This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
Makes the game too much fun on weekends.
Since a quarter of the players hate the 22 player limit while others don't care, we need the 22 player limit all the time.
Having 32 player on weekends must be a bug, it needs to be fixed so the game is appropriately less fun, and less people will play, making the community smaller and thus more tight knit.
+0 / -7
|
I have said it before and i will say it again, The team's for teams all welcome (which will now be refered to as TAW for ease) should be 16v16. - 16 is a nice even number (2 Cubed) - The more players there are the easier it is for new players as individual performance doesn't affect team performance as much - It allows players to focus on economy or on air support The big problem is alot of people i know log onto zero-k pacifically to play Teams all welcome which is why i think it should be a default game mode at the top like how you find casual or ladder 1v1 . 11v11 Helps noone its more people into the waitlist which nobody likes and as the name implies in Teams all welcome, All should be welcome to come and play.
+3 / -0
|
i agree mr0necat ive seen like 10 peeps on a waiting list
+1 / -0
|
To act like a mirror in the least malicious way possible, may I suggest an auto-combat game on mobile phones?
+0 / -1
|
|
|
quote:
- It allows players to focus on economy or on air support |
It is generally good play for at least one player to focus on "air support" in an 11v11. Even at 5v5 or smaller it is often good. In those smaller games you do have to work harder to not be letting down your team if you go air. But that is true for any strategy. A player who says they are "focusing on economy" is pretty likely (not certain, but likely) to be letting down their team no matter the game size. I guess it is not as likely in a 16v16.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
16 is a nice even number (2 Cubed) |
Strong agree. 22 is too many and isn't a comforting number at all.
+0 / -0
|
i hope we can all concider eachother as friends =) some people like the bigger games.. i would like them to be happy too.. perhaps there are compromises
+1 / -0
|
quote:
A player who says they are "focusing on economy" is pretty likely (not certain, but likely) to be letting down their team no matter the game size. I guess it is not as likely in a 16v16. |
I disagree. Building 1 or 2 singus first, and then using the metal overdrive to build important backline/defense like artemis, antinuke, nuke, SW, is often what wins the game. Front line players don't have that much metal to spare. It's us econ players that can take a step back and do the big metal moves. This is much better done on big games.
+0 / -0
|
I chose my words with care. In a large game one or more people often do have to sink some metal into singus at some point. But anybody who actually says they are "focusing on economy" is more often than not saying it to justify why they are not helping, or not going to help, their team. When you see a high-rated player building singus, they are often going to be either (a) building it with the reclaim they got by fighting at the front, or (b) helping their team with a few units which they can micro for high impact (think placeholder, widow, et cetera).
+2 / -0
|
ok so.. two teams both with a yellow rank player and a purple: team 1: yellow rank makes 2 singus.. then rushes a detriment.. team 2: yellow rank makes placeholders, firewalkers, skuttles, moderators.. ect.. micros them and gets a few kills and limited success. yellow rank simultaniously reclaims and tries to make late singues and then detriment.. .. what yellow is better? the late singus and late detrimen wont help much.. soo it feels like strong lategame yellow vs weak early game yellow. perhaps early help can still allow the purple rank to win before the detriments even a factor.
+0 / -0
|
I do go dedicated eco in a fair number (10-20% maybe) of my games before transitioning out, and I think it works fairly well (tmk it's not making me lose). I think there are times when it's a good idea. But I feel most of the people doing it tend to eco arbitrarily, not in response to the context of the game. Eco takes time to pay off, so do it is when you're confident in a stalemate situation where you couldn't have otherwise broken through. The transition out is also important. When you finish the singu you're still value negative and tempo negative (you're 4k metal behind). You need to catch up on tempo ASAP and this requires dynamic decision making. Most of the time People just slam a detri/pala/sup/moresingu and go back to their knitting and this is almost always the worst decision IMO. They're following a script and it's a really bad one.
+0 / -0
|
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Post/272776#272776Regarding the yellows, I'd say both are making bad choices and their relative value is dependent on the situation. I think #2 is stronger more of the time but overcomplicates it by trying to simultaneously rush singu, meaning they're near guaranteed to not hold lane. Yellow3 rushes singu and then keeps making singu forever. Yellow4 makes units but doesn't escalate past first fac and only makes enough e to spend metal and repair. Yellow4 is the teammate I prefer basically every single game because frontline is what most teams need more of and what frees up stronger players to impact the game. TBH I can't think of many yellow that do this because most of them become silver when they make themselves too useful.
+1 / -0
|
Is putting the knights towards the middle of the table a good goal in chess? You would possibly think that knights could attack a larger area so they would be useful there, so it must be good play. But no, this reasoning is flawed because it completely disregards context and situation. I'm not saying moving the knights there would be bad play, I'm saying that the process to determine it was strong play was flawed. The same is true for Zero-K, which can be seen as a modern, advanced distant cousin of chess. Strong play is using the best of your opportunities. But what opportunities you are getting depends on the context. So any context-independent strategy, like "build singus, then Pala, then Detri", is missing essential justification. It would be bad game design to make such strategies unconditionally strong, because it would make the game less interactive. Important fundamentals for strong play are
-
Information: Watch the battles, scout, figure out the context
-
Knowledge: Know what beats what to know how to react
-
Speed: React quickly to the context because it changes
Find strong play by respecting these fundamentals.
+2 / -0
|
Yellow4 makes units but doesn't escalate past first fac and only makes enough e to spend metal and repair.
that doesnt sound yellow =P that sounds almost silver.. might have bad micro and overview.. but the yellows that make units like this all game are very op for the rank even just on attack command.
+1 / -0
|
I must confess that I believe that below a certain elo, it maybe better for a player to contribute to victory by building pure eco than to build any unit, because they tend to feed with units or just park the unit in base doing nothing. In fact, I suspect in the context of 12v12 or bigger game, the pure eco play should net the elo of low gold-high bronze I think. now whether it is the best play that could be made? probably not, whether this increase their skill in the game? probably not whether they have fun doing this? it's up to them.
+1 / -0
|
