Best posts made by MajorTrouble

I just want to say thanks to everyone who commented here, from those that examined the lore aspect of it and the top players and admins throwing in their view as well, its all good stuff

I suspect there is much less drive or even ability to fix them-AI a class aren't very good in SupCom and are effectively worthless for training purposes. I know I talked to you a few days ago and suggested some other AI for you to try. There is a great deal more effort in creating new and improved AI that aren't limited by the underlying code of existing AI, something I am very happy about, nothing would thrill me more than effective AI for this game that can actually be used for training the lower ranked players

I'd love to play! some friends of mine have been playing against AI a lot recently and wishing for an AI that doesn't need cheats to be good-this is a good way for me to contribute!

@zappazapper said in DilliDalli - 1v1 specialist AI:

I haven't played any other user created AI, but I like this one. It puts the kind of pressure on me that I need to be able to improve. And ya, that's a spicy commander.

Try Swarm AI and RNG AI-both can be quite challenging in the right situation

@adjux tbh, he probably forgot

Some things I noted while playing

SACU AI might've actually competed with me had it done any reclaim, it had ample opportunity but didn't

Sorian Edit didn't build any hydro plants

DilliDalli was VERY aggressive - I liked that, too many new players including myself have to learn to be aggressive and the AI generally aren't aggressive enough to teach that

AI Swarm gave me the most trouble and if it weren't for the 45 min time limit, it would've been a loss for me
I might've done better with a different faction(aeon probably) but regardless, well done to the dev

Also, I copied the graph from FemtoZetta-Very Nice

https://replay.faforever.com/14790162
https://replay.faforever.com/14790329
https://replay.faforever.com/14790775
https://replay.faforever.com/14790896
https://replay.faforever.com/14790994
https://replay.faforever.com/14791317
https://replay.faforever.com/14791498

Full share is anathema to the spirit of the assassination victory condition. Please let me explain. The goal in assassination style games is to pull off a crippling blow that gives your team an edge. Full share removes this edge as any com death doesn't do much other than possibly reducing APM for the enemy team. This is an advantage to be sure and the ability to split your attention is finite but its not as big as an advantage as seeing the whole base go up in smoke.

If the goal for certain players is to not cripple your team with your death, why not just use one of the other victory conditions? Annihilation or Supremacy have roughly the same effect as full share without the transfer of units/structures.

I watched a high level replay last night and boy was it wild-in the sense that it was utterly incomprehensible.
https://replay.faforever.com/11070199
Don't get me wrong, it was hilarious to watch and I certainly had fun watching, but can any high rated player honestly tell me they would make the exact same choices without full share? Marching half the team into mids base with little backup and no air cover-the fact that the air player chose to send his strat for the mexes first speaks volumes I would say.

Coms are supposed to be important, they are valuable-with full share reduces the value of the unit from a metaphorical King into a pawn. This defeats the point of the assassination win condition as far as I can tell.

Can someone explain the value of full share? is it to make higher rated players feel better when they get paired with noobs? So if the noob screws up it doesn't cost a higher rated player the match? if that is the goal, then it does a poor job, it teaches the nooob nothing and radically alters the state of the game
https://replay.faforever.com/14844824
That is a replay of my own game where a better player took control of a position early on and allowed us to take the game-WITHOUT full share enabled, but with full share I'm sure it would have taken longer.

Is the object of full share to allow risky and insane plays that would otherwise be discouraged in a match? If so, again I tell you supremacy exists.

Someone explain this contradiction in apparent goals to me please

Edit: tl;dr what niche does full share provide that supremacy and annihilation do not?

@ftxcommando Arguably this entire game is a team game, those that coordinate are more likely to succeed than those that do not. But to be honest, you haven't really answered my question, what niche does full share fill that the other victory conditions do not? I suppose I should have made that question more clear in my original post

@biass said in Why does Fullshare exist?:

same dudes who sit in discord training channel saying they have no apm

thinking randomly getting double your current unit count is not a big deal

stay classy faf

I assume this is directed at me and trust me I don't take it lightly, I understand it is a huge deal-just not a big a deal as losing a position and I think you would agree with that

@zlo said in Why does Fullshare exist?:

to lazy to read whole thread... but answer is balance and gameplay.

1. If you have no fullshare, then game can become all about t2-t3 air ACU snipes
2. Therefore you can't use acu in combat, and even then you can get sniped
3. As soon one player dies game ends
4. people also may randomly disconnect and with fullshare game will not end there

I personally don't really like fullshare as it enables you to suicide acu to kill enemy army, and i also don't really like the "spirit" of it.
and fullshare games can often be about t3 acu drops with TML to cause cancer and at the same time acu loss will not lead to loss of the game

As the highest rated player in this thread (I think) what do you do to mitigate air snipes? Beyond just achieving air control is there anything a player can do to prevent these kinds of snipes? or is the mass cost in flak and SAMS too much in comparison to ASAF and Strat bombers? Air snipes are frustrating to be sure and deadly quick but shouldn't the object be to encourage better gameplay?

As to your 3rd point, aren't the upset victories just that more thrilling? the second replay I linked is one of my own games in which we lost a player and came back for the win-how often does this occur in high ranked play? And yes-I agree with the suicide of coms being antithetical to the core game play, that's kind of what I was getting at

Thanks in advance for your insights