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).
A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
-
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
-
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:
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.
-
@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
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?
The whole point is that full share is not as punishing as no share, but it's still quite punishing unlike what some people seem to have stuck in their head. That's the distinction that's being made, and @I_FORGORtheSCENE saying he struggled to turn that into a win is a perfectly fine example of that.
Why are you so set on having gameplay where the game is just over if one person makes even a small mistake with their acu making t2 air snipes absurdly strong? How is that good for anyone?
Edit: The noshare advocates here have completely talked themselves into a circle especially on this weird apm tangent. I said this earlier but I'll say it again: in no share if someone dies but it's not game ending you still have to rebuild their base which takes apm. Once built, you then have to manage all the things that person was managing anyway so the apm requirements are no different. Hell, it's worse because the rebuilding takes more apm than if it's already there and you just have to restart prod and do some upgrades.
-
Ok, so now we're actually having a discussion. Whether fullshare or noshare leads to more "vibrant" gameplay. That's an actual discussion. Before the discussion was "noshare is obviously unplayable" which is completely incorrect. It seemed like many people in the thread were saying noshare leads to instant gg when the first player dies, or that losing a flullshare commander is basically as punishing as in noshare because of "APM" or "managing two bases". (These claims also contradict each other, I know different people said them but it's weird that you get two conflicting arguments from the fullshare camp).
@ftxcommando said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
“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.This is so weird to me. T2 air snipes cannot ever be stealthed so decent radar coverage, much less actual scouting, makes them hard to conceal. T2 mobile flak has the highest mass to DPS of all anti air units in the game by a lot, plus the AOE makes most gunship snipes very fragile. Therefore bombers have to be used. Shields are prevalent at that stage of the game. For a T2 air snipe to have a good chance of working it needs to essentially kill the com on the first pass due to large turning radii, which means you have to amass like 10,000-15,000~ alpha strike anti ground damage. So that's a pretty large investment that will put the team behind on either land units or air control if it fails, especially in the context of near-term ASF production. The window is around 5-6 minutes on most relevant maps because this isn't an early T2 thing and T3 air will make the investment go past its expiration date. It's also a relatively common gambit so people know to prepare for it. It's a high-risk, high reward strategy.
Sure coordinating a defense is harder than an attack if you don't have intel, if 15 Nothas or Corsairs appear on the edge of your coms vision that's a dead com usually (if they just don't start circle walking...) but shouldn't that be the case? If it is ever scouted then coordinating a teams inties as well as flak and shield cover is very easy.
I don't see T2 air snipes centralizing the noshare metagame on 10x10 or 20x20 land focused maps, at least at my level (1400). And that's the most common way to snipe by far...
@exselsior said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
The whole point is that full share is not as punishing as no share, but it's still quite punishing unlike what some people seem to have stuck in their head.
It's contextual. In most cases, it is punishing, but in some of those cases, it's not punishing enough imo. In a relatively small amount of cases, it can actually increase that team's chances of winning, which seems counterintuitive. In some cases where there's a defined air slot, the game is almost always lost if the air player gets sniped, so fullshare is good in those instances.
@exselsior said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Edit: The noshare advocates here have completely talked themselves into a circle especially on this weird apm tangent. I said this earlier but I'll say it again: in no share if someone dies but it's not game ending you still have to rebuild their base which takes apm. Once built, you then have to manage all the things that person was managing anyway so the apm requirements are no different. Hell, it's worse because the rebuilding takes more apm than if it's already there and you just have to restart prod and do some upgrades.
I don't undestand this. You're saying that when a base gets destroyed it takes more APM for the team that lost a commander than if it were full-share (i.e. it's harder)... that's the point. It's more punishing to the team that lost the commander. Whether you think that's good or bad is subjective. I think that a commander exploding should have a commensurately large impact on a team that lost it. If you don't then w/e. What I don't like is when a team kills a player (just one, obviously if 2 or 3 coms get sniped fullshare isn't as helpful) and the eco goes to the air slot or back slot and gets consolidated into exponential growth and then T3 air or land arrives faster for the team you ostensibly just scored a win over.
