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

Wild take (Strawman Units)

10 posts, 358 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Wild take: The Zero-K units are the weak versions of their true power! Every strategy that was too effective against all other strategies was removed from the game. Every strategy that would cause a stalemate was removed from the game. This means that every unit in Zero-K is a weak version of the unit, and the one who wins in Zero-K is the one who is the strongest amongst the weakest!

No, this isn't an attempt to dunk on Zero-K rts. The problem is seen in many other games, like StarCraft 2, Red Alert 3 (unit costs), and many other RTS games that I cannot mention, but the examples are abundant.

However, there is one interesting note about this discovery: If every RTS game's units are far weaker than their real versions, and if the stalemate-enducing versions of weapons get nerfed, it could be that stalemates are the natural order of life.

But that's just a theory. A game theory. There are lots of implications that I have no time to explore.
+0 / -1
22 days ago
Strong stuff doesnt cause stalemates, it breaks them. #IWinButton

Even if everything else is strong it becomes an outrange/outspotting game.

Ano no, the strongest in zk is juet the one whos effective apm is closest to an anthill in rl.
+1 / -0
...
(I thought to make a comment, but it is irrelevant. I can't delete the message.)
+0 / -0
15 days ago
Then go play BAR, that's the game you described.

I'll stick to Z-K
+0 / -0
15 days ago
Heh, interesting philosophical tangent, Cliver5.

The units are designed to each be very strong at one particular thing. The cold take article "The Atomic Solution To Monospam" explains the driving forces behind this pretty well. What this means is that each unit is actually also weak individually to many different things. More things than it's good at. And that's good, it gives each unit its strategic niche and makes for an interesting game with composable armies. It is the opposite of a problem.
+2 / -0


15 days ago
Thinking about the "real" version of the unit is useful on some level because there is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief for unit designs. It makes sense for units to be designed to be good at the things they are good at. Otherwise, you can end up with units that seem to be deliberately misdesigned from an in-world R&D perspective, and there is some threshold where this makes the unit feel bad.

I don't really agree with the OP though. You could just as easily say that "real" ZK had 1000s more units, but the units which were too ineffective to be useful were removed, and we've been left with the strongest ones. There isn't really anything distinguishing this from the claim that the ZK units are the weak ones. I don't get the comment about unit costs, it seems clear to me that a unit that is more capable is going to cost more, so how are costs an arbitrary weakness?

The arbitrariness of a weakness is often up to the details of unit art and implicit lore. Why can't Fencer fire while moving? Because the missiles have to be unstowed to fire, and presumably the truck is too unstable if it moves without stowing. Why is Skuttle so bad? Whatever it is that enables such a deadly explosion must be heavy and emit a bunch of radiation that makes it difficult to cloak. For game balance to make some sort of realistic sense, you should be able to come up with a rough estimate the weight, cost, and vulnerability (ie difficulty of applying armour) of each weapon and chassis. This will explain things like "Why don't we mount a Lance on a Flea?".
+3 / -0
15 days ago
...

We are now mounting a lance on flea.
+1 / -0
SEE ISTROLID FOR PRO UNITS DESIGN!
Every part costs money, you can't make value/money higher by bigger unit, but to choose which value/money is high and which is low.
Different values has different efficiency when cooking each other, e.g. high range cooks low speed, beam cooks high speed.
Normally, a unit with even values are weaker than any kind of unit with pros and cons, see leggy nuke.
Also, a unit with super bias may win easily (even with high value differ) vs some units, while also lost easily vs some, see moderator, flea.
Pros and cons and advantage between them are where strategies of units grow.
They are not fully correct in zk, due to some not pretty features (1hp full weapon force, aoe disaster), while this is general rule of units design in all games.
istrolid live when
BUT, batteries(ammo, stardust heat) really makes units different.
Play istrolid, don't try to cover energy use by reactors, you'll find some of your units becomes much stronger than before.
If your reactor are not generating energy, you are wasting, while some of your units may just shot 1s and ded.
Then see zk, imaging that glaives are using 1x1 reactors instead of battery, while if they shots 10s only they can be 45m cheap (if not for raiding).
Some units in zk is weaker version of the batteried!
+2 / -0
"Play istrolid"

im probably credited somwhere as creating the darkstar ai .. i even got an email from the dev thanking me for my work =) but i stopped playing it when player count died

i loved that game so much! <3
+0 / -0

15 days ago
i miss istrolid :( ive played that game all the way up until a few months ago. Great game with an absolutely terrible developer.
+1 / -0