Why credit sharing is bad for gameplay

[techhead]

*A player who is killing many enemies (and recieving many points) with share on will give give evos away so as not to waste them. If he then starts dying more than he kills, those 'noobs' he shared to might not want to/know how to/be able to share the evos back. Afterall, they are 'noobs'.

Damn I hate that so much...

[kevlarman]

*What ever advantage/disadvantage you have when share is on, chances are either the other team has it too or the problem doesn't go away when share is off.

not true, aliens gain much more than human by making sure one player has 3/4/5 evos (depending on stage) at all times than humans do by keeping one player at 1000 credits. share doesn't really help to give the whole human team helmet+larmor+shotty (it tends to happen naturally, and it is much more effective than having one human armed to the teeth, assuming that both teams are moderately organized), but it does ensure that aliens will almost always have at least one goon/+goon/tyrant, giving them a considerable advantage.

[Clay[Born]]

A general note on why so many servers have sharing enabled. (imho of course)

Here "elite" simply refers to any player who commonly caps his evo/credit count.

[Fact 1] The people who control the settings on most servers are the "elite" players
[Fact 2] Sharing allows these "elite" players so have more of an impact on a particular game.
[Fact 3] "Elite" players enjoy this more, since it gives them a chance even with a more "noob" team.
{For my own case, this is because I don't like having to suicide (eg give them a stage kill)
in order to not be wasting evo points.  I would prefer to never die and instead have s3 vs s1
with little or no chance of s2 for them.  A true victory that doesn't take forever.}
[Conclusion 1] Because they enjoy it more, these "elite" players tend to turn on share.

Now comes the interesting part...
I put forward that depending on whether you like tremulous as more "elitist" game or not,
this may or may not be a bad thing.  I hear arguments about there being more teamwork
and whatnot without share.  Even this all that is taken for granted, that is not what
the server-owner player base wants.  Not fancy teamwork... Just Pure Pwnage.
{Note that if I find a group to consistently do fancy teamwork with I would be far
more open to other possibilities... but frankly that hardly happens except in scrims and not always then.}

[Another Note]
There are three chief ways a tremulous match is won:
1. Money
  One team runs out of money and strong base defenses while the other is still heavily armed.
2. Stage
  a. One team techs up first and manages to push their advantage before they level their opponents by suiciding.
  b. One team reaches stage 3 while the other is stage 1 and crushes them with stacked up resources and better weapons.
3. Ninja Raid
  A player or group of players manages to sneak into the enemy base and destroys the spawns and
  all means of making more spawns.

<Sharing has the following effects on these three victories>
1. Money
    Sharing money around makes it take longer to completely wipe out another teams resources.
2. Stage
    Sharing discourages suiciding by giving top players another outlet for evos and lower players (hopefully)
    to not get people mad at them or wasting evos. =P
3. Ninja Raid
    Sharing expedites ninja raids by allowing players to pool and get their best team members rushing gears.

Without share 1 & 2 are an aspect of huge frustration for players caught in these nets...
games are no fun if you are forced to suicide, your team feeds, or if you get unlucky
and fun out of money when you were the only one keeping your base alive and
you can't regain credits vs stage 3 enemies in time.  I find share, although it might make games
longer, makes them more enjoyable for many reason especially to the better players.

The question then is... what kind of game are you trying to make?
One that people can study and practice at in order to attempt to become a legend?
Or one in which repeated playing only makes you not a noob?

I prefer the aura of progress and the dream of glory over
whatever tactics and frustrations accompany non-share games.

Clay[Born]

[beerbitch]

Didn't your mommas teach you to share !?

[+ OPTIMUS +]

I say whiners and beggars are ruining the otherwise good donating system. That's all.

[Nux]

@kevlarman: I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"

What you're highlighting is the problem that aliens don't have to rely so much on teamwork. Meaning a single alien can dominate more easily than a single human can.

This goes especially so at s1 vs s1 where goons can kill any human in one hit and run away fast whereas humans can only hope to kill dretches in a similar time. The human's attack range is supposed to balance this, but this seems only to be the case with the better aimers.

[UniqPhoeniX]

I support sharing ON. No need to argue with you, you can't make all servers turn it off

[Atom Eve]

I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"

The problem doesn't go away, but there's no reason to use a system that aggrivates the problem to an even bigger detriment.

[kevlarman]

@kevlarman: I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"

What you're highlighting is the problem that aliens don't have to rely so much on teamwork. Meaning a single alien can dominate more easily than a single human can.

This goes especially so at s1 vs s1 where goons can kill any human in one hit and run away fast whereas humans can only hope to kill dretches in a similar time. The human's attack range is supposed to balance this, but this seems only to be the case with the better aimers.

the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage, not that aliens don't require the same kind of teamwork that humans do (if that is a problem it's unrelated to share)

[Clay[Born]]

the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage

Yes and I say that's a good thing, imho.

That's actually the way RTS games work.

You start with equal forces then as one player slowly does better
that advantage is expounded until he is finally relatively strong enough
to take down the enemy base.

The chance for turn-arounds comes when either the ahead player
makes a mistake or the underdog makes bold move and pulls it off.

That chance is what really makes these games interesting and
imho share doesn't make the advantage curve TOO exponential
since I see comebacks all the time.  (Comebacks should not be too
commonplace however and with share they are not... just right!)

[kevlarman]

the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage

Yes and I say that's a good thing, imho.

That's actually the way RTS games work.

You start with equal forces then as one player slowly does better
that advantage is expounded until he is finally relatively strong enough
to take down the enemy base.

The chance for turn-arounds comes when either the ahead player
makes a mistake or the underdog makes bold move and pulls it off.

That chance is what really makes these games interesting and
imho share doesn't make the advantage curve TOO exponential
since I see comebacks all the time.  (Comebacks should not be too
commonplace however and with share they are not... just right!)

i meant that share gave the advantage to aliens, not to the team that was ahead. regardless of which team happens to have the advantage at any point in time, share will always benefit aliens more than it will humans.

[Nux]

the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage, not that aliens don't require the same kind of teamwork that humans do (if that is a problem it's unrelated to share)

You dismiss the problem I stated as being unrelated. I suggested that problem as it fits nicely with the 'sharing to a single teammate' example that you gave. It makes sense with the idea that share only amplifies the problem and so I would agree, but you think it unrelated so I can only assume you're refering to some other problem.

Maybe you feel the aliens generally being higher class makes them harder to kill than human being generally higher class. As far as S1 goes (before helmets), I can see your point. I will mention though, that humans don't get much bigger (if at all) when they upgrade whereas aliens become large clumsy targets. I often find myself having more trouble with a group of little fast moving noobs than the bulky variety who have a tendency to block and slash each other while they try to hit me.

Just pointing out that an upgraded noob can just be a fatter noob.

[Clay[Born]]

i meant that share gave the advantage to aliens, not to the team that was ahead. regardless of which team happens to have the advantage at any point in time, share will always benefit aliens more than it will humans.

Ah I see so you claim that it imbalances the sides "worse than before."
The real trouble I see is that dragoons and tyrants have too much of
and advantage in open space and the human base defenses are too much of an obstacle.
I'm all for the teams being unique but I feel that that aspect has been overplayed.

Frankly though, for me, I find not being able to share so frustrating
that it makes the game rather un-enjoyable.  With good evenly skilled
teams the aliens are screwed without at least one good goon (or mara) in stages 1-2.
Share gives aliens a fighting chance since in high skill levels rifles tend
to pwn drechs very badly.  The trouble isn't share it's that humans need a better
chance in the open field vs bigger aliens.

[Survivor]

The trouble is that, given you say they are evenly skilled, and up against high skill level rifles, aliens need to adjust the way they play from what they are used to. This does not become that apparent on a map like atcs but maps like karith or arachnid are perfect examples for ambush based evo-gathering in the first stages instead of head-on assaults on humans.
The same goes for humans, when those aliens get some higher evoes it's time to team up and ambush, but in a slightly different way than aliens do it. Humans should create a moving ambush taking care to cover corners and uneven ceilings well, while trying to lure any attacking alien into a kill zone. For hallways this is easy, a barrage, for open areas this becomes spreading out slightly. The only option for the aliens to drive a group like that away is a full on massacre on both sides where your pay-off might not equal your loss for either side, but if you don't put enough in you're certain to lose more than you gain.

[Revan]

Maybe you feel the aliens generally being higher class makes them harder to kill than human being generally higher class. As far as S1 goes (before helmets), I can see your point. I will mention though, that humans don't get much bigger (if at all) when they upgrade whereas aliens become large clumsy targets. I often find myself having more trouble with a group of little fast moving noobs than the bulky variety who have a tendency to block and slash each other while they try to hit me.

Just pointing out that an upgraded noob can just be a fatter noob.

Yes this is why the chaingun can turn the game in an as3/hs1 situation.

MUAHAHAHA a one liner!
oops it isnt one line now 

[Metsjeesus]

Played some days ago on share off server.

On alien side, there is like no difference, dretches feed until they are tyrs and after that they try to feed a litte from humans and after that they suicide into buildings and hope to come back before new buildings are build to make more havoc. Some guys just do 1 on 2 of those things. Basicly, every evo is used.

On human side, there is huge difference. Well, short matches are still short, but difference is, when it comes long s3 vs s3. I got a team of 3 guys. At some point we success so, that 2 of 3 are chaingunned battlesuits and we go tyrhunting. We succesfully kill tyr and we lose 1 chaingunner.  Ok, refill at base, now we got 2 shotgunners with helm and arm and chaingunner with battlesuit. Next rush, we again kill tyr, but we loose both shotgunners(arm+helmet=2 tyr hits to kill, bs=3 tyr hits, its not so hard to make 4 hits to human team and die). Refill at base, 1 guy got no money, 1 got shotgun and arm-helm and ofcorse third one with, chaingunned-battlesuited and 2000$ cash. Next rush has high chance, that tyr survives and all 3 humans die. Result, 2-guys are naked, 1 guy got 800$ less from $2000. Repeat 2-3 times, and you got no money. Ok, you manage to kill sometimes tyr, highest damage done human (bs chaingunner) has 2000$ so most of the money that tyr gives goes to him, 200-300 is shared by killed teammates, that means 500-600$ is wasted. And on long matches, it will make the difference.

Well, i took some time to find a different approach, and surprise surpise, camping. Sprint if you see a goon, wait until tyr come to you and try to block it/trap it. Shoot dretches for free cash, do not even think to go outside and hunt if your team got no money.

ps.
I whose that chaingunner, most of times i got money and i lead the team -> get first 1-2 hits and then shooting from safe distance while other teammates dance with tyr and die.

[kevlarman]

to land 3 headshots on a bsuit, a tyrant needs at least 2.25 seconds (assuming you stand still and take all of them), in 2 seconds 3 chainguns will have already done 450 damage (this is ignoring that a few bullets could miss, but not 50 damage worth, and humans have the advantage of range, and if the tyrant misses a single headshot he's absolutely screwed). in 2 seconds one chaingun and two shotguns will do 374 damage, so if the tyrant switches targets at any time he's dead (since then he has to land 4 hits to get a single kill). i think your problem was that the tyrant had better aim than your chainsuits.

[Metsjeesus]

to land 3 headshots on a bsuit, a tyrant needs at least 2.25 seconds

You are right and wrong. In gameplay time to time i fight as a tyr with 3 bs chaingunners, if i dont miss, i usually take 1 down and even can make 1-2 hit to another human until i die. Difference is, tyrs charge from a corner and do 1 hit before humans can pull triggers in their guns. That is favor to tyr.

So, here are calculations when everything is perfect.

CHAINGUN
damage: 6
repeat: 80ms
dps: 75

claw damage: 100
claw range: 128
claw repeat: 750ms

1.Charge+2 hits
charge(0)+2xclaw(750)    =>1500 msec
2.charge+1 hit to react +1 hit time full damage
charge(0)+1xclaw(0)+1claw(750)  =>750 msec
3.three hit
3xclaw=2250 msec

Damage done

1500 msec
6*1500/80=112,5 damage

750 msec
6*750/80=56,25 damage

2250 msec
6*2250/80=168,75 damage


3 chaingunners do damage and after that how much time left to 2 chaingunners

1500 msec
3*112,5=337 damage until 1 chaingunner dead
64/(6*2)=5-6 shots needed=400-480 msec -> 1 claw

750 msec
3*56,25=168,75 damage until 1 chaingunner dead
231,25/(6*2)=19-20 shots needed=1500-1600 msec -> 2 claws

2250 msec
3*168,75=506,25 damage until 1 chaingunner dead


Chainguns bullets spread alot, so it takes a little more time, on other hand, charge takes a little time to come near to human. If tyr wont miss, he will kill 1 chaingunner and hit other one 1-2 times. my gameplay confirms it so its more like it should

[pharo212]

Here's an example where sharing is good:
 I was a noob player in my first match, trying to dretch. I see one player as a tyrant rushing base, and he comes back, not dead( I will refer to him as Bob). Then in the chat I hear that the humans have called a vote to kick Bob. They all vote yes, but before he got kicked, he shared his evos with the rest of the team. Therefore, the humans do not have a huge advantage. Without sharing, we would have been stuck with our main attacker lost, and a few dretches, maybe a basi.
                       
Moral: Sharing is good for game play, and prevents abuse of power.

[Nux]

Here's a point of interest about your example:

What was he kicked for? He was the 'main attacker' with the all those evos after all.

If he was a botter then those evos weren't earned and so your team wouldn't deserve them.

[pharo212]

A tyrant botter? I don't know, I'd just joined the server and I saw him running off to human base, than coming back.
If he was a botter, than why would he come back? Botters usually don't care they die, he would have suicided to take down defenses or at least have to respawn, but he came back to heal, which sounds wierd for a botter.

[Amanieu]

The other team was probably a bunch a noobs who just wanted to kick him to get an advantage.

[Lakitu7]

That's a problem with noobs calling votekicks for no reason, and lack of adminship... not an issue of share or no share.

[David]

You shouldn't say "share fixed it" you should have said you did the right things and quit straight away, and reported them to the server admins.
Unless of course you think such actions are acceptable....

[Shadowgandor]

I usually play on share-enabled servers and rarely use the feature...except to help out a friendly player or something along those lines.

[mooseberry]

Sometimes as alien I'll just dretch and share away all my evos. 

[tuple]

Games were more challenging before share.  Now I can sit around and feed off of my teammates if I'm in the mood.

People were less annoying before share.  God, the credit begging, please make it stop.  I used to hang around servers where there was a "hard line" on begging, which was crap.  There was still begging.  Get your own goddamn evos you little girl.  (no offense ladies )  Of course someone will say that there's no begging on their server, and I go and see begging, like always.

There was less bragging, and the bragging there was, was well placed.  People who got evos/credits upgraded and got more kills as a result.  People who didn,t didn't so they didn't as a result.    Now everyone and their grandmother is a tyrant running around like they kick ass because of it.  Bleh.  I suck, most of you suck too, you're just liars relying on share/donate.

Tremulous does a much worse job of scaring off the whiny little kids with all this share going around.  Before share, the whiny little kids quit whining when they got some skill, or their little ritalin addled minds got bored and went elsewhere.  Now they just whine more and never get enough skill to last in a no share game, or to stop whining for that matter.

Sharing can be kinda fun, if you don't actually want to play, but just want to go kill some shit without being bothered with having to work at it.  Course, %98 of all the other FPS' out there are like that, so its really not needed here.

[Prince_Andrei]

I agree with everything Tuple said. However, on the no share servers I would love something to be done to minimize the impact of feeders. I played in a game the other day (I think on Pure Trem) where one guy on my team had around 20 feeds in the first 7 or 8 minutes. And zero kills. We tried reasoning with him, and I think a kick vote was made, although of course the other team loved him being there. Would anyone else like to see spawn time be a function of your feeds? (others jump ahead of you in the queue)

[Lakitu7]

There's always a challenge in trying to differentiate the malicious feeders from the true newbs. There's not any real statistical way to do so. I see some servers that tell me I'm feeding when I blow 3 dretches in s3 after losing the tyrant I just stayed alive with ever since hitting goon in s1, and I laugh my ass off. It's real tricky to devise a system that would work. Changing queue position is better than kicking, but it would still screw over good players too.

You have the option of team kickvotes (which can actually pass, due to my mods to teamvotes), though admittedly feeding kickvotes may be cancelled if a present admin doesn't feel it's malicious, as puretrem is intended to be somewhat newb friendly.

[Prince_Andrei]

I don't think it's necessary to differentiate between types of feeders (which, as you said, is likely impossible). However, some very straightforward mods could have the desired impact. I am only interested in reducing the ability of a single feeder to cause the other team to advance stages. When each player dies, the following is calculated. (pardon my pseudo code) BTW, this is off the top of my head. I'm more interested in the concept than the specific logic below.

constant
@Std = Standard Spawn Time (i.e., the amount of time it takes to spawn with one node/egg and no one in the queue)

variables
@feeds = how many feeds has the player had in the last 90 seconds or since the last kill, whichever is lower
@spawntime = if @feeds > 2 then [(@feeds - 1)^2 * @Std]/2 else @Std

- this all gets disabled when the opponent reaches S3
- it could also be disabled if the OM/reactor is attacked

Even moderately experienced players would rarely be affected by this. On your third consecutive feed in 90 seconds, your spawn time is doubled. If you manage to feed a fourth time in 90 seconds, you get 4.5x std spawn time. At this point a simple warning message would let newbies know that they are helping the other team advance stages, and they need to be more careful. If you feed as fast as you can, you can expect perpetual 4.5x spawns (I'm not sure it's possible to get to 8x, but it might be) after the third feed until the opponent reaches S3. That covers malicious feeders.

What do you think? Don't get too caught up in the logic, unless you can improve it.