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

New player feedback

11 posts, 772 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
5 years ago
Hi,

I'm quite new to this game and I have been enjoying it a lot.

First I'd like to state that I'm still learning so what I'm saying might be completely wrong.
I have had many professors through my studies who were very clever about their field but failed to teach their knowledge completely. They were too far from us, the avarage students in knowledge that's why they couldn't understand our problems, why we don't get their lessons. I think there may be some analogy to games. This is why I think it might be helpful to share the perspective of an actual newbie.

So I was a SC2 player before and I have recently switched to zero-k. I honestly think that zero-k is or has the potential to be a better game than Starcraft.
I really prefer the speed of zero-k, that decisions and thinking is more important than spamming speed. But sometimes I feel like my units are craaaawling. It can be quite annoying. It feels like there are stationary units (cannons) and less stationary units (actual units).

The biggest downside of zero-k for me is the lack of scale. I mean it feels like the hole match is early game. You don't really have armies, just a bunch of units. Which is disappointing for me. Also zero-k has the best tools to control large number of units and it's not getting used. One of the most exciting thing about SC2 are these huge armies clashing against each other while zero-k has small skirmishes of 10v10 units max. In the early game it's fine and enjoyable to micro but I always expect some kind of progress.
For example you start with raiders which gets countered by riots which you counter with skirmishers which gets countered by raiders again and it feels like the armies don't build up in the hole process, not unit gets saved. You can go for some big units like grizzlies as a late game but you are just using it alone most of the time cause everything died earlier.
I don't know why this is the case though. Maybe lack of economy potential\ lack of production potential\ too high damage compared to health. It's up to you, more experienced players to figure out.

So these are the things I noticed. These may be completely wrong but if I noticed them other newbies could notice these as well and it can stop them from continue playing.
+7 / -0
5 years ago
very good points ;D
+0 / -0

5 years ago
I'd like to invite other new players to share their perspective as well.
+4 / -0

5 years ago
I need to ask what kinds of games you are mostly playing. from your descriptions, it seems you are into pvp 1v1...
If you like to see the big boom, try out the TEAMS: ALL WELCOME room, where dozens of shellfish gather everynight to celebrate a party of WW1-like defenses + artillery stalemates. The clusterfuck-room is also famous for emotional drama, great teamwork (1%) and utter chaos (the rest of the time)...
and there are the small-team-games, speed-metal, chickens, speed-metal-chickens, speed-metal-chickens + zombie-mode and so on. Every gamemode on every map has an own meta and other specialised players... There is a lot to discover!
+4 / -0

5 years ago
not to contradict OP but scale problem is also related to how computation hungry the game is

the game slow to a crawl when we reach 2000 units, even on top of the range computer.

Partly it is because the engine is not fully optimized, partly because the game just has too many calculations, [e.g. overdrive, range, pathing, shield link, projectiles...]

I generally prefer a more scaled game [smaller but more numerous units on larger maps], but I assume it would have to be balanced with ever more hungry computation need.

Also I assume that more units would change the dynamic to empower AoE
+0 / -0
5 years ago
Yes, DErankkatastrophe I mostly like 1v1 but teamgames as well.


Something I forgot to mention: I'm having problem understanding the different factories. Yes, I understand that they are for different landscapes. But I don't see the core difference bettween the rover and the tank factory for example. Also there are cloakbot, jumpbot and spider factories which also seem to be for the same purpose. I mean maybe it's a positivity that there is a lot to explore but it's a bit confusing for me.
Sorry to always come up with the SC2 example but races are done quite a lot better there in my opinion. They are simple to understand. "Zerg: overwhelm your opponent with massing units" "protoss: build a strong deathball" "terran: outmanouver your opponent"
And their playstyle is a lot different.
In Zero-k I find harder to understand factories.
+0 / -0
5 years ago
I'm still a new player, so I might be wrong but these are my views on the different factories regarding the ones you mentioned. Rover and Tank can be thought of like Light vehicles vs Heavy vehicles (I think thats what the used to be called too?) and in essence the Rovers have less health, but are faster and have more utility and variety.
For Rovers you have units like the fencer (the only 'skirmisher' which cannot fire while moving, but enjoys are larger range than comparable units, and good dps.) and the dominatrix (Holy vehicles which convert your enemies to your side via super theuturistic faith-beams which brainwash your enemies... or something). Both these units are very unique like that. Also there's the Scorcher, a fast and very high dps raider which is an early game mainstay for the light vehicles.

Now this is contrasted to the Tanks, whose units are tankier, slower and normally have a higher alpha strike. Kodachi is a good raider which a high alpha flamethrower, and the other ones are good too. The tremor is nice. I don't really play tanks much so I can't really remember their names.

Anyway, I think the point i was trying to make is that while the factory name generally tells a story regarding a few of the units in its roster (Cloakbots have a few stealth units, Jumpbots have some units which can jump, etc) you need to really look at the factories as a whole to understand them. For instance I know that a lot of people like to play Amphibious or Hover factories even on maps with no water, because some of their units are just so strong that they like using them even out of their element, like Grizzlies or Lancers.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
There's a lot of nuance in the different factories, and I'm not the best equiped to explain it. I don't play starcraft 2, but I think the factions in starcraft are probably more varied than the individual factories in zero-k because there's a maximum of 10 combat/combat support units per factory. Zero-k makes up for that by letting a player use multiple factions by building a new factory type mid-game to build specific other units to combo or tech.

You say that the game lacks a scale to it. On small, close quarters maps, that's definitely true. If 2 players get locked in a head on head fight over a single front, it's also true. When focusing on a front line, there's a lot of player skill involved in microing units to capitalize on weaknesses to dominate battle and throw the unit counter structure out the window. Raider<Riot<Skirmisher<raider? 6 glaives is all it takes to kill a reaver for cost(3 glaives die) on an open field with a semi-circle surround. scorchers are surprisingly good against maces. Daggers, once you have like 15 of them, only lose 1 or 2 to take down a single mace in 1 volley.darts and schorchers can approach an ogre in a scatered formation(achievable through a spiral shaped move command to split them evenly apart and Ctrl+rightclick point to move together in formation at the same speed) to close the distance and slow/kill it. In skirmisher wars, instead of using attack move, move your units directly with clever line moves to force the enemy skirmishers back, maybey even just move them around and sandwich them into riots you control to shred them at close range. Using terrain and micro to your advantage you can pull off amazing things.

If you get the chance to battle your enemy across 2 fronts, or 3 fronts, that changes. Earlier tonight I played a match on Wanderlust which had a lot of back and forth though a big main fight in the center and mixed unit raids through the north and south. In a situation like this where there is no distinct front line, but multiple battles separated by cliffs and hills I can't rely on crazy micro to pull off the impossible on all fronts. I need to rely on attack move where the general unit counter structure reigns supreme. I had to keep on top o the big center push, using mostly skirmishers and riots fighting on attack move while also balanceing raids on the north and south which consisted of both glaives and multiple reavers, which I need to change my production and divert units from my front to respond in kind, try and push into the hevily porced enemy side which I eventually sent 4 slings and some reavers to try and deal with. Those raids also kept hammering my energy income, so I had to queue up more solars and remex the territory, as well as reclaim for good measure. This kind of scale is a lot easier to achieve with cloakybots vs cloakybots on a map like wanderlust because their units are cheep and metal is plentiful. And this game is fundamentally different from that early game where there's small numbers of units engaging each other on a small front of the map, and take the micro knowledge of battles away and gives in place a more macro-style of battle.

and the clusterpot is also super fun pick a factory that noone else has and see if you can do anything on the map :) do rover fencer spam or build minataurs and constanylt assult/retreat to repair and try to never lose a tank. balling up to like 6 of them eventually is a near unstopable force, especially if you add an ogre and switch fronts and run down someone not expecting a lot of heavy tanks. spam glaive, spam grizzly, see what works 1 on 1 for the micro combat. abuse your units to the max.
+3 / -0
Thanks for the interesting feedback. I'm not sure how much of it can be addressed because I feel like the problems are deeply entwined with issues of skill ceilings and finding equally skilled opponents. Zero-K has a smaller scale compared to games of the TA genre, but I thought it had a somewhat comparable scale to Starcraft 2. Scale is also a bit tricky to define.

One question to ask is whether you want to manage a large scale battle or whether you want to play in a large scale battle. Large battles are common in packed teamgames, however, each individual player is probably managing a small front. For the largest scale games I'd suggest 1v1 on reasonably large maps. I think managing multiple domains across a large front leads to the largest sense of scale. The difficulty here is that playing a 1v1 on a large map tests a lot of skills, so I would expect many newer players to end up playing small games on large maps.

Here are some reasons skilled players may have larger scale games.
  • Experienced players can keep their units alive. Most armies are able to avoid most encounters that will not go well for them, especially in the early game. It can be very hard to damage an army that has decided to retreat. The feeling of sending small squads into the meatgrinder is reduced when you get better at evaluating engagements and retreating.
  • Experienced players have larger economies. More economy creates larger armies.
  • Experienced players attack more on multiple fronts. Even if the armies consist of 10 units, attacking with three armies imparts a sense of scale.
  • Experienced players are more able to handle multiple factories. There is a lot to do when you are managing land and air.

A lot of Zero-K (and many RTS games in general) is about making your own progress. If you are new and can only handle a small economy then you could spend the whole game only making small squads of units. If you don't have the experience to keep those units alive then you'll never build up an army. If your opponent does the same thing then you're going to have a small-scale game.

Zero-K may be harder to learn to the level required to play at a scale comparable to Starcraft 2. You need to expand to get any sort of economy. Zero-K fighting is focused more on raiding, where it is easy to lose units, than long buildups followed by sudden clashes. Large armies are relatively hard to use in Zero-K as units cannot shoot through each other. A lot of the progression in Zero-K comes from developing defenses throughout your territory. The amount to spend is very hard for players to balance as too much leads to a lack of expansion, while too little leaves you open to raiding.

I would call Multiplayer B698598 2 on Eye of Horus v13 was a large scale game. Large armies started appearing about 11 minutes in, but there were many armies all over the map prior to that.
+8 / -0

5 years ago
most important:
more skilled players are usually better at multitasking and using 2 or more armies simultaneously that are on separate parts of the map while keeping an eye on their income and buildpower...
+0 / -0


5 years ago
Google, that replay you posted irks me as I had some very disruptive IRL happenings throughout it - totally gimping my performance. A really fantastic match was the one Steel_Blue is describing: https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/699142

That match has got me wanting to play even more.
+1 / -0