| 1 |
In theory it is possible without comm-share to allow each player to focus their APM on the most critical points of the battle at any given time, by sharing units (and resources) manually to one another as appropriate. The comm-share system streamlines this a lot and requires less APM in overhead.
|
1 |
In theory it is possible without comm-share to allow each player to focus their APM on the most critical points of the battle at any given time, by sharing units (and resources) manually to one another as appropriate. The comm-share system streamlines this a lot and requires less APM in overhead.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Removing overhead APM is not a new thing to Zero-K. Many widgets (and even more fundamental mechanics) exist to remove the tedious APM that exists between thinking of what you want and making it happen. The repeat, line-move and fight commands remove a lot of the APM "sinks" which exist in e.g. Starcraft.
|
3 |
Removing overhead APM is not a new thing to Zero-K. Many widgets (and even more fundamental mechanics) exist to remove the tedious APM that exists between thinking of what you want and making it happen. The repeat, line-move and fight commands remove a lot of the APM "sinks" which exist in e.g. Starcraft.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Ideally the new mechanics still allow for finesse and the use of APM to increase the effectiveness of your units. This is certainly the case for line-move and fight; even though your tools for controlling your units in ZK are much more powerful than they are in Starcraft there is still plenty of scope for skilled micromanagement. Furthermore, the skills required to play ZK are more dependent on quick and intelligent thinking than they are on manual dexterity and low ping.
|
5 |
Ideally the new mechanics still allow for finesse and the use of APM to increase the effectiveness of your units. This is certainly the case for line-move and fight; even though your tools for controlling your units in ZK are much more powerful than they are in Starcraft there is still plenty of scope for skilled micromanagement. Furthermore, the skills required to play ZK are more dependent on quick and intelligent thinking than they are on manual dexterity and low ping.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
So you might say "More powerful tools (like commshare) to remove APM overhead are good, because the ones that exist have improved ZK". Not so fast. There are two fundamental rules which almost everything in the world follows.
|
7 |
So you might say "More powerful tools (like commshare) to remove APM overhead are good, because the ones that exist have improved ZK". Not so fast. There are two fundamental rules which almost everything in the world follows.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
(1) A little of something is good; more is better; too much is fatal.
|
9 |
(1) A little of something is good; more is better; too much is fatal.
|
| 10 |
(2) A little of something is bad; more is worse; too much is fatal.
|
10 |
(2) A little of something is bad; more is worse; too much is fatal.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
More powerful management tools fits into category (1). However, too much is still fatal; for example, if humans played ZK by loading up their favourite AI and having it play the entire game for them, it would not be much of a game any more. If a sufficiently game-breaking widget was developed I suspect that something would be done about it.
|
12 |
More powerful management tools fits into category (1). However, too much is still fatal; for example, if humans played ZK by loading up their favourite AI and having it play the entire game for them, it would not be much of a game any more. If a sufficiently game-breaking widget was developed I suspect that something would be done about it.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[i]I believe that whether Comm-share is "better", "meh" or "fatal" is a matter of taste - but there are valid arguments for each of those positions.[/i]
|
14 |
[i]I believe that whether Comm-share is "better", "meh" or "fatal" is a matter of taste - but there are valid arguments for each of those positions.[/i]
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
(I'm yet to play a game with or against comm-sharers, but I'm not at all sure I will enjoy the experience. For that matter, I view playing against somebody who uses the constructor automation widgets a bit unfavourably.)
|
16 |
(I'm yet to play a game with or against comm-sharers, but I'm not at all sure I will enjoy the experience. For that matter, I view playing against somebody who uses the constructor automation widgets a bit unfavourably.)
|
|
|
17 |
\n
|
|
|
18 |
[quote]You say that global effective apm is higher in comshare mode than in normal mode because in normal mode, a fraction of the potential apm is left unused as the controllable units have a lower APM requirements than the available APM.
|
|
|
19 |
\n
|
|
|
20 |
Sorry, but it is very rare in a ZK game that I feel I have some spare time and spare APM that I could have spent on other units if I could. ON the contrary, I am about 100% APM all the time. [/quote]
|
|
|
21 |
I can't speak for Dancer's argument, but I expect that if you are at 100% APM all the time you are prioritising the most important units to micro. Comm-share allows you to make a choice of "most important" from a wider range, which on average will result in you microing more important units.
|
Zero-K v1.5.1.5 - Commshare testing, global storage removal