| 1 |
Well, here is some theoretical stuff.
|
1 |
Well, here is some theoretical stuff.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I think you've mistakenly equated teching up to escalation, as the two tend to be linked in RTS games, and so have concluded that ZK doesn't have escalation. I like the analogy to fighting games as it highlights this. The moves in ZK are not valid throughout the game. You essentially cannot open with skirmishers, assaults or artillery in a 1v1. You cannot rush a Singu or make a HLT in your base.
|
3 |
I think you've mistakenly equated teching up to escalation, as the two tend to be linked in RTS games, and so have concluded that ZK doesn't have escalation. I like the analogy to fighting games as it highlights this. The moves in ZK are not valid throughout the game. You essentially cannot open with skirmishers, assaults or artillery in a 1v1. You cannot rush a Singu or make a HLT in your base.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Escalation - which I'm defining as the game opening up in options and complexity - exists in ZK. It may not be hard-gated behind a tech tree, but the gating is still there. Raiders are best at the start of the game, when the map is open. Riots (or weird units like Fencer) may come in as an escort. Skirmishers love the shadow of allied defenses, and artillery/assaults work well in the precense of enemy defenses, so they appear once the map has been 'modified' to the point that these environments exist. Perhaps turrets only exist to encourage players to change the map as the game progresses, advancing the game through stages of complexity.
|
5 |
Escalation - which I'm defining as the game opening up in options and complexity - exists in ZK. It may not be hard-gated behind a tech tree, but the gating is still there. Raiders are best at the start of the game, when the map is open. Riots (or weird units like Fencer) may come in as an escort. Skirmishers love the shadow of allied defenses, and artillery/assaults work well in the precense of enemy defenses, so they appear once the map has been 'modified' to the point that these environments exist. Perhaps turrets only exist to encourage players to change the map as the game progresses, advancing the game through stages of complexity.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The escalation continues. Reclaim further modifies the map, creating dynamic areas of economic value, and trading away now situationally obsolete units. Overdrive increases incomes, increasing densities, encouraging AoE weapons and costlier units that are resistant to AoE. The progression of Solar -> Fusion reduces the price of energy, enabling cloaking, area shields, and further encouraging large units that benefit from repairs. Armies and economies grow large enough to give people the time to make a Strider or Silo or some other type of game changer. Bases become valuable and dense enough for nukes.
|
7 |
The escalation continues. Reclaim further modifies the map, creating dynamic areas of economic value, and trading away now situationally obsolete units. Overdrive increases incomes, increasing densities, encouraging AoE weapons and costlier units that are resistant to AoE. The progression of Solar -> Fusion reduces the price of energy, enabling cloaking, area shields, and further encouraging large units that benefit from repairs. Armies and economies grow large enough to give people the time to make a Strider or Silo or some other type of game changer. Bases become valuable and dense enough for nukes.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
Air is a deliberate part of this escalation. It unlocks a layer of complexity that doesn't exist at the start of a 1v1 - that of maintaining AA coverage and trying to snipe enemy AA. The air units that are really best fought with dedicated AA are deliberately bad early on. Perhaps they are too slow, expensive, poorly suited to the situation, or drain energy. Bomber rearming drains energy [i]because[/i] energy is relatively more expensive at the start of the game. Just like how cloaking is most suited to open areas, so it has energy drain to push it later in the game. A large part of my hesitancy to redesign air around being a more standard, ploppable, factory is that we would lose this escalation. Air can be the largest escalation step in the game, and it feels fitting for it to be that way.
|
9 |
Air is a deliberate part of this escalation. It unlocks a layer of complexity that doesn't exist at the start of a 1v1 - that of maintaining AA coverage and trying to snipe enemy AA. The air units that are really best fought with dedicated AA are deliberately bad early on. Perhaps they are too slow, expensive, poorly suited to the situation, or drain energy. Bomber rearming drains energy [i]because[/i] energy is relatively more expensive at the start of the game. Just like how cloaking is most suited to open areas, so it has energy drain to push it later in the game. A large part of my hesitancy to redesign air around being a more standard, ploppable, factory is that we would lose this escalation. Air can be the largest escalation step in the game, and it feels fitting for it to be that way.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
As an aside, the style of escalation in starcraft makes no sense in the context of ZK, and vice versa. Actually, I'm probably thinking more about starcraft 2 than starcraft. The maps in starcraft are rather static. Each base is sort of an island, with open space between it. This space is important for travel times and splitting defenders, but it doesn't seem to change which units can be used. In terms of terrain manipulation, players can wall off their entire economy from the start of the game, but players otherwise seem to lack good options for changing where an opponent can go. The difference is one of starcraft turrets defending bases, while ZK turrets restrict access to whole regions. Dropships and flying raiders are unlocked to bypass terrain, but I think this is more a case of the tech tree changing how the terrain works, rather than the terrain changing which units are viable. So escalation in starcraft is based around climbing a tech tree to unlock better and better units to fight on essentially the same map. Escalation in ZK is based on the map changing throughout the game, which shifts the appropriateness the various units.
|
11 |
As an aside, the style of escalation in starcraft makes no sense in the context of ZK, and vice versa. Actually, I'm probably thinking more about starcraft 2 than starcraft. The maps in starcraft are rather static. Each base is sort of an island, with open space between it. This space is important for travel times and splitting defenders, but it doesn't seem to change which units can be used. In terms of terrain manipulation, players can wall off their entire economy from the start of the game, but players otherwise seem to lack good options for changing where an opponent can go. The difference is one of starcraft turrets defending bases, while ZK turrets restrict access to whole regions. Dropships and flying raiders are unlocked to bypass terrain, but I think this is more a case of the tech tree changing how the terrain works, rather than the terrain changing which units are viable. So escalation in starcraft is based around climbing a tech tree to unlock better and better units to fight on essentially the same map. Escalation in ZK is based on the map changing throughout the game, which shifts the appropriateness the various units.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
[q]I think the big part of the appeal of Zero-K in general is that it has the least "strategic" level consideration out of RTS games. It is in practice intensively tactical with no tech tree and the most barebones economic model, even simpler than explicitly tactical 'map capture' games like CoH.[/q]
|
13 |
[q]I think the big part of the appeal of Zero-K in general is that it has the least "strategic" level consideration out of RTS games. It is in practice intensively tactical with no tech tree and the most barebones economic model, even simpler than explicitly tactical 'map capture' games like CoH.[/q]
|
| 14 |
I'm
not
sure
what
definition
of
"strategy"
you're
using,
but
it
doesn't
match
mine.
I
think
the
strategy
of
ZK
is
one
of
the
hardest
parts.
There
are
so
many
ways
to
escalate
and
those
that
don't
will
be
left
behind.
Rather
than
there
being
a
clear
tech
structure
to
traverse,
you've
got
to
make
real
decisions
between
numerous
options.
The
economic
model
is
as
complicated
as
required
to
implement
the
fundamental
decisions
to
be
made
about
an
economy.
A
more
complicated
one
would
entail
more
rote
learning,
but
not
generate
much
more
strategy.
Players
like
@therxyy
can
drop
in
at
a
rating
of
about
2100
on
the
back
of
their
APM
and
expansion-greed,
and
then
spend
years
working
their
way
up
as
they
map
the
strategic
decision
space
of
the
game.
Other
players
don't
seem
to
be
much
for
micro
or
tactics,
but
still
reach
a
high
level
just
by
knowing
the
options
and
making
good
strategic
decisions.
|
14 |
I'm
not
sure
what
definition
of
"strategy"
you're
using,
but
it
doesn't
match
mine.
I
think
the
strategy
of
ZK
is
one
of
the
hardest
parts.
There
are
so
many
ways
to
escalate,
and
players
that
don't
change
up
their
strategy
will
be
left
behind.
Rather
than
there
being
a
clear
tech
structure
to
traverse,
you've
got
to
make
real
decisions
between
numerous
options.
The
economic
model
is
as
complicated
as
required
to
implement
the
fundamental
decisions
to
be
made
about
an
economy.
A
more
complicated
one
would
entail
more
rote
learning,
but
not
generate
much
more
strategy.
Players
like
@therxyy
can
drop
in
at
a
rating
of
about
2100
on
the
back
of
their
APM
and
expansion-greed,
and
then
spend
years
working
their
way
up
as
they
map
the
strategic
decision
space
of
the
game.
Other
players
don't
seem
to
be
much
for
micro
or
tactics,
but
still
reach
a
high
level
just
by
knowing
the
options
and
making
good
strategic
decisions.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
I like your point about choosing a factory for an aesthetic rather than for optimal play. That may well be at play here. But ZK can't be all games for all people and perhaps we've reached that point. I doubt it though, because when we go from theory to practice the actual suggestions seem to be for rather small reasonable changes. I'm not going to make gunships or planes into another land factory, for all the reasons of feel and escalation outlined above, but I'm also not convinced that this is the only thing that could be done for people playing for the air aesthetic .
|
16 |
I like your point about choosing a factory for an aesthetic rather than for optimal play. That may well be at play here. But ZK can't be all games for all people and perhaps we've reached that point. I doubt it though, because when we go from theory to practice the actual suggestions seem to be for rather small reasonable changes. I'm not going to make gunships or planes into another land factory, for all the reasons of feel and escalation outlined above, but I'm also not convinced that this is the only thing that could be done for people playing for the air aesthetic .
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
Air v. AA v. Ground balance