| 1 |
I disagree with @Brackman, but since others have written about particulars I'll disagree more abstractly. The premise of the OP appears to be as follows:
|
1 |
I disagree with @Brackman, but since others have written about particulars I'll disagree more abstractly. The premise of the OP appears to be as follows:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
"Consider two games, A and B, that both have a feature, X, that has the same sort of effect in both games. The difference between X in A and B is:
|
3 |
"Consider two games, A and B, that both have a feature, X, that has the same sort of effect in both games. The difference between X in A and B is:
|
| 4 |
* In game A, the effect of X is static, unchanging.
|
4 |
* In game A, the effect of X is static, unchanging.
|
| 5 |
* In game B, the effect of X can be lessened for a cost.
|
5 |
* In game B, the effect of X can be lessened for a cost.
|
| 6 |
It follows that X is less meaningful in game B than in game A."
|
6 |
It follows that X is less meaningful in game B than in game A."
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
I disagree with this premise.
|
8 |
I disagree with this premise.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
Applying
the
premise
to
ZK
requires
us
to
find
costs
to
circumventing
terrain.
These
have
already
been
pointed
out.
Spiders
are
slow
and
tend
to
have
trouble
in
open
areas.
Ships
beat
Amph/Hover
and
cannot
go
on
land,
while
Amph/Hover
are
often
not
the
best
choice
on
land.
|
10 |
Applying
the
premise
to
ZK
requires
us
to
find
costs
to
circumventing
terrain.
These
have
already
been
pointed
out.
Spiders
are
slow
and
tend
to
have
trouble
in
open
areas.
Ships
beat
Amph/Hover
and
cannot
go
on
land,
while
Amph/Hover
are
often
not
the
best
choice
on
land.
Even
if
you
use
Amph/Hover
on
land
or
around
a
coast,
the
way
to
use
them
differs
between
regions
as
the
threats
are
different.
Hence
there
is
a
cost
to
pathing
flexibility.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
I also disagree with the statement "ZK has less meaningful terrain than other games" (not said in the OP, but implied) for reasons unrelated to my disagreement with the premise. Here are some reasons:
|
12 |
I also disagree with the statement "ZK has less meaningful terrain than other games" (not said in the OP, but implied) for reasons unrelated to my disagreement with the premise. Here are some reasons:
|
| 13 |
* Terrain blocks projectiles.
|
13 |
* Terrain blocks projectiles.
|
| 14 |
* 3D weapon ranges and innacuracy.
|
14 |
* 3D weapon ranges and innacuracy.
|
| 15 |
* Terrain blocks LOS.
|
15 |
* Terrain blocks LOS.
|
| 16 |
* Slopes hinder movement.
|
16 |
* Slopes hinder movement.
|
| 17 |
* Shallow water hinders movement.
|
17 |
* Shallow water hinders movement.
|
| 18 |
* Submersible units and units that float to fire.
|
18 |
* Submersible units and units that float to fire.
|
| 19 |
* Map deformation.
|
19 |
* Map deformation.
|
| 20 |
* Terraforming.
|
20 |
* Terraforming.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
There is a whole set of 1v1 bot maps (eg Barren, Vittra, Badlands, Living Lands) that are fully bot-pathable yet play very differently - in large part due to their terrain. This is a result of terrain blocking projectiles and slopes slowing movement. I think the immutable, uniform, and boolean pathability of most other RTSs makes their terrain much less meaningful and deep than the terrain in ZK.
|
22 |
There is a whole set of 1v1 bot maps (eg Barren, Vittra, Badlands, Living Lands) that are fully bot-pathable yet play very differently - in large part due to their terrain. This is a result of terrain blocking projectiles and slopes slowing movement. I think the immutable, uniform, and boolean pathability of most other RTSs makes their terrain much less meaningful and deep than the terrain in ZK.
|
Terrain