Is ZK dying? I don't want to be boring, perhaps repeating things that have already been said, but lately it seems to me that matches are quite boring, at least for me. I read everywhere in the manual that ZK is a strategy game, in which attack and expansion speed count a lot. That's the strength of ZK, and it makes it fun. I don't want to mention the Starlight, which I already mentioned in another post, I just wanted to point out that now among the less offensive players there is an abuse of the use of cerberus and big bertha + aspis+aegis+ funnel. This combination makes ZK a tower defense and it's not fun anymore and I'm sorry about that. It becomes useless to invent a strategy, move units quickly to surround and destroy the enemy, when an insurmountable wall is created. For example, why make the funnel change from an attack tool as it was before, to a passive tool, such as a builder? Or why not make all means of defense much more expensive, including aspis and agis? Isn't it perhaps the case to push towards a more dynamic and less static game? by pure example:   B1638391 32 on EmainMacha Remake 2.1
+8 / -0
|
Layer 8 issue, users still dont understand that zk is a more complicated rock-paper-scissors game.
+2 / -0
|
Player count on Steam has been steady for the past few years, hovering at around 80-100 average players monthly. See: https://steamcharts.com/app/334920Unless all the non-steam players left, I think it's safe to say that the game isn't dying.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
it seems to me that matches are quite boring, at least for me. |
For me as well matches on very large and metal rich maps are not what I am looking for. So I just spec if such a map is voted. I was not enjoying huge maps before either, but at least before (due to not being as huge as now) they needed some level of coordination, some new tactics could be invented, etc. And besides personal preferences I think there are structural issues, like: more probable for lags late game (very bad experience if a good player drops/can't play); harder to notice things happening (seen in the same game singu built for 98% - probably cons were ordered away from it by mistake and 50 storages being built without anybody complaining); longer games (which makes harder to get into a new game).
+2 / -0
|
quote:
32 on EmainMacha Remake 2.1 |
I feel like it is probably impossible for ZK to be dynamic under these circumstances without breaking the game in a scenario with fewer players on a less porcy map.
+5 / -0
|
That map is a porcfest. I don't think it's particularly representative. I've usually found it quite hard to exploit cerbs. I feel I can, then I try and I can't.
+3 / -0
|
Not really. The problem with any activity is once a method is known to work and the knowledge to implament it is known, people naturally draw themselves to it. This applies to video games. This is what is happening here, they found the method and they are using it. All that needs to happen now is for someone to create a strategy against it. I myself haven't been playing multiplayer much, I've been trying to improve my skills against the AI. This said, when you described the strategy these players have been using (the latter one not the starlight one) the counter that immediately came to mind would be to bomb their energy buildings with tactical nukes, long range artillery units or ravens or likho bombers, then swarm a portion of the wall with blitz units. An addition to this strategy could be to after the initial raid to fire EMP missiles before the attack. If the enemy has a lot of AA, raid the enemy AA with FIRST then the energy buildings. Basically the goal of this strategy is to cripple their economy right before the attack (mainly to try disable their artillery), then when they are crippled, swarm them with stun units to destroy the wall and hopefully their base. I don't know, it is just an idea...
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I feel like it is probably impossible for ZK to be dynamic under these circumstances without breaking the game in a scenario with fewer players on a less porcy map. |
I agree that you can't expect the style of gameplay to be similar against any change in initial conditions - that is the purpose in the end to change the initial conditions. But   manero's post made me think that it is possible not that "ZK is dying" but that various people perceive - over time - that ZK changes to something they enjoy less => they will play less => ZK is dying for them. This can be quite disconnected from the total number of active players (which all data that we have say it is increasing slowly) as cohorts of players change over time. I do not think either that large/porcy maps should be removed - there are people that say they have fun with those. But ZK could have more mechanisms to help people play what they like. For me speccing manually if game is on too large map works sometimes - although if host is full that means I can loose next game. Or joining at hours at which I know the team size is how I like (before/after the "rush" hours).
+3 / -0
|
|
|
I am a player that enjoys porcfests and the grinding attrition that characterizes those matches. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. That said: I don't want EVERY game to be a tower slugging match. I don't want even most games to be like that. So I agree with Manero that there needs to be a viable way to keep the game fluid. Personally I like to use a balanced approach: attack with units, consolidate with light porc and push on. Units like Impaler or lance make light porc obsolete. That means that I have to fall back on Cerberus because it outranges impaler. Once a Cerberus is protected by many shields and clustered turrets it becomes a nightmare to take out. Only SW or multiple striders pose a threat to a porc fortress. To my mind what is needed is a specific weapon that deals effectively with clustered porc - and here is the essential part - *which is not useful in fluid battle.* Maybe like a more expensive super-Merlin, but which is slower and clunkier with a longer reload time. This gives the porc player a chance to hit it with silo and the attacker a chance to deliver a deadly blow to tiered defences. Such a unit would have to be carefully designed so that it doesn't become another Lance problem. Nuke would fit the bill except that players are such lobs and fire nukes invariably into antis, over and over again.
+3 / -0
|
Make anti terraform stronger aswell imo like 10 fold. Its easy to create, should be somewhat easy to destroy.
+1 / -0
|
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1638524If you read the spec-comments during that game it becomes quite obvious that people have very different preferences regarding gameplay. It is basically a game-long debate whether raider-heavy matches are fun or not (although frames as either balance-problems or zk`s "nature" - which is a problematic term imho). After the game, the same discussion arose between the players -    bbar97 for example disliked the gameplay, while I really enjoy matches like that. There is simply no way to make everyone happy currently. It`s not just one-room-culture. A two- or three-room-culture wouldn`t solve this either. We would probably need ten times the number of active players to reliably offer team- and map-sizes that are variable enough that everyone can play exactly what they like.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
There is simply no way to make everyone happy currently. |
That is the ideal. Would be great if there would be a way not to make people too miserable. If they know they hate some things make it easier for them to avoid them...
+1 / -0
|
  katastrophe it's clear that everyone has their own favorite way to play. But the optimal game is the usual paper-scissors-stone. If I attack like the one with cerberus+aegys+ big bertha+ funnel+antinuke, I only have to do starlight to beat it. Isn't it better to limit defenses, for example only to stinger, lotus and picket, in team wellcome? and use cerberus and big bertha but with rough aim and not as a sniper? Because the web funnel was changed, I don't remember what it was called before, it was like a kind of reef on the mainland and it worked great in attack. Now it is mainly used in defense.
+0 / -0
|
Hello sir, You are playing a 16 vs 16 game, on a map that is not exactly considered big nor there is a lot of metals to abuse with. It is also a map that has quite a terrain obstacles. I understand you want some sort of intense gameplay but there are "conditions" to fulfill. 1. Type of players. The mindset of the players are very important. People of conflicting mindsets are definitely gonna result in conflicting gameplay which more than often result in meh gameplay. Take for example in MMO, you are in a raid team or pvp team. You have some members that are enthusiastic or gungho, people who always thinking about how to be better and practicing to get that muscle memory in. Then you also have some members who are just scraping by, chilling, wanna pass time, not all that interested to reach a higher level. When these two groups of people are together, your team gonna be crap. Your hardworking players have to carry the lazy players and eventually the team will reach a limit where they can't go further, not unless you cut off the lazy players. That is pretty much the same in lobpot. Due to the size of the community, it is very rare to have a satisfying game because trying to get like minded players together is just simply very hard for a tiny community. 2. Type of map. The amount of metal pretty much decide the type of gameplay. If you have very limited metal, you not gonna try a high risk tactics nor you able to keep pumping out units to keep a battle going. The terrain of the map also affect the mobility of the units which then affect the type of units and again, the tactics that can be used. Finally, the size of the map also affect the overall tactics and strategy you can utilize. TLDR: That map is shit.
+2 / -0
|
maneroquote:
Isn't it better to limit defenses, for example only to stinger, lotus and picket, in team wellcome?
and use cerberus and big bertha but with rough aim and not as a sniper? |
Hm, I think you are underestimating my preferences. If I was too make my own TA-style branch, I would take away a lot more. Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A SHITPOST!!! Katastro-K deletes: - Bertha, Cerb, Luci, Desolator, Faraday, Gauss, Stinger, Newton - Nuke, Silo - Fusion - Jumper-Fac, Lance-Fac, Amph, Shields, Gunships, Striders Basically, Katastro-K keeps Mex, Solar, Wind, LLT, le defendeur, Radar and 4 Factories: Bots: (contains Conjurer, Glaive, Ronin, Reaver) Vehicles (contains Welder, Scorcher, Ravager, Minotaur, Cyclops) Planes (Crane, Swift, Raven, Owl) Ships (Builder, (ah, lets just delete water-gameplay completely...) We only have 4 maps - all based on something like RandomCrags - in different sizes to cover different player-cont/preferences. There you go. I think THIS is better. So trust me, I am kind of in your ballpark when it comes to gameplay-preference. But I don`t think this game would be very popular.   Astran is surely not going to like it for example. TLDR: I personally agree with your taste, but don`t confuse a GOOD game with a game you LIKE.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
I only have to do starlight to beat it. |
- That is true for almost everything. - "only" is a bit short-sighted, isn`t it?
+0 / -0
|
sitting there doing nothing should not be encouraged. the problem is, again, precise artillery or instant alpha, paired with shielding at practically no cost. shield regen is ridiculos low cost, shield energy share multiplies stallmate. as suggested before: * artillery can be precise OR instant hit, not both. look at all the arti units which cause distress. and it should not have much spash damage (none at all, if i would have to decide). * shield regen should be much more costly. shield energy share should be limited to 1 or 2 shield links. regeneration should have cooldown of X seconds (to be decided after expperimentation). so shields can boost single engagements, but crumble for longer fortification. there you have it. back is the pace, gone is the porcfest.
+4 / -0
|
Do not derail threads with your stream of consciousness bullshit - Moderation
+0 / -3
|
In the context of my preoccupation with trying to make the game more accessible to the beginners and slow ones among us, I had also conceptualized something along the lines of the "katastro-k" proposed above. It seemed like it might be relatively simple to add an option to restrict/delete some of the overwhelming array of unit and building options available during standard gameplay. This restriction might be specified in terms of level(s), classes, or specific units or buildings. From one standpoint, it just creates a simpler mode of gameplay for the beginner. From another standpoint, it allows the sophisticated player the option to further explore the strategic potentials available in a more basic subset of units, rather than being tied to a form of game progression that emphasizes quickly advancing into ever more lethal weaponry. Just a thought.
+2 / -0
|
