| 1 |
[q]Proliferation of players getting +4/+4 intrinsic[/q]
|
1 |
[q]Proliferation of players getting +4/+4 intrinsic[/q]
|
| 2 |
Your assumptions contain inaccurate data. Intrinsic income is +2/+2. Commander (vanguard module) income is +4/+8. Total initial income is thus +6/+8.
|
2 |
Your assumptions contain inaccurate data. Intrinsic income is +2/+2. Commander (vanguard module) income is +4/+8. Total initial income is thus +6/+8.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[q]overall income for the map size way above what it was designed in mind for[/q]
|
4 |
[q]overall income for the map size way above what it was designed in mind for[/q]
|
| 5 |
I doubt any maps in ZK and broader Spring are designed for particular incomes, really.
|
5 |
I doubt any maps in ZK and broader Spring are designed for particular incomes, really.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
|
|
7 |
[q]I picture this being managed by an algorithm. The inputs would be team size and map surface area, with a minimum threshold of 8 players total. [/q]
|
|
|
8 |
This will be opaque and bad.
|
|
|
9 |
\n
|
| 7 |
---
|
10 |
---
|
| 8 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. You say that commanders are bad for this reason and that. What if commanders are bad, period?
|
12 |
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. You say that commanders are bad for this reason and that. What if commanders are bad, period?
|
| 10 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Consider: at 1200 valuation, armed commanders will, by value, be the major part of [b]any[/b] unit composition in any ZK game during the first minutes, all the while having crucial bits of income tied to them. This means that if they are strong, they will be used offensively; and if they are weak, they will be targeted, which will mean that the second largest army component will be "things that counter commanders". Either way, it is what it is.
|
14 |
Consider: at 1200 valuation, armed commanders will, by value, be the major part of [b]any[/b] unit composition in any ZK game during the first minutes, all the while having crucial bits of income tied to them. This means that if they are strong, they will be used offensively; and if they are weak, they will be targeted, which will mean that the second largest army component will be "things that counter commanders". Either way, it is what it is.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 13 |
If you really hate the "wall of tanky riots", perhaps the solution is to replace the commander altogether, for example with a static.
|
16 |
If you really hate the "wall of tanky riots", perhaps the solution is to replace the commander altogether, for example with a static.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 15 |
---
|
18 |
---
|
| 16 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 17 |
However, i think that map design is much more of a problem here. There are too many maps with cleanly isolated lanes where everyone fights their personal front 1v1 (sometimes 1v2 or the other way) with no reinforcement or interaction from other parts of the game, except air and "support" plays such as skuttles or scythes, in claustrophobic conditions that eliminate maneuver.
|
20 |
However, i think that map design is much more of a problem here. There are too many maps with cleanly isolated lanes where everyone fights their personal front 1v1 (sometimes 1v2 or the other way) with no reinforcement or interaction from other parts of the game, except air and "support" plays such as skuttles or scythes, in claustrophobic conditions that eliminate maneuver.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 19 |
These lane-shaped maps still form the majority of teamgame maps in ZK. Which, i think, goes against your thesis that these maps are "designed good, but ZK ruins them". No: they were designed exactly for this purpose.
|
22 |
These lane-shaped maps still form the majority of teamgame maps in ZK. Which, i think, goes against your thesis that these maps are "designed good, but ZK ruins them". No: they were designed exactly for this purpose.
|
Re-balancing game parameters around hueg teamsizes