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.)
-
@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.
-
@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
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.
Sure, on easy maps it's not that punishing because, well, those maps are easy and have far less strategic depth. If your front player dies in no share setons then the game is over unless the enemy team literally afks. Same if your beach walks mid and dies, or if navies do a risky com drop play. I know of people who have abused that in the past to get hundreds of rating points by sneakily hosting no share setons with friends. 99% of mapgen maps are pure cancer without full share because one person dying ends the game.
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.
My point is it's too hard. On good maps with spread out spawns (a trait all of the more interesting and competitive maps have) losing an acu and the associated base is game ending. That then promotes horribly boring gameplay. Even with full share it can be too hard, and that's with some of the best players in the FAF picking up the second base. If people like Farms and Yudi can have a hard time when picking up a second base in some situations how the hell do you think 99.999% of the rest of faf would do in that same situation?
It really just doesn't work like that. Even if you get t3 land 30s faster as a result, an ACU is worth more than the 2 titans or whatever advantage that'll get you to start with. Then that person has to fight and micro land on multiple fronts vs people who can focus on that one front.
The easy fix is to not kill pointless ACUs if it's not advantageous to do so. Just like it's dumb to use a few nothas to kill a couple t1 factories when you could have used them to kill t2 power and t2 mexes it's dumb to waste resources killing an acu if there's nothing to be gained.
The fundamental problem with noshare is on good maps the game ends with one acu dying. Tough shit for the other 7 people or however many, your game is over in ten minutes and all people from both teams did everything they could to just get that one first acu snipe. Now people are encouraged to do nothing interesting with their acu and turtle. This is not good, healthy, or even remotely interesting or dynamic gameplay. You get games over in 10 minutes or over after some arty war or whatever. Com drops, tml coms, epic rambo com pushes are nerfed to hell because the risk vs reward isn't even close to being there, and the mid game is dead.
-
By the way, what happens in setons 95%+ of the time when front dies and air takes it for whatever reason, it delays their t3 air. Doesn't speed it up, delays it. This is true all the way up to about the 2k mark, so even with pretty good players. They might win air later with double eco, but then the enemy team should capitalize on the fact that the front player isn't contributing to navy at all in this case. This is why it almost always goes to beach and front usually would be going to help their beach navy anyway.
-
https://replay.faforever.com/17804806
https://replay.faforever.com/17764243
https://replay.faforever.com/15685194
https://replay.faforever.com/17708269
https://replay.faforever.com/17541745
https://replay.faforever.com/16063045
Me when I face dudes that think some flak and radar stops t2 air.
-
Also EVERY other TA Lineage Game uses fullshare in multiplayer except ironically TA. (Whom instead if tou are about to die or com bomb. You gift all you stuff to tour allies via menu. TA Engine doesn’t support a true fullshare$
-
Wouldn't say they use full share because games like BAR let you still issue orders once you lose your ACU equivalent.
-
That how TA Spring Games decided to do fullshare. (Fullshare = Losing Com doesn’t equal base explosion)
-
@exselsior said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Sure, on easy maps it's not that punishing because, well, those maps are easy and have far less strategic depth.
@exselsior said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
My point is it's too hard. On good maps with spread out spawns (a trait all of the more interesting and competitive maps have) losing an acu and the associated base is game ending.
@exselsior said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
The fundamental problem with noshare is on good maps the game ends with one acu dying. Tough shit for the other 7 people or however many, your game is over in ten minutes and all people from both teams did everything they could to just get that one first acu snipe.
But this is a tautology. You're saying that noshare would make "good maps" play badly because the map design makes a lost base crippling. Well I'm saying that noshare makes "bad maps" play better because otherwise, they would be too defensive and safe to eco on. I'm making a case for nuance, that fullshare vs. noshare should be map dependent. It'd be like saying Setons Clutch is a "bad map" if you only played it with noshare...
Maps like Wonder, Canis, etc. are pretty popular as far as non-Gap (or Setons) and if you want to stop playing lobbysim during certain NA hours you would rather play those maps noshare than with fullshare imo.
@dragun101 said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Also EVERY other TA Lineage Game uses fullshare in multiplayer except ironically TA. (Whom instead if tou are about to die or com bomb. You gift all you stuff to tour allies via menu. TA Engine doesn’t support a true fullshare$
@ftxcommando said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Wouldn't say they use full share because games like BAR let you still issue orders once you lose your ACU equivalent.
@dragun101 said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
That how TA Spring Games decided to do fullshare. (Fullshare = Losing Com doesn’t equal base explosion)
Those games are great but the scale is quite a bit smaller than Supcom, and the coms are far weaker comparatively. There's an option to play with a similar win condition (kill all buildings and engies not just the commander) but nobody does it because it'd be too tedious.
-
TA Spring, PA, TA, and I don’t know about Ashes so I cannot speak but i cannot imagine its different
-
The lower the rating scale u go the less u will be punished for pretty much everything (in any game), so yea, maybe fullshare doesn't feel punishing enough for you (and no-share doesn't feel too punishing). That's fine, you are welcome to play no-share games.
Idk how to sugarcoat it. In a total beginner game literally nothing in the game feels impactful, you can enter a 1v1 5 minutes late and still win. Likewise in a 1k rating setons u can probably get t3 air at 12min and be fine (just guessing here) whereas in like a 1500+ game if you don't have 10min t3 air your entire team instadies. In a 1800+ mapgen I still constantly feel like people get away with murder, but that's how it goes. At every stage the margin for error grows smaller. So yea, it's not exactly surprising that in low rating games things such as losing an acu feel not that impactful.
-
Do you think the 1400-1500 range is "low rating" though?
-
@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Do you think the 1400-1500 range is "low rating" though?
Low as opposed to what? Without a point of reference the word is meaningless. In relation to my anecdotal teamgame experience it is low indeed.
I consistently do mistakes that I would consider a megablunder, losing games where my team definitely had some winning chances. However 1800s regularly straight up troll the game. And finally 1500s I prefer not playing with at all, because the depth of their incompetence is such that none of my mistakes seem to have any bearing at all in comparison.
So yea, I'm not surprised at all that no-share feels reasonable in lower rating games. Who cares if that 1500 guys base dies if all he was gonna do is donate his entire eco to the enemy team as experimental massgifts anyway?
It's totally fine for you to be content with whatever rating range you are at and make the game settings such that they improve the game experience for that level of play. But you have to understand that as you climb up in rating, your experience will change respectively. Things that previously seemed meaningless now are of vital importance. The mass stall that you previously thought was fine, turns out to be a mistake. A fast t2 mex on a navy map? I guess you might as well call it. And yes. Losing that ACU in full share now also means death.
-
@blodir said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
@zeldafanboy said in Full-Share Cannot Avoid Reality of Math:
Do you think the 1400-1500 range is "low rating" though?
Low as opposed to what? Without a point of reference the word is meaningless. In relation to my anecdotal teamgame experience it is low indeed.
Low as opposed to the rating distribution of the playerbase…. I.e. what is the most common rating range, and is 1500 above or below that. What percentile of players are 1500 or above? It’s obviously above average. So you can’t say that’s a “low” rating, you can only say it’s “lower” than your own.
-
1500 rated players are still utter crap. Spin it however you want but the reality is that players in this game are just bad apart from the dozen high rated ones. Just cuz 1500 is higher than the average ameba playing faf doesn't mean much. @Zeldafanboy
-
@i_forgorthescene
That's completely unlike how most sports or competitive activities are talked about. Skill level is not perceived as this black and white dichotomy where the handful of the very best players are "good" and everyone else is "bad". If you're better than average by definition you can't be bad at something.
Unless you want to be pedantic and choose something that nobody can do like fly or whatever
put the xbox units in the game pls u_u
