BAR and Zero-K Comparison

I made a kind of comparison/review of BAR vs Zero-K. I'd be happy if anyone wants to format this in a nice pic or table and to post this somewhere in BAR space, as it might attract interest in ZK there. Please let me know if you notice I've left something out or it seems incorrect, I'll update. ZK is still my strong favourite, but I've tried to be as fair as I can.


Tech tree
BAR
-3 technology tiers, emerging 5-10 minutes apart
-Lower tier units often made obsolete by higher tiers
-Small units can be late-game spammed for scouting or decoys
-400+ units/structures across 3 factions so far
-Fewer unconventional units, factions have some similar units
Zero-K
-Flat tech tree, no tiers (except for a handful of very large units)
-Most units available from start or very early
-Smaller units often remain widely used late-game
-200+ units/structures, 12 factories (quasi-factions)
-More unconventional units

Gameplay
BAR
-Medium or long matches
-Slower pace - strong sense of build-up/progression
-Focus on longer strategic moves
-APM/micro quite important for success (including base management)
-Strict player roles in large matches
Zero-K
-Shorter faster games (60-70% average match length)
-Large range of tactical options - many unconventional
-Focus on using correct counters and creative tactics
-APM/micro less important (superior unit AI)
-Very flexible roles in large matches
-Terraform feature allows terrain deformation. eg walls, towers


Economy
BAR
-Exponential economy curve - massive resources late-game
-Energy converters allow scaling in base
-Very strict build order, intense base management
Zero-K
-Economy curve has diminishing returns
-No energy converters - map/mex control essential
-Very loose build order, less base management

UI and performance
BAR
-Solid unit controls
-2,000 max units per player by default
-Less mods/options, but polished
-Better multicore CPU utilization
Zero-K
-Best-in-genre unit controls
-Unit limit technically 10,000, but lower than BAR in practice
-Larger variety of mods and options

Graphics/sound/maps
BAR
-Graphics - Great
-Sounds - Great
-Music - Excellent
-Maps - Great quality, less fun/silly maps
-For some reason, same maps often get played over and over
ZK
-Graphics - Some good, some dated, slight cartoonish art style
-Sounds - Ok
-Music - Very good
-Maps - Good quality, more fun/silly maps

Community
BAR
-Community size - Medium to large
-Multiple games of any size, available in any time zone
-Toxicity level in PvP rooms tends to be bad or extreme
-16 player maximum room size (with rare exceptions)
ZK
-Community size - Small
-Large matches not available in some time zones
-Some toxicity in larger matches
-22 player maximum room size (recently down from 32)

Compare BAR vs Techk?

I'd downgrade Zero-k's graphics to "Dated, Inconsistent". I don't think a modern gamer in 2025 would consider our graphics "Good".
Some models are decent, see Amphbots. However, things like Cloakbots, Jumpbots, Rover, etc are definitely extremely dated and in need of overhaul.

Updated based on graphics and terraform comments.

quote: What micro can there possibly be?

I've got solid playtime in both, and my experience is that frontline PvP roles requires a lot of micro, particularly because you don't have any autoskirmish AI like in ZK. In BAR every individual player needs lots of well organized base structures too, so switching back and forth can be very APM heavy. I'm not much of a 1v1 player, so I'd be interested to hear from someone that is.

quote: Compare BAR vs Techk?

That would be interesting to see, but I haven't played much TechK and thought vanilla comparison would be of more general interest especially to BAR players.

quote: What is bar's equivalent of cloaked snitch?

They have a snitch like unit, and a cloaked skuttle-like version, but they don't get used much or in the same way. From my experience most of the micro comes from the skirmishing, which is unaided and constant in most battles.

A bit snarky, but fair enough. Let's agree to disagree.

ZK requires micro, BAR requires micro. The difference is in expressiveness. Perhaps the big difference is that in BAR micro is required for units to achieve their basic roles. But this only applies to most units, since Skuttle and Scythe don't exactly work without close attention. Also, BAR has the basics (eg line move), so someone who micros twice as hard in BAR than in ZK is going to have better controlled units.

The economic micro is also a good point. BAR has you micro your base and your army. Neglecting your base can run you into an avoidable stall or hamper your economic escalation. Neglecting your army causes it to stand still, or get baited, and picked off. ZK says you only have to micro your base when you want to make decisions about it (adding chunks of energy, a factory, a superweapon etc), and the unit AI gives you breathing space to look away from your army for longer. But you shouldn't actually leave your army to fend for itself, because there are frequent opportunities to make small judgements and micro the battle to a better position. And 1v1 is played on such a knife-edge that eking out this advantages is required.

A surprising, at least to me, number of players use very old systems to play this game.

Visual updates come with a hefty performance cost, which some players are unable to bear.

I've seen complaints whenever devs chose to jump to a new engine version and the new features are hitting those players hard.

quote: I don't know anything about BAR but the 6 or so games I watched it was just a race for superweapons.

Well in fairness they have tac missiles, cloaked stunners (used on antis sometimes), air drops (though rare), striders with multiple roles. Map control is still important for important for most maps, and sneaky mini-bases are a thing from time to time. Typical 8v8 ends in a frontline collapse or a eco-player T3 raid or bombing the opposing eco. I only see supers ending matches rarely, because you need a lot of AFUS (Singu) just to power it effectively and building it takes too much metal off frontline. That's just my experience, but I've got a decent number of games under my belt.

I agree with you though, ZK is superior from a gameplay perspective, for multiple reasons.

quote: Zero-K has organically developed a second tier

I personally don't think of that as a full tier, but fair point I'll alter the wording.

ZK's equivalent of that is supposed to be reclaim, which is not shared.

This would be true if some notorious players didn't pick up on that. They spawn in back row and build 10+ cons at game start, then get ALL the reclaim they can without ever helping the front, all to fuel their one dumb project.

You essentially need the enemy team to be massively incomptent when one of those players is on your team, because your front needs to win without reaping any of the benefits while the enemy gets to immediately build momentum on you for every mistake you make.

Reclaim is for players whose limited forward build power isn't occupied by more important tasks like repairing, building turrets or claiming metal spots. Frontline players taking reclaim before repairing their assault units or rebuilding destroyed metal extractors is an outright blunder.