| 1 |
[q]Feels like the strategic value of height is missing from all of that. A tall location is easier to defend and lets you project power on the surrounding area. For example, some maps have central mex clusters within depressions or with nearby hills, which makes them a lot harder to control than if they were level or, worse, on a hill.
|
1 |
[q]Feels like the strategic value of height is missing from all of that. A tall location is easier to defend and lets you project power on the surrounding area. For example, some maps have central mex clusters within depressions or with nearby hills, which makes them a lot harder to control than if they were level or, worse, on a hill.
|
| 2 |
[/q]
|
2 |
[/q]
|
| 3 |
If you want to pay attention to that, you could consider boundaries to be themselves directed. Would be interesting to see what kind of insights you can extract from reading the maps that way.
|
3 |
If you want to pay attention to that, you could consider boundaries to be themselves directed. Would be interesting to see what kind of insights you can extract from reading the maps that way.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Additionally, any elevation is something of an economical resource in ZK because it affects wind output. My perception though is that this matters much less than metal.
|
5 |
Additionally, any elevation is something of an economical resource in ZK because it affects wind output. My perception though is that this matters much less than metal.
|
|
|
6 |
\n
|
|
|
7 |
I guess if you then convert these thoughts here into prescriptive guidelines, then you should also bias against placing mexes on high terrain, because they will both be defensible, *and* immediately hyper-overdriven by a windfarm.
|
Some map design theories and their use in Random Crags