Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: MatchMaker 24
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.6.3.5
Engine version: 104.0.1-325-g9ad8116
Started: 4 months ago
Duration: 29 minutes
Players: 2
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 21.1%

USrankFealthas
Team 2
Chance of victory: 78.9%

SErankGodde

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (22 records)
sort



SErankGodde
4 months ago
GG
There is stuff everywhere!
+2 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
Yay, I had a game against lobbe that wasn't a total stomp!
Unfortunately godde is better at aerial lobstering than me :(
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

I made a dotwars video of the game:

+3 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
This got me thinking about why games like this a are "good".
A few points:
1: The map - HaS is one of my favorite maps for a reason. The big hills in the middle create interesting positional decisions you need to make. Many maps have terrain blocks but they don't have nearly as much of "penalty" to ignoring them. I feel it also has a good metal map - the game often scales into higher metal phases without feeling speed-metal-esque, probably due to all the different things you need to spend metal on defend yourself all over the map.
2: The matchup. Cl vs SH is really balanced and dynamic for the most part. Counters mostly work(well...rouges...) and there are no "bullshit" units that completely change(err..destroy) the flow of the game, like a grizzly or firewalker coming out and making everything devolve into a static porcfest. Battles tend to be a little give-and-take, there aren't many 1-sided stomps. If I were facing something like jack/mod/placeholder ball, one of the armies would just get wiped due to how hard those units synergize with numbers. Lots of heavies just crush everything that isn't an anti-heavy and this deletes lots of unit variety.
3: The units used - this game saw a lot of variety, but a particular unit did not dominate everything. Raiders were probably made alot more than anything else, but this is a good thing in this case I think. Bandits and glaives have well defined strengths, and I felt that depending on how you played a fight determined the outcome of the little skirmishes everywhere - positioning, micro, slopes, concaves could all change a fight. This is !FUN!, because you don;t just immediately lose a battle somewhere because you happened to have wrong units(if it was daggers vs glaives none of this interaction would matter - daggers always win). This interaction does not apply to many other unit classes.

Godde did his godde thing and made me play defensive and get outexpanded which was sad, and ended it with better air play, but overall it was a game that really showed "healthy" game-play, without much of the bullshit that makes lots of people angry (1 sided interactions, determined by pregame RPS of factory choice).
+2 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

That is interesting and I like this map as well. It is an interesting fact though that most maps in the MM there is someone who loves the map and someone who hates it.

I mostly agree, although this game did have buffed Rogue. Also, I think either side could have made a big unit or army to disrupt the flow of the game much earlier than they did. The swarms of bombers almost functioned as such an army. Shields have the ability to make Felon ball and Cloaky could make a bunch of snipers, either would require a response.
+0 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
Its hard to explain, but I feel like snipers and shieldballs are never something you "want" to make. They make you lose tempo in a way. They are just slow and predictable, making them not very threatening, unless you are super behind or something.

I think my lack of porcing also cost me, godde's stinger/stardust helped him secure the north side and really hurt my movement for a long time.

As for maps - I feel that some maps are just objectively terrible(vittra), but alot of people dont have a refined taste for maps, I think mostly due to lack of skill/inexperience with how zk plays, and disagreement ensues. When you don't even play the game well, its hard to judge if the gameplay on a map is bad because you are bad or because if the map is bad .Someone will always love or hate something no matter what.


+1 / -0



USrankCrazyEddie
4 months ago
This map often has interesting games on it, but I wish someone would remake it to preserve the gameplay but improve the aesthetics. I find this map remarkably ugly.
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

quote:
As for maps - I feel that some maps are just objectively terrible(vittra), but alot of people dont have a refined taste for maps, I think mostly due to lack of skill/inexperience with how zk plays, and disagreement ensues

Perhaps some people just don't like the same things you like. Even in terms of high-level 1v1 not everybody plays ZK the same way and wants the same things out of their game.
+3 / -0



SErankGodde
4 months ago
I don't think that any maps in the map pool are bad. I just think you don't know how to play them.
>_>
<_<
+0 / -0



CArankTheMooseIsLoose
4 months ago
USrankCrazyEddie http://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/57086
+1 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
via Imgflip Meme Generator
+2 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
4 months ago
We get it, Fealthas, you don't like Vittra.
+1 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
Ok - ignoring my dislike of vittra - do you agree that a map might be bad for reasons other than aesthetic and quality issues(bugs)?
Or is it all personal choice?
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

Kind of? I would use a more nuanced description than "bad". (EDIT: what does "bad" even mean?)

For instance, to take a less contentious example, Icy Shell has structural problems (encouraging all-ins for the megamex) which frequently makes games on it a bit dumb. Nevertheless I enjoy the occasional Icy Shell game.

I do agree that Vittra tends to end up with fairly static front lines, which can lead to degenerate gameplay, and I wouldn't want to play on it all the time, but I've played and watched way more 1v1s I enjoyed on Vittra than on Hide and Seek.

If I recall correctly, the game which convinced me to pick up Zero-K years ago was a tournament 1v1 on Vittra where Godde swarmed somebody (GF?) with Puppies.
+2 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)


Tremor doesn't like the terrain of Hide and Seek either.


+0 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
I think it would make sense to somehow visually indicate that a region has been super-smoothed - places like the middle of this map look quite terrible when smoothed, same with double icy run or whatever its called.
+1 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
Yes, it would.
+1 / -0

PTrankraaar
4 months ago
quote:

The big hills in the middle create interesting positional decisions you need to make. Many maps have terrain blocks but they don't have nearly as much of "penalty" to ignoring them.


I agree with this, lots of the newer maps look good but lack "lanes".

People keep playing "red comet" and "comet catcher", though.
+0 / -0




EErankAdminAnarchid
4 months ago
Lane based maps are right there with bullshit skirms and riot raiders in the list of worst things.
+1 / -0



SErankGodde
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

Tremor smoothing looks bad because of the texture with premade shadows that still remain after being leveled.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (22 records)