| 1 |
Comparing to Starcraft in particular I would say that Zero-K requires the player to spend less time on "preparatory action" *but* it is more difficult to learn to perform well, on account of several factors:
|
1 |
Comparing to Starcraft in particular I would say that Zero-K requires the player to spend less time on "preparatory action" *but* it is more difficult to learn to perform well, on account of several factors:
|
| 2 |
- Fewer learning resources (smaller community, but even ignoring that a ZK build order would be much harder to write because of the following points)
|
2 |
- Fewer learning resources (smaller community, but even ignoring that a ZK build order would be much harder to write because of the following points)
|
| 3 |
- Larger variety of maps (popular Starcraft maps at any given time are fewer in number and much more standardised; the SCII community would probably have a collective fit if it had to deal with maps like Living Lands, Eye of Horus and Aurelian in the same MM pool)
|
3 |
- Larger variety of maps (popular Starcraft maps at any given time are fewer in number and much more standardised; the SCII community would probably have a collective fit if it had to deal with maps like Living Lands, Eye of Horus and Aurelian in the same MM pool)
|
| 4 |
-
As
a
general
rule
in
ZK
you
need
to
react
to
your
opponent
earlier
and
to
a
larger
degree
than
in
Starcraft
(
dealing
with
factory
matchups
and
early
aggression)
|
4 |
-
As
a
general
rule
in
ZK
you
need
to
react
to
your
opponent
earlier
and
to
a
larger
degree
than
in
Starcraft
(
dealing
with
factory
matchups
and
early
aggression)
;
as
a
corollary,
preparatory
play
in
ZK
requires
much
more
adjustment
to
circumstances
(
as
opposed
to
reliable
timings
and
plans)
than
other
RTS
games
|
Categories of Action in Strategy Gaming