![]() ![]() The most natural way for a game to scale is into more artillery use. Games should scale up over time simply because playing the same game throughout a battle is a less interesting experience. I think many things, including raiders, 'define' ZK more than artillery. It is also hard to compare the degree to which a unit type defines the game and how the game is defined by deeper aspects of the design, such as flat tech trees and automation. You're asking two very different questions depending on whether you wish to talk about the design of artillery or the current balance of artillery. This is not a unique characteristic as something similar can be found in many TA-ish games, as well as war games like Company of Heroes. ![]() As a result, battles in Starcraft tend to be more localised in time and space in Zero-K. There are many attrition weapons and many assault weapons, and their roles shift throughout the games. This is part of a broader observation that our great diversity in health, range, and inaccuracy can draw-out battles and make them occur over long distances. I would say that the way artillery is designed is a distinguishing feature of ZK. I also get a strong feeling that you're just trying to say "boo artillery" with extra words. I think you think you are asking a few questions that look similar but have different implications/nuances. Anarchid it is hard to know quite what you mean.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |