Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: MatchMaker 492
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.6.3.9
Engine version: 104.0.1-330-gae29b60
Started: 24 days ago
Duration: 51 minutes
Players: 2
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 37%

CHrankAdminDeinFreund
Team 2
Chance of victory: 63%

GBrankPRO_rANDY
Spectators
AUrankAdminAquanim

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort


CHrankAdminDeinFreund
24 days ago
(edited 24 days ago)

Why can't we balance 1v1 so we have more of these games? There are just so many ways to lose in the first 5-10 minutes of the game that you hardly ever get to see mid or even late game.

Even if I had lost, this would've been so worth it for all the roach kills.

(Maybe I'm wrong and randy lost in the first 10 minutes and just kept on playing, but I didn't have this feeling)
+1 / -0


GBrankPRO_rANDY
24 days ago
I think in midgame I was ahead but your greater experience in late game zero-k made it one sided in the end.
+1 / -0


AUrankAdminAquanim
24 days ago
(edited 24 days ago)

"More of these games" is not a well defined objective.

A game where you could reliably reach the late game so the early game doesn't matter seems kind of dumb as well.

I would say this was over at 22-24 minutes when Randy suicided a ton of units to the first Dante. The gap in army size was overwhelming for the entire game after this point. I think if the subsequent Scorpion had instead been a second Dante this would have been over a lot quicker.
+1 / -0



USrankCrazyEddie
24 days ago
(edited 24 days ago)

quote:
A game where you could reliably reach the late game so the early game doesn't matter seems kind of dumb as well.

Early game always matters. A small early advantage is usually decisive, but the players don't know that until much later. Only spectators can tell that the game is already won.

To reach the middle or late game you only need to avoid early blow-outs.

And, of course, "usually decisive" doesn't mean "always decisive". The possibility of a turn-around is one reason why you keep playing even if obviously behind.
+0 / -0

USrankRyMarq
24 days ago
(edited 24 days ago)

These games are caused by a few things.

1: Reasonably good raiders.
The raiders need to be able to deal significant damage if they get in, and ideally push past lighter defenses. Glaive, bandit, scorcher, these are the only ones that really function like you would want for this.

You need this to encourage strikes on many fronts, and an adaptable battlefield with significant attrition. Raiders must be good so they are encouraged over other alternatives that tend towards one side snowballing.

2: Relatively mobile ways to kill light defenses, with low attrition.
Skirms that outrange them are probably the best here. Recluse, rogue, fencer, and arguably ronin. Boey is too slow, moderator requires too much overwhelming power, grizzly too big, etc. Minotaur is alright, but is fairly risky and requires more infrastructure. Wolverine is probably alright here, but has pretty low DPS.

These units are important for creating a front line and stopping defenses from getting clogged up too easily, and because if they can be splashed, then they can threaten low-defense areas as higher-grade porc begins spouting up.

3: Weaker counter structures among units.

This stops an army interaction from becoming a one-way stomp too easily.



Cloaky, Shield, LV all have these characteristics. Amph almost does, but mostly its skirms are a bit slow and its raider game isn't powerful enough. HT likewise doesn't deal good enough DPS with its raiders, and tends a bit more towards deathball with its interactions. That said, its probably 4th place here because of the blitz almost being sufficient as a raider.

JJ is about as good as Amph in the first two categories, but also has some very strong weaknesses, making it too swingy to hit these games really. It also has too weak a raider game as things balloon, so it will tend towards lower-attrition units instead and move towards loss/deathball too easily.

+4 / -0

PLrankOrfelius
23 days ago
They are also caused by nobody doing blastwing openings.
+0 / -0

USrankFealthas
23 days ago
USrankRyMarq I'd also note that cl/sh/lv dont have dominating skirmishers with leveler side-arms. Nothing is as un-interactive as bullshit skirmisher wars.
+1 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
23 days ago
(edited 23 days ago)

quote:
1: Reasonably good raiders.
The raiders need to be able to deal significant damage if they get in, and ideally push past lighter defenses. Glaive, bandit, scorcher, these are the only ones that really function like you would want for this.

Most other factories don't even really have raiders, they have duck-taped abominations with various leveler sidearms which pretend to be raiders while mostly being the opposite. They're bad at actual raiding - but they're make up for it by being good at killing the other raiders.

Blitz, Kodachi, Dagger, Duck: massive alpha, low DPS. Good for killing raiders by instagibbing them and going away to recharge. Bad for raiding once you got through because eco can't run or shoot back anyway.

Kodachi, Pyro, Dagger, Archer: meaningful AOE, mostly low DPS. Good at killing raiders en masse. Bad at raiding, because mexes rarely clump hard enough to take damage from AoE.

Flea is almost good now with its range buff allowing it to fight and kill many things. It's actually bad at killing raiders, and super good at doing dps/cost to economy. But it's way too weak against even lightest defences to serve as a true raider on its own. And it would be horrible if flea was a true raider as-is.

quote:
I'd also note that cl/sh/lv dont have dominating skirmishers with leveler side-arms. Nothing is as un-interactive as bullshit skirmisher wars.

Well. Maybe they do now, huh? Domi and Rogue were both buffed recently. And someone complained about sniper spam. Though i guess all of that is simply not comparable to Scalpel or Firewalker.
+2 / -0