That mod was made as a first step to just let people play around with it. If there is interest it can save some units as a percentage of mass cost as well. Just some effort would need to be added to make sure it was predictable and doesnt come across as random as that would be bad since it would make it harder for skill to be a factor
Something to consider is that mobile units can die to ACU death nuke, but structures cannot. Therefore, in a structure-only share condition, structures (mex uprades and pgens) are a safer investment than mobile units: Mobile units can die to enemy or ally death nukes and will not transfer upon death. However structures of all kinds will not die in death nukes and will transfer upon death. Therefore, the structure-only full share incentivizes turtling.
I think instead of changing how share works, why not just make ACU death nukes do equal damage to units and structures with the mod, but defining the right damage number will be tricky to not incentivize comm bombing as a strategy.
Give players a prompt to pay a "small" mass fee equal to 20% of the mass worth of the remaining units and buildings of the deceased to receive their remaining assets. Prompt stays up for half a minute during which the units and buildings in question are transferred to a neutral civilian faction and receive diplomatic immunity and are protected by the Geneva Convention. Reclaim and capture attempts result in immediate termination of the Commander rank and excommunication from the game. Upon accepting the fee you start paying out the mass at a consistent rate reaching the finish after 2 minutes. Excessive money will accelerate the process but failure to collect the funds by 2 minutes time will start piling up the extra % on the fee to pay exponentially. Failure to end the payment after 10 minutes results in declaration of bankruptcy and immediate confiscation of the Commander unit. The first on the team to claim the base will be responsible for the payment but naturally they can seek assistance via various non-destructive means such as "Farmsletje, I need mass." and "This 1300 doesn't need his t1 pgens anymore anyway".
Idea that would be probably too complicated to implement:
On death, units (including engineers) are instantly transferred to ally. This incentivizes using your ACU in risky combat and investing in units. Direct resource buildings (mex, pgen, para) are transfered as well.
All other buildings become neutral and must be recaptured (somewhat easy because of transferred engies). Since the neutral base does not have resources, its shield and radar turn off. In addition, PD turns of until recaptured by any player (otherwise they would suddenly start shooting former allies. Alternative: PD just gets killed).
Basically killing a player would open up their entire base to easy damage (because no shields) until the allies of the dead player manage to recapture the structures, but eco ist not lost. At the same time enemy players can steal the base by capturing themselves, creating an additional strategic option. The player that received stuff will have a slight buildpower bottleneck he neads to deal with unless he was stalling a lot before.
And this means that killing a defending/turtling player is more rewarding than killing a spamming or pure ECOing player.
Imo the goal should be to hurt player deaths in lategame more than in early game, and should hurt people that are build power bottlenecked more than people who are eco bottlenecked.
If you look at highest-level 2v2s hosted by Nexus, it is rare to sacrifice an ACU. They try to keep their ACUs alive. And those players are competent at running 2+ bases. Lower-level players tend to be unable to do that.
Losing an ACU is a much bigger penalty to people global-rated 1300 and below, than it is to people rated 1700+. When low-rated players sacrifice their ACUs, in general they won't help their team, unless they take an enemy player with them.
The idea that full share causes more problems than it fixes, I think, is a false one. I haven't seen it.
Let's just launch TMM with full share and see what happens. If there is an epidemic of games ruined by full share, we can revisit that. Let's not try to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Or just not have fullshare...
edit to actually be constructive and provide argument
IMO having fullshare promotes more turtle/eco style gameplay. You can eco harder and if you lose your ACU, your partner still inherits all your eco. Most of the time your deathnuke kills the enemy army, your team comes out ahead. Granted, then 1 person has to do twice the work, but having 2x eco does have tremendous advantages.
No fullshare doesn't always mean a death sentence, as reclaiming and rebuilding teammates base is still strong. And to those who say "but you are at a huge disadvantage, and its harder to win", well, your teammate just got killed. That's kind of the point of the game, not to lose ACU. There should be consequences.
That, and always having an opportunity to mount a comeback via a desperate ACU snipe is one of the best parts of this game. Its practically non-existent if sniping ACU just means their teammate auto-inherits wealth.
acu snipes are the worst feature of faf
arma473 said in Some good news about Team Matchmaking (TMM):
They try to keep their ACUs alive.
They try to keep their ACUs alive.
That's the point of the game? Why are you telling us this?
Ok, but whatever happens on april fools day set it to the 'traitors' option and tell no one.
@biass said in Some good news about Team Matchmaking (TMM):
That's the point of the game? Why are you telling us this?
At least one person is talking about "suicide comm strats" as being strong/valid in full share games. I was responding to that concern. I don't think those strategies are overpowered.
What I don't understand is why FAF players are always creaming themselves at the fact this is a high macro based game where your decisions are deciding the game situation but then get mad when you take away the option to win a game you lost 9 minutes ago by dumping infinite mass into some random snipe option. Maybe you guys should be sniping mass/e/bp and harming the enemy team by attacking their resources rather than just doing the chess equivalent of picking up all your pieces, melting them into a ball, and attempting to throw it at the enemy king piece from 20 feet away.
The problem is that if you want competitive teamgames you are assuming that they will be played with some degree of coordination between players that are at a bare minimum familiar with one another and the map and possibly in voice to coordinate further. In teamgames, as you increase the size of the game, this puts more and more of an imbalance between the individual defending and the team attacking. Take for example a Field of Isis 2v2. It's one of the safest share until death games you could possible play in a 2v2 and yet it will still lead to supremely cancer games. Why?
Here are your options if you're a hypothetical high level player with a lower level teammate that randomly matched together:
This dichotomy becomes more and more pronounced as map size increases. A sentons with share until death is just going to be t2 bomber rush meta the whole time with most games ending in whoever is able to crush mid player faster and swarm the map with t1 cancer spam. In a full share game, this is but one of many viable strategies depending on team layout (sometimes your air player is way worse so you need to end the game before it's t3 air stage).
I want experiences like sentons to be the typical experience on the matchmaker. I want maps where people can coordinate with one another in some fashion and have a variety of meta options based on the slot layout for their own team as well as the slot layout for the enemy team. I also want people responding to game situations as they come. Does share until death work in 10x10 5v5s where you are all right together and can easily recover from an acu loss because no one is making units or really expressing much map control in the first place? Sure. Can you do it on a 20x20? No.
REGARDLESS of all of that rant, I'm still interested in testing out various forms of full share and am working with Sheikah to see what may and may not work. I imagine as player count increases, it may be better to have things like say all structures/engies are transferred with 50% of units transferred with the 50% being decided by total mass of unit count and then going t4 > t3 > t2 >T1 until you reach that 50% value. Values can of course be adjusted but it may be the best compromise to result in a decent teamgame experience.
FtX makes a good point. The most I play with full share, the more it seems like a better way to play. The meta simply needs time to develop with full share on to really get people out of the share-until-death mindset.
After having hosted countless all welcome games on randomly generated maps I can attest to the fact full share makes the games more fun to play, for both sides. Without it, games end at around 10 minutes, after the first player death, with no chance of recovery for their teammates, after some 2v1 or unfortunate first engagement. This drastic, game-ending outcome often comes as a result of rock-paper-scissors dynamics in the build orders (much more prevalent on random maps), not some grand masterminded strategy that could potentially be scouted and countered in time.
I am, however, dumbfounded by the amount of people that join only to immediately throw a tantrum because they see full share on, then begin to educate me on its shortcomings. Very few games have ended in victory for the team down a player, so the oft repeated argument that full share makes snipes meaningless just doesn't ring true to me. Being down a com and placing more burden on another player does not make the game easier for the losing team, and, at least around my level, it takes time for the the unified economy to compensate for these disadvantages.
I really hope more people give it a chance, and, as funk said, learn to adapt their decision making to this change in rules. Snipe economy, and press the attack once you get a kill instead of zoning out and going sim city.
And that's not even factoring in concerns about disconnects potentially ruining games and poisoning the whole idea of random queues for people. At least with full share you can still feel like you maintain some level of control over the game outcome.
There's another point to be made regarding player experience.
Since without full share, you are usually punished with an agonizing and inevitable defeat when your teammate dies, sometimes through no fault of your own, player deaths are often followed by toxic interactions between teammates, "moron" tags peppered around the map and stuff like that. Full share helps a lot with this problem.
It also seems to me that people more often stay in the game instead of leaving immediately when full share is on, maybe partly because they want to see their stuff put to use. For one thing, this means defeat feels less bitter since fewer rage quit. But it also increases the chance that dead high rated players instruct lower rated players on their team, and that dead low rated players stick around to learn from their teammates. These are the only times casual players get to see high level play and actually pay attention to it, since very few of them spectate games or watch replays, and actually incentivizes high rated players to teach, since they can salvage their rating if they guide their teammates to victory.
These are not minor concerns. This community is plagued by the unreasonable popularity of maps like astro craters or thermo or gap. If a lobby features some other map, it's almost always rating limited. New players end up joining the only lobbies that will have them, the aforementioned shit map trifecta. Some never leave this comfort zone even after gaining a white rating.
TMM is one of the few developments in years that has a chance to change this, and, if I'm not mistaken, it's whole purpose is specifically remedying this situation. We should not overlook player experience when deciding how to structure team play. Even if it turns out full share is not the best option, TMM should arguably use it at launch to be more noob friendly.
Full share would be more encouraging for a super low rank noob like me to try. Otherwise I just know I will suck and die, then my teammate will have to live with that :((
p.s. I'm too much of a chicken to do 1 v 1 ladder. It stresses me out for some reason. lol
@BananaSmoothie If you're nervous about the ladder, (1) your first 4-6 games usually involve going up against 1k rated players. You aren't going to win those anyway, so you might as well get them out of the way (2) host some custom 1v1s with a rating limit. Call it something like "1v1 Under 500." Then you get to pick the map and pick your opponent and it's not even a "real" ladder game. If you understand why you lost, you can improve. If you don't understand, or if you just want someone else's perspective, ask someone to look at your replays. You can also invite better players to 1v1 with you. Host a "1v1 All Welcome" and if you get rolled by a better player, ask them what you could have done better. They might not know, they might tell you something untrue, but most people LOVE to give you their opinion if you ask for it. You will have no shortage of advice and then it's up to you to evaluate it to decide which advice is good.
I do think TMM games involving low-rated players will be a great way for people to learn about FAF because you will have a teammate who will tell you some things during the game. It will be an opportunity to get advice/direction from many people that you might not otherwise team up with.
I am all for full share in 2v2, those that say the team that loses a players has the advantage because they have eco just clearly don't know how to take advantage of that situation, or shot themselves in the foot with a poorly coordinated snipe where they lost their entire army or mass bar doing it.
However i cant say i am a fan of full share being for ALL team games 3v3 and beyond. Full share in a 4v4 on 10x10, sounds like it will be a slow and painful game that drag on far longer than it should. I understand pros and cons to having full share and why those are for it and against it. I do feel it is needed in a 2v2 situation, but i worry that in larger team games full share will just put people off (perhaps just speaking for myself). Even without full share - team games with current map meta (canis and hilly being the main team game maps) the games drag out because bases are so tight and morph together to form a turtle) and these games drag on and become painful. I dont even want to imagine or play a full share version of that.
There will be a far larger proportion of 20x20 maps as player count increases. I would be treating 10x10 in 4v4 similar to how 5x5 is currently treated in ladder. Namely, it’s a way for <800 players to get comfortable with working as a team and quickly helping one another out which then takes them into higher brackets where the 20x20 proportion gets ever larger.
And if you want a decent 20x20 experience, some degree of full share is necessary.