| 1 |
This is a great idea and the post is well structured. You could add a question with the differences between ZK and SupComm. Or perhaps extend your answer to the first question as it could fulfill that role.
|
1 |
This is a great idea and the post is well structured. You could add a question with the differences between ZK and SupComm. Or perhaps extend your answer to the first question as it could fulfill that role.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[quote]However, Zero-K differentiates itself from these games as well with unique features of its own:
|
3 |
[quote]However, Zero-K differentiates itself from these games as well with unique features of its own:
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
- Flat technology tree
|
5 |
- Flat technology tree
|
| 6 |
- Terraforming to alter the terrain to your advantage
|
6 |
- Terraforming to alter the terrain to your advantage
|
| 7 |
- More micro-able units
|
7 |
- More micro-able units
|
| 8 |
- Incredible UI (line commands, queueing commands, map commands)[/quote]
|
8 |
- Incredible UI (line commands, queueing commands, map commands)[/quote]
|
| 9 |
This seems like an important list to get right. The things in this list should be correct, useful and understandable. I'll do some focused feedback for this list.
|
9 |
This seems like an important list to get right. The things in this list should be correct, useful and understandable. I'll do some focused feedback for this list.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
You should move this to a wiki page: http://zero-k.info/Forum?categoryID=20
|
11 |
You should move this to a wiki page: http://zero-k.info/Forum?categoryID=20
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
[b]Flat technology tree[/b]
|
13 |
[b]Flat technology tree[/b]
|
| 14 |
This may fail at understandability because flat tech tree is jargon. I do not think people readily think about tech trees in terms of shape, they may after a bit of pondering but that is insufficient. It is not clear what flatness is or why it is a good thing. I would leave this point off the list and then mention it when talking about factions and factory choices.
|
14 |
This may fail at understandability because flat tech tree is jargon. I do not think people readily think about tech trees in terms of shape, they may after a bit of pondering but that is insufficient. It is not clear what flatness is or why it is a good thing. I would leave this point off the list and then mention it when talking about factions and factory choices.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
[b]Terraforming to alter the terrain to your advantage[/b]
|
16 |
[b]Terraforming to alter the terrain to your advantage[/b]
|
| 17 |
This is perhaps too narrow and breaks the tone of the page by being worded as marketing hype. I would talk more about how you can interact with terrain in ZK. In many games I feel that the terrain is under used, they boil terrain down to passable and impassable regions. These games effectively take place on a 2D plane with impassible zones.
|
17 |
This is perhaps too narrow and breaks the tone of the page by being worded as marketing hype. I would talk more about how you can interact with terrain in ZK. In many games I feel that the terrain is under used, they boil terrain down to passable and impassable regions. These games effectively take place on a 2D plane with impassible zones.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
Supcomm lost a lot of the terrain interaction which was present in TA. The epic scale flattened the terrain into zones. TA had significant bonuses attached to elevation as well as terrain large enough to hide behind on a tactical level, especially with their all terrain units. Neither game have terrain deformation and terraforming though. In PA terrain was further simplified.
|
19 |
Supcomm lost a lot of the terrain interaction which was present in TA. The epic scale flattened the terrain into zones. TA had significant bonuses attached to elevation as well as terrain large enough to hide behind on a tactical level, especially with their all terrain units. Neither game have terrain deformation and terraforming though. In PA terrain was further simplified.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Terrain interaction is more than just modifying the terrain. The shape of terrain has to matter before it becomes important for anyone to modify it. Most terrain interactions are not based on changing the terrain. Terrain can significantly impact speed, range, fire arcs, LoS, radar. Smart turret placement depends on more than the pass-ability structure of terrain.
|
21 |
Terrain interaction is more than just modifying the terrain. The shape of terrain has to matter before it becomes important for anyone to modify it. Most terrain interactions are not based on changing the terrain. Terrain can significantly impact speed, range, fire arcs, LoS, radar. Smart turret placement depends on more than the pass-ability structure of terrain.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
Starcraft II has fairly simple terrain but, as in most cases, it knows exactly what it wants to do and does it well. Their terrain design looks quite tight; each part is well communicated and has a purpose. My disappointment is more with SupComm style terrain. The SupComm maps can be very varied looking terrain but it all does barely anything compared to ZK. They paid for complexity which didn't add depth.
|
23 |
Starcraft II has fairly simple terrain but, as in most cases, it knows exactly what it wants to do and does it well. Their terrain design looks quite tight; each part is well communicated and has a purpose. My disappointment is more with SupComm style terrain. The SupComm maps can be very varied looking terrain but it all does barely anything compared to ZK. They paid for complexity which didn't add depth.
|
| 24 |
* Starcraft - Gets a lot of depth for the simplicity of their terrain.
|
24 |
* Starcraft - Gets a lot of depth for the simplicity of their terrain.
|
| 25 |
* Zero-K - Gets a lot out of complicated terrain.
|
25 |
* Zero-K - Gets a lot out of complicated terrain.
|
| 26 |
* SupComm - Pays for complicated terrain but doesn't receive the depth.
|
26 |
* SupComm - Pays for complicated terrain but doesn't receive the depth.
|
| 27 |
Of course ZK can be two games in this regard. Comet Cather Redux does not have much terrain.
|
27 |
Of course ZK can be two games in this regard. Comet Cather Redux does not have much terrain.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
This leads into further simulationist topics. For example many games tout simulated projectiles without using the feature in their mechanics. Perhaps there are so many units that it turns into a miss chance, or the mechanic is too hard to interact with, or that most projectiles are sufficiently fast to hit everything.
|
29 |
This leads into further simulationist topics. For example many games tout simulated projectiles without using the feature in their mechanics. Perhaps there are so many units that it turns into a miss chance, or the mechanic is too hard to interact with, or that most projectiles are sufficiently fast to hit everything.
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
This train of thought may end at complexit:depth ratio. Sometimes TA-genre games seem to add complexity for little payoff in depth. Or at least they fail to look for ways to get a better complexity:depth ratio. My principals have moved towards improving this ratio. ZK has a lot of complexity momentum though. Still, I think many of my ways to prefer ZK over SupComm come from complexity:depth.
|
31 |
This train of thought may end at complexit:depth ratio. Sometimes TA-genre games seem to add complexity for little payoff in depth. Or at least they fail to look for ways to get a better complexity:depth ratio. My principals have moved towards improving this ratio. ZK has a lot of complexity momentum though. Still, I think many of my ways to prefer ZK over SupComm come from complexity:depth.
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
[b]Writing about the Interface[\b]
|
33 |
[b]Writing about the Interface[\b]
|
| 34 |
\n
|
34 |
\n
|
| 35 |
Firstly: "Incredible UI (line commands, queueing commands, map commands)" - Most games have command queues and the ability to give orders on the minimap. Some better examples could be area commands and construction priorities.
|
35 |
Firstly: "Incredible UI (line commands, queueing commands, map commands)" - Most games have command queues and the ability to give orders on the minimap. Some better examples could be area commands and construction priorities.
|
| 36 |
\n
|
36 |
\n
|
| 37 |
It is hard to talk about the interface because many reasonable looking statements sound contradictory. The UI is really powerful and automates a lot of tasks yet units are very micro-able. Is APM important? People here will disagree on these things.
|
37 |
It is hard to talk about the interface because many reasonable looking statements sound contradictory. The UI is really powerful and automates a lot of tasks yet units are very micro-able. Is APM important? People here will disagree on these things.
|
| 38 |
\n
|
38 |
\n
|
| 39 |
[b]Zero-K feels slower than Starcraft?[/b]
|
39 |
[b]Zero-K feels slower than Starcraft?[/b]
|
| 40 |
I
think
the
more
important
distinction
is
the
pacing.
Stacraft
takes
a
long
time
to
start
and
the
action
comes
in
waves.
Battles
seem
to
be
|
40 |
I
think
the
more
important
distinction
is
the
pacing.
Stacraft
takes
a
long
time
to
start
and
the
action
comes
in
waves.
Battles
seem
to
occur
in
bursts
in
Starcraft
while
in
ZK
they
can
be
slower
and
more
prevalent.
|
Zero-K FAQ