Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: [A] Free For All
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.7.8.4
Engine version: 104.0.1-1344-g07bdbaf
Battle ID: 761963
Started: 5 years ago
Duration: 58 minutes
Players: 4
Bots: False
Mission: False
Rating: Casual
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 28.6%

LUrankAdminAnir
Team 2
Chance of victory: 0.3%

USrankthotslayer89
Team 3
Chance of victory: 39.7%

CArankPetTurtle
Team 4
Chance of victory: 31.4%

RUrankindaled

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (22 records)
sort
5 years ago
perfect example how sw make a game borring.
We litteraly did nothing during 20 min
+0 / -0
5 years ago
Let me guess, disco zenith and other stuff
+0 / -0
5 years ago
Ok, I watched the replay...it's just bad. Superweapons brake all the FFA. I suggest increasing their cost or at least remove them from FFA games in a custom host.
+1 / -0


5 years ago
I don't see how you drew those conclusions from this game. The lesson shown here is that scouting is vital. Nobody scouted any of the superweapons while they were being built.

Given the dispositions of the players, I expect that they would have paid for 2x cost superweapons. CArankPetTurtle had two cloaked Detriments and was happy to sit there and make a superweapon. RUrankindaled built up much more economy, and would have built even more if not for the threat of superweapons at around 40k cost. Expensive superweapons would push back this threat and likely just extend the game for at least another 15 minutes.

Here are some more lessons:
  • Stockpiling Paladin doesn't seem that useful.
  • High trajectory DRP is way worse than low trajectory DRP.
  • Move Detriments to the very front of your base when preparing for hostilities.
  • Don't attack someone without scouting everyone else first.
  • Make sure to set Detriments to Fire At Will when using them to assault.

Upon scouting and finding a superweapon either complete or nearing completion, the players needed to bring out the diplomacy. Instead, the two players that completed first just killed each other.

ROrankForever how was this game meant to end? Mass Detriment? Mass Shockley and Nuke?
+4 / -0
5 years ago
I don't know AUrankAdminGoogleFrog but at this rate, I think that superweapons are too hard to counter if you burry them. Once you just made one (especially starlight) nothing can stop you. And with a 50 M income, you can easily make one in a few minutes with some reclaim. I would personally disable superweapons (zenith, starlight, and disco) in FFA matches if possible. I already discussed with some of my clan members that if we both survive a late FFA match and we manage to kill everybody else we would reclaim Zenith/Starlight/Disco and use everything except those. It's some kind of code of chivalry that we decided to accept :D and I will always comply with it.
+1 / -0
quote:
with a 50 M income, you can easily make one in a few minutes with some reclaim.

50m/s is 3000 metal per minute. Without reclaim, focusing your whole 50m economy on the cheapest superweapon while your enemies do nothing will give you a DRP in 11.6 minutes.

How much reclaim is some?
+0 / -0
5 years ago
@Googlefrog

I knew that @PetTrutle was building a superweapon, even without scouting, i just didnt knew the progress or which one it is. Same goes for RUrankindaled.
Because it is what happends in 95% of the FFA games.
Also what else would they do during 10+ min without action

It is the logical thing to do and i can explain why.
In the situation we had. each one of us had an army that he could have pushed with. But if one would have pushed another one, maybe even getting close to winning that fight. The third player would have attacked the attacker on his weak front.
And since we all had more or less the same income, fighting 2 people would have been unwinnable.
So whoever attacks is just signing a death sentence.

What happends next is clear. People digg themself in, and start building arty that can penetrate the enemy without having to leave the base -> Superweapons.

When Pet and i got our DRP we couldnt just kill indealead first, because whoever starts shooting on the other one has an advantage. So it was clear that wouldnt happen. (Also i would never trust someone in FFA)

+1 / -0
quote:
Because it is what happends in 95% of the FFA games.


Does this happen more often on maps which are naturally divided into symmetric domains? E.g. on this map you expect to control exactly as much territory as everyone else because everything clearly and symmetrically belongs to some player's domain.

On SandCastles there's some contested territory (the middle) but generally unless you lose your castle you also expect to not be very poor and the castles themselves are very difficult to attack without superweapons.

Europe and Hunters results in superweapons almost always, but i think there it's more of a case of the map being so big that the economies can eventually afford the superweapons trivially.

Black Star also has defensible starts, but in my experience is just as often wiped with paladins / detriments / spam rather than a superweapon.

Splintered Tropics results in superweapons much rarer, because there are always reasons and benefits to incremental conflict in the form of contested mexes between the starting oases, and the oases themselves are far from being unassailable. Plus i guess few chokepoints leads to mobile warfare.

TL;DR i think Energy Spire Plain is a bad map for ZK FFA.
+1 / -0
5 years ago
We clearly need to have anonymous players in FFA. To many decisions are made because that guy is stronger, weaker, easier to kill and so on.
+1 / -0
5 years ago
EErankAdminAnarchid, that is probably true.

Then maybe we need more maps that dont have those typical fortresses like most ffa maps do atm.
+0 / -0
5 years ago
LUrankAdminAnir then 1vs1 players that will play those map will expand without reason killing as much as they can and die in the process. There is a reason why some maps are centralized in your starting position.
+0 / -0


5 years ago
quote:
There is a reason why some maps are centralized in your starting position.

Enabling superweapons? :P
+1 / -0
5 years ago
ROrankForever, that might happen. But when they die in the process they will addapt their playstyle for ffa. Although i think that this isnt rly the case. Most players are experienced enough to know what not to do. At least thats what i see from most people.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
maybe the problem is that FFA is an inherently broken concept: the "optimal" way to play involves avoiding fighting, which should be what the game is about.

A thing XTA peoples did a few years ago was play a king of the hill mode instead of regular FFA:
- "king of the hill" zone in the middle
- if a lone player holds that zone for more than a few seconds, that player's cap timer increases and the others decrease
- if a player holds the zone for 5 consecutive minutes, he wins (everyone else blows up)


Another sugestion would be to get people to play 1v1 and small teams instead of FFA
+2 / -0


5 years ago
KoTH resolves strategically to vanilla FFA once everyone realizes that you should avoid occupying the middle until you have established a dominant position among the other players.

Staking a claim to the middle is suicidal, and engaging the claimant on your own is likewise suicidal. So it's just FFA, but with it being more obvious who the leader is that the other players should unite to defeat.

Sandcastles is KoTH, but instead of having a strict timer, whoever is allowed to occupy the middle mexes will win once they capitalize on the extra economy it gives them. The meta quickly evolved to not trying to take the middle, and if someone does, try to get everyone else to dislodge them. Any other KoTH-style game - even one with an explicit victory timer - will evolve the same meta.
+1 / -0
If you want an FFA that revolves less around diplomacy, then the solution is to limit players' freedom of interaction. Arrange things so that each player is somehow restricted to attacking only one or two specified other players.

For example: https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/16883

Azure Rampart is an attempt at this, but the circle-of-death mechanism breaks down due to air and long-range superweapons.
+0 / -0
on KOTH the timer forces people to interact. They can't afford to wait more than a minute or two before mobilizing.

There's always someone who will put a scout or build a few defenses on the middle to force everyone else to act without risking their base.

This is especially true if the time required to win is low (could be 3 min instead of 5 min).
+0 / -0
5 years ago
EErankAdminAnarchid...not for superweapons it's to stop 1 vs 1 player from rushing other players.
+0 / -0


5 years ago
Investing more than a token amount into the middle, whether to claim it or to deny someone else's claim, is a mistake. If it becomes necessary because someone else made the mistake of committing a large force there, then you must quickly ally with as many others as possible to capitalize on that person's mistake and push them off. But preferably, get everyone else to ally and do that without you while you sit out the fight and profit from everyone else's loss.

Taking the middle is always a mistake unless you can be confident of a win. Doing so early is unlikely; doing so late is possible once you've let everyone else wear themselves down while you stay home and build up in peace.

... just like in normal FFA.

KoTH only leads to fighting in the middle if there is someone who doesn't understand how to win, or if someone cleverly tries to bait the other players into fighting over the middle and then quickly gives it up while they foolishly fight amongst themselves.
+0 / -0


5 years ago
The problem with superweapons in FFA is that it turns the game into a race rather than a contest of diplomacy and fighting. Superweapons can do huge amounts of damage, quickly, to any opponent. Fighting is usually a net loss vs all opponents even if it's a net gain locally vs your target, and diplomacy is difficult to predict. That makes racing to superweapons the best choice, so it becomes the dominant strategy.

FFA without game-enders might be more interesting, because instead of racing to game-enders you'd have to engage in diplomacy to convince others to fight - and fighting with the support of allies (whom you would eventually have to betray) would be the only way that anyone could win.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (22 records)