Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T21:20:53+02:00

The last game I played on Seton's with share until death our front player (V I think) killed the other very early and directly marched through, leaving the rest of the team with little less to do (although our front died at some point, but it didn't matter any more).

That said both game modi can be fun. It is mainly a matter of balanced teams and luck to get a good game... I just think full share is better suited for Seton's.
If you play Bad Lands you can just spam more T1 if one player dies and reclaim his base/mexes which will holding back 2 players and eventually winning the game with some good allies doable.
If your beach loses his commander on Seton's claiming back navy will be impossible. If there are 10 frigates, 10 cruisers and some destroyers in that sea you just wont be able to claim it back with any realist effort, you also won't get any mexes and you will not be able to reclaim his base.

@drdeath:
This would just as well work with full share, or even better if your com dies as well...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 23 May 2013, 21:20

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T19:50:23+02:00

serious question: how often did you play setons with share until death? because i played one setons with Crazed/Chosen/Brain dunno who the others were with no share and it was like the only setons that was fun somehow

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 23 May 2013, 19:50

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T19:33:10+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
drdeath wrote: full-share takes away (all) chances to make a comeback in the game when one team has the clear economic advantage

That just makes no sense, unless your ally who died had a poorer eco.
Again full share is not to blame.

Better be in position of having 2 ACU with 1 base, than 1 player with 2 bases.

If you truly feel it's not true, then just go suicide in mid, give your eco and wait to see it's THAT easy for your team! Actually don't suicide, play with your ACU and give your base to your ally, and don't die.

IF the player getting 2 bases manage to leverage on the auxillary eco, then it's simply because the counterpart who stayed alive didn't play his role, end of the story.

Fair enough, you and SC-account make valid points for full share enabled games. However, I suspect that I did not state my argument clear enough, as that is not the situation I'm trying to describe.

To elucidate, take a game of setons 4v4 with no full-share.

At minute 35 team A is pulling away in the economy department without giving air or navy, simply by playing better at this point. Justifiably so, at minute 45 Team A is winning both navy and air and on the doorstep of taking out the base of Team B's rockplayer . Team B is populated by a well communicating team, for this example the Brainbunch. In a beautifully orchestrated feint attack followed by Aeon T3 topedo-bombers stealthed by cybran Decievers in transports the brainbunch manage to kill the opposing beach player. Killing all the attacking navy and significantly reducing Team A's economy.

This is the opportunity for a comeback that is lost when playing with full share.

Statistics: Posted by drdeath — 23 May 2013, 19:33

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T17:59:56+02:00

Yeah, I agree. And I would say that full share on Seton's makes comebacks actually much more likely.
Sometimes it might be useful if a total noob (mb playing his first game on-line) dies and gives his base, especially if he was the back player.

That are however not the games I would optimize my game modes for... and in a good players game it is almost impossible to play air/navy as good or better as your counter part in the enemy team while playing another spot at the same time. Even if there wasn't the unit limit it is already not possible to micro 2 navies effectively at the same time, you would be doomed to be extremely defensive on one side at least (also note that as soon as all mexes are capped a double eco ain't even theoretically more powerful than 2 single ecos).

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 23 May 2013, 17:59

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T15:05:49+02:00

drdeath wrote:
full-share takes away (all) chances to make a comeback in the game when one team has the clear economic advantage

That just makes no sense, unless your ally who died had a poorer eco.
Again full share is not to blame.

Better be in position of having 2 ACU with 1 base, than 1 player with 2 bases.

If you truly feel it's not true, then just go suicide in mid, give your eco and wait to see it's THAT easy for your team! Actually don't suicide, play with your ACU and give your base to your ally, and don't die.

IF the player getting 2 bases manage to leverage on the auxillary eco, then it's simply because the counterpart who stayed alive didn't play his role, end of the story.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 23 May 2013, 15:05

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T13:49:03+02:00

I am aware that I do not have enough experience on setons to even contemplate having a rumour of a shadow of an opinion. Nevertheless, I don't immediately agree with you.

Full share is not paradise, or ideal for your eco. It simply doesn't take away from you all chances to make a come back in the game. And to me that's way more important, especially after so much waiting to get a game. That is even more true now with the mixed level of players.

I've hear others lament the exact opposite. To put it boldly: full-share takes away (all) chances to make a comeback in the game when one team has the clear economic advantage. There are no snipe-able targets with as much value as a commander in full share games, although a poor argument could be made for SMD.

Statistics: Posted by drdeath — 23 May 2013, 13:49

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-23T13:12:50+02:00

PLay with better mid players like Tnuksmasher, Dim, Tiep now, Megatron, etc. and let me know if killing them or having them in the game , even from mid, has no impact .

Again and again all I can (or close) see is people with too little experience on the map to have a valid opinion (Whatever it is) or have the number of games there but not the level to have a proper opinion.

I know it sounds (very) arrogant, but I am simply stating a fact there. From experience (just a few thousand games on that very map) what the vast majority in this thread say is just false.

Trust me whenever you get a good (and I mean GOOD, not the guys who just copy what the good players do) opponent, you really don't want to deal with some annoyance from another spot. Unless you're a machine, it often messes you up more than anything else if your mid guy dies before 10-15min.
Although it's a team game, you need to handle your opponent in the first hand.

Now if you tell me you can deal with the mid base nicely and that it will boost you no matter what, please reference me your replays. I'd be more than curious to watch them!

Patton, I was not trying to help on the situation, just trying to explain why the logic was flawed.
There's just one "simple" way to help. Practice and play better/smarter.

Full share is not paradise, or ideal for your eco. It simply doesn't take away from you all chances to make a come back in the game. And to me that's way more important, especially after so much waiting to get a game. That is even more true now with the mixed level of players.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 23 May 2013, 13:12

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-21T20:46:43+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
FunkOff wrote:As somebody who almost exclusively plays front when I play setons, full share kind of kills the point. As front, I can usually manage to kill the other front, but if his base is given to an ally it's useless because the ally will spam T2/T3 and stop me in my tracks. You can win front and it wont make a lick of difference if you lose sides or air: Your team is still going to die because the front is a long, narrow choke point you can't get around to open up a new front against the sides, or attack the back.

With share off, however, losing the front is a legitimate loss and requires a team effort to compensate for. I prefer share off because my skill at front is useful then.

Then what is your ally doing in the meantime ? Dicking around ?
If so, blame him, not full share.
IF he's playing properly, he will either direct counter his opponent assaulting you, or he will destroy him a bit later. End of the day you should always be in a better position.
If not, then the team failed

V, you really ought to quote the whole post, i fixed it. Blaming your teammate for a loss in a teamgame does not help. the issue is that front player with only land factories is entirely unable to assist the team if naval on either side is lost, or there is a heavy gunship presence from the other team.
I agree with Funkoff. Setons(fullshare) is not a good map for teamplay and significant cooperation. The front is expected to recover mass and then is usually abandoned by his team, making him easy pickings.

Additionally, the engy redesign mod does a ton to remedy this b/c transitioning to t2/3 land spam is viable and allows for capable armies to push past a naval blockade and/or defend an aggressive ACU.

Statistics: Posted by Patton — 21 May 2013, 20:46

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-19T13:39:31+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
As front, I can usually manage to kill the other front, but if his base is given to an ally it's useless because the ally will spam T2/T3 and stop me in my tracks..

Then what is your ally doing in the meantime ? Dicking around ?
If so, blame him, not full share.
IF he's playing properly, he will either direct counter his opponent assaulting you, or he will destroy him a bit later. End of the day you should always be in a better position.
If not, then the team failed

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 19 May 2013, 13:39

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-19T05:26:56+02:00

I just won 1v4 by killing coms on Seton's
But to be serious:
In Seton's snipes don't happen as often and early (other than front) because it is a 20x20 maps with a lot places to hide your com relatively save, not cause it wouldn't matter!

And pushing front sure is easier with share until death, but if you really dominated your opponent you can still do a most significant amount of damage, sometimes a front player wins the game all by himself... although it is very risky to push with your com past the 10 minute mark due to the risk of getting air sniped.

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 19 May 2013, 05:26

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-18T22:44:44+02:00

It sure is a disadvantage if front ACU dies, but is it
disadvantageous enough ? I do not think so.

You talk about the unit limit disadvantage, this
comes into play because setons game can take a
long time which is partly because it is full share.

How many times does a setons team focus on killing
an ACU ? Almost never, not even the front ACU.
and it is because it is full share.

A "share until death" setons game adds another tactic
which is a good thing, I like it.

Also, look at how some setons front players feel
about full share. I totally understand them.
still we do need 2 of them in each game.

Statistics: Posted by Vmcsnekke — 18 May 2013, 22:44

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-18T21:40:57+02:00

As somebody who almost exclusively plays front when I play setons, full share kind of kills the point. As front, I can usually manage to kill the other front, but if his base is given to an ally it's useless because the ally will spam T2/T3 and stop me in my tracks. You can win front and it wont make a lick of difference if you lose sides or air: Your team is still going to die because the front is a long, narrow choke point you can't get around to open up a new front against the sides, or attack the back.

With share off, however, losing the front is a legitimate loss and requires a team effort to compensate for. I prefer share off because my skill at front is useful then.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 18 May 2013, 21:40

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-18T20:13:00+02:00

as someone who usually plays air spot on setons,
if my mid player gets screwed and his base is shared to me, I usually give it over to the weakest sea spot, or divide it equally.
I cant be arsed with the extra attention it requires, especially as usually once its down, you can expect a mid rush from enemy.

if its early, I might use a couple of the spare mex to upgrade my own eco. but usually after that I trade. air tends to use a lot more power than mass once eco'd.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 18 May 2013, 20:13

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-18T19:54:55+02:00

Since when should we have any consideration for noob/medium game ?

As in they can play their game, but hardly a point of view to consider

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 18 May 2013, 19:54

Re: Full share and Setons

2013-05-18T12:10:31+02:00

laPPen this might be true for high level games but surely not for noob/medium games

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 May 2013, 12:10