1 |
The thing about faction diversity is that it doesn't place any hard limits on teamgames, and 1v1s don't tend to reach lategame units. In a team game people can share constructors, or just go and fill the role their faction is good at. So BA-style faction diversity is only mechanically relevant in FFA and the rare 1v1 that goes late. One side having tacnuke and the other having a better Bertha (or whatever the distinction is) is not that impactful because lategame structures are mostly made in team games.
|
1 |
The thing about faction diversity is that it doesn't place any hard limits on teamgames, and 1v1s don't tend to reach lategame units. In a team game people can share constructors, or just go and fill the role their faction is good at. So BA-style faction diversity is only mechanically relevant in FFA and the rare 1v1 that goes late. One side having tacnuke and the other having a better Bertha (or whatever the distinction is) is not that impactful because lategame structures are mostly made in team games.
|
2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
3 |
Now the difference between BA and ZK goes back to design philosophy. While designing ZK we imagined the sorts of mindless/tedious things involved in "optimal play" and tried to remove them. Optimal play is clearly theoretical, but the idea was that it would future-proof us against people breaking the game in unfun ways as they improved. Or at least, we would be set up to deal with it when it did happen. This influenced the choice to go from two factions to one, since sharing constructors around to make the best version of each unit seems tedious.
|
3 |
Now the difference between BA and ZK goes back to design philosophy. While designing ZK we imagined the sorts of mindless/tedious things involved in "optimal play" and tried to remove them. Optimal play is clearly theoretical, but the idea was that it would future-proof us against people breaking the game in unfun ways as they improved. Or at least, we would be set up to deal with it when it did happen. This influenced the choice to go from two factions to one, since sharing constructors around to make the best version of each unit seems tedious.
|
4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
5 |
Some
thing
were
lost.
Factions
don't
do
much
mechanically
but
can
still
be
relevant
psychologically.
We're
also
not
taking
into
account
people
who
play
far
from
optimally.
A
competitive
1v1
effectively
has
factions
because
an
extra
factory
is
almost
always
expensive,
but
in
a
laid
back
1v1
against
chicken
or
AI
gives
players
enough
space
to
build
everything.
That
said,
I
think
we
do
better
on
faction
feel
in
competitive
team
games.
Factories-as-factions
gave
us
the
space
to
create
many
more
factories
than
BA
has
factions
so
each
player
is
more
likely
to
have
a
unique
start
and
role
in
the
game.
Technically
players
can
share
units
around
(
and
now
make
plates)
,
but
in
practise
it
doesn't
happen
to
a
great
extent.
The
unique
factory
plop
at
the
start
of
the
game
gives
people
the
momentum
to
maintain
their
niche
within
a
team,
much
like
a
faction
would.
|
5 |
Some
thing
were
lost.
Factions
don't
do
much
mechanically
but
can
still
be
relevant
psychologically.
We're
also
not
taking
into
account
people
who
play
far
from
optimally.
A
competitive
1v1
effectively
has
factions
because
an
extra
factory
is
almost
always
expensive,
but
a
laid
back
1v1
against
chicken
or
AI
gives
players
enough
space
to
build
everything.
That
said,
I
think
we
do
better
on
faction
feel
in
competitive
team
games.
Factories-as-factions
gave
us
the
space
to
create
many
more
factories
than
BA
has
factions
so
each
player
is
more
likely
to
have
a
unique
start
and
role
in
the
game.
Technically
players
can
share
units
around
(
and
now
make
plates)
,
but
in
practise
it
doesn't
happen
to
a
great
extent.
The
unique
factory
plop
at
the
start
of
the
game
gives
people
the
momentum
to
maintain
their
niche
within
a
team,
much
like
a
faction
would.
|