Consider PlayerID based award system

[ArchShaman]

Track unit linage. Such that a gunship factory I originally owned gives gunships made by that factory air general points for me. Factories made by my original commander gives units blah blah. Etc.

[sprunk]

• everyone on a team can control all units, this is a very weak way of distinguishing ownership
• does not solve the case where someone from another teamID assists

[ArchShaman]

But it's cheap I think?

[GoogleFrog]

Tracking unit lineage goes against the whole point of what I would think commshare is for. If you worry about award hogging in a mixed commshare/non-commshare scenario then you could consider splitting the award by how many players are on the team and then awarding it to the team. That is a bit weird though and would create unusual awards in games which are entirely commshare.

[ArchShaman]

Perhaps award it to squads instead of just whoever leads?

I'm personally not worried about award hogs. It's a minor thing IMO. Like a 0.1 on the priority scale of 5. It doesn't really impact gameplay much outside of bragging rights.

[Licho1]

I would recommend simply halving gains. If you have two people than halve every value.

[Anarchid]

@Licho1 that prevents anybody (at least within the hivemind) from having awards because most awards require you to be N% above the some average-ish waterline.

[ashdnazg]

Not if you do a weighted average instead of a regular one.

Basically do all record keeping and calculations in the awards on players instead of on teams and add something to prevent merging+unmerging issues.

[sprunk]

Disallow awards for comsharing teams. Comshare is for cooperation and awards are for epenis.