the risk vs reward remains quite equal through the game. Thinking about setons, the mass lost by rushing and failing with navy is just as bad as pushing late game and losing. If both players are of equal level the one who donated mass will then be behind for the rest of the game.

Honestly my original comment stands, skill issue. Either host your own non full share games or learn to play the game. If u learn to play the game u will realize that full share is needed to keep the game from being a boring snipe fest.

3

Such a fun game when single player dies and the whole game is over.
All hail our lord and savior mercy!

1

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

Look at how much Mass a T1 Mex vs a T2 Mex vs a T3 Mex provides. Is it a linear relationship, or exponential? Do I need to spell it out?

It costs more too, not really sure what point this is trying to make. You actually get lower and lower efficiency the higher tech you go.

In the initial stages of that map one player is going mostly ground, two are going mostly naval, and one is going mostly air/eco. These domains are isolated from each other, and in the middle is a giant chokepoint. I don't need to be more pedantic about this. Like with any large map, losses even in No-Share are negated by large distance. On this map it is generally safer for each player to eco. No need to risk assaulting the enemy ACU either.

Its just a single scenerio that honestly isn't that amazing, despite the hours spent on it. Its very specific and provides a single type of game. It inherently provides a "coziness" around ecoing in your base, which attracts those who enjoy eco, which feeds itself into the type that would enjoy Full share (that promotes eco).

Funny. I've won games from the traditional navy slots without making even a single boat and instead making air and land via proxies.

They're also not even remotely isolated from each other. I've won games as north rock by making navy in south sea or by crushing the entire map with t2 air and drops. I've also won games by making almost no land and tons of air from front. Just because low level setons is set in stone and one dimensional doesn't mean higher rated people don't play it completely differently. It's easy to crush people who are being ecowhores on setons if you're decently competent.

I'm glad nobody has yelled at you in the niche of Setons. Guess what happens everywhere else? I have had plenty of teamgames where my team wins because I died.

Skill issue for the enemy team.

The more players and larger the map is, the more risk this carries. That is why it is such a breath of fresh air when a map doesn't have a dedicated air slot. Going all in on air requires more risk of time and eco for lower likelihood of reward.
Players generally do not want responsibility to contribute to air, so they favor maps with a dedicated slot. They can ignore air responsibilities, then blame air when it goes wrong.

Skill issue.

Cool story. Etiher way, FAF community isn't different to other game communities. The community will at large tend to settle on a few popular maps that also happen to be the "warm and fuzzy-est" Anything that is large with a tight gap, chokepoint, or huge physical obstacle that allows for more eco. Anything that has a dedicated air slot.

These maps inherently promote a move to full share.

Skill issue and the literally the opposite of reality. You're basically describing dual gap and its many variants which are almost always played without full share because that map style is the only one were one guy dying doesn't instantly end the game.

Likewise, other games also tend to be balanced around a core concept. Since you aren't interested, I won't spell it out for other games, but it is clear that FAF does have them. one of them for example, in most other RTS games, counters are much "hard-er" counters. In some games, an anti-air unit will obliterate any and all air threats that so much get an idea to move towards them. FAF is on the softer side, more like Sins of a Solar Empire. By keeping things on the softer side, and having simple unit types, really narrows and focuses the gameplay. Less micro, more options.

Fair but has nothing to do with no share vs full share.

Now, I saved my favorite for last. It's an innocuous comment on the surface but it brings us to the crux of the issue:

I didn't say it was easy, just simple or straightforward. If the community only wants to promote gametypes that favor APM, I'd rather go play starcraft.

Firstly, it's not simple or straightforward to manage two bases, and secondly, to put bluntly: What the hell are you even trying to argue?
Are you just trying to have the game end as soon as one person dies? If so: WTF? How is that even remotely fun? It promotes awfully boring gameplay where people play passively and go for boring t2 air snipes and eco.

In no share games, one of two things happen when someone dies:

  1. Game ends because enemy just rolls and you can't recover lost infra in time. This is boring and leads to generally bad gameplay.
  2. You spam build power and hold. You spend a ton of apm and effort in general to rebuild, and now you're back to basically the same apm issue.

Your stance fundamentally does not make sense unless you actually just want the first death to mean the game is over, because in 20x20 maps with spread out spawns (all of the best maps are like this) that's what happens.