Resource sharing

Please make it so that resource income is shared. Meaning if the total income is 200 and there 8 ppl in a team each will get 25. I really hate ninjaing mexes and the focus should be on teamwork not on getting each and every mex you can get your greedy hands on.

If alot of ppl are against it it can always be a option so everyone will be happy.

Only share the excess, like in Sup1/FA.

I don't want to communise resources, because there's often cases where one/some team members will help the team overall more with a non-even share of the resources.

If I want to give a mate more resources, then I'll give him some of my structures.

[PS:] Voting no at the moment because the poll is very much all-or-nothing. If there's a middle ground option like I've explained, then I'll change my vote.

I think resource sharing should be like in TA where each player can decide what he wants to share. Also there should be the ability to give a lump sum of resources.

Also giving units and map info should be an option.

It should be voluntarily to share. I don't want to be the one building resource generating buildings while my team-mate get to build all the fun stuff.

Added a middle option

I think giving resources should always be possible but i think it should also be possible to have a option that simply shares all resource income.

lol. As long as we have the option of choosing the method of sharing, as opposed to just having a choice.

Yes, because mex competition within the team is annoying.

It is possible to imagine that there will be many forms of sharing in a multiplayer game, just like there are many kinds of treaties in the real world. For example:
-giving lump sum
-giving of the resource-producing (and in general any) units
-sharing above a reserve amount (set to max means share excess only, set to 0 means share all)
-single pool of resources (for when you're playing as a unified team and not just allies)

Have many options and methods and let the players decide for themselves how they want to set up their alliance. They could be set up pre-game and either fixed (if you don't trust your team) or allowed to change in-game (adds metagame strategy).

I really liked the system in FA, where you would only share your excess production. This allowed you to tell your teammate to pause his production if you had an energy shortage.

I was quite fond of the system in FA for resource sharing and thought it synergized well with the flow rate economy system. However, I do recognize some of the complaints that did arise from it during team games and think that players should have the option to disable it if they choose they dont want to play with it.

Even the strait up gifting of mass and energy isnt all too bad in a flowrate eco system (you could do that as well in FA) since many times one of the players does not have the storage capacity to give/receive a base amount of resources and much of it goes to waste.

Now, I know this is slightly off topic but from a point of view, units could be viewed as a form of resource and I think the option to choose between the two (gifting or not) should be allowed as well.

Ah yea I'm sure there was something from ZK that I forgot. There we have some sort of automatic resource sharing system to combat a few issues with teamgames. I'll outline the basic issues because I think they existed for TA and Supcomm too.

In short the issue is uneven metal income due to the way expansion works in teamgames. At the start of the game people tend to feel ownership of mexes that are near their base which they have not yet captured. This leads to conflict.

• Many players will be tempted to expand to spots "owned" by a player who is expanding slowly. Indeed, not expanding their hurts the team as a whole.
• In teamgames of uneven skill a better player might feel like they deserve more while other players disagree.
• Some factories have constructors better suited for expansion so an organised team would want a few players to do most of the expansion. But after this happens they have to fiddle around with mex sharing.

I observed a lot of conflicts within teams in some Spring games which are basically ports of TA mods. The potential for conflict also annoyed me as a player because you have you guess what other people think is theirs. So sharing the income from territory dependant sources is a way around this problem.

Unfortunately the basic idea of resource sharing was not enough. It has been tweaked over years until it now has quite a few rules, the overdrive system makes it much more complicated. But for a non-overdrive system an example is that the income from an extractor is sent to the player who constructed the extractor until it pays for itself.

I think I have solved the problem but not with a general solution. PA will have a different economy and maybe even more territory based income.

It would be nice if this were considered in PA. But given the difficulty of the problem and past experience I would not be surprised if it is ignored.

For points one and three, an quickly expanding player can (and should) claim those spots, wait for them to pay the construction price, and then gift them to the player who should have bloody built them in the first place.

Point two is something I agree with. Communising (taking it a step further than socialising) resources to enforce equal share isn't ideal, because it assume that all players have equal skill and will ideally be consuming resources at the same rate.

But, if you have a **** team member who is taking the spots and not sharing - don't play with him. Don't change gameplay mechanics because of people-problems. Or, if he's taking spots because you didn't move your sluggish metal arse, then the problem lies squarely with you.

Yes to resource sharing. I'd like to be able to share both lump sums and to pick a spot on my resource buffer and anytime I have more than that point all resources are shared. So if I have storage for 10000 metal and I click on the bar at 7500 metal anytime I have more than than 7500, all extra metal is shared.

Why not give all the resources to the best player? Why are the worse players even playing?

Because that assumes one player (the best player) does better with all of the resources, than he would by having a little more than most but with mates to help him.

The question could be flipped on its head: why is the good player playing with people that can't keep up to his skill?

There's many reasons. And the team, as a whole, still has some chance of winning - especially if they use teamwork, communication, and have a plan (as opposed to just having four people who don't shoot each other and coincidentally share victory).

If I had to decide, I would use a 2 level decision for resource sharing:
1. set a limit for each resource from which point on is shared (percentage or absolute value)
2. in some kind of team overview have percentage distribution for your team mates, equal shares as default, adaptable as needed
That way you can set up your resource sharing for an automatic process without loosing complete control over the direction

While the poll options don't seem to have one for this:

This seems to be the most reasonable... sharing what you don't have doesn't help anyone... and if you share your excesses, it will never affect you -- as you require more energy/metal, your sharing will drop. Similarly, for your teammates, they can never get more from you beyond what you have as excess anyways.

I think it would be nice to have this toggleable -- and I think the UI should reflect what you are sharing and receiving... that way it makes it easy for people to plan ahead (e.g., they are receiving +800 energy from their friends, producing +100 themselves, but using -500... so that means that they need to build +400 energy to become independent...)

Answer: Because the balancer putted them in the same team.

Resource sharing would also allow team roles to be specialised. Some players could concentrate on econ for the team.

or because they are his friends ... I know a revolutionary concept