Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: asdasd
Host: unknownrankbinko
Game version: Zero-K 1.6.7.3
Engine version: 104.0.1-287-gf7b0fcc
Battle ID: 588947
Started: 6 years ago
Duration: 17 minutes
Players: 5
Bots: False
Mission: False
Rating: Casual
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 23.5%

unknownrankbinko
AUrankrav
Team 2
Chance of victory: 76.5%

EErankAdminAnarchid
USrankZolokhan
USrankFieryGamer
Spectators
IDrankAUFAZAIDAN

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
6 years ago
I'm the developer of this map, and it makes me VERY happy that people are actually playing on it :-D

And I know it's unbalanced, I can't do too much about it.
+0 / -0
quote:
And I know it's unbalanced, I can't do too much about it.

There are things that you can do:

- Adjust the number and positioning of the metal spots. Keep in mind, there is no such thing as impassable terrain in ZK, so mex distirbution is often even more important than terrain itself.

This would be hard if you represented cities with metal spots, but you have a ton of sea mexes which definitely aren't cities.

- Adjust the values of metal spots - you can make some areas more or less lucrative without changing the number and positions of the spots just by recalibrating their value.

- Adjust the territory that your map represents
+0 / -0
I love these comments here although I haven't played on the map yet.

But one thing I want to ask is, do people actually enjoy having different values for mexes on the same map?

quote:
Adjust the values of metal spots


Maybe this is an exceptional situation where it warrants that change, and maybe there's something I'm missing that someone else can fill me in on. But whenever I see that, it bothers me, because it makes metal so much less intuitive, and I have to be finding and analyzing the numbers instead of focusing on strategy. Also, despite that fact that I think I saw a GoogleFrog video on overdrive with a table that shows there's actually a difference between 4 metal on one mex vs split between two, isn't that the only difference for the most part?

If I needed to add more metal to an area of a map, I think I would without a doubt rather just add more mexes. But maybe there's a rationale I'm missing.

P.S. If we're trying to make a (semi-)realistic map but add balance to it, and you only wanted land mexes to represent cities and not fictitious future resource deposits, then I could totally see balancing areas with sea mexes, possibly representing fictitious offshore resources. I actually like the concept of asymmetric semi-balanced maps that encourage asymmetric fac choices. Like the amph/hover aussies vs. the sea/gunship kiwis. (also, something many are unaware of is that almost any asymmetric game can be instantly balanced by a bidding system [example: Axis and Allies], which can be done manually or coded into the game)
+0 / -0

6 years ago
quote:
But one thing I want to ask is, do people actually enjoy having different values for mexes on the same map?

My impression is that it is not generally a well liked mechanic, especially when the mex valuation is not intuitive.
+0 / -0