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

Can I haz small mapz?

13 posts, 589 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
I find small maps fun even in 16v16, but big maps are not fun 2v2-4v4. Small maps are fun because they challenge the tactics and when playing 16v16/8v8 you make the most of the metal you got. Big maps on the other hand quickly evolve into rush to kill lobs in teamgames, and are simply a test of your macro/raid ability in 1v1. Also small maps mean you get actual battle fronts which are way more fun to work your way into (or around) than fuzzy boundary mush BS you get in large maps. Small maps don't unnecessarily drag the game, and are action packed from the start. Small maps feel like true teamwork where you're working together against the enemy, but big maps are just lots of 1v1 battles far apart with occasional air support or something that isn't true teamwork, and these 1v1 battles arent even balanced because players start at random. Big maps disadvantage new players heavily because they can be picked by rush and spotted by a malicious player looking for quick ez win against a low skill player. Big maps also encourage new players to start at back and hide in a corner instead of teamwork and true learn the game.

If you're not convinced that small maps are better than big maps overall, at least can I try to argue that some short games on small maps add variety and fun to otherwise long boring always-the-same games on big maps?

There are not enough small maps in the Teams All Welcome room rotation. Almost all maps are large and this sucks. It hurts new players, and it hurts the overall fun for all players. Please add more small maps to the Teams room rotation, even when many players are playing. Fairyland, RedComet, TitanDuel, IcyRun ARE FUN even when playing 8v8 or more. Hell even a small speed metal map would be fun if added to the rotation (with lower frequency/probability maybe???). If we add more small maps to the rotation I feel like people will vote for them and have lots of fun.

Convince me otherwise.

Many players, Small Map = very fun
Many players, Big Map = fun
Few players, Small Map = kinda fun
Few players, Big Map = not fun
+1 / -1
3 months ago
For me it is the complete opposite. Never understood where the fun is in a 16v16 on zed or fields of isis.
The more expensive half of units just falls out off the picture if youre at +10m max(unless 5 ppl build it together or you wait for ages doing nothing). Frontline becomes unpushable, because there are 3-5 enemy coms right in front of you, which usually leads to a porcfest.

You say big maps are just a test of raiding and macro. Well raiding, not really, or if so just for the first few min. As for macro, thats half of the game (more if take into account that TA is much more of a macro game then SC or comparable RTS), so why would you shut that out?

In the end I'd argue the best option for this question would be to make sure to always have at least one small AND one big map within the pool of 4 that is offered(if that isnt the case already). My experience so far tells me that the small map crowd would win most of these votes.




PS. to any Dev/longtime ZK-players

was there ever a discussion about maps that change mexvalue depending on the nr. of players?
I'd be much more comfortable with small crowded maps if a fully ecoed up half of the map delivered about 25-40 metal/player instead of just 8-12
+4 / -0
More players in a tight space is more likely to lead to pooling strats. The higher the number of players, the more each can chip towards an early superunit.

If you like cheese then small is definitively better.

Rushing a cyclops on a large map does nothing. For one the players will start far apart so they can't help pooling. Second, the cyclops will take a while to cross the map and is likely to be overwhelmed with raiders by the time it crosses.
+1 / -0
3 months ago
I just want to clarify, I wasn't saying you should ONLY play small maps. Of course. I'm just saying that small maps are underrepresented in Teams rotation and it's a missed fun-portunity. Everything's good in moderation. Perhaps the map pool is just too standardized without some of the crazyness out-of-the-ordinary that can makes game fun (occasionally, not every game!).
+1 / -0
3 months ago
I agree that the map rotation is now missing a lot of the fun that was had with map voting. We haven't played speed metal, trolol, etc for ages. Folsom Dam Core?

I miss the occasional ridiculous game.
+2 / -0


3 months ago
4096 players on duck is the best experience zk can offer
+4 / -0
3 months ago
You can make some ultimate ffa duck tournament
+1 / -0
Duck in admin settings:

+4 / -0

3 months ago
!vote map tiny

If one can not have exchange of fire in less than 30 seconds and win in less than 2 minutes, map is too big. Seriously, anything else is slow dull grinding.

Where is Zero-k bullet mode - total time given for play 2 minutes, the one with more damage and resources wins.
+2 / -0
Small maps require much lower APM and skill ceiling to play effectively. Small maps 16v16 almost eradicates individual impact entirely, you could just AFK and your team will probably perform better than they would if you played.

I can understand people not enjoying the need to think in terms of a battle of movement. Small maps basically simplify the game into some slow, ritualised and comfortable where you are not under pressure to think or act quickly. Given the popularity of stuff like league of legends and tower defence over traditional RTS, that is an experience in a lot more demand than the brutal learning curve and demands of playing high level RTS effectively. I personally can't play RTS effectively anymore.

That said, I still think small maps big teams games are regressive dogshit that are boring to watch and play, and where almost all strategies and units are useless.
+2 / -1


3 months ago
quote:
Where is Zero-k bullet mode - total time given for play 2 minutes, the one with more damage and resources wins.

What happens if one side has more damage and the other more resources
+0 / -0
quote:
skill ceiling to play effectively.


I'm not sure that small maps, big teams change the skill ceiling much, but it certainly lowers the skill floor by a pretty large margin. Unfortunately I have to agree with small maps big teams being regressive and degenerate to the point it simply isn't fun to play anymore.

Map voting may have had yielded "fun" but it was definitely not fun reaching that fun, nor was it fun to have happen every time. It quickly attritions the mood having to vote for maps then having someone snipe the map then having people revote for some other map to have it sniped. 2 minutes of anarchy adds up every game and I would rather not see that system return in that form. If anything, there could be changes to the map voting system to allow users to suggest 1 or 2 maps with 1-2 popular map and 1-2 new/random map suggested. This way if enough people want a certain map it will be chosen and voted up.
+1 / -0
quote:
was there ever a discussion about maps that change mexvalue depending on the nr. of players?
I'd be much more comfortable with small crowded maps if a fully ecoed up half of the map delivered about 25-40 metal/player instead of just 8-12

The technology exists for this and there are a few maps that use it. For example, Rogues River has a pair of supermex in the middle of the map in FFA and large teams, but not in 1v1.

In theory older maps could have their metal configuration overridden by ZK to do this without having to upload a new version of the map. I'm not sure whether the devs would sign off on dramatic changes, though.
+0 / -0