Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Forum index  > General discussion   >

Would you be in favor of a "simple" zerok?

32 posts, 1901 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (32 records)
sort
USrankBatman
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
Would you be in favor of a zero-k with the fewest possible units?

ships, tanks, cloaky, airplanes, striders?

I think it might help make everything easier in so many ways. I know many of the vets will probably .......... like the current confusion. But I don't think it helps new players very much.

Apple has always been known to make things simple, more simple than actually acceptable. Apple is popular, apple is simple. I think there might be at least some reason to try such a simplified zerok.
+3 / -12
Skasi
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
I've always been against adding more and more units and for making current units more unique instead, so your idea sounds interesting. It's hard to guess what exactly you mean though. All I know is that Apple = pure evil.
+3 / -0
GBrankTheSponge
11 years ago
You want to water down the game to a ridiculous extent. This would not be ZK. It would take over a year of work to balance it and then it would be unrecognizable. Anyone who has played ZK for more than a week would hate this. For people who cannot understand the complex mechanics of ZK, there is spring tanks. ZK is not Dwarf Fortress, it is quite simple once you get the hang of it.
+2 / -0
Skasi
11 years ago
Dwarf Fortress is quite simple too, once you get the hang of it. Many things are.
+1 / -0

USrankAdminCarRepairer
11 years ago
Batman, you are free to make it! Fork ZK like banana did to make ZK dota and make a mutator. It should be just a matter of removing units from buildlists. Should be a relatively quick task.
+4 / -0
PLrankSzyba
11 years ago
No way! Zero-k is soo awesome because it have soo many units. If someone is too lazy to learn some tactics/units/counters then this game is not for him.

Meaby even remove maps and leave only one! Because newbies are confused when they see water or mountain.

I think we would lose more players than get from this idea.
+2 / -0
USrankBatman
11 years ago
it was never the idea to change zk,

but maybe a simpified zk would be an interesting experiment

+0 / -2


CArankAdminShadowfury333
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
A simplification mod for ZK sounds like a great idea. I've mentioned before in threads about the unlock system how something like that would be great for teaching new players the basics, and having a testing ground for the game design in a minimalistic setup could be useful. As much as having 100+ different units lends to ZK's charm, it's also worth evaluating the game design without the kitchen sink thrown in.

If you are going to do this, I'd recommend also reducing the number of static defense structures to Lotus, Defender, Stinger, Urchin, and Hacksaw. Stardust may prove necessary, but I'm not sure it would necessarily be so, so I'd start without it.
+3 / -0

FIrank[GBC]HeadHunter
11 years ago
Well, basically every RTS out there is "simple". Take SC2 - it has just about 100 units in it. Take age of empires with somewhere around 200. And of course the pinnacle of simplicity, the warcraft 3 with somewhere around 300 amongst all the races. The reality is that the uberpopular starcraft has a shitton of units and is god damn hard to play, MUCH harder than ZK. And it requires gosu micro to do even the most basic stuff like make your units not die uselessly. Yet it is popular. So let us cut the crap and remove the units that are really not needed, but keep the ZK versatile - it is what makes it so fun! You can not take a centipede and cut off half its legs and make it rut. You can trim it a bit though if you think its too long - it might run faster=)

For instance:
I do not remember a single time I would build the screamer=)
The only reason to build a hacksaw is if you have some extra money to burn - most cases it is useless.
Gauss turrets are somewhat useful vs shields, but thats it - there is no other real usecase for them.

When it comes to units I do not really think you can remove a single one - maybe just crasher and slasher could be merged to make up a single, more generic unit like it used to be in OTA?
+0 / -0


CArankAdminShadowfury333
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
FIrank[GBC]HeadHunter: As I said, a use case for this would be easing new players in, like the unlock system apparently used to, except without forcing all new players to only using 1/3rd of the units.

The other use case I mentioned would apply to trimming the fat. Granted, it would do so by seeing what happens when a huge chunk is removed, rather than by removing a few units at a time and testing. However, dropping a huge chunk at a time would make it easier to avoid lazy justifications for keeping units that aren't needed, since it's easy to argue either their purpose or their redundancy by citing the playtests of the massively trimmed down mod.
+0 / -0

FIrank[GBC]HeadHunter
11 years ago
Shadowfury, I really love your replays and based on what you say in the replays I try to recreate the way you would motivate the trimming. I see this can bring quite some good, but at the same time I do not see how that would apply nicely to ZK without breaking it.

However, if anyone was to do it, i'd start with removing the hovers and promoting transport play. We can also remove the amph without any harm to the balance. I would imagine that the jumpject and spider labs can be removed as well. Gunshits (assuming transports are moved to airlab) are in fact redundant as well, at least we do not need so many of them. Would that make the game more fun? Maybe, we can test it. I do agree that I will not miss the amph factory at all - it can be fun and it has some fun units like jinn but it does not feel "alive".
+0 / -0
Skasi
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Instead of removing "things that are rarely built" I suggest removing "things that are boring". LLTs and HLTs are a good example. They use an accurate, straight beam of damage mounted on a pillar. Pretty dull. Stardust, Faraday and Gauss are much more interesting.
+2 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
11 years ago
I'd observe with interest the removal of cross-boundary facs.
+2 / -0

NLrankswappan
11 years ago
sounds like balanced annihilation.
Apple is intuitive. Everything works the way you think it does, thats its power. Apple solved the UI problem. But I dont know how you can apply that to zero-k.
+0 / -3


EErankAdminAnarchid
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
quote:
Apple solved the UI problem.

i have an apple device, and that claim is a myth.
+2 / -0
NLrank[GBC]Tandstickor
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
SK (Simle K)

I like the idea actually, just as an experiment. Just go do it Batman!

quote:
If you are going to do this, I'd recommend also reducing the number of static defense structures to Lotus, Defender, Stinger, Urchin, and Hacksaw. Stardust may prove necessary, but I'm not sure it would necessarily be so, so I'd start without it.


I'd make 1000 smurfs to +1000 this

On stardusts: 220 in LLTs is almost as good and scales a lot better.
+1 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
Yeah, this is called BA, and that fewest possible units is called the flash tank. It is one unit.
+2 / -0
RUrankpaShadoWn
11 years ago
Opinion of lazy noob is noted.
In your infinite wisdom, Badman, you missed the point that 0K have less than a thousand players, known to a minority of rts players and speaking of "popularity" is kinda stoopid.

I, on the other side, would like an increase number of units on the regular basis (recently added funnel is appreciated by me, it was exactly what i wanted from a strider) and morph-only unique and powerful units.

Another thing i miss in 0k is the SupCom style faction disparity. We need more customizable units, not commanders only.
+1 / -4
DErank[2up]knorke
11 years ago
Well zK is based on AA/BA (or if you want, Total Annhilation) so that is where the many units come from.

The way zK is designed now you can not simply remove units:
1) Each factory is supposed to be viable at start and in almost every situation.
Since factory design is an extension of the
So with 11 factories you need 11 raiders, 11 constructors, 11 anti-air, basically every unit role 11 times.
Even if you reduce the factories to "ships, tanks, cloaky, airplanes" you still have that redundance.

2) It is supposed to be playable 1v1 and with big teams.
For that needs some superfusions, big striders and so on.
Compared to (1) that is only a handful units but might explain why inherited lol-units like Buzzsaw/Rave Party were kept.

The idea of taking some spring game and making a "simple version" from it came up for every TA-style mod generation.
Afaik it never was done, maybe because people realized it would just be a watered down version of the original?

Still I think spring "needs" a more simple RTS.
But basing it on zK (or other game) would mean it gets seen just as some funny experiment.
It would need to be a completly new game.
There was some, like Nanoblobs or Kernel Panic but those are far from tradionel RTS so not comperable.

Atm I can only think of two spring games that did/do not have this explosions of unit numbers:
-P.U.R.E.
-The Cursed
+1 / -0

CArankPxtl
11 years ago
If I were putting together a "simple" ZK, I'd focus on the main ground labs and gut out the surrounding stuff. No air-lab, no navy, and strip down the superweapons... focus on the land labs (and rebalance all the semi-land-labs like hovers into pure land-labs). That's the backbone of ZK's gameplay, and that's where I would put the emphasis in a "simplified" ZK.
+1 / -0
Page of 2 (32 records)