| 1 |
It's my opinion that ZK players in general are not meeting their potential at ZK to the same extent that players of other RTS games do for their respective game. Given that there are numerous mechanisms in place to reduce the disadvantage experienced by new players (factory repeat and fight command for example), shouldn't there be the opposite trend? If players are not barred from high level play until they learn how to multitask the crap out of everything, shouldn't this mean players are performing at a higher level as they can focus efforts on decision making rather than mindless macro?
|
1 |
It's my opinion that ZK players in general are not meeting their potential at ZK to the same extent that players of other RTS games do for their respective game. Given that there are numerous mechanisms in place to reduce the disadvantage experienced by new players (factory repeat and fight command for example), shouldn't there be the opposite trend? If players are not barred from high level play until they learn how to multitask the crap out of everything, shouldn't this mean players are performing at a higher level as they can focus efforts on decision making rather than mindless macro?
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Don't get me wrong, there are good players here, and I'm far from the top. I'm not having a go at anyone and this assessment is not that players are inherently bad. Rather, I want to know if people agree that players are not meeting potential (why/why not?), discuss which particular facets of good play are being missed, what differences there are between RTS games that change how the community approaches it, and what can/should be done to address it.
|
3 |
Don't get me wrong, there are good players here, and I'm far from the top. I'm not having a go at anyone and this assessment is not that players are inherently bad. Rather, I want to know if people agree that players are not meeting potential (why/why not?), discuss which particular facets of good play are being missed, what differences there are between RTS games that change how the community approaches it, and what can/should be done to address it.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
These are my thoughts as to the cause of the effect assuming that the effect is in fact real.
|
5 |
These are my thoughts as to the cause of the effect assuming that the effect is in fact real.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Dilution
|
7 |
#1
-
Dilution
|
| 8 |
[spoiler]
|
8 |
[spoiler]
|
| 9 |
One thing that occurs to me is that there are more options in ZK. Given a hypothetical effort/learning value, it needs to be somehow distributed among all the options available. The more options you have, the less effort is able to go into each option on average, and the more likely that effort is malinvested. Essentially, there is less specialised understanding, and there are more noobtraps. A player that invests time in learning to trollcom is missing out on learning how to raider. A player that learns how to gunship is investing in a factory that is not viable to open with in 1v1. There is generalizability between skills, but high level play requires a lot of specific knowledge as well. I also fear that a lot of the generalizable concepts are lost for the fleeting glamour of noobtraps and cheese. Eco being the most generalizable skill/understanding there is. It doesn’t help that some types of play are essential in 1v1 but not teams, and vice versa.
|
9 |
One thing that occurs to me is that there are more options in ZK. Given a hypothetical effort/learning value, it needs to be somehow distributed among all the options available. The more options you have, the less effort is able to go into each option on average, and the more likely that effort is malinvested. Essentially, there is less specialised understanding, and there are more noobtraps. A player that invests time in learning to trollcom is missing out on learning how to raider. A player that learns how to gunship is investing in a factory that is not viable to open with in 1v1. There is generalizability between skills, but high level play requires a lot of specific knowledge as well. I also fear that a lot of the generalizable concepts are lost for the fleeting glamour of noobtraps and cheese. Eco being the most generalizable skill/understanding there is. It doesn’t help that some types of play are essential in 1v1 but not teams, and vice versa.
|
| 10 |
[/spoiler]
|
10 |
[/spoiler]
|
| 11 |
TLDR: Player comprehension of core game mechanics is diluted by the enormous number of options.
|
11 |
TLDR: Player comprehension of core game mechanics is diluted by the enormous number of options.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Expertise
is
not
being
shared
effectively
|
14 |
#2
-
Expertise
is
not
being
shared
effectively
|
| 15 |
[spoiler]
|
15 |
[spoiler]
|
| 16 |
Another possibility is that there is no universal dogma. The community is not large enough to have a decent chance at producing the sort of universally accepted ‘correct’ playstyles. This is an enormous part of the draw for me, as I fucking hate being told what to do. However, with little trickledown education from the top, the wisdom attained by the most able players is not recycled as it is in other games. Unlike in other games where the best players are always the most talented game operators, the top 50 for ZK seems more like a group of people who have gotten this far off their own insights. It’s the equivalent of sports psychologists being heavily represented among gold medallists at the Olympics. The majority of top players are there more as a result of their ability to identify and improve upon their mistakes than any natural aptitude for multi-tasking, reflex, or perhaps even strategy/tactics. Or maybe that’s just me?
|
16 |
Another possibility is that there is no universal dogma. The community is not large enough to have a decent chance at producing the sort of universally accepted ‘correct’ playstyles. This is an enormous part of the draw for me, as I fucking hate being told what to do. However, with little trickledown education from the top, the wisdom attained by the most able players is not recycled as it is in other games. Unlike in other games where the best players are always the most talented game operators, the top 50 for ZK seems more like a group of people who have gotten this far off their own insights. It’s the equivalent of sports psychologists being heavily represented among gold medallists at the Olympics. The majority of top players are there more as a result of their ability to identify and improve upon their mistakes than any natural aptitude for multi-tasking, reflex, or perhaps even strategy/tactics. Or maybe that’s just me?
|
| 17 |
[/spoiler]
|
17 |
[/spoiler]
|
| 18 |
TLDR: Is ZK still so unexplored that it rewards autodidacticism over skill?
|
18 |
TLDR: Is ZK still so unexplored that it rewards autodidacticism over skill?
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Our
culture
is
dank
|
21 |
#3
-
Our
culture
is
dank
|
| 22 |
[spoiler]
|
22 |
[spoiler]
|
| 23 |
It’s possible our culture does not encourage competitive play. The elo system seems to not function accurately (it rewards versing players lower than yourself), and many people think it meaningless or worse: equate it with a punitive measure. You can’t get games of the type you want consistently which makes practicing difficult. Our player base is culturally diverse and there are some language barriers. Tournaments progress in an almost deterministic fashion. There are toxicity issues, and many better players find themselves ironically incompetent at communicating their hard-won ZK understanding. “Try-hard” is a term often coined, though I’m a little confused about how it’s meant. These all seem to evidence a culture unconducive to encouraging competitive play.
|
23 |
It’s possible our culture does not encourage competitive play. The elo system seems to not function accurately (it rewards versing players lower than yourself), and many people think it meaningless or worse: equate it with a punitive measure. You can’t get games of the type you want consistently which makes practicing difficult. Our player base is culturally diverse and there are some language barriers. Tournaments progress in an almost deterministic fashion. There are toxicity issues, and many better players find themselves ironically incompetent at communicating their hard-won ZK understanding. “Try-hard” is a term often coined, though I’m a little confused about how it’s meant. These all seem to evidence a culture unconducive to encouraging competitive play.
|
| 24 |
[/spoiler]
|
24 |
[/spoiler]
|
| 25 |
TLDR: Resign lobsters!
|
25 |
TLDR: Resign lobsters!
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
| 28 |
Players
are
just
bad
|
28 |
#4
-
Players
are
just
bad
|
| 29 |
[spoiler]
|
29 |
[spoiler]
|
| 30 |
Finally, is it possible that the allure of ZK somehow selects for players that are in some way less able to perform at a high level? Possibilities I can think of are: attracting large numbers of busy programmers who don’t have the time to get good, attracting lazy people with the effort saving mechanics, attracting non-serious gamers who just want to throw down in 10v10 (an option unavailable in many other competitive RTS games), or attracting people who are more interested in learning flashy plays than good ones. This kind of explanation seems to be the implication behind many claims in the teams room, but honestly it feels more like a convenient explanation for the claimant than the kind that has a strong effect on outcome.
|
30 |
Finally, is it possible that the allure of ZK somehow selects for players that are in some way less able to perform at a high level? Possibilities I can think of are: attracting large numbers of busy programmers who don’t have the time to get good, attracting lazy people with the effort saving mechanics, attracting non-serious gamers who just want to throw down in 10v10 (an option unavailable in many other competitive RTS games), or attracting people who are more interested in learning flashy plays than good ones. This kind of explanation seems to be the implication behind many claims in the teams room, but honestly it feels more like a convenient explanation for the claimant than the kind that has a strong effect on outcome.
|
| 31 |
[/spoiler]
|
31 |
[/spoiler]
|
| 32 |
TLDR: Maybe there's a negative correlation between ZK demographic and skill.
|
32 |
TLDR: Maybe there's a negative correlation between ZK demographic and skill.
|
| 33 |
\n
|
33 |
\n
|
| 34 |
\n
|
34 |
\n
|
| 35 |
Do you think there is an effect? Why/why not?
|
35 |
Do you think there is an effect? Why/why not?
|
| 36 |
If so, what are the areas of play most affected?
|
36 |
If so, what are the areas of play most affected?
|
| 37 |
What do you think is the most likely cause?
|
37 |
What do you think is the most likely cause?
|
| 38 |
What can/should be done to address this?
|
38 |
What can/should be done to address this?
|
| 39 |
Do you think you're affected?
|
39 |
Do you think you're affected?
|
Are ZK players bad?