Good Maps Only Room?

Help me to understand maps. Many times ppl say that a map is bad but I don't understand why. I often think it is just an opinion but I know there could be specific details about how the maps are constructed that could be a logical reason why it is a bad map. How would you determine if a specific map needs to be taken out of the map selection?

Could ppl post here information about specific maps and the reasons they are bad to help me and other noobs to understand why they are considered 'bad?'

Not everybody shares your definition of "good" and "bad" map, I expect.

do we even have 1 map we can say is 100% good? what is the best 1v1 ladder map?

ie. always appears in a tourney and is considered fair and generally well loved

commet catcher?

It is just frustrating that Zero-K seems to be perpetually stuck in 16v16 noobgames. I get it, every RTS is like that, but FAF (supcom community) went over that "phase" like, seven years ago.

I mean highly rated players play 4v4 too, but they play with other pros, not the entire active community in 1-2 games, this is madness! (cue mojjj gif)


...also leads to much better replays and metas, "thats how you're supposed to play a teamgame on this map" and stuff like that


Sorry for editing so much, I dont want to doublepost or open a new thread: How about a bad map only room? :D this way the people you always get stuck with if you play in a clan or party and who would not even pass the tutorial can play their Icy Run :D

FAF has a competitive image going. balanced somewhat.

zero-k has imbalanced units that are balanced by roles, costs, environment and counters
so it is also balanced kinda.. except its never going to look balanced 100% of the time to new or even old players
its got a sandbox image like urban terror or command and conquer.

my bet is that a balance thread taken seriously by devs will fix that.
its what faf did along time ago. and as soon as the community is convinced that all units are useful options.
if the game is competitively balanced it will get more of a elite following.

also at the moment ~ the pleasure people get from nuking in a noob team-game is OP. you cant nuke 1v1 good players.. you cant even krow rush them 1v1 so this forces people who want to mess about into large noob games where the game is going to go nowhere for 15 mins.

also as a rule players join the room with people in it. ie. only a brave man walks a new path.. the rest follow

TROLLOLOLOL
HORSE
COW
DUCK

These are the only maps needed.

EDIT: I forgot DUCK .. now we have 4 horsemen of the ZK-pochalypse.

quote: you cant nuke 1v1 good players..

Tell that to PRO_rANDY B492744 2 on Desert Needle Small 3.2

Who is saying that Zero-K isn't competitively balanced?

Hmm, then I have been a bit unclear. In general factories are not meant to be unbalanced or counter each other. To help explain this, I'll say a set of factories, X, is 'balanced' if:

• The matchup between any pair of factories in X has a 50% winrate.
• The matchup between all pairs of factories inX and notInX is never in the favour of notInX.

In practice no game is going to look like this, but it is a useful ideal to have in mind. A map has three balanced factories if, when playing on that map, there is a balanced set of factories that includes at least three factories.

I'll state my minimal aims for factory choice in 1v1:

• Land maps should each have at least three balanced non-air factories.
• Every non-air factory land should be a balanced factory on many common land maps (say, at least 40% of maps).
• Both air factories should be viable secondary factories in many situations.
• Making a land factory as your second factory should be good in some situations.
• Sea maps should have a set of balanced factories that include ships.
• Each of the other four sea factories should be viable as secondary sea factories in many situations.

Keep in mind that these are my minimal aims. More is generally better. I would prefer for there to be at least four or five balanced factories on land maps, and this is perhaps my strongest deviation from these aims. Being able to start non-ships in a sea 1v1 is fine, but not required. More viable options for second or third factories is preferable.

The 1v1 goals are fairly easy to extend to larger games. If there are many viable start and secondary factories then there are many options for players to pick.

How does this all relate to unit balance? It doesn't really. Factory balance is the real important factor for competitive balance. Some factories may have holes or great units, and it is generally fine given my factory balance goals are satisfied. This is all diversity that doesn't have to conflict with competitive play. That said, I have some aims for units that are similar to what I wrote for factories:

• Every unit should have a situation where it is the best unit for the job, across all factories.
• At least four units from each factory should be fairly common in all matchups.
• Non-specialist units (not AA, bombs, weird scouts, utility etc..) should have a matchup where they commonly occur.

your probably right it might be much more balanced then it feels to me.. i was wrong about not being able to nuke 1v1 =D so i could be wrong anyplace.

factory with all units in it would beat any factory match-up i dont know what that means its just that some units are very good and new players cant deal with them well.

crab spire for example: i showed my friend the game he has played ta/ba for years but i crab spire him and he lost so bad with light vehicle he rage quit and never played again.