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?"

Yeah, spell out why this matters.

"In the initial stages of that map one player is going mostly ground"

Right.

"two are going mostly naval"

Wrong.

"and one is going mostly air/eco"

Right.

Roles existing doesn't mean lanes exist.

"These domains are isolated from each other"

Wrong.

"and in the middle is a giant chokepoint."

Right.

"I don't need to be more pedantic about this."

Wrong. Lanes imply no player interactions in roles and a game being several 1v1s, hence "I won my lane." You have yet to prove how Sentons fits that description.

"Like with any large map, losses even in No-Share are negated by large distance"

Wrong. You don't understand how to close distance or use air or navy in this game.

"On this map it is generally safer for each player to eco"

Wrong. Every Sentons tournament has been decided by T2 timing attacks or at the latest stage, strat rushes enabled by air crushes by other slots. These tournaments were using Full Share. Snipes would obviously be even more viable in No Share for obvious reasons.

"No need to risk assaulting the enemy ACU either."

Wrong. Cite a high level player that thinks there is no point in killing ACUs in Sentons.

"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."

Wrong. Senton game variations:

• 2 ACU walk mid into securing reclaim into long term macro win
• 2 ACU walk mid into aggressive push into overrunning enemy mid or forcing enemy navy slots to com drop and support via PD rather than using ACU to continue scale
• T2 Air abuse from beach into TML ACU that kills eco due to sniping the TMD with T2 air
• Aggressive navy fac proxy into winning pond early into abusing map control with arty drops later
• 3 t2 pgen strat rush
• Mid player goes T3 air and supports air with their own air grid into an air win
• Mid player goes into navy and either becomes a multiplier to make a crush happen faster (help rock) or delay a crush (help beach)
• And a ton of other variations I don't feel like going into

"It inherently provides a "coziness" around ecoing in your base, which attracts those who enjoy eco"

That's literally every teamgame. That includes every No Share teamgame. Ecoing is still not the best play so much as the easiest play in either share condition. You eco enough to accomplish the objective, you don't perpetually eco. That's why mavor rush isn't the optimal move on any map, including dual gap.

Somebody is going to quote me and say "but actually you do continuously scale eco" and yes, you do. But that isn't what people mean when they say they are "ecoing." That refers to simply dumping as much mass as possible into getting more mass.

"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."

It favors both macro and micro. You have done nothing to address the reality that snipes are strictly always the superior strategic option in No Share nor explained the ease in managing multiple bases.

"I'm glad nobody has yelled at you in the niche of Setons."

I don't play Sentons.

"Guess what happens everywhere else?"

I only play everything else.

"I have had plenty of teamgames where my team wins because I died."

I've played both better quality and more quantity of teamgames than you. Go search my replay vault.

"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."

This sentence makes no sense. What does large and dedicated even mean?

"The more players and larger the map is, the more risk this carries."

You state this as fact without saying why it's reality.

"That is why it is such a breath of fresh air when a map doesn't have a dedicated air slot."

Every teamgame has an air slot, doesn't matter if the map intended one to exist or not. That's just the reality of specialization and the fact air is going to be important on any decently balanced map.

"Going all in on air requires more risk of time and eco for lower likelyhood of reward."

Once again you do not prove this, just state a fact. It's already wrong for the sheer fact that "going all in on air" can mean 10 different things. I could crush you with t1 bombers. I could crush you with janus. I could crush you with ghettos. I could crush you with gunships. I could crush you with strats. I could crush you with broadswords. I could crush you with air t4s.

All of this requires different risk (depends on map and game state) and different eco. The level of reward is entirely dependent on game state.

"Players generally do not want responsibility to contribute to air"

Because you play with bad players.

"so they favor maps with a dedicated slot."

No, any teamgame will have a dedicated air slot. T2 air and T3 air are simply too powerful to ignore.

"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."

Sentons is the outlier in being basically the only complex map that is commonly played on FAF across all rating ranges outside of the matchmakers.

A question for you. Why is 1800+ Sentons a regular occurrence and 1800+ Dual Gap and Astro not? All 3 are "eco, dedicated slot, and easy to avoid blame." Could it be that the latter two are not interesting in game complexity so higher level players don't play it and instead you have 2-3 1800+ players playing and abusing 3-9 1000 rated players in these lobbies?

Well I lied, 2v2 Dual Gap is occasionally played (with full share).

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

So in other words, a teammate dying was a lose condition because we were in a fine position when one of us was still alive? Isn't that just what you said doesn't happen in Full Share and I just explained to you it happens in 2k+ rated games?

"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."

Not to toot my own horn but I'd like to think I played a pretty big role in moving a lot of FAF over to full share since I was the one that began pushing for teamgame events to utilize Full Share, made the matchmakers use Full Share, and still regularly play Full Share custom games.

I hate to tell you, but the reason I moved over to Full Share after playing a 1000 of No Share games and getting 1600-1700 rating from it, was because No Share was what results in pure eco games. In order to make the game not devolve into immediate snipe gameplay, you need to have mex concentrations where 80% of the mexes are either in the base or within 1-2 minutes of the base. This is because if a player dies, you can recover within 2 minutes and continue the game without immediately losing.

What does this promote? Canis. Hilly. Pyramids. Wonder. Games where all ACUs spawn in clusters and are enclosed so you only have 2-3 lanes for 4-6 players to look at that give you map control over 10% of the mexes on the map. If you want vibrant gameplay with complex tactics where people are responsible for more than putting their ACUs in a line to block any aggressive units, you require Full Share. This is why Sentons has Full Share. This is why all 20x20s are played with Full Share, aside from Dual Gap which is 20x10 anyway and still follows the clustered ACUs with minimal lanes rule.

@ftxcommando said

What does this promote? Canis. Hilly. Pyramids. Wonder.

The horror…

Yes. They're terrible maps for anything larger than 2v2.

Increasing T1 mex to T2 triples the mass (200% increase). Putting storages around a T2 mex boosts the mass by 50% (50% increase). Increasing T2 to T3 triples the mass again (200% increase).

So if you just look at the succession of stages, it might look like an exponential increase in income.

But that ignores that the cost also scales. In fact, the cost scales faster than the benefit. If you just compare the cost to benefit, it scales linearly (slightly decreasing).

If you take into account that as you upgrade mexes, you increase your mass income, so you have more mass to invest, then you will see that it scales in a quadratic manner.

If you can afford to invest a constant amount of mass into upgrading mexes, let's say 8 mass/second, and you invest any new mass you get from upgraded mexes into making more weapons to fight the enemy, then you will scale linearly.

If you invest all of your income into eco, and skip making weapons, then you will scale quadratically.

I will only talk about Setons because that is the only map I play. There are some players who are 1600 (Gilobot) who will absolutely NOT double base because they feel it weakens their micro and their eco efficiency. Gilobot would rather ctrl k his commander than manage two bases. I have trouble managing two bases as well. The only time your argument is relevant is when a 1200 inherits the base of a 500. The 1200 is still going to have less eco efficiency but their eco efficiency will still be better than the 500 when all is said and done.

You claim that Setons is just a map with 4 lanes that rarely interact with each other. This is bullshit. Beach should always walk to mid to scoop mass. The mid player should ALWAYS be making naval units by 15 minutes. And everybody should be making drops
or bombers or t2 fighter bombers or torps throughout the game.

If you are sad because you "Won your lane" on setons but your teammates lost then you are a moron. You don't get rating on setons by "winning your lane". You get rating by winning THE GAME. If your teammate is losing his lane don't just ctrl k and give up. Send him torp bombers or drop his opponent or build a nuke. Or God forbid you can even give him your own mexes or pgens if he is low on resources. This is a team game after all. You win or lose as a team.

You claim that suiciding your com as mid and gifting eco to your air player is a good strategy on setons. I don't think you understand the micro involved to build bases. The air player should be ctrl king their t2 mexes. They need to be scouting CONSTANTLY and watching their scouts as they pass over the enemy. They need to be watching for enemy transports, bombers, strats, and proxy bases. They need to scout for nukes, game ender, any upgrading cybran commanders (this could be telemazer).

You seem to think that air slot is a dummy slot that takes no skill. This is wrong. Remember what I said earlier. Front player needs to help beach. Well if you are air player and you inherited front base then you need to make navy to help beach because the other front player will be making navy to help his beach. Now you have to micro navy on top of managing two ecos.

average no share player

@arma473 Wrong. Economy scales exponentially. Just set up the differential equation and solve it.
But I don't quite get how the math is helping here at proving a point. Losing a base is setting you back quite a bit in time if you see the economy as an exponential function of time. It sets you even more back, because you have to spend all your mass into units afterwards to close the huge gap in the front line.
@Pure
I kinda see your point. When I was 1.2k rated I loved to play wonder and the air player meta was to go for a t2 air snipe (back in 2019). Nearly every game was decided via t2 air snipe in combination with an acu push. I quite enjoyed that type of game play back then. It felt like action! But the problem is that this tactic stays the meta even with higher rated players. It is so strong it kills nearly every other tactic, or the game just devolves even harder into an eco/ turtle fest.
The reason why t2 air snipes are so strong is because they are comparatively cheap. This is due to them being balanced around 1v1, where we want them to be a viable comeback strategy and 1v1s are generally played on a way tighter margin in terms of how much you can afford besides land units.
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.

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 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.