TA vs. Starcraft. Could have been Stimpack Marines, Extended Range Marines...

http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/gamespy-top-10-rts-games-of-all-time.61342/page-2

I think Esoterica's comment here expresses some of the sentiment of Zero-K, especially the "painstakingly created each unit."

Me! Mee! I wish units were less, but more diverse! That's one of the reasons I moved from BA to CA: Units were removed, the remaining ones made more unique.

quote: mojjj you like necroing the past, do you? that source you cite is from feb 2004. 9 years. seriously -.-.

Yet more proof that the avatar picker is optimized to select the most fitting one for everybody!

2004...

That is so like... AAAAGES ago!

I didn't even know what a computer was at that time.

A mobile phone looked like this

What do you mean by "painstakingly create each unit"? In terms of lore, mechanics coherence, uniqueness, balance?

To rate Starcraft I think it is high in terms of lore. It is reasonably high on uniqueness, this is easy with few units it is fairly easy to be unique and most units have some sort of unique mechanic and usage. Balance is apparently quite high. I rate it low on mechanics coherence, uniqueness fights against coherence and the complicated armour system does not make for coherence.

Also I'm impressed that you've managed to 'rez' a thread which is at least twice as old as this forum.

TA (at least my recollection or idea of TA) rates low on lore. I hear it rates low on balance too. The units are not particularly unique, they all use basically the same mechanics within a range of movement and weapon parameters. This makes coherence good except for (rumors) of an opaque armour system and strange build costs.

Personally unit uniqueness rates quite high for me. It is why I like RA2 and why I prefer TA:K to TA.

For ZK I feel we are doing reasonably well in terms of uniqueness but this often has a cost of coherence. But with few armour systems and the consistent build ratios I think we're doing pretty well on coherence too.

Well to be fair, the pro starcraft scene has more than just macroing up and ending in one big explosion. Scouting, map control, harassment and aggression are key elements there, too (although less than ZK).

quote: What do you mean by "painstakingly create each unit"? In terms of lore, mechanics coherence, uniqueness, balance?

I mean in terms of the effort put into the unit creation. SC developers paid attention to everything from meticulous balance, uniqueness/usefulness, to easily distinguishable models to their very "personalities," personalities which are difficult to connect to a player trained to see his units as interchangeable parts (which, practically speaking, they are).

quote: But with few armour systems and the consistent build ratios I think we're doing pretty well on coherence too.

As someone who does not particularly enjoy poring over cost tables to determine the optimum build order in a given tactical situation, especially when the game can be well-designed without them, I am endlessly grateful for this choice.

It means less memorization, more dynamic tactical response, which is part of why I like the Pylon system, too.

quote: Personally, i think zero-k is the best free rts out there.

I'm not so sure of that. Most of the people to whom I have introduced it, including my brothers and my friends, have all become bored with it fairly quickly. Then again, all their friends were playing StarCraft and Legends.

Making economy is not just about linking things together. That's actually quite a minor part of the ZK economy. Starcraft definitely has an economy and I don't think it's as simple as "just kill all their workers". Sure you probably win if you do that, the whole game is about trying to do that. In ZK you "just" win if you kill your opponent's mexes.

you can take a donkey to water, but you cant make it drink

speaking objectively ZK is much easier to play than SC at even the highest levels.. I hover around the top ten players and very rarely exceeed 25 commands/minute (where starcraft demands at least 2x that to be remotely competetive)

what your friends mean is 0k is too different to what they are used to. since not many commands/minute are needed, the skill at the game (once you learn the interface) comes from knowing what actions to take, rather than taking those actions being difficult to execute or requiring dexterity.

I think Zero-K is more complex, deep and rich a game, with basically no build orders and endless starting options. But I also have to say yeah, it is easier. How interesting to think about! I've always considered Zero-K niche and hard to play but I guess I also consider SC2 to be incredibly niche and hard to play despite it's popularity... when you factor in giant clusterfuck team games where you have no power over the outcome anyway, Zero-K is way more nub friendly. 1v1 is a harrowing, ego-destroying experience for most people (which is why MOBAs are so big).

But I do sort of suspect that if people were at a pro-level of play, if we had a big group of people who were better than Godde, Zero-K might be as hard to play (and perhaps as 'boring' and 'broken' or should I say 'solved') as SC2 is. It's hard to know.