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

Remove Small Supreme Battlefield from the rotation

19 posts, 987 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
So few people like playing ships that it's just not worth it to have it in the rotation for Teams All Welcome. Many people will play it when they vote against it instead of spectate, but then they play halfheartedly...and etc.

Besides nobody will miss it and if they do they can start a vote for the specific map....

Who is with me!!!
+6 / -0


2 years ago
Me and FIrankterve886 were saying this for months before we left. SSB and tangerine are some of the simply WORST maps to play on big teams.
+4 / -0

2 years ago
Agreed. Keep it for small teams, but not big teams.
+1 / -0

2 years ago
I don't think that there is an easy way to make it a "small teams only" map. Then again I think SSB is an even worse small teams map than it is a large teams map (very lane-y).

For a map as unpopular as Small Supreme Battlefield (or Zed or a few others) allegedly are they do get voted for an awful lot, though. Maybe because their minimaps are so identifiable.
+4 / -0
2 years ago
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I tend to think tangerine and SSB make for some of the more interesting matches. Most games are decided in the first 5 minutes by who controls the center super mex(es), and here you have games that are often hang in the balance.
+3 / -0
I don't think there's anything interesting about having consistent teams who completely ignore one flank or the other because it's water. Sea should be unified so that way whoever has the misfortune of playing it at least has the option of going over to the other flank to assist it. Both of these maps are terrible maps for playing in big teams for this reason.

I'd go as far as to say to purge all the crappy split sea lane maps.
+1 / -0
I agree with the unknownrankShaman about how the split sea makes it unfortunate to be playing and be stuck on one flank. Scorpio Battleground is probably better in this regard.

I would like to see more variety in maps in general. I really don't know how I would feel about removing tangerine and ssb. I definitely enjoy tangerine much more than ssb because the water seems less important on tangerine. One of the strangest and most amusing games I ever played was on ssb, so it isn't like every game on the map is terrible.
+2 / -0
Solution to any kind of split lanes costs 750 metal and is called Djinn.

I am not against SSB per se, I am against water maps in general. Water gameplay in ZK is far worse than land combat in terms of balance and fun, and that is why I think people don't like SSB.

There's also an issue in big lobsterpots when NIGHTWATCH is basically shoehorning room into playing same old maps over and over again. Successfully typing !map of any kind when There's zero delay between nightwatched votes is quite a challenging task. No wonder people end up often choosing SSB when the choice is so small.
+1 / -0

2 years ago
the map is ok for big teams imo, maybe the problem is there is 3-4 versions of this map in the rotation: 2seas, seas-joined, the re-textured one and dry (i actually prefer dry)
+0 / -0

2 years ago
quote:
Solution to any kind of split lanes costs 750 metal and is called Djinn.


yes. this. i had some really interesting games on SSB with djinn.
+1 / -0
its a classic map, dont kill it completely
+2 / -0
2 years ago
Yes, please save this map, it is cool and looks beautiful.
+0 / -0
quote:
For a map as unpopular as Small Supreme Battlefield (or Zed or a few others) allegedly are they do get voted for an awful lot, though. Maybe because their minimaps are so identifiable.

There often are worse alternatives that don't get voted for, and thus don't cause anguish by showing up too often.

IMO, anyone wanting to downregulate SSB/Zed frequency should report to #zkmap, and attempt to replace the wallflower maps.

If there are more than one person in this, you could collaborate and rush something together.
+2 / -0
quote:

Solution to any kind of split lanes costs 750 metal and is called Djinn.


This in practice does not work even with a squad. It requires you to either be up in attrition enough to afford the 1450m for amph fac switch + djinn or the 875 for the plate + djinn (assuming you had an ally who decided to go amphs) or be up in material on a flank enough to afford such luxuries without the front you're on collapsing. In practice, travel time is often prohibitive and you'll be struggling to get a beach head by the time you're actually able to get a djinn in place and start sending assets. Plus now all your assets you've sent are now trapped on the other flank unless you pay another 750m.
+1 / -0
>It requires you to either be up in attrition enough to afford the 1450m for amph fac switch + djinn or the 875 for the plate + djinn

In full lobsterpots players often command armies of 10-20k value, and reclaim awards amount to 20-30k. Spending 2k metal on an ability to switch flanks at will is a plain no-brainer, it's just there's not often comes up an urgent need to switch flank.
Simply speaking, when there are multiple Palas walking around, if you have no spare 2k metal to spend on an important asset, you have more serious problems than inability to switch flank.

>(assuming you had an ally who decided to go amphs)

Again, if you are playing lobsterpot on a Supreme Small Battlefield, and nobody in your team picked Amph, there are more problems with your team than just inability to switch flanks.

>In practice, travel time is often prohibitive and you'll be struggling to get a beach head by the time you're actually able to get a djinn in place and start sending assets. Plus now all your assets you've sent are now trapped on the other flank unless you pay another 750m.

Frankly, the problems you are describing look a bit exagerrated to me. But fair enough, don't use Djinn if you can't make it work. I certainly can, and, as evident from DErankAdminmojjj post, I am not alone.

Edit: concerning time travel, there is Hercules at your service if already comparatively fast Djinn does not cut it by itself. I don't see any problem with a time of travel, taking into account general combat speeds.
+0 / -0
The main problem is that in SSB players constantly mass middle or back leaving at least 1 sea totally naked. Ergo the game is often decided before the first shot is fired. Thus, it needs to be removed from the rotation because it makes for unbalanced games.

Folsom Dam is a much better map to scratch the sea itch some people have.
+1 / -0
2 years ago
Indeed, Folsom might be one of the best maps I've ever played. Has everything and stays balanced.
+1 / -0
2 years ago
I actually made a djinn on SSB just today, in lobpot. I won my sea harder than the other side was winning the other sea, so I just started porting over ducks and subs. This worked really well.
+2 / -0


2 years ago
Djinn for strategic lane switching is totally a thing, a player named GoGoDancer used to do that pretty well.

But it's also kind of a specialization. In case of GoGoDancer it worked with the old drone-type funnelweb as an attrition dealer and mass convict for reclaim. I think that's probably obsolete.
+2 / -0