Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Please make maps with non-uniform metal spread

26 posts, 604 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (26 records)
sort



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

One of the design goals of Zero-K is to have a prolonged period where winner is not yet clear and no side has an overwhelming advantage.

To achieve this in practice, it would be best, if there was some sort of "buffer" zone, where skirmishes happen and where small loss of land does not lead to slippery slope to defeat.

However current maps do not allow that, because they often feature prominent metal in middle, or uniform metal spread. So even small loss of land leads to permanent economic disadvantage.
This map setup is a relic of ZK predecesors that featured metal makers and moho mexes (BA, AA, TA) and it is not only not needed now, but I believe that it is directly detrimental.

It is especially bad on maps with central "uber" mexes, where team rushes to mid to capture it and often this initial state determines the outcome of entire game - defeat in slow motion.

Buffer zone, devoid of mexes would also put less emphasis on "central porc line" and more on army movement. There would be less need to hold your ground, you could do tactical retreat. Also there would be less need to defend central position (you could choose to defend closer to where economy is), without obstructing windmill lines, defenses spread everywhere and comms sitting in their "lanes" (big team games).



So it would be really great to have more interesting maps with "non-standard" metal layouts.

For example:

  • greater weight on metal around starting zone, gradient toward less and less metal towards middle (with no mexes around middle, to create buffer zone where fighting and retreats can happen without impact on mex economy)

  • maps with "hotspots" - areas with dense metal clusters. For example map could have 4 hotspots, besides starting zones, where mexes appear in dense concentration and nothing else.

+3 / -2



AUrankAdminAquanim
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

For reference, are there any existing maps which satisfy this criteria?
+0 / -0



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
Not really..
+0 / -1



AUrankAdminAquanim
6 months ago
The closest I can think of off the top of my head are Cold Snap and Crubick Plains. Perhaps also Ravaged and Fairyland.
+0 / -0



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
I would still count those as uniform spread. If you make a gradient from start pos to start pos.

But there was a map with hotspots (though hotspots on uniform spread), basically triad of triad mexes. It was brownish and flat. Forgot its name..
+0 / -0


AUrankSortale
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

you mean terra?
http://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/56554

I am confused but as I understand it, you want maps where mexes are not concentrated in engagement zone so withdrawing from the zone entirely is a viable tactic.

but I believe that where mexes concentrate that's the engagement zone. So your request is conflicting.

if you just not want uniform nor mid concentrate then there are plenty of maps like that

I would also need to note that to maintain balance maps need to be nearly symmetrical which limit the layout one can use
+0 / -0




EErankAdminAnarchid
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

This criterion runs against expansion being not entirely predictable. While i agree with the overall sentiment - there should be vast tracts of territory which are not directly economic - i find this version is a bit too strict.

For example: if all the map has are four hotspots, two of which are starting positions of the players, you know where the other guy is going to expand to, so naked expansion cannot happen at all.

If the map has just a bit more hotspots - say, three hotspots and one starting area per player - well, that's Ravaged which is "uniform spread of clusters".
+0 / -0



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
No not terra AUrankSortale, its rare map, bigger too i have seen it last time about 4 years ago.
+0 / -0



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
Also where combat happens is your choice.

For example "hotspot" can be in a hole, having terrain disadvantage. Idea is to have option to defend elsewhere. To have freedome to lose territory, without losing economy.
+0 / -0



CZrankAdminLicho
6 months ago
Terrain has its own advantage.
People will still be motivated to push as far as they can. It gives you time to react, space to reposition troops.

It has massive advantages and I dont see people porcing a hotspot while neglecting everything else.. Also because they will be actively trying to push towards enemy..

So don't worry about that, combat is not where mexes are. This is a side effect of existing silly "uniform distribution" maps.
+1 / -1



RUrankFirepluk
6 months ago
comnap+cap leads to permanent economic disadvantage for abductee's team + heavy moral penalty :P
Let's nap more coms!
+1 / -0


ESrankShyrka
6 months ago
I like that idea of having metal spots in starting areas and have a large barren land with no metal in between.
That's something I¡d like to try.
+0 / -0


CHrankConnetable
6 months ago
I agree with you CZrankAdminLicho that it should be tried ... but have you thought about the risk of people just sitting in base and going superweapons?
+0 / -0

USrankPhytophyte
6 months ago
Just an initial brainstorm -- would using more map reclaim and less metal-spots towards the center of the map be a terrible idea? I'm thinking like Wanderlust, but with a line of rocks crossing the vertical center as opposed to the three large mexes.

At first blush, reclaim is an amazing source of income, promoting faster expansion and penalizing porc'ers; reclaim is finite, however, and the advantage of an early expansion alone won't last forever. It'd be like a super-mex that eventually expires -- also more difficult to porc, as reclaim can be spread out. As an added bonus, once the reclaim is gone, boom -- open land for non-economic territory control.
+0 / -0

USrankforcegod
6 months ago
(edited 6 months ago)

I agree with this idea licho. Scrambling for eco expansions is kinda a problem, especially on bigger maps. Like with 1v1s, you tend to get naked expansions. With larger team games, you just get steam rolled.

But I have to ask this question? Is zero-k meant to be a game where steam rolling should happen? Or is it a game where you can come out as the underdog every now and then?
+0 / -0


JPrankgajop
6 months ago
You should be encouraged to expand, and not sit in base. Raiding bases late game becomes very difficult as defenses are very strong in ZK, so if you had most of the resources in the base, doing eco damage would be very difficult.

It doesn't mean that best mexes need to be in the middle. It's possible to design maps where good mexes aren't also in good strategic positions.
You could make a map where players start in two corners, and good mexes are in the other two, while key strategic terrain is in the middle. Some such maps already exist (forgot the name but has a hill in middle with two mex groups in corners)
+2 / -0




EErankAdminAnarchid
5 months ago
I made a map with non-uniform metal spread.
+0 / -0


CHrankConnetable
5 months ago
This also fits the description IMO

https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/56753 (Gecko Isle 1)
+0 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
5 months ago
The maps that play very best imo - like Titan Duel - do have uniform metal spread. I think this is an own-goal objective.
+0 / -0


CHrankAdminDeinFreund
5 months ago
Titan duel gets boring very quick. I generally prefer maps with obvious expansions like Eye of Horus or Ravaged. So I like seeing more maps of this style being made.
+1 / -0
Page of 2 (26 records)