AoE4 has more asymmetrical civs with a lower skill floor. It's a little more streamlined as aging up doesn't have you build two buildings from the current age and you don't have to do the boar micro or rebuild farms. There's less micro. It also has more hard counters than AoE2, with enough crossbows and knights in AoE2 you can kill pretty much anything.
The sound design in AoE4 is also god tier. The music is dynamic depending on what age you're in and combat. The voice acting is also age dependent with factions like the English and French saying different things depending on age, the french start out saying Equites for horsemen before switching to chevalier. It's also way better on the basis that the Byzantines are speaking Greek instead of Latin.
It's charmless. >Music sucks >units talk like medieval CoH >factions are too gimmicky >every match plays exactly the same >game is just ugly >campaign is awful
No redeeming qualities other than very stable MP
>Music sucks
Objectively wrong, the soundtrack is great and has faction specific music >units talk like medieval CoH
Uh... Ok? Not an argument moron >factions are too gimmicky
Your whole argument here is that the factor are too different from each other lmao AOE2 yards DEMAND every single faction be copy and pasted like they're ancient troony boomer game >every match plays exactly the same
sounds like a skill issue >game is just ugly
it looks pretty good, I'm sorry you're playing on a toaster thirdie >campaign is awful
Again, objectively wrong. The campaign varies from solid to excellent. Especially in the new dlc. Long story short, you should eat a bullet.
NTA, but Dawn of war 3 is just Company if Heroes wearing a 40k skin. And I liked CoH enough to enjoy DoW3 as well. After having played DoW2, they really shouldn't share the same name.
AoE4 civs are so much more varied, almost entirely different play style for each civ.
>doesn't scout >floats resources >queues up a million guys >not constantly building pylons and probes >>>>i-its asiaticclick shit tryhard sweat garbage!
Ganker is shit at games
Lmao true, the only way to get better is your motivation. Most people here just make up reason and don't bother trying to see what they did wrong. Plenty of pros are 80-90 apm, they might not be first in tournaments but they're regularly top 10/5
The thing about AoE4 is it just has much less content overall. Even multiplayer map types and varieties AoE4 has less, not to mention that single player there are like 5 or 6 campaigns while AoE2 has about 45 campaigns. People will say that civs feel more unique, but they are all still pretty similar with things like English can build all military from a castle or Russians get a stronger guard tower. It's like a small degree of more uniqueness, but not enough to warrant the complete lack of content. There are probably more unique units in AoE2 than AoE4 just because of how much damn content AoE2 has. And the sad part is, they haven't really been doing a good job of keeping up with AoE4. They have released one expansion so far while AoE2 released like 2 since AoE4 has came out, and of course it's an anti-european expansion with a focus on muslims that diddnt do nothing. If maybe in 5 years AoE4 has even half the content of AoE2, it will be great. But we will see if Microsoft keeps up with it.
How does the attitude of your opponent impact you in any way when you dont interact with him whatsoever? Also there are plenty of game modes that are strictly fun oriented
I also play BGH$$$ comp stomps usually 3v5 or 2v6 comps
>How does the attitude of your opponent impact you in any way when you dont interact with him whatsoever?
Playing with another person is interacting with them, autist.
average Gankerirgin is too prideful to admit hes a shitter so casts the blame on people being too sweaty as his excuse. see
RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
Honestly, I played Star Craft on Battle.net, and had fun playing with other dumb kids, and then I met some Korean chick, and the way she played the game felt like she was cheating or something. It was unreal looking at her base and how systemically she went about building a shit-ton of unit dispensers so she could quickly form an early game bum-rush. But this was 20 years ago, I dunno if Battle.net is now infested with people who have adopted the Korean meta sensibilities.
not that anon but thank you based god, I was just playing the campaign for dark crusade recently got bored at how easy it was and ended my run early. an ai mod should give me the fix i need
>70
Those better be some really meaningful actions then.
I had around 90-110 apm in asiaticclick 2 and made it to masters despite being slow compared to other players. Speed isn't everything.
When I play RTS games I want to LARP as an army general leading the world's largest arsenal and the strongest tech.
I can only do that against skirmish AI because the majority of players in your average lobby are sweaty asiatics with 400apm and no chill. At least the russians playing the lesser known RTS games are pretty easygoing most of the time.
RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
Basically this. Also when playing with the bros at LANparties it was always fun to see what the other guys had come up with and the shitshow the late game would turn into. >mfw enemy army is just 100 monks
RTS multiplayer was only good in the 90s when you and your fellow white collar tech buddies/basketball players were the only ones able to afford to play it, so you'd dick around for a few days every month pulling off silly strats and cheeses while drinking copious amounts of beer and laughing as some new moronic strategy takes off. the very concept of meta is antithetical to RTS. i unironically believe you cannot be an RTS fan if you like the modern multiplayer experience which is just a bunch of guide following
>playing Halo Wars in middle school with two bros >one of them rolls up to the huge final battle with a cloud of engineers all healing one Scarab
You could barely see the actual tank through the miasma of green beams. One of the few times I've audibly lost my shit.
Replace classical music with something more modern and I can say I know such a guy. One of his favorite pastimes used to be smurfing in sc2 while drunk.
>RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
>fun strategy
Ganker has already admitted they don't want strategy, they want to sit in their base until they have everything and an unstoppable army. nobody here actually wants real-time strategy, every complaint about the genre comes down to "i dont want the real-time part and i dont want the strategy"
The only way to "defend" against your "basic strategies" is still to asiaticclick and type out hotkeys so you can be ready before the opponent zerg rushes you 2 minutes in. Again, all "competetive RTS games" have nothing to do with actual strategy.
you think that literally anything other than playing simcity requires you to have inhuman levels of reflexes, this is probably because you're bad at the game and are unable to think of a way to do anything other than sit in your base and turtle for 30 minutes
I have good reflexes. Starcraft is just shite as an mp game and over 50% of the game is busy work. Age is better. C&C of all kinds is better. WiC is far better. CoH is better. KKND is better. Earth 2140 is better.
I've been ranked Diamond in SC2 and I hated every second of it.
Starcraft is a funny anomaly because of its east asian popularity.
Goocklickers designed around infinite APM requirement. You cant have enough APM for asiaticlicker game. You just cant. Even top player fail controls all the time. Gocklcikers are circus juggling competition not competition of thinking.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Gocklcikers are circus juggling competition
While I don't necessarily agree with you about pros not having enough APM, I do agree with this.
This cuts to the heart of the matter on why I don't really like these games, it's more like a question of how many spinning plates you can manage, how many balls you can juggle than a competition of thinking, the thinking only comes in afterwards if you have the headroom for it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>While I don't necessarily agree with you about pros not having enough APM
Watch VODs. peasants standing, resources unspent, barracks idling. Especially when fights start. And fights? There are never enough micro when fights start going into more tha 5 vs 5 units size. Really, literally take the VOD and try fins match without control drops, you cant.
And it affects choice of the strategy. First of all use of ability cast units. Players simply don't build these units or use abilities because it takes too much micro, even this abilities is game-breaking. Entire strategies become impossible with nearly perfect micro. Like try to make arbiter recall into enemy base... and get EMPed. But reliable EMP base defense is beyond human abilities. But if players would have small monkey helpers each controlling one science vehicle, each spinning their own single plate, taking load off commander it would be changing strategy and how game plays immensely.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I agree with this. I thought for sure once AlphaStar or whatever AI crowned on pros with blink stalker micro that would put the asiaticlick genre to bed permanently.
Yet it still limps along.
4 months ago
Anonymous
If apm was met then ghosts would be insanely strong because of their lockdown ability instead of a joke unit.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>it is literally impossible to counter that strategy without high apm
again, not true
4 months ago
Anonymous
Post VODs of your lost matches and i will prove your lost because of not enough APM.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>refuse to build towers >die >"obviously i just didnt click things fast enough!"
4 months ago
Anonymous
Post VODs.
4 months ago
Anonymous
i dont have any replays saved
what would even be the point of posting anything, all you're gonna do is say "uuuh yeah you could've won if you clicked things faster" no matter what
4 months ago
Anonymous
i accept your confession of your weak APM game.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Gocklcikers are circus juggling competition
While I don't necessarily agree with you about pros not having enough APM, I do agree with this.
This cuts to the heart of the matter on why I don't really like these games, it's more like a question of how many spinning plates you can manage, how many balls you can juggle than a competition of thinking, the thinking only comes in afterwards if you have the headroom for it.
even in sc2 there are people who reach masters comfortably with relatively low apm. let's not even talk about aoe2 and aoe4
c&c and aoe3 are a bit more demanding
No, RTS is about letting your friend do that while you steal every crystal deposit like a crack addicted monkey and then scrambling to make some semblance of an army before he pushes your shit in with like, twenty marines.
>apparently it's typical for you to raise an army and conquer the map in a city builder
You really need to go back to school. Learn how to read and comprehend you fricking moron.
NTA. no it's not. you don't raise armies and fight and opposing factions in city builders. You are clinically moronic and there is no right way to play RTS. The only wrong way is competitive asiatic shit.
>Pharaoh, Zeus and Emperor are not city builders >Anno 1602 is not a city builder >Knights and Merchants is not a city builder
that's like your opinion man
Basically this. Also when playing with the bros at LANparties it was always fun to see what the other guys had come up with and the shitshow the late game would turn into. >mfw enemy army is just 100 monks
RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
Never mind. Misread the post. We're both ripping into the same thing. Based.
All i want is Dawn of War Winter Assault, but the mission much longer and the map much bigger, so i can make extended battle lines maintain'd with infantry and artillery. Then push it with tanks rinse and repeat.
Siege style maps are always my favorite especially the ones Red Alert 2 have like the final Soviet mission.
> campaigns are neat but you can only get so much out of them > online ranked games, boring idgaf > custom games? INJECT THAT SHIT INTO MY VEINS FOREVER
This is my position and it is the correct one
Because then he can't feel smug and superior in relation to Tasteless.
He explained that when he started playing 25 years ago, he was a dumb wienery kid and asked every pro what the hardest race was and they all told him "Terran" so he chose to play Terran, and now it's too late for him to swap races.
artosis won't get any better until he learns to control his emotions.
thats why every pro doesnt even smile when they win and asians are dominant.
isnt it called stoicism?
you gotta be a robot to be at the highest level on these autistic games.
1v1 sc is the final boss of competitive vidya.
That’s not what stoicism is at all they’re just autistic bugs, but people misuse the word that way so much it might as well be the definition.
Stoicism is about mastering yourself and not letting things outside of your control upset you. You’re still supposed to feel and express emotion you just don’t let it rule you. Winning or losing a 1v1 skill based game is as 100% in your control as anything that exists, so they should react in some way.
>Try Starcraft 2 multiplayer >While im setting up my mine someone charges into my base 1 minute in and starts building shit in my house and destroys my base before i can make even 1 solider somehow and i lose at 3 minutes in
Wow that was so fun!
I want to play that multiplayer again!
Modern RTS: >Harsh unit/pop caps - no massive armies >Minimal base building - can only build in designated areas, no walls or defensive structures(or if they do exist, they're weak to the point of useless.) >Little/no tech era progression, researches, etc.... >Only one resource(it often auto-generates over time) >Map design is inorganic, with blatantly obvious vantage areas and chokepoints more predictable than a MOBA map >Dogshit pathfinding behavior because flashy animations/physics take priority over gameplay responsiveness >DLC out the ass >Minimal effort, basic b***h short campaign that serves no purpose other than to be a glorified tutorial: no unique objectives, triggers, units, etc that all make campaigns fun. >Lack of custom game/campaign editor and map maker >Lack of fine unit control such as formation control, stance, and behavior.
Also, Galactic Battlegrounds is basically a better AoE2. Any AoE gays looking for something similar but bored of AoE should give it a try, especially with the expanding fronts mod.
RTS multiplayer was only good in the 90s when you and your fellow white collar tech buddies/basketball players were the only ones able to afford to play it, so you'd dick around for a few days every month pulling off silly strats and cheeses while drinking copious amounts of beer and laughing as some new moronic strategy takes off. the very concept of meta is antithetical to RTS. i unironically believe you cannot be an RTS fan if you like the modern multiplayer experience which is just a bunch of guide following
These people are basically like "RPG fans" who believe that by picking their class and a few options and grinding to make up for having a sub-optimal strategy, they feel like they're making strategic decisions and this is enough to satisfy them.
Correct. If, instead, you enjoy min-maxing game mechanics that have no correlation to actual military strategy, and you pay yourself on the back because you think this makes you intelligent, you're actually the idiot.
Gigachad doesn't have build orders and macros. Gigachad picks the franks because axe throwing is cool and has more gold than food because he wants more axe throwers and he puts all his stone into walls because walls are cool and he turtles until he's got a big fat army of 100 axe throwers and goes on a crusade wiping out the easy enemy AI until he wins. I'm Gigachad.
This.
The ideal RTS would be one that swipes any memory you have of the game in the beginning of a match so you have to figure everything out in the moment rather than having a ready made checklist to go through.
Can't even do that anymore, they put the chink rootkit into LoL. Threw it off my harddrive and I'm never going to reinstall it, for real this time. That fricking PC destroying cancer is the last thing I want on my computer.
One of the reasons Inca, Malians, Franks and Saracens are good is because all their unique units can attack through gates making you immune to this bullshit.
The last genuinely good multiplayer RTS I've played was Company of Heroes 1, before they added the British, that's when the entire game fell in on itself. I did have fun in CoH 2, but only years after I played the beta and then bought the game, where they patched it. But then 2 years down the line the fricking community patches completely ruined the large game (4vs4) balance, even messing with commander doctrines I used for years. Frick this gay Earth.
I tried to get into Supreme Commander, but the amount of ressource management required to build a frickhuge dick that shoots across the entire map, only to be blocked by a billion shields and then countered by a giant spam of planes and a frickhuge UFO that crashes into your commander when it dies gave me ass cancer.
AoE 2 is a great game in single player and an absolute fricking disaster of metahomosexualry and forced builds. Oh you didn't get the boar? Game over. Oh you didn't upgrade fast enough to the next age? Game over. Oh you didn't manage to get rid of the castle that some homosexual built next to your base? Game over. Oh there's one tiny hole in your wall of houses? Say goodbye to your entire economy lololol! You built infantry? Let me just kite the shit out of them with my spam of archers and my asiaticclicker APM.
Frick RTS, it died in 2007, just like the internet.
trenches & emplacements. Units in trenches couldn't be cleared out by normal gunfire, couldn't be supressed either, they had to be cleared out by expensive ammo abilities and flamethrowers. The infantry was ultra tanky and powerful enough to snipe units without cover instantly, the machine gun emplacement was cheap and way too tough, the BOFORS killed everything, and I mean everything, except maybe the heaviest most expensive tanks. They also had a stationary at gun that was too durable. And the cherry on top was the SUPERFAST AUTO REPAIR ABILITY ON ALL BUILDINGS that negated all damage by artillery strikes and made the building immune to damage. Oh and then when Tales of Valor came out, the Brits loaded up their kangaroo troop transforts with Piat launcher engies, and drove those around enemy tanks and infantry, killing everything while tanking damage like they were Tiger 2s. It took Lelic YEARS to fix the roos, they never fixed the emplacements. I still have PTSD from this. It was never fun. Frick the morons who played The Scheldt 24/7, too. Worst map ever.
I actually started playing Brood War early last year and I am B rank now. I don't even play that much. Truth is most players are terrible, so it's ok if you are terrible too. I've come to realise people who pretend to like RTS but complain about the multiplayer in these games being too difficult because of "tryhards" or whatever are just coping because they are either too lazy to attempt anything that might challenge them in some way, or just afraid of hurting their own egos by losing in a video game. Which I suppose is the same reason people get "ladder anxiety" or whatever in online games. >b-b-but everyone just follows what the pros do!!!
If you follow what the pros do you lose, because you don't have progamer mechanics. It's actually about finding out what works for you at your level. Once you get better you realise there are many different ways to play, and good execution is the most important part (as long as your strategy isn't complete nonsense). The "meta" is different at every level of play. >b-b-but you need high APM! Le asiaticclick!
I have like 120 apm and I beat people with (supposedly) 2-3 times that constantly because they are just spamming and aren't actually playing fast. >b-b-but it's still too hard!
Then go play protoss and a-move, you fricking ape.
>or just afraid of hurting their own egos by losing in a video gam
Funny things it doesn't affect other multiplayer games like shooters and MOBAs, and most videogames gameplay hours are played in these PvP games.
It's just clunky controls of the RTS.
Even supposed high skill players (2400rank duh)
When is ASL starting again? Is Flash finally back?
can't handle these controls.
RTS is about fighting controls not your opponent. Games where you control only one character you fplay the game and fight opponents, it's just better and more satisfying.
>artosis >2400
lmao
Anyway, mastering the controls is one of the best parts. When you can execute everything right and you feel like a god. The satisfaction of noticing that you are getting faster and better at multitasking. I think the best comparison I can make is learning how to play an instrument.
>When you can execute everything right
But you can't/
Post your vods and would laugh at you how you spill spaghettis during combat and just attack click Terran mech on reavers like Artosis does (and he is supposed to be what, like 0.1% top of the players? RFLMAO).
>but you can't
Not even Flash can play perfectly, that's what makes the game good. Doesn't mean you can't accomplish whatever goals you set out for yourself. It can be small things, like "I will learn how to shut down reaver harass", or "I will get my third base up in time next game". Pulling off a strategy is fun, and so is improving your execution.
artosis won't get any better until he learns to control his emotions.
thats why every pro doesnt even smile when they win and asians are dominant.
isnt it called stoicism?
you gotta be a robot to be at the highest level on these autistic games.
1v1 sc is the final boss of competitive vidya.
>asians are le stoic
Wait until this guy finds out about Mini.
>singleplayer is strongpoint of the game >Multiplayer is filled with gays aping tourney gays >Multiplayer has shit netcode >multiplayer has boring meta >nobody plays RTS so multiplayer is dead >AI just cheats >single player is trash >RTS is shit genre to begin with.
>doesn't scout >floats resources >queues up a million guys >not constantly building pylons and probes >>>>i-its asiaticclick shit tryhard sweat garbage!
Ganker is shit at games
kek I mess around with every race but my heart is with protoss
RTS is the most gatekeeped community out there, with FGC coming closely second.
Pretentious homosexuals expecting people to like or worship their game when they themselves are doing disservice to their respective communities.
Frick them.
>FGC >gatekept
Absolutely not, if it actually was we wouldn't get shit like Strive
Also RTS isn't being gatekept, you losing isn't fricking gatekeeping
God I hate normalgays
RTS is the most gatekeeped community out there, with FGC coming closely second.
Pretentious homosexuals expecting people to like or worship their game when they themselves are doing disservice to their respective communities.
Frick them.
>join UFC >never train >never practice >never spar >never educate myself >never better myself >get the shit beaten out of me >complain that the UFC is heckin elitist problematic sweaty tryhard gatekeeping
I honestly wish someone would take a look at Dune 2 and create something like it again. And I mean, LIKE IT, as in, no homosexual nu-retro style stickman shit art style, but actual serious soulful pixel art and a game that is simple, yet deep, without a gorillion active abilities. God, it's such a shame the Westwood artist who was responsible for all these amazing drawings in Lands of Lore, Dune 2 etc. died so early in his career. The Bruce Lee of pixel art really.
It died when MOBAs were invented (imagine been in the Blizzard HQ and buying into StarCraft II hype at the same time trying to bury DotA., I want to see their faces when they got LoL players numbers stats olololol).
MOBAs have nothing to do with RTS. It's like saying RTS died because FPS is popular. All the big RTS series were purposefully killed as it's a very expensive genre to produce and has little return, hard to sell MTX, etc.
>start doing rock climbing >can't send the hardest problems >complain the sport is bullshit and gatekeeping elitists aren't letting me succeed >start playing DOJ >die >complain that the enemies are gatekeeping me
There's nothing "inherently" wrong with the genre. The fact that its "dead" compared to 20 years ago is just a fact of how much bigger the gaming world has gotten relative to it. It essentially already maxed out its potential audience decades ago. You're never gonna get an average normie to play an RTS like they play League or CS or whatever no matter how much mass-appeal you try to give it. It was never gonna be as big as fricking Fortnite. So what?
>There's nothing "inherently" wrong with the genre
It is. It died overnight when some moders released you can make same game but you control only one unit.
And it made game over 9000 times better.
It didn't die though. Other genres just got way bigger because PC gaming was rapidly becoming more mainstream while RTS was at its "peak" when PC gaming was a niche nerd hobby. Now instead of PC gaming being the niche nerd hobby encompasing RTS, RTS is just the niche nerd hobby. It's natural. Like I said, the potential audience was already maxxed out.
MOBAs literally stole RTS auditory.
Internet cafes in 2000s >normie play WC3 >DotA installed >nobody plays WC3, everybody plays DotA >couple WC3 nerds run around autistically screeching at DotA players
4 months ago
Anonymous
MOBA didn't 'steal' the RTS audience because MOBAgays wouldn't play RTS to begin with. It's a niche genre.
>complain if someone doesn't want to play competitive multiplayer >also complain if they try and aren't good at it
What is the end game here?
>>also complain if they try and aren't good at it
Who, the voices in your head?
Giantgrantgames did a survey with 10s of thousands responses asking what mattered most in an rts to people and over 80% of responses were campaign or custom games
The last rts game that wasn't a dead in the water flop was wings of liberty because it was the last rts game with a worthwhile campaign and still had a decent custom mode for a while. Aoe4 was a complete fricking failure because it had a garbage campaign and dead on arrival online besides 1v1 ranked which is shit and boring
>The last rts game that wasn't a dead in the water flop
It was Warhammer Total War 1/2 actually. And it's sp campaign did everything to put out asiaticclicking out of the gameplay.
Actual RTS fans love the genre and play it and get better in 1v1, meanwhile casualgays seethe and moan and come up with all manner of excuses
Christ knows why Ganker is so opposed to simply improving and getting good
you are the same guy in those thread calling everyone shit, and yhem you wonder why no one plays with you, the problem is not in the game, it is the players
Because high level rts play isn't fun. When I RTS, I like to enjoy all the little details on the units, build comfy bases and towns, and take my time exploring the map and scouting the enemy.
When playing against another person that just wants to get their economy and unit spam going as fast as possible, you have to do that as well and there is no time to stop and smell the roses, so to speak. So even if you get good at it, it's not satisfying. I'd much rather play an FPS if I have to concentrate that much. RTS is better when it's comfy.
I used to be somewhere around low masters back in wings of liberty but now if I ever play RTS I just want a cool single player campaign and the ability to have fun vs ai or with friends
Age of Mythology is still my all time favorite RTS
Homeworld is based too
Trying to push for THE EPIC RANKED 1V1 LADDER in a new RTS is what kills every new RTS. Starcraft did this successfully by making a good game and letting players slowly form a competitive scene over years and years. You can't force it or you end up like AoE4 which died after a few months because the game was fundamentally flawed with bad ai, bad pathing, boring factions and boring units
AoE4 was already dead because it was made by Nu-Lelic. The "campaign" was the most horrific shit I've ever experienced on a Free Weekend. Never in my life have I seen so much handholding, so much disgusting UI design, so much soulless-ness in an RTS, not even Grey Goo bored me this much to tears like AoE 4 did. And whoever came up with these moronic yellow flags popping up everywhere deserves to die in a car crash. Frick Lelic troons.
>If you're playing on DE, play the Art of War scenarios; maybe the booming one is the hardest to get a gold on but that's it >Learning even just some essential hotkeys makes a world of difference; if you have a five-button mouse, idle villager and TC are on M4-M5 by default in HD and DE >Six on sheep is enough to sustain villager production for one TC >Scout the map, in DE there's an auto-scout button for any starting ones >Units on higher elevation than their target deal more damage, and take less damage >Town Centers should ideally be working non-stop >Wood upgrades can do a lot, the first one pays itself off very quickly >Farm upgrades are also effectively wood upgrades >Buying resources at the market is always an option but don't get too reliant on it >Build additional TCs within Castle Age to exponentially increase your economy, try to get three of them >If in doubt, set the gather point to wood and reassign villagers as needed >Half of your population limit being villagers is a decent guideline >Mangonel line counters groups of archers and is a safer bet for destroying non-castle buildings >Monks - if the user is paying attention, are a good defensive counter to Knights >Trebuchets are the great equalizer when castles are being a shit >Civilizations with a lot of basic but powerful and easy to utilize bonuses like Franks and Britons are popular with lesser-skilled players with straightforward gameplans and some wiggle room >Huns might be cozy with no required housing, but may lead to bad habits (and you can't house-wall)
>in the original script he's one of those "which one's the any key" brainlets regarding computers >in the console port he reveals he's a consoletard marine
pottery
and it's even better that you think it's a victory for consoles
Ah yes, I love playing a "strategy" game where you win not because of your own strategy and tactics, but because you were clicking and micromanaging faster, and it allowed you to rush the opponents base first and overwhelm him before he does it first
Any RTS game that is built for the multiplayer audience is NOT a strategy game and should not be called that.
you don't know what the words strategy or tactics mean, you don't know how armies are commanded in real life, and you've clearly never heard the term "blitzkrieg" before
Behold, a real time strategy game where you have to actually use tactical thinking and trying to "blitz" just leads to getting your ass clapped
>i want a strategy game >NO THAT STRATEGY IS TOO COMPLICATED I DONT WANNA THINK ABOUT EARLY DEFENSES
imagine playing any other strategy game and complaining that your opponent is attacking you. aggressive strategies are in every fricking game but for some reason they shouldn't be allowed in rts because it's not "real strategy". even fricking card games have aggro strategies, imagine being so moronic that even pokemon tcg players think you're a fricking baby for whining about your opponent not letting you do whatever you want
Shave down the mechanical requirements on the menial and banal parts of the genre (while still keeping depth) and focus on the more interesting tactical elements.
Casuals will still be worse at the games, but they'll actually be able to focus on the more interesting parts instead of failing to meet a skill floor to even play the game in a way where strategy matters.
this isn't going to work, rts games that don't require high apm already exist, nobody is forcing you to play brood war when tons of other games exist. the problem is that Ganker is full of babies that can't handle losing, so whenever they lose they simply demand that whatever they lost to be removed from the game because clearly it's unfair and it has nothing to do with their personal skill
The problem is that the games aren't fun to play competitively, you can come up with whatever excuses you like for it.
If something is fun, people will do it.
that's your opinion, there are plenty of people who think competitive games are fun
4 months ago
Anonymous
You wanted the answer to the question, it's not my problem if you can't accept it.
That is the very obvious reason most people will not put 300+ hours into rts 1v1 modes, it's not very fun for most people.
You either accept that and let it be niche and not have threads like this asking stupid questions, or you accept that it's a problem of some sort and try and find ways to solve it.
There are obviously outliers who do like that, or else there wouldn't be an OP to care.
4 months ago
Anonymous
rts "in general" isn't fun to most people anon, and no amount of trying to pander to people who don't like it will change that
4 months ago
Anonymous
Singleplayer and custom lobbies have always been more popular, and for a reason.
We can say >rts in general have never been popular
all we want, but that has nothing to do with OP, and I'm not even sure if that's entirely true.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I disagree with the OP, you can be a fan of rts without engaging with the multiplayer at all, there's no problem with that
if you want to play a chill game against a brainless ai that can't realistically challenge you that's fine, and customs that aren't rts at all are fun too
obviously competitive games are going to be less popular since it takes skill and knowledge of the game to beat another person instead of doing whatever you feel like doing and winning regardless
4 months ago
Anonymous
>obviously competitive games are going to be less popular since it takes skill and knowledge of the game to beat another person
You can say that over and over, but if it were actually fun more people would do it.
>games that don't require high apm already exist, nobody is forcing you to play brood war when tons of other games exist. the problem is that Ganker is full of babies that can't handle losing, so whenever they lose they simply demand that whatever they lost to be removed from the game because clearly it's unfair and it has nothing to do with their personal skill
RTS babs shizo rambling that has nothing to do with reality.
>game where the only reason you don't lose immediately is because the ai is scripted to not delete you with its vastly superior force until enough time passes
cool game man, you're certainly correct that trying to blitz a modern army with sticks and stones is a bad idea
the AI doesn't see you as a threat. It's busy in other galaxies doing shit that requires it's processing power.
You are a dust mite in the server, not ideal, but not a threat.
Until you are.
>until enough time passes
It would take you many many hours for the AI "anger level" rise automatically to the point where you get wiped out, rather you can only lose quickly if you play like a moron and keep attacking without thinking what you'll actually gain by conquering a planet and if it's actually even worth it, and if you don't take advantage of hacking or destroying servers to buy yourself more time
And even then there are routes that lead to a full-on massive war but you can still win
>i want a strategy game >NO THAT STRATEGY IS TOO COMPLICATED I DONT WANNA THINK ABOUT EARLY DEFENSES
imagine playing any other strategy game and complaining that your opponent is attacking you. aggressive strategies are in every fricking game but for some reason they shouldn't be allowed in rts because it's not "real strategy". even fricking card games have aggro strategies, imagine being so moronic that even pokemon tcg players think you're a fricking baby for whining about your opponent not letting you do whatever you want
[...]
this isn't going to work, rts games that don't require high apm already exist, nobody is forcing you to play brood war when tons of other games exist. the problem is that Ganker is full of babies that can't handle losing, so whenever they lose they simply demand that whatever they lost to be removed from the game because clearly it's unfair and it has nothing to do with their personal skill
>macro really fast and type out "meta" sequences of hotkeys faster than your opponent to win
You will never be a real strategy game. All "competetive" RTS games are just adhd bullshit for kids who want to see theopponent's base go boom in 5 minutes and don't care about strategy.
>i lost to a rush because my reflexes aren't fast enough!
no, you lost because you're a moron. again, Ganker is full of little babies who just want to keep making excuses when you lose. you aren't losing because you're 30 years old, you're losing because you're too dumb to figure out how to defend against basic strategies.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The only way to "defend" against your "basic strategies" is still to asiaticclick and type out hotkeys so you can be ready before the opponent zerg rushes you 2 minutes in. Again, all "competetive RTS games" have nothing to do with actual strategy.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Not even remotely true, you're just a fricking idiot. Building a few defenses to stop a rush does not require you to be a korean with 500 apm, it just requires you to have an IQ over 80.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>"our strategy this time is to quickly build up a force and end the fight before it begins" >opponent uses a strategy that counters it and you lose because you wasted all your early resources on a rush that didn't work
4 months ago
Anonymous
He thinks countering it is literally impossible.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Again, all "competetive RTS games" have nothing to do with actual strategy
This.
Mist viable trait for asiaticcliker is reaction time. so called RTS are wrong named action games. That is just objective FACT:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094215
4 months ago
Anonymous
cope from bad players. BW is the only game this is true in
4 months ago
Anonymous
you "but the asiaticclick" homosexuals are all the same, all you can do is click matchmake, get destroyed because you're shit and rever to SP and forums to complain
guess what happens when you play with a static group? After a couple of weeks skill levels average out and the group will begin to develop strategies to beat each other
True real time strategy happens in a group of 4 friends playing free for alls and 2v2s but you would never know this because you're as insufferable here as in real life
4 months ago
Anonymous
if your mechanics are poor you will lose early, mid, and late game, 1v1 RTS is a mechanics heavy genre that rewards memorized responses (this is the "real time" aspect of it). Forbidding rushes doesnt change anything because the player with better mechanics will have an even bigger resource advantage late game. yes, it is a mechanics genre, and i'm sorry you're assblasted that the genre has the word strategy in the name.
4 months ago
Anonymous
When can we get realtime strategy games that aren't heavily mechanics leaning?
Why does no one make them?
4 months ago
Anonymous
SP Total War. Pause solves the problem of APM overload.
asiaticclickers hate this simple trick.
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy
4 months ago
Anonymous
That's kind of against my point, though.
I want something where the game is in realtime but doesn't devolve into whoever can manage the most at once.
SP Total War. Pause solves the problem of APM overload.
asiaticclickers hate this simple trick.
What about multiplayer games?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I want a game that's in real-time, but I don't want doing things quickly to be a factor in the gameplay
Then why is it real-time?
4 months ago
Anonymous
To mimick warfare, so that people's strategies can overlap, to encourage people to react to each other on the fly rather than with solved moves, so that multiple offenses and defenses can all happen at once, because real time has a different flow to it than turn based and because each scratches a different itch.
4 months ago
Anonymous
There are two possible outcomes to this: >reacting to the enemy's plan faster gives you an advantage
reaction time becomes important, juggling multiple things at once becomes an important skill >reacting to the enemy's plan faster gives you no advantage
it's essentially a turn-based game
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm fine with reactions giving an advantage as long as the actual focus of the game is on strategy, tactics and decision making, that's just the nature of something that happens over time.
These games don't even focus on strategy or tactics, they're 90% just focused on management and logistics.
All I want is for these games to actually focus on the interesting aspects of rts and drop the 80-90% fluff that especially beginner players have to focus on to the detriment of everything else these games have to offer.
I don't know why I bother talking to you people, none of you are ever going to listen to reason.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Have you played the "Frozen" games? Frozen Synapse etc? They're kinda sorta turn-based, but they are all tactics and things do happen in real-time, but with pauses at certain times.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I have played frozen synapse, actually, though it's not what would come to mind if I'm thinking rts.
It was alright, but I don't remember ever getting super attached to it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Then why is it real-time?
Why not? Turn based has their own bucket of problems with quantification of time and reality simulation.
Also another thing real combat maybe quite low tempo, and that is badly transferable into gaming, players dont want to sit hours and doing nothing so gaming massviely accelerates speeds of happening (15 minutes battles IRL? lol nope, soldiers training in barracks in time it needs marine run three times around camp? Lol nope.)
4 months ago
Anonymous
you can play company of heroes today, but you're not and are b***hing here instead and blaming other people.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not a WWII autist
4 months ago
Anonymous
It's actually more fun if you're not because the game sacrifices realism in favor of balance and gameplay (which is fine, but I had to set my history autism aside to enjoy it)
4 months ago
Anonymous
They exist, but you're not playing them, because asiaticclick complainers don't want a competitive game about "thinking", you just want to citybuild and then A-move an army into the enemy base when you're bored. Be honest about it.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The citybuilding is half of what I hate about these games, way to show how well you know what you're talking about.
You have almost the furthest idea of what I want out of these games that you could have decided on.
I want the games to be more micro and tactics oriented and less managerial and busywork oriented.
4 months ago
Anonymous
That's a MOBA.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Frick off, moron.
4 months ago
Anonymous
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Microsoft >Cool, fun and original concept >Didn't make any money >scrapped
the AI doesn't see you as a threat. It's busy in other galaxies doing shit that requires it's processing power.
You are a dust mite in the server, not ideal, but not a threat.
Until you are.
>this game is good because the AI is programmed to not scare morons
Ganker moment
you don't know what the words strategy or tactics mean, you don't know how armies are commanded in real life, and you've clearly never heard the term "blitzkrieg" before
found the Red Dragon / Wargame troony. Shut the frick up, your game is soulless and uses fake marketing screenshots to advertise a no fun allowed homosexualfest of "muh realism".
Ahh yes, I remember how when the Germans invaded france they sent some villagers to build a town center in the Ardennes forest, then they had to kill a boar to get enough resources to age up quickly and eventually build their tank factory.
Yeah, I'd much rather have real time tactics games. You could argue rts games do usually have to do with the strategic level, but they usually do have far more to do with raw inputs and speed as you said.
what every moron like you fails to undertstand in these threads is that the apm comes with the knowledge of what you are doing,this means that investing time and putting effort will give you more apm because you know what is going on,clicking faster just for the sake of it doesn't give you wins,knowing what is the correct response to what the rival is doing will. >ib4 goocklicler goocklclier ghoock.clier
yeah you are a moronic narcissist and always will be,enjoy getting owned.
You'll never get through to them, some people are just sore losers that refuse to accept the possibility that it's their fault when they lose at a video game instead of the game being broken. They'll never be happy unless they win 100% of the time.
>real time strategy? no thanks, i want to play sim city >time to boot up my favorite real time strategy game
i dont understand. you dont like real time and you dont like strategy. so what the frick are you playing these games for?
I find it hard to endure entire single player RTS campaigns. There can only be so many "build base, build army, attack" missions before it gets stale, and the odd mission where you have no base and just a set of units to move through the level doesn't exactly do much to break the flow.
there's nothing wrong with exclusively playing singleplayer in an rts just like there's nothing wrong with being bad at rts
the only thing that's wrong is complaining about a skill ceiling you'll never even glimpse with cope about dumb shit like asiaticclick or "not real strategy" like you're not playing a fricking REAL TIME videogame
Starcraft 2 figured it out, but sadly they figured it out way too late. Co-op vs AI was huge, and could've kept the game alive if they came up with it during Heart of the Swarm.
Shave down the mechanical requirements on the menial and banal parts of the genre (while still keeping depth) and focus on the more interesting tactical elements.
Casuals will still be worse at the games, but they'll actually be able to focus on the more interesting parts instead of failing to meet a skill floor to even play the game in a way where strategy matters.
customizability, ie treaty timers and such. As much rng as possible and the ability to automate repetitive simple task, for example in sc2 zerg having an auto inject that is 1 second slower than manual if toggled for your queens, but that way you don't need to keep cycling back to them periodically and can focus on more pressing matters and learn those first.
>play ling defense >some homie keeps modifying the map making it harder as we beat it >do this for like 6 months >Map becomes actually fricking impossible to beat and group slowly disbands
some of the funnest time i've ever had tbh
The mistake Blizzard made is making SC2 an action game with some strategy rather than am actual strategy game that requires long term planning. They optimized SC2 MP for esports feel with a target game length of ~20-30 minutes. This design philosophy leads to thinks like soulless esports maps with predefined bases and fewer resource types compared to other titles.
The key, in my opinion, to making an enjoyable MP RTS is to slow down the pace of the game such that reaction time is not rewarded over thinking ahead. To hit SC2's target game pace and action they had to simplify the tools given to the player. This is was created the asiaticclick optimizing phenomenon.
>"long term planning"
Ganker has already stated that they don't want to plan, they just want to wait until they have literally everything and then a-move in their opponent's base
Games without single-player campaigns aren't worth playing. >b-but don't you want a highly curated experience that amounts to social media crap and gameplay "metas"
No, not really.
The only time multiplayer games were fun was back when gamers were exclusively made-up of nerds.
They are, to this day, still fricking up the balance in warcraft 3. The recent patch made nelf shit and humans too strong. The ladder system is still broken but not broken enough to leave the balance alone.
>strategy should be rewarded >no not that strategy it doesn't count
if you can't deal with simple strategies then what makes you think that you can deal with complex strategies?
Execution =/= strategy. But your limited mind can comprehend this.
Do you think Hitler microed tanks making brakethrough through Ardens into France? Oh wait you cant think.
People who play RTS games exclusively in multiplayer are the secondaries of RTS gaming. Multiplayer was a tacked-on function (even according to the devs) of all major early RTS games (including Age of Empires). You're no different from people who exclusively played Heroes of Might and Magic 7 and declared themselves series fans. People who treat Command & Conquer like a city builder are easier to respect than people who focus on "RTS esports multiplayer". To call those people secondaries is an insult to secondaries of other forms of media. They're more like tertiaries.
literally why do you care? everyone knows WC3 use map settings was the most popular part of the game but thats not some kind of own on competitive RTS players everyone knows it's niche.
RTS needs to move away from single entity units, squad based is so much easier to micro and looks far more cinematic and cool. Games like BFME2, DoW, Warhammer: Mark of Chaos always felt better to me than Starcraft or Age of Empires
People dont wanna spend their time clicking on one little dipshit soldier at a time
They nerfed it, but the concept of it is still utter cancer. >game about building an economy and making cost effective trades against your opponent
Frick that. Let's make a unit that gives you infinite free units. It's antithetical to the entire concept of the game. Even Infestors are limited in what they could do because their "free" units cost mana, a resource that takes a lot of time to recoup. And they also have to choose between summoning said units and casting other spells. Swarm Hosts don't have that problem. With them there's no middle ground between "borderline useless" and "overpowered".
>it's not about strategy, it's only about APM! >several SC2 pros have gotten to grandmaster while gimping their APM on purpose (low APM challenge)
explain this
I like how the arguments have gone from >Nobody cares about multiplayer >Not a lot of people care about multiplayer >People only care about multiplayer custom lobbies and campaigns >Well multiplayer isn't fun >Well I meant not a lot of people find multiplayer fun >Well RTS isn't popular anyway
>take PC to friend's place for all kinds of vidya shenanigans >he moves
i wish i didn't have such an aversion to playing online with voice chat. I wish it wasn't fricking ruined for me by other friends.
multiplayer is a mistake. playing RTS single player is the best way to enjoy life.
no need to worry about some sweaty metagaming nerd using "optimal strategies" against you and rushing you before the game starts or creating a massive army of just 1 unit and no tech to completely overun your base.
honestly, either co-op vs bots for a chill friendly time or play single player. because fighting other humans is just plain infuriating...like you can either have fun, or you can try to win.
It's nice to play with people you know, you can always give each other handicaps or other stuff if one is clearly better than the other.
Otherwise yeah, I would rather play alone
I like how all these build orders have ways to counter them but the average poster here is too stupid to know how to do it anyway so it doesn't matter.
>asiaticclicker
You aren't and would never be good enough to play against anyone remotely close to "asiaticclicking" numbers.
Reminder that all the dick ripped axe wounded trannies in here seething WANT inexperienced people to jump on ladder so they can smurf roll over them. Fighting game threads are exactly the same, and it’s because the multiplayer scenes for all but the top games in these genres are utterly dead and the last 20 crossdressers left are trying to browbeat the board into playing *their* game that they have such an insane sunk cost attachment too. Every multiplayer RTS game match (that isn’t coop with your friends) that you don’t queue up for makes one of these creatures off themselves, keep up the good work.
why are compgays so goddamned insufferable? they are singlehandedly keeping this genre divided and bitter due to their shitheaded attitudes which they project onto everyone else
we should just round them up and cordon them off so they just screech at each other and let the people who aren't emotionally stunted have a conversation
most "noncomp" rts gamers are just failures who get mad if you beat them in any mode
t experience >wah, wah why are you try harding in direct strike >wah wah why are you trying to clear this week's mutation so fast with ravens only
>hey bro, you like this game? good I like it too! >try anything, he seethes about it and even though he was the one who initially asked me he stops
someone is seething about sour grapes, and it aint "compgays'
imagine thinking pubstomping is something "compgays" cant or never do. nothing wrong with being bad at a game but when you seethe and try to be passive aggressive at others for it is moronic
you remind me of a tall guy who thought he could play basketball just because he is a bit tall and doesnt get short on breath too quickly >bro, why are you not slipping on a grandma tier slow fake >bro why are you scoring 3s and dunking on mine >bro why are you taking rebounds
>YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY *I* WANT TO PLAY IT
No.
4 months ago
Anonymous
lmao sure, lose your queen turn 3 then complain when you lose the game.
lmao sure, score an own goal then complain when you lose.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I posted the chad that means I'm based and you're cringe
Look casual. It's fine.
You wanna do the whole 30min no-rush build a nice looking base and plan big epic battles in the middle of the map.
Cool. I'm all for it. You do you.
But then don't for a second come and claim that le big bad competitive is all about "asiaticclick" and there's "no strategy".
We could co-exist, but you insist on being a whiny little b***h.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
It's the insufferable compgays who have to start shit like the OP. They have this complex where they MUST feel superior to someone AT ALL TIMES or their entire worldview falls apart.
The fact, the mere *notion*, that someone can have genuine, actual fun in a different way than then sends them into a conniption.
It's the compgays who have an ego and projection problem, SPbros are in self-defense mode
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
This is definitely not true, it's very easy to find examples of that in this very thread.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The OP is literally a compgay rage-baiting instead of leaving well enough alone
if SP enjoyers are hardening in their stances it's as a reaction to the mentally-unstable compgays who can't STFU and stay in their lane
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah there's whiny b***hes on both sides, OP is also a homosexual. I also prefer singleplayer, but it's moronic to act like this thread isn't full of singleplayer-only players who think they're superior for it and call anything they lose to "asiaticclick"
4 months ago
Anonymous
>SP casualbabs can only turtle in response to being called out
lol of course, b***hes in-game and b***hes outside
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business
This entire thread is single player babies crying about imaginary compgays "ruining" RTS for them.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
There are people in this thread claiming that single-player is the only real way to play rts.
There are people in this thread claiming that attacking your opponent before waiting 30 minutes is "asiaticclick"
4 months ago
Anonymous
>>YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY *I* WANT TO PLAY IT
That's half the posts ITT and they all come from casuls.
4 months ago
Anonymous
literally nobody is saying that except the scrubs
4 months ago
Anonymous
The OP is literally insinuating that if you don't play multiplayer you don't support the entire genre.
Cmon.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>one extremely low quality and obvious bait post that was shit on the entire thread >200+ posts of casuls seething because people are mean to them on Ganker
>anyone who doesn't play the game exactly like me is a "failure" >anyone who doesn't share my exact mindset is "seething"
yeah i wonder why they don't want to play with you, anon, you seem like a real enjoyable person to be around
nice projection, all I did when playing c&c generals and zero hour is make some attacking units with china or usa (not even gla) before the 10 min mark and here come the complaints. I Didnt lecture the guy, he just seethed about losing even though he was the one who started inviting me for various strategy games, either 1v1 or together on lan or online
The really bad thing is that he did exactly what you homosexuals did and here is my "dirty" secret: I used to have this exact opinion of "compgays" you guys do about 5-6 years ago. Then I made an effort to become better
I still play treat mode vs comp in aoe3 for example as a way to kill time and not study but I dont do just that
>when exactly casuals started feeling welcome on Ganker
Around the same time we got Xbox 360 nostalgia threads, it's been slowly creeping in since 2016.
>NOOOOOOOO UR JUST BAD IF YOU DONT WANT TO PLAY WITH ME!!!!!!! >buys the game 7 times to keep makin smurf accounts and keep people from sticking with the game
LMAO this thread is the living proof why the entire market is fricked like this.
Shit players with short attention spans who project their insecurities on people who actually put the time and effort to git gud. This is why arena shooters are dead and fighting games are on the verge of dying. Just keep consuming your yearly goyslop because you are so based and rich and you just have to flex with your 1 gorrilion trophies and showcases and participation awards that you earned through guides. I hope you all die fricking worthless Gankerermins.
I play single player because sometimes my favorite units to use are ones that "are not good in the online meta", and I'm playing to unwind, not win thousands of dollars that don't exist in online competitive modes where everyone uses the exact same strategy and everything comes down to a coinflip.
>mfw been loving rts since Dune 2 on sega and never played an online match besides some War3 custom games
Currently replaying Brood War and having a blast, also tackling Achron bit by bit. Later planning to go through Red Alert trilogy and give Earth 2150 and Perimeter a try.
Anyone know some unique less known RTS with a good campaign?
Not a good campaign per se but still pretty fun. Forged Battalion, an RTS that has an out of game tech tree you can utilize to fully customize the units you can then build in game for both single and multiplayer.
Build your units gimmick seems nice but also reminds me of the horror called robo rumble.
Can I suggest you Battle Realm? Similar to WC3.
I remember trying that one years ago, but never got far for some reason. Thanks for reminding of it.
I'll just ignore the "less known RTS" and suggest Supreme Commander.
Tried and liked it, until the point where in one defensive mission I hit a unit cap I didn't know about and couldn't progress further so I shelved it. Gotta give it another shot sometime.
Kingdom Under Fire is a fun RTS/RPG hybrid, but it's apparently been hijacked for a crypto scam. See if you can't pirate the old version somewhere, it's got a fun campaign.
That one looks pretty cool. From what I understand it's like RTS with dynasty warriors mode? I imagine there's a lot of jank, but now I really want to give it a try.
>hit a unit cap I didn't know about and couldn't progress further
Not sure if it's a FAF-only thing, but ctrl+K will initiate self-destruct on units including the ACU so have carefuls
Kingdom Under Fire is a fun RTS/RPG hybrid, but it's apparently been hijacked for a crypto scam. See if you can't pirate the old version somewhere, it's got a fun campaign.
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play only singleplayer, or play skirmishes vs AI, or just play dumb builds on LAN with your friends. Those are all fun ways to play. But the people who go >well, I WOULD play ranked, but it's not about strategy, it's only about APM, if it were actually about strategy, an intellectual like myself would win every match
are delusional shitters
Why do rts games have defensive buildings you can build to defend yourself if you're not supposed to attack your enemy before they have a big army? What's the point of these things when you're never supposed to defend yourself anyway? Somebody really needs to tell rts devs to stop putting these things in their games, completely worthless.
People still talk about Starcraft because of the PvP. Ergo, PvP is why it's successful. Don't bother replying, I'm right, you're wrong. Good-bye, until the next thread.
>ctrl+f asiatic >31 results >ctrl+f troony >7 results
Holy frick Ganker is full of mindbroken casuals. It's no surprise that the people that don't actually play games are here pissing and shitting themselves.
Why do you care that someone might want to play the game for more than just the 10 hour campaign?
Why shouldn't devs cater towards people that buy the game and play it for 1000 hours, rather than the poorgay that pirates the game and drops it after 10 hours, then moving onto forums to complain about how the genre is dead and muh asiaticclick?
Face it, if the multiplayer is shit, then everyone will look at the player count or the ladder wait times and think it's a dead game, everyone will doompost, TORtanic etc.
Double fricking standards.
Even Warcraft 2 is kept alive due to its multiplayer.
Dumbfrick casual shitters, god nu-Ganker is so awful. I remember a time when I could host a 1v1 lobby and someone would always join.
It's not just Ganker, you'll find casuls all over Ganker nowadays. It's different for other media but their casuls love shoveling shit down their throats just as much.
Yeah, I know here I'm in the minority. This schizo for example is just here to seethe endlessly, there's no point engaging with people that don't play video games on the video game board. Crying about asiaticclick all day doesn't sound fun to me.
I'm a new IP and have never posted in these threads before, schizo. Tell me why are you here not playing RTS games sweetie? Is it perhaps because single player isn't as fun or replayable as multiplayer?
wouldnt be me. playing aoe4 lately. dont even mind losing much. just 1v1s against shitters like myself tho, team matches have too much variance.
>aoe4
Is this even good? I play AoE2 definitive with my brothers and never really saw the point in 4, like what's even the draw?
It's fun
This game is so fricking ugly.
Cope
Was that supposed to prove him wrong?
atmospheric scattering is a meme
Why are they so huge? Compared to the fence posts and house. It's like they're riding through a gnome village.
it's better in every conceivable way from unit and civ variety to quality of life and mechanics
AoE4 has more asymmetrical civs with a lower skill floor. It's a little more streamlined as aging up doesn't have you build two buildings from the current age and you don't have to do the boar micro or rebuild farms. There's less micro. It also has more hard counters than AoE2, with enough crossbows and knights in AoE2 you can kill pretty much anything.
The sound design in AoE4 is also god tier. The music is dynamic depending on what age you're in and combat. The voice acting is also age dependent with factions like the English and French saying different things depending on age, the french start out saying Equites for horsemen before switching to chevalier. It's also way better on the basis that the Byzantines are speaking Greek instead of Latin.
It's charmless.
>Music sucks
>units talk like medieval CoH
>factions are too gimmicky
>every match plays exactly the same
>game is just ugly
>campaign is awful
No redeeming qualities other than very stable MP
Wasn't AoE4 an offshore game made after M$ murdered Ensemble?
>Music sucks
Objectively wrong, the soundtrack is great and has faction specific music
>units talk like medieval CoH
Uh... Ok? Not an argument moron
>factions are too gimmicky
Your whole argument here is that the factor are too different from each other lmao AOE2 yards DEMAND every single faction be copy and pasted like they're ancient troony boomer game
>every match plays exactly the same
sounds like a skill issue
>game is just ugly
it looks pretty good, I'm sorry you're playing on a toaster thirdie
>campaign is awful
Again, objectively wrong. The campaign varies from solid to excellent. Especially in the new dlc. Long story short, you should eat a bullet.
spotted the Nu-Lelic troony. How did you not get fired for the blunder that is Dawn of War 3, moron.
NTA, but Dawn of war 3 is just Company if Heroes wearing a 40k skin. And I liked CoH enough to enjoy DoW3 as well. After having played DoW2, they really shouldn't share the same name.
Not a rebuttal. Try harder.
AoE4 civs are so much more varied, almost entirely different play style for each civ.
Lmao true, the only way to get better is your motivation. Most people here just make up reason and don't bother trying to see what they did wrong. Plenty of pros are 80-90 apm, they might not be first in tournaments but they're regularly top 10/5
Ignore it. It's a mockery of aoe2
The thing about AoE4 is it just has much less content overall. Even multiplayer map types and varieties AoE4 has less, not to mention that single player there are like 5 or 6 campaigns while AoE2 has about 45 campaigns. People will say that civs feel more unique, but they are all still pretty similar with things like English can build all military from a castle or Russians get a stronger guard tower. It's like a small degree of more uniqueness, but not enough to warrant the complete lack of content. There are probably more unique units in AoE2 than AoE4 just because of how much damn content AoE2 has. And the sad part is, they haven't really been doing a good job of keeping up with AoE4. They have released one expansion so far while AoE2 released like 2 since AoE4 has came out, and of course it's an anti-european expansion with a focus on muslims that diddnt do nothing. If maybe in 5 years AoE4 has even half the content of AoE2, it will be great. But we will see if Microsoft keeps up with it.
nothing made me hate video games more than playing stacraft 2 on ladder
100% correct
Not everyone wants to play with autists that take the game way too seriously.
How does the attitude of your opponent impact you in any way when you dont interact with him whatsoever? Also there are plenty of game modes that are strictly fun oriented
>How does the attitude of your opponent impact you in any way when you dont interact with him whatsoever?
Playing with another person is interacting with them, autist.
>Also there are plenty of game modes that are strictly fun oriented
Yeah, like singleplayer.
average Gankerirgin is too prideful to admit hes a shitter so casts the blame on people being too sweaty as his excuse. see
>esportroony still bumping xis shitty thread by seething
Are you fricking moronic?
Koreans meme
Westerners are stressed and some get mad
Honestly, I played Star Craft on Battle.net, and had fun playing with other dumb kids, and then I met some Korean chick, and the way she played the game felt like she was cheating or something. It was unreal looking at her base and how systemically she went about building a shit-ton of unit dispensers so she could quickly form an early game bum-rush. But this was 20 years ago, I dunno if Battle.net is now infested with people who have adopted the Korean meta sensibilities.
I played multiplayer constantly and had fun even if I lost. There are also gamemodes in BW that were kino.
I also play BGH$$$ comp stomps usually 3v5 or 2v6 comps
this. i played strictly UMS maps and comp stomps for 10 years
WRONG
i play against bots with my friend too :).
whats the game? looks like i wanna play it
dawn of war: dark crusade with the dawn of skirmish AI mod. there's a lot of community made maps to play which makes it even better.
not that anon but thank you based god, I was just playing the campaign for dark crusade recently got bored at how easy it was and ended my run early. an ai mod should give me the fix i need
Rts were only good before online era. That's why they're dead now.
Exactly. Turning shit into esports kills it
>APM : 70
I do it to preserve my sanity.
>70
Those better be some really meaningful actions then.
I had around 90-110 apm in asiaticclick 2 and made it to masters despite being slow compared to other players. Speed isn't everything.
When I play RTS games I want to LARP as an army general leading the world's largest arsenal and the strongest tech.
I can only do that against skirmish AI because the majority of players in your average lobby are sweaty asiatics with 400apm and no chill. At least the russians playing the lesser known RTS games are pretty easygoing most of the time.
>majority of rts are single player focused
>literally one is balance for competitive play
based and rts pilled
I am very stupid and I can't handle anything more complex than Kingdom New Lands
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
I freely admit I'm bad at them which is why I don't play multiplayer, but I do enjoy playing the campaigns and doing this so that's what I do.
Basically this. Also when playing with the bros at LANparties it was always fun to see what the other guys had come up with and the shitshow the late game would turn into.
>mfw enemy army is just 100 monks
so fun so based
Thankfully dota killed lan parties so this kind of thing could never happen again
>playing Halo Wars in middle school with two bros
>one of them rolls up to the huge final battle with a cloud of engineers all healing one Scarab
You could barely see the actual tank through the miasma of green beams. One of the few times I've audibly lost my shit.
have a nice day
I really really really like this picture, mind if I save it?
>while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
Wait you re joking right?
Replace classical music with something more modern and I can say I know such a guy. One of his favorite pastimes used to be smurfing in sc2 while drunk.
how large is your hotsauce collection?
>RTS is about building the perfect base, researching EVERY tech, assembling the perfect army and gradually taking over the entire map while you sip whisky and listen to classical music
take your bing bing wahoo APM asiaticshit elsewhere
There you go, the answer OP. Get that meta min-max multiplayer crap out, if you enjoy that that's fine but it severely limits more fun strategy.
Americans are painfully mediocre. This empire isn't long for this world.
>fun strategy
Ganker has already admitted they don't want strategy, they want to sit in their base until they have everything and an unstoppable army. nobody here actually wants real-time strategy, every complaint about the genre comes down to "i dont want the real-time part and i dont want the strategy"
But you're claiming they should just want boring ass ADHD StarCraft.
ok here's the problem, you're like
you think that literally anything other than playing simcity requires you to have inhuman levels of reflexes, this is probably because you're bad at the game and are unable to think of a way to do anything other than sit in your base and turtle for 30 minutes
I have good reflexes. Starcraft is just shite as an mp game and over 50% of the game is busy work. Age is better. C&C of all kinds is better. WiC is far better. CoH is better. KKND is better. Earth 2140 is better.
I've been ranked Diamond in SC2 and I hated every second of it.
Starcraft is a funny anomaly because of its east asian popularity.
Goocklickers designed around infinite APM requirement. You cant have enough APM for asiaticlicker game. You just cant. Even top player fail controls all the time. Gocklcikers are circus juggling competition not competition of thinking.
>Gocklcikers are circus juggling competition
While I don't necessarily agree with you about pros not having enough APM, I do agree with this.
This cuts to the heart of the matter on why I don't really like these games, it's more like a question of how many spinning plates you can manage, how many balls you can juggle than a competition of thinking, the thinking only comes in afterwards if you have the headroom for it.
>While I don't necessarily agree with you about pros not having enough APM
Watch VODs. peasants standing, resources unspent, barracks idling. Especially when fights start. And fights? There are never enough micro when fights start going into more tha 5 vs 5 units size. Really, literally take the VOD and try fins match without control drops, you cant.
And it affects choice of the strategy. First of all use of ability cast units. Players simply don't build these units or use abilities because it takes too much micro, even this abilities is game-breaking. Entire strategies become impossible with nearly perfect micro. Like try to make arbiter recall into enemy base... and get EMPed. But reliable EMP base defense is beyond human abilities. But if players would have small monkey helpers each controlling one science vehicle, each spinning their own single plate, taking load off commander it would be changing strategy and how game plays immensely.
I agree with this. I thought for sure once AlphaStar or whatever AI crowned on pros with blink stalker micro that would put the asiaticlick genre to bed permanently.
Yet it still limps along.
If apm was met then ghosts would be insanely strong because of their lockdown ability instead of a joke unit.
>it is literally impossible to counter that strategy without high apm
again, not true
Post VODs of your lost matches and i will prove your lost because of not enough APM.
>refuse to build towers
>die
>"obviously i just didnt click things fast enough!"
Post VODs.
i dont have any replays saved
what would even be the point of posting anything, all you're gonna do is say "uuuh yeah you could've won if you clicked things faster" no matter what
i accept your confession of your weak APM game.
even in sc2 there are people who reach masters comfortably with relatively low apm. let's not even talk about aoe2 and aoe4
c&c and aoe3 are a bit more demanding
Can I build an army for the purpose of sacking and looting Jerusalem?
sovl. factorio's been scratching that itch for me lately
Maybe I can enjoy RTS if I keep this wisdom in my heart. I do enjoy watching starcraft 2, but that poisoned any enjoyment of playing it.
I kneel.
Based. For me? It's C&C skirmishes
Based, it's Dune 2k for me.
SOVL
historic post
No, RTS is about letting your friend do that while you steal every crystal deposit like a crack addicted monkey and then scrambling to make some semblance of an army before he pushes your shit in with like, twenty marines.
Are you an angel?
Baste
They hated him
because he spoke the Truth
it's really the only sensible way to play RTS
Thread. Absolutamente basado post
That's just a city builder. Good for you if you like that but it's not RTS.
>apparently it's typical for you to raise an army and conquer the map in a city builder
You really need to go back to school. Learn how to read and comprehend you fricking moron.
It's true, that's what you prefer. Getting angry about it won't change anything.
NTA. no it's not. you don't raise armies and fight and opposing factions in city builders. You are clinically moronic and there is no right way to play RTS. The only wrong way is competitive asiatic shit.
the problem is that you define "competitive asiatic shit" as whatever strategy beats you
It's the same way of playing the game. Like the other guy you're just angry because it struck a nerve.
>Pharaoh, Zeus and Emperor are not city builders
>Anno 1602 is not a city builder
>Knights and Merchants is not a city builder
that's like your opinion man
god, i love building literally everything you can on the map and just see your base and army get bigger and bigger
This
And also that
You described 4X games. RTS is just perfecting build orders and rushing techs to frick everyone the fastest.
Never mind. Misread the post. We're both ripping into the same thing. Based.
no. To be more accurate, there's only a certain number of times you can do that before it loses its meaning
Yep. Just beat WC1, WC2, SC1 and now on the last campaign of Brood War. Then I'm gonna beat WC3 and TFT. Just like build 35 sunken colonies.
asiaticBlack folk in the grave tonight!
>and listen to classical music
>tfw it's the game's soundtrack
All i want is Dawn of War Winter Assault, but the mission much longer and the map much bigger, so i can make extended battle lines maintain'd with infantry and artillery. Then push it with tanks rinse and repeat.
Siege style maps are always my favorite especially the ones Red Alert 2 have like the final Soviet mission.
my liege
m'lord
Yes.
BW is too stressful to play 1v1 🙁
I was #1 on the AOE3 DE sup 1v1 ladder for a couple weeks a year or two ago
START THE GAME ALREADY
START THE GAME ALREADY
START THE GAME ALREADY
AAAAAAAAAAA
START THE GAME ALREADY
>START
>WTF START
>HOST AFK FOR FRICKS SAKE
nostalgia
Damn right 🙂
Can't wait for dust front
i'm old and my ego hurts when i lose to shitters, but i still love the genre
if only these zoomers could have seen me fifteen years ago, man...
LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD LOLLARD
I completed C&C remastered over the weekend, is the Starcraft remastered worth it?
it's starcraft with updated graphics, the best rts of all time
yeah it's worth your time and money
I thought so, I just feel dirty giving money to blizzard
you wouldnt be giving money to blizzard, thats a skin walker.
> campaigns are neat but you can only get so much out of them
> online ranked games, boring idgaf
> custom games? INJECT THAT SHIT INTO MY VEINS FOREVER
This is my position and it is the correct one
Yep. Campaign + customs has always been the reason I buy a RTS
ive played multiplayer a lot
doesn't mean i liked it more than single player.
What are some good mods for Empire at War? Never played it before
C O M P S T O M P
O
M
P
S
T
O
M
P
When is ASL starting again? Is Flash finally back?
Why did he even plays Terran? He obviously doesn't have APM for that, can't micro fights at all. He should play Protos.
Because then he can't feel smug and superior in relation to Tasteless.
He explained that when he started playing 25 years ago, he was a dumb wienery kid and asked every pro what the hardest race was and they all told him "Terran" so he chose to play Terran, and now it's too late for him to swap races.
>born with a pair of t-rex hands
No wonder hes mad.
artosis won't get any better until he learns to control his emotions.
thats why every pro doesnt even smile when they win and asians are dominant.
isnt it called stoicism?
you gotta be a robot to be at the highest level on these autistic games.
1v1 sc is the final boss of competitive vidya.
That’s not what stoicism is at all they’re just autistic bugs, but people misuse the word that way so much it might as well be the definition.
Stoicism is about mastering yourself and not letting things outside of your control upset you. You’re still supposed to feel and express emotion you just don’t let it rule you. Winning or losing a 1v1 skill based game is as 100% in your control as anything that exists, so they should react in some way.
>Try Starcraft 2 multiplayer
>While im setting up my mine someone charges into my base 1 minute in and starts building shit in my house and destroys my base before i can make even 1 solider somehow and i lose at 3 minutes in
Wow that was so fun!
I want to play that multiplayer again!
>be shit
>lose
I fail to see the issue
>Tryhard
>Make the other players quit your game and then you get to play by yourself alone
I fail to see the issue.
Good. Multiplayer will continue doing just fine without whiny shitters whp have no interest in improving.
Then stop crying about not enought people playing multiplayer, moron.
Never did, spastic.
The shitter leagues are full of cannon rushing protoss players. Git gud and you'll see less of them (they'll never go away)
gate status: kept
you got cannon rushed and did nothing,you are a great player!!!!
>claims to be an rts fan but only plays rts games from the 90s
I was just looking into 0 A.D.
looks neat
Brood War and AoE 2, the 2 best RTS games ever and all you need are both from the 90s though
Modern RTS:
>Harsh unit/pop caps - no massive armies
>Minimal base building - can only build in designated areas, no walls or defensive structures(or if they do exist, they're weak to the point of useless.)
>Little/no tech era progression, researches, etc....
>Only one resource(it often auto-generates over time)
>Map design is inorganic, with blatantly obvious vantage areas and chokepoints more predictable than a MOBA map
>Dogshit pathfinding behavior because flashy animations/physics take priority over gameplay responsiveness
>DLC out the ass
>Minimal effort, basic b***h short campaign that serves no purpose other than to be a glorified tutorial: no unique objectives, triggers, units, etc that all make campaigns fun.
>Lack of custom game/campaign editor and map maker
>Lack of fine unit control such as formation control, stance, and behavior.
Also, Galactic Battlegrounds is basically a better AoE2. Any AoE gays looking for something similar but bored of AoE should give it a try, especially with the expanding fronts mod.
Yes.
Yes and?
RTS multiplayer was only good in the 90s when you and your fellow white collar tech buddies/basketball players were the only ones able to afford to play it, so you'd dick around for a few days every month pulling off silly strats and cheeses while drinking copious amounts of beer and laughing as some new moronic strategy takes off. the very concept of meta is antithetical to RTS. i unironically believe you cannot be an RTS fan if you like the modern multiplayer experience which is just a bunch of guide following
What the frick are you on about? Following a guide can only help you so much.
>just a bunch of guide following
Most guides are good for the first 5-10 minutes to quickly achieve a certain result.
>the very concept of meta is antithetical to RTS
explain why without equivocating "strategy" to "doing whatever you want and it working"
These people are basically like "RPG fans" who believe that by picking their class and a few options and grinding to make up for having a sub-optimal strategy, they feel like they're making strategic decisions and this is enough to satisfy them.
Correct. If, instead, you enjoy min-maxing game mechanics that have no correlation to actual military strategy, and you pay yourself on the back because you think this makes you intelligent, you're actually the idiot.
Gigachad doesn't have build orders and macros. Gigachad picks the franks because axe throwing is cool and has more gold than food because he wants more axe throwers and he puts all his stone into walls because walls are cool and he turtles until he's got a big fat army of 100 axe throwers and goes on a crusade wiping out the easy enemy AI until he wins. I'm Gigachad.
This.
The ideal RTS would be one that swipes any memory you have of the game in the beginning of a match so you have to figure everything out in the moment rather than having a ready made checklist to go through.
*creep walks my artillery or mortars in the COH campaign turning the whole map into craters for 5 hours straight for one mission*
>it's that same sperg again
Holy shit I love these threads
>he claims to be an RTS fan
>but only plays 1v1 with 5 max unit cap and dumbed down base building
Just play ASShomosexualS, gay
>plays with m8
>agree to make max army then go at it
>free to do anything want after till someone wins
>both have a grate time
Can't even do that anymore, they put the chink rootkit into LoL. Threw it off my harddrive and I'm never going to reinstall it, for real this time. That fricking PC destroying cancer is the last thing I want on my computer.
I would rather not compete with autists
>me & frens vs hardest AI
>20~40 minutes treaty
>Unique units only
Yep, it's comfy time
>mfw the treaty ends and 6 siege rams immediately appear out the FoW
That's when my bro retreat his villagers while i buy him time with my 6 skirmishers
One of the reasons Inca, Malians, Franks and Saracens are good is because all their unique units can attack through gates making you immune to this bullshit.
u can just use mangonels
Cho Ko Nus too but thats bullshit and should be patched. Frick Chinese.
>Unique units only
Kino
Yes
E-sport killed the genre.
Good riddance.
Funny thing e-sports didn't make shooters or MOBAs less popular.
Problem is not the e-sports, but inherit deficiencies of the RTS design itself.
Agreed, a pure skill based 1v1 genre is so heckin toxic, ick and problematic it shouldn't be allowed
The last genuinely good multiplayer RTS I've played was Company of Heroes 1, before they added the British, that's when the entire game fell in on itself. I did have fun in CoH 2, but only years after I played the beta and then bought the game, where they patched it. But then 2 years down the line the fricking community patches completely ruined the large game (4vs4) balance, even messing with commander doctrines I used for years. Frick this gay Earth.
I tried to get into Supreme Commander, but the amount of ressource management required to build a frickhuge dick that shoots across the entire map, only to be blocked by a billion shields and then countered by a giant spam of planes and a frickhuge UFO that crashes into your commander when it dies gave me ass cancer.
AoE 2 is a great game in single player and an absolute fricking disaster of metahomosexualry and forced builds. Oh you didn't get the boar? Game over. Oh you didn't upgrade fast enough to the next age? Game over. Oh you didn't manage to get rid of the castle that some homosexual built next to your base? Game over. Oh there's one tiny hole in your wall of houses? Say goodbye to your entire economy lololol! You built infantry? Let me just kite the shit out of them with my spam of archers and my asiaticclicker APM.
Frick RTS, it died in 2007, just like the internet.
I love posts like these.
>before they added the British
what happened there?
trenches & emplacements. Units in trenches couldn't be cleared out by normal gunfire, couldn't be supressed either, they had to be cleared out by expensive ammo abilities and flamethrowers. The infantry was ultra tanky and powerful enough to snipe units without cover instantly, the machine gun emplacement was cheap and way too tough, the BOFORS killed everything, and I mean everything, except maybe the heaviest most expensive tanks. They also had a stationary at gun that was too durable. And the cherry on top was the SUPERFAST AUTO REPAIR ABILITY ON ALL BUILDINGS that negated all damage by artillery strikes and made the building immune to damage. Oh and then when Tales of Valor came out, the Brits loaded up their kangaroo troop transforts with Piat launcher engies, and drove those around enemy tanks and infantry, killing everything while tanking damage like they were Tiger 2s. It took Lelic YEARS to fix the roos, they never fixed the emplacements. I still have PTSD from this. It was never fun. Frick the morons who played The Scheldt 24/7, too. Worst map ever.
im sorry to hear that, thank you for sharing
sc2 had the best rts campaigns of all time, wouldnt blame you for liking them.
>he claims to be an FPS fan
>never actually shoots at real people
well not at real people, but targets yes
>POV : new orders arrived you are finally going over the top
>claims to be a 4X/Grand Strategy enjoyer
>hasn't personally engaged in a campaign of methodical ethnic cleansing within his own nation
It's not even possible in any 4x game I can think of except stellaris. You moronic poser. Nice tranime image go back
>implying grand strategy isn't all about map-painting
Instead of promoting genocide, you should be calling anons out on not being cartographers
I actually started playing Brood War early last year and I am B rank now. I don't even play that much. Truth is most players are terrible, so it's ok if you are terrible too. I've come to realise people who pretend to like RTS but complain about the multiplayer in these games being too difficult because of "tryhards" or whatever are just coping because they are either too lazy to attempt anything that might challenge them in some way, or just afraid of hurting their own egos by losing in a video game. Which I suppose is the same reason people get "ladder anxiety" or whatever in online games.
>b-b-but everyone just follows what the pros do!!!
If you follow what the pros do you lose, because you don't have progamer mechanics. It's actually about finding out what works for you at your level. Once you get better you realise there are many different ways to play, and good execution is the most important part (as long as your strategy isn't complete nonsense). The "meta" is different at every level of play.
>b-b-but you need high APM! Le asiaticclick!
I have like 120 apm and I beat people with (supposedly) 2-3 times that constantly because they are just spamming and aren't actually playing fast.
>b-b-but it's still too hard!
Then go play protoss and a-move, you fricking ape.
>or just afraid of hurting their own egos by losing in a video gam
Funny things it doesn't affect other multiplayer games like shooters and MOBAs, and most videogames gameplay hours are played in these PvP games.
It's just clunky controls of the RTS.
Even supposed high skill players (2400rank duh)
can't handle these controls.
RTS is about fighting controls not your opponent. Games where you control only one character you fplay the game and fight opponents, it's just better and more satisfying.
>artosis
>2400
lmao
Anyway, mastering the controls is one of the best parts. When you can execute everything right and you feel like a god. The satisfaction of noticing that you are getting faster and better at multitasking. I think the best comparison I can make is learning how to play an instrument.
>When you can execute everything right
But you can't/
Post your vods and would laugh at you how you spill spaghettis during combat and just attack click Terran mech on reavers like Artosis does (and he is supposed to be what, like 0.1% top of the players? RFLMAO).
>but you can't
Not even Flash can play perfectly, that's what makes the game good. Doesn't mean you can't accomplish whatever goals you set out for yourself. It can be small things, like "I will learn how to shut down reaver harass", or "I will get my third base up in time next game". Pulling off a strategy is fun, and so is improving your execution.
>asians are le stoic
Wait until this guy finds out about Mini.
For me it’s Age of Empires 3, playing either Ottomans or Chinese with expert AI 4v4
Focusing on multiplayer is what killed the RTS genre and im tired of pretending its not
Good RTS's have a fun singleplayer with multiplayer too!!!!!!!!!
>singleplayer is strongpoint of the game
>Multiplayer is filled with gays aping tourney gays
>Multiplayer has shit netcode
>multiplayer has boring meta
>nobody plays RTS so multiplayer is dead
>AI just cheats
>single player is trash
>RTS is shit genre to begin with.
>doesn't scout
>floats resources
>queues up a million guys
>not constantly building pylons and probes
>>>>i-its asiaticclick shit tryhard sweat garbage!
Ganker is shit at games
toss op play zerg noob
kek I mess around with every race but my heart is with protoss
>FGC
>gatekept
Absolutely not, if it actually was we wouldn't get shit like Strive
Also RTS isn't being gatekept, you losing isn't fricking gatekeeping
God I hate normalgays
RTS is the most gatekeeped community out there, with FGC coming closely second.
Pretentious homosexuals expecting people to like or worship their game when they themselves are doing disservice to their respective communities.
Frick them.
Gatekeeping is based. Nobody expects you to like it, they just don't want you demanding it changes.
>join UFC
>never train
>never practice
>never spar
>never educate myself
>never better myself
>get the shit beaten out of me
>complain that the UFC is heckin elitist problematic sweaty tryhard gatekeeping
Gaming shouldn't be a sport
>Video Games are UFC
get a life
There are UFC video games.
but video games are not ufc
>reading comprehension of casuals
>Videogames are gay sex
Get a life
I honestly wish someone would take a look at Dune 2 and create something like it again. And I mean, LIKE IT, as in, no homosexual nu-retro style stickman shit art style, but actual serious soulful pixel art and a game that is simple, yet deep, without a gorillion active abilities. God, it's such a shame the Westwood artist who was responsible for all these amazing drawings in Lands of Lore, Dune 2 etc. died so early in his career. The Bruce Lee of pixel art really.
Holy shit Ganker is moronic
Not all of you mind, but most of you
>Holy shit Ganker is moronic
did the hundred of buzzword formulaic threads tip you off?
Just every day I lurk and keep hoping it'll be better but it never is
I need to stop
MP focus killed the genre...
It's just not a very MP friendly game type, that's why it died while every publisher tried to follow the MP hype
It died when MOBAs were invented (imagine been in the Blizzard HQ and buying into StarCraft II hype at the same time trying to bury DotA., I want to see their faces when they got LoL players numbers stats olololol).
MOBAs have nothing to do with RTS. It's like saying RTS died because FPS is popular. All the big RTS series were purposefully killed as it's a very expensive genre to produce and has little return, hard to sell MTX, etc.
>MOBAs have nothing to do with RTS.
DotA says hi, it's literally the same game only units cap set to 1.
More to with ARPGs I'd say
And RTSs are multi units ARPGs.
Yeah and FPS is just Point&Click Puzzles.
>start doing rock climbing
>can't send the hardest problems
>complain the sport is bullshit and gatekeeping elitists aren't letting me succeed
>start playing DOJ
>die
>complain that the enemies are gatekeeping me
Literally me
There's nothing "inherently" wrong with the genre. The fact that its "dead" compared to 20 years ago is just a fact of how much bigger the gaming world has gotten relative to it. It essentially already maxed out its potential audience decades ago. You're never gonna get an average normie to play an RTS like they play League or CS or whatever no matter how much mass-appeal you try to give it. It was never gonna be as big as fricking Fortnite. So what?
>There's nothing "inherently" wrong with the genre
It is. It died overnight when some moders released you can make same game but you control only one unit.
And it made game over 9000 times better.
Yes anon using less of your brain is good, hell why even bother playing when you can watch some homosexual twitch streamer do it for you
It didn't die though. Other genres just got way bigger because PC gaming was rapidly becoming more mainstream while RTS was at its "peak" when PC gaming was a niche nerd hobby. Now instead of PC gaming being the niche nerd hobby encompasing RTS, RTS is just the niche nerd hobby. It's natural. Like I said, the potential audience was already maxxed out.
RTS were at peak when MOBAs were not invented yet.
>autistic screeching in Blizzard HQ
I'm not disputing that. I'm well aware other genres have more mass-appeal.
MOBAs literally stole RTS auditory.
Internet cafes in 2000s
>normie play WC3
>DotA installed
>nobody plays WC3, everybody plays DotA
>couple WC3 nerds run around autistically screeching at DotA players
MOBA didn't 'steal' the RTS audience because MOBAgays wouldn't play RTS to begin with. It's a niche genre.
>>also complain if they try and aren't good at it
Who, the voices in your head?
I'm going to have a fricking aneurysm with you morons, jesus christ
I seriously doubt if any of you even play given the absurd bullshit I read here
yeah get mad moron
There are so many good RTS games that I will be entertained by single player modes until the day I die. But what would a asiaticclicker know?
please don't be shit
please don't be shit
please don't be shit
please don't be shit
please don't be shit
please don't be shit
>unoptimized
>drm'd
>buggy
>needs 3 months of patching
>season pass
>lore is now changed to fit modern sensibilities
Why is it even called Homeworld anymore, it's clearly about these hyperspace gates now.
Giantgrantgames did a survey with 10s of thousands responses asking what mattered most in an rts to people and over 80% of responses were campaign or custom games
The last rts game that wasn't a dead in the water flop was wings of liberty because it was the last rts game with a worthwhile campaign and still had a decent custom mode for a while. Aoe4 was a complete fricking failure because it had a garbage campaign and dead on arrival online besides 1v1 ranked which is shit and boring
lol just lmao
Why is Ganker so colossally awful at games? No wonder they think World is the best MH and they don't play shmups
>The last rts game that wasn't a dead in the water flop
It was Warhammer Total War 1/2 actually. And it's sp campaign did everything to put out asiaticclicking out of the gameplay.
>YouTuber focusing on campaigns and custom games polls his audience
>shows most people prefer campaigns and custom games
say it ain't so
>complain if someone doesn't want to play competitive multiplayer
>also complain if they try and aren't good at it
What is the end game here?
Don't be ashamed of being weak
Be ashamed of staying weak
they are insecure and rts is the only thing that brings them joy
Actual RTS fans love the genre and play it and get better in 1v1, meanwhile casualgays seethe and moan and come up with all manner of excuses
Christ knows why Ganker is so opposed to simply improving and getting good
you're here crying every day, dickripped schizo
You or me playing hasn't saved RTS in the past 10+ years.
you are the same guy in those thread calling everyone shit, and yhem you wonder why no one plays with you, the problem is not in the game, it is the players
Because high level rts play isn't fun. When I RTS, I like to enjoy all the little details on the units, build comfy bases and towns, and take my time exploring the map and scouting the enemy.
When playing against another person that just wants to get their economy and unit spam going as fast as possible, you have to do that as well and there is no time to stop and smell the roses, so to speak. So even if you get good at it, it's not satisfying. I'd much rather play an FPS if I have to concentrate that much. RTS is better when it's comfy.
esportstroony wants to babyrage at strawmen after the genre died because of him
>Ganker when you have to use a modicum of effort in a game
>imblying you can win LoL 2023 championship without effort
Git gud nub
>teamshit
We're talking about real games here kiddo
>i am bad at games and don't want to put efforts to win
Like a pottery.
>teamshit
>competitive
Run along little one
>asiaticclicktroony cannot into competitive games
i am laffin
the ironing
RTS are a single player genre. Trying to turn it into an esport is what killed it.
I used to be somewhere around low masters back in wings of liberty but now if I ever play RTS I just want a cool single player campaign and the ability to have fun vs ai or with friends
Age of Mythology is still my all time favorite RTS
Homeworld is based too
Trying to push for THE EPIC RANKED 1V1 LADDER in a new RTS is what kills every new RTS. Starcraft did this successfully by making a good game and letting players slowly form a competitive scene over years and years. You can't force it or you end up like AoE4 which died after a few months because the game was fundamentally flawed with bad ai, bad pathing, boring factions and boring units
You talk as if Grey Goo or Starship troopers was a blaring success.
>t.ranny crying how nobody plays shitty esportroony games
dickripped schizo talking like xe isn't making threads dilating about this KEK
AoE4 was already dead because it was made by Nu-Lelic. The "campaign" was the most horrific shit I've ever experienced on a Free Weekend. Never in my life have I seen so much handholding, so much disgusting UI design, so much soulless-ness in an RTS, not even Grey Goo bored me this much to tears like AoE 4 did. And whoever came up with these moronic yellow flags popping up everywhere deserves to die in a car crash. Frick Lelic troons.
and?
I enjoy watching AoE2 tournaments
multiplayer and a focus on competition is what killed the genre you fricking moron
In the days of slow and bad internet, you can only play multiplayer at a net cafe, and even then it might only be LAN.
Singleplayer is what people with regular lives would play since they can save, leave for daily life, then come back.
Say what you want but I'll always have enjoyed singleplayer RTS games more than those DOTA clones.
do you know how hard it is to find a friend willing to throw away 2 hours of their life just to play a dated videogame online?
I can't even beat AoE2 campaigns on standard... how do i get good?
the AI in the DE's was upgraded, they are way more aggressive now. Try to get monks and heal your shit to save ressources.
By learning the fundamentals on Arabia, and returning to the campaign only after hitting 1700.
have a nice day, I mean it.
>If you're playing on DE, play the Art of War scenarios; maybe the booming one is the hardest to get a gold on but that's it
>Learning even just some essential hotkeys makes a world of difference; if you have a five-button mouse, idle villager and TC are on M4-M5 by default in HD and DE
>Six on sheep is enough to sustain villager production for one TC
>Scout the map, in DE there's an auto-scout button for any starting ones
>Units on higher elevation than their target deal more damage, and take less damage
>Town Centers should ideally be working non-stop
>Wood upgrades can do a lot, the first one pays itself off very quickly
>Farm upgrades are also effectively wood upgrades
>Buying resources at the market is always an option but don't get too reliant on it
>Build additional TCs within Castle Age to exponentially increase your economy, try to get three of them
>If in doubt, set the gather point to wood and reassign villagers as needed
>Half of your population limit being villagers is a decent guideline
>Mangonel line counters groups of archers and is a safer bet for destroying non-castle buildings
>Monks - if the user is paying attention, are a good defensive counter to Knights
>Trebuchets are the great equalizer when castles are being a shit
>Civilizations with a lot of basic but powerful and easy to utilize bonuses like Franks and Britons are popular with lesser-skilled players with straightforward gameplans and some wiggle room
>Huns might be cozy with no required housing, but may lead to bad habits (and you can't house-wall)
even your own genre doesn't like you
Is this shopped? I don't remember this part
Its exclusive to the Nintendo 64 version.
They had some extra jokes in there in the 64 port.
It's the only SC I've played, must have forgotten it.
>in the original script he's one of those "which one's the any key" brainlets regarding computers
>in the console port he reveals he's a consoletard marine
pottery
and it's even better that you think it's a victory for consoles
How do console RTS games even exist, I thought playing shooters on a console was bad enough wtf
it was quite literally a different time
i put my faith in them when Halo Wars was new. Got the super special collector's edition.
>Regret. Regret. Regret.
moron
Starcraft ruined RTS
Starcraft is THE RTS, shit like AoE is only liked by normies who never ever play multiplayer unless it's LAN.
Command and Conquer predated both
>AoE is only liked by normies who never ever play multiplayer unless it's LAN.
Well you're right sung moon but at least I have friends and Im not an incel.
>Starcraft is THE RTS, shit like AoE
I play both and I just like AoE visuals more
>playing RTS online
Ah yes, I love playing a "strategy" game where you win not because of your own strategy and tactics, but because you were clicking and micromanaging faster, and it allowed you to rush the opponents base first and overwhelm him before he does it first
Any RTS game that is built for the multiplayer audience is NOT a strategy game and should not be called that.
Sounds like you want a turn-based strategy game.
No, I want an actual strategy game.
Behold, a real time strategy game where you have to actually use tactical thinking and trying to "blitz" just leads to getting your ass clapped
>i want a strategy game
>NO THAT STRATEGY IS TOO COMPLICATED I DONT WANNA THINK ABOUT EARLY DEFENSES
imagine playing any other strategy game and complaining that your opponent is attacking you. aggressive strategies are in every fricking game but for some reason they shouldn't be allowed in rts because it's not "real strategy". even fricking card games have aggro strategies, imagine being so moronic that even pokemon tcg players think you're a fricking baby for whining about your opponent not letting you do whatever you want
this isn't going to work, rts games that don't require high apm already exist, nobody is forcing you to play brood war when tons of other games exist. the problem is that Ganker is full of babies that can't handle losing, so whenever they lose they simply demand that whatever they lost to be removed from the game because clearly it's unfair and it has nothing to do with their personal skill
The problem is that the games aren't fun to play competitively, you can come up with whatever excuses you like for it.
If something is fun, people will do it.
that's your opinion, there are plenty of people who think competitive games are fun
You wanted the answer to the question, it's not my problem if you can't accept it.
That is the very obvious reason most people will not put 300+ hours into rts 1v1 modes, it's not very fun for most people.
You either accept that and let it be niche and not have threads like this asking stupid questions, or you accept that it's a problem of some sort and try and find ways to solve it.
There are obviously outliers who do like that, or else there wouldn't be an OP to care.
rts "in general" isn't fun to most people anon, and no amount of trying to pander to people who don't like it will change that
Singleplayer and custom lobbies have always been more popular, and for a reason.
We can say
>rts in general have never been popular
all we want, but that has nothing to do with OP, and I'm not even sure if that's entirely true.
I disagree with the OP, you can be a fan of rts without engaging with the multiplayer at all, there's no problem with that
if you want to play a chill game against a brainless ai that can't realistically challenge you that's fine, and customs that aren't rts at all are fun too
obviously competitive games are going to be less popular since it takes skill and knowledge of the game to beat another person instead of doing whatever you feel like doing and winning regardless
>obviously competitive games are going to be less popular since it takes skill and knowledge of the game to beat another person
You can say that over and over, but if it were actually fun more people would do it.
then dont play the games competitively. who is forcing you to do that?
>games that don't require high apm already exist, nobody is forcing you to play brood war when tons of other games exist. the problem is that Ganker is full of babies that can't handle losing, so whenever they lose they simply demand that whatever they lost to be removed from the game because clearly it's unfair and it has nothing to do with their personal skill
RTS babs shizo rambling that has nothing to do with reality.
>nobody is forcing you to play brood war
>how dare they only play single player when I tell them to frick off to games without playerbases
>game where the only reason you don't lose immediately is because the ai is scripted to not delete you with its vastly superior force until enough time passes
cool game man, you're certainly correct that trying to blitz a modern army with sticks and stones is a bad idea
the AI doesn't see you as a threat. It's busy in other galaxies doing shit that requires it's processing power.
You are a dust mite in the server, not ideal, but not a threat.
Until you are.
>until enough time passes
It would take you many many hours for the AI "anger level" rise automatically to the point where you get wiped out, rather you can only lose quickly if you play like a moron and keep attacking without thinking what you'll actually gain by conquering a planet and if it's actually even worth it, and if you don't take advantage of hacking or destroying servers to buy yourself more time
And even then there are routes that lead to a full-on massive war but you can still win
>macro really fast and type out "meta" sequences of hotkeys faster than your opponent to win
You will never be a real strategy game. All "competetive" RTS games are just adhd bullshit for kids who want to see theopponent's base go boom in 5 minutes and don't care about strategy.
>i lost to a rush because my reflexes aren't fast enough!
no, you lost because you're a moron. again, Ganker is full of little babies who just want to keep making excuses when you lose. you aren't losing because you're 30 years old, you're losing because you're too dumb to figure out how to defend against basic strategies.
The only way to "defend" against your "basic strategies" is still to asiaticclick and type out hotkeys so you can be ready before the opponent zerg rushes you 2 minutes in. Again, all "competetive RTS games" have nothing to do with actual strategy.
Not even remotely true, you're just a fricking idiot. Building a few defenses to stop a rush does not require you to be a korean with 500 apm, it just requires you to have an IQ over 80.
>"our strategy this time is to quickly build up a force and end the fight before it begins"
>opponent uses a strategy that counters it and you lose because you wasted all your early resources on a rush that didn't work
He thinks countering it is literally impossible.
>Again, all "competetive RTS games" have nothing to do with actual strategy
This.
Mist viable trait for asiaticcliker is reaction time. so called RTS are wrong named action games. That is just objective FACT:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094215
cope from bad players. BW is the only game this is true in
you "but the asiaticclick" homosexuals are all the same, all you can do is click matchmake, get destroyed because you're shit and rever to SP and forums to complain
guess what happens when you play with a static group? After a couple of weeks skill levels average out and the group will begin to develop strategies to beat each other
True real time strategy happens in a group of 4 friends playing free for alls and 2v2s but you would never know this because you're as insufferable here as in real life
if your mechanics are poor you will lose early, mid, and late game, 1v1 RTS is a mechanics heavy genre that rewards memorized responses (this is the "real time" aspect of it). Forbidding rushes doesnt change anything because the player with better mechanics will have an even bigger resource advantage late game. yes, it is a mechanics genre, and i'm sorry you're assblasted that the genre has the word strategy in the name.
When can we get realtime strategy games that aren't heavily mechanics leaning?
Why does no one make them?
SP Total War. Pause solves the problem of APM overload.
asiaticclickers hate this simple trick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_strategy
That's kind of against my point, though.
I want something where the game is in realtime but doesn't devolve into whoever can manage the most at once.
What about multiplayer games?
>I want a game that's in real-time, but I don't want doing things quickly to be a factor in the gameplay
Then why is it real-time?
To mimick warfare, so that people's strategies can overlap, to encourage people to react to each other on the fly rather than with solved moves, so that multiple offenses and defenses can all happen at once, because real time has a different flow to it than turn based and because each scratches a different itch.
There are two possible outcomes to this:
>reacting to the enemy's plan faster gives you an advantage
reaction time becomes important, juggling multiple things at once becomes an important skill
>reacting to the enemy's plan faster gives you no advantage
it's essentially a turn-based game
I'm fine with reactions giving an advantage as long as the actual focus of the game is on strategy, tactics and decision making, that's just the nature of something that happens over time.
These games don't even focus on strategy or tactics, they're 90% just focused on management and logistics.
All I want is for these games to actually focus on the interesting aspects of rts and drop the 80-90% fluff that especially beginner players have to focus on to the detriment of everything else these games have to offer.
I don't know why I bother talking to you people, none of you are ever going to listen to reason.
Have you played the "Frozen" games? Frozen Synapse etc? They're kinda sorta turn-based, but they are all tactics and things do happen in real-time, but with pauses at certain times.
I have played frozen synapse, actually, though it's not what would come to mind if I'm thinking rts.
It was alright, but I don't remember ever getting super attached to it.
>Then why is it real-time?
Why not? Turn based has their own bucket of problems with quantification of time and reality simulation.
Also another thing real combat maybe quite low tempo, and that is badly transferable into gaming, players dont want to sit hours and doing nothing so gaming massviely accelerates speeds of happening (15 minutes battles IRL? lol nope, soldiers training in barracks in time it needs marine run three times around camp? Lol nope.)
you can play company of heroes today, but you're not and are b***hing here instead and blaming other people.
I'm not a WWII autist
It's actually more fun if you're not because the game sacrifices realism in favor of balance and gameplay (which is fine, but I had to set my history autism aside to enjoy it)
They exist, but you're not playing them, because asiaticclick complainers don't want a competitive game about "thinking", you just want to citybuild and then A-move an army into the enemy base when you're bored. Be honest about it.
The citybuilding is half of what I hate about these games, way to show how well you know what you're talking about.
You have almost the furthest idea of what I want out of these games that you could have decided on.
I want the games to be more micro and tactics oriented and less managerial and busywork oriented.
That's a MOBA.
Frick off, moron.
>Microsoft
>Cool, fun and original concept
>Didn't make any money
>scrapped
>this game is good because the AI is programmed to not scare morons
Ganker moment
It is programmed to scare morons, when said morons think they can just take over planets and suffer zero consequences
How many years have you spent following RTS threads while complaining that you can't stall out or fight off standard feudal aggression or macromanage?
you don't know what the words strategy or tactics mean, you don't know how armies are commanded in real life, and you've clearly never heard the term "blitzkrieg" before
found the Red Dragon / Wargame troony. Shut the frick up, your game is soulless and uses fake marketing screenshots to advertise a no fun allowed homosexualfest of "muh realism".
Ahh yes, I remember how when the Germans invaded france they sent some villagers to build a town center in the Ardennes forest, then they had to kill a boar to get enough resources to age up quickly and eventually build their tank factory.
Yeah, I'd much rather have real time tactics games. You could argue rts games do usually have to do with the strategic level, but they usually do have far more to do with raw inputs and speed as you said.
That sounds like a personal problem for primitive Earth dwellers.
this is the eternal cope for people who are bad at videogames
what every moron like you fails to undertstand in these threads is that the apm comes with the knowledge of what you are doing,this means that investing time and putting effort will give you more apm because you know what is going on,clicking faster just for the sake of it doesn't give you wins,knowing what is the correct response to what the rival is doing will.
>ib4 goocklicler goocklclier ghoock.clier
yeah you are a moronic narcissist and always will be,enjoy getting owned.
You'll never get through to them, some people are just sore losers that refuse to accept the possibility that it's their fault when they lose at a video game instead of the game being broken. They'll never be happy unless they win 100% of the time.
Don't ya want a second, meaningless job?
>real time strategy? no thanks, i want to play sim city
>time to boot up my favorite real time strategy game
i dont understand. you dont like real time and you dont like strategy. so what the frick are you playing these games for?
Most people don't play multiplayer strategies.
I find it hard to endure entire single player RTS campaigns. There can only be so many "build base, build army, attack" missions before it gets stale, and the odd mission where you have no base and just a set of units to move through the level doesn't exactly do much to break the flow.
I think SC2 WoL did a decent job of shaking things up. Too bad the sequels didn't.
I play the campaigns, I play the 1v1, I play the comp stomp, I play the custom games.
I'm not great at any of it but I play it, and I enjoy it.
there's nothing wrong with exclusively playing singleplayer in an rts just like there's nothing wrong with being bad at rts
the only thing that's wrong is complaining about a skill ceiling you'll never even glimpse with cope about dumb shit like asiaticclick or "not real strategy" like you're not playing a fricking REAL TIME videogame
I just want World In Conflict but in every game.
Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander but the units behave like WiC.
C&C series but at WiC scale with WiC scale maps.
Oh and I'll take Starcraft but as Company of Heroes.
Proper games rather than asiaticclick busy work.
Based World in Conflict CHAD
Ground Control and World in Conflict is how RTS games should be, also Codename Panzer
Haven't played it. Sell me on it.
Is Gates of Hell any good? I've been on the fence of getting it.
the negative reviews call it and utter pile of shit with the worst controls ever imagined, i'd be very wary.
Alright guys, how do we make casual friendly multiplayer for an RTS?
Starcraft 2 figured it out, but sadly they figured it out way too late. Co-op vs AI was huge, and could've kept the game alive if they came up with it during Heart of the Swarm.
Shave down the mechanical requirements on the menial and banal parts of the genre (while still keeping depth) and focus on the more interesting tactical elements.
Casuals will still be worse at the games, but they'll actually be able to focus on the more interesting parts instead of failing to meet a skill floor to even play the game in a way where strategy matters.
Reduce number of controlled units to one.
customizability, ie treaty timers and such. As much rng as possible and the ability to automate repetitive simple task, for example in sc2 zerg having an auto inject that is 1 second slower than manual if toggled for your queens, but that way you don't need to keep cycling back to them periodically and can focus on more pressing matters and learn those first.
Make everything automated. All the casual-bab has to do is watch.
Throw in a quicktime event that can't fail obviously for that there engagement.
if asiaticclickers actually used energy units besides defiler dark swarm I would have more respect for the genre
the only rts I really play multiplayer is sins of a solar empire
>play ling defense
>some homie keeps modifying the map making it harder as we beat it
>do this for like 6 months
>Map becomes actually fricking impossible to beat and group slowly disbands
some of the funnest time i've ever had tbh
I wonder how bad the AoM reboot is going to be ...
But there's no need to reboot it? They're not getting any money out of me.
AoM could absolutely use a good remaster, it's has a ton of issues. But I doubt it's going to be any good.
YOU WANT A PIECE OF CHEESE BOY
The mistake Blizzard made is making SC2 an action game with some strategy rather than am actual strategy game that requires long term planning. They optimized SC2 MP for esports feel with a target game length of ~20-30 minutes. This design philosophy leads to thinks like soulless esports maps with predefined bases and fewer resource types compared to other titles.
The key, in my opinion, to making an enjoyable MP RTS is to slow down the pace of the game such that reaction time is not rewarded over thinking ahead. To hit SC2's target game pace and action they had to simplify the tools given to the player. This is was created the asiaticclick optimizing phenomenon.
>"long term planning"
Ganker has already stated that they don't want to plan, they just want to wait until they have literally everything and then a-move in their opponent's base
>Ganker is one poster
You really have to stop doing this. If you think this way it will drive you insane. I've seen it happen.
>just ignore all of the replies agreeing with him
dogs > koreans
Games without single-player campaigns aren't worth playing.
>b-but don't you want a highly curated experience that amounts to social media crap and gameplay "metas"
No, not really.
The only time multiplayer games were fun was back when gamers were exclusively made-up of nerds.
This. If a game will have 0 content once the active playerbase leaves, then it's just shit.
>>but only plays singleplayer
Hey, that's me!
Blizzard lost all credibility with Patch 1.4
>Zerg are disfavored to win by > 5% according to their international data
>nerf zerg
>buff terran
When they say "balance" they mean "arbitrarily changing which units are op/up so build orders change in star league".
They never intended to properly balance the game so w:l were as close to 1:1 in race matchups.
Blizzard was so fricking shit at balancing WoL
then they release windowmines in HotS
"bu-but they're easy to counter"
Takes 3-4 times more effort and attention to counter the mines than to plant them, its super frustrating
I sincerely miss how easy and fun it was to just mass widow mine off 2 bases. But yes, it was broken and imbalanced.
They are, to this day, still fricking up the balance in warcraft 3. The recent patch made nelf shit and humans too strong. The ladder system is still broken but not broken enough to leave the balance alone.
Warcraft 3 is horrendous as a RTS game. It's only tolerable when you're not playing it.
>he only plays multiplayer
fake fan
>nooo you play the game wrong way, you should play it my way
>Arcade
What does that mean in RTS?
custom maps/UMS. the custom game thing is called arcade in SC2
rts was meant for singleplayer, your moronation came later zoomer
If it's truly a strategy game then the strategy should be emphasized and rewarded, not merely executing a simple strategy sooner.
>strategy should be rewarded
>no not that strategy it doesn't count
if you can't deal with simple strategies then what makes you think that you can deal with complex strategies?
My point is about strategy vs. Execution. In the example given execution is rewarded over strategy.
Execution =/= strategy. But your limited mind can comprehend this.
Do you think Hitler microed tanks making brakethrough through Ardens into France? Oh wait you cant think.
Singleplayer and coop are the only right answers to playing RTS unless there are custom maps.
Ive always played them to relax and pvp is the opposite of that for me. It's like people who play sports locally or just with friends.
>playing with other people
RTS is more enjoyable when playing singleplayer.
Wrong, custom games with friends are the objective best
>he
stopped reading here, go back newhomosexual
>BUHHHHHHHHH WHY DON'T PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME THE WAY I WANT
This is why RTS games are dead.
I'm a mechanical, i'm a mechanical man
>noooooo you must give 100 orders in a second!
?t=61
>THE SITUATION: TENSE
>THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN SIGHT
>WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE-
>MY HANDS
>YOUR NECK
>MY KNIFE
>YOUR LIIIIIFE
People who play RTS games exclusively in multiplayer are the secondaries of RTS gaming. Multiplayer was a tacked-on function (even according to the devs) of all major early RTS games (including Age of Empires). You're no different from people who exclusively played Heroes of Might and Magic 7 and declared themselves series fans. People who treat Command & Conquer like a city builder are easier to respect than people who focus on "RTS esports multiplayer". To call those people secondaries is an insult to secondaries of other forms of media. They're more like tertiaries.
Silence, child...
The MEN are talking.
But he's exactly right?
>actually being bad at the game makes me a better person
do you really need to do mental gymnastics like this?
literally why do you care? everyone knows WC3 use map settings was the most popular part of the game but thats not some kind of own on competitive RTS players everyone knows it's niche.
I've been playing SC2 for about a decade, never played the campaign ever. never will.
RTS needs to move away from single entity units, squad based is so much easier to micro and looks far more cinematic and cool. Games like BFME2, DoW, Warhammer: Mark of Chaos always felt better to me than Starcraft or Age of Empires
People dont wanna spend their time clicking on one little dipshit soldier at a time
I don't hate single unit RTS, but what I really hate is how Age of Empries handles unit groups.
*is the most cancer RTS unit ever created in your path*
It's a cool unit but it's long cooldown makes me want to kms
even the HoTS mission that introduces them is like "just plunk em down and... i guess that's about it"
>is
was
In HotS you could literally make only swarm hosts and win every game because the cooldown was so low
They nerfed it, but the concept of it is still utter cancer.
>game about building an economy and making cost effective trades against your opponent
Frick that. Let's make a unit that gives you infinite free units. It's antithetical to the entire concept of the game. Even Infestors are limited in what they could do because their "free" units cost mana, a resource that takes a lot of time to recoup. And they also have to choose between summoning said units and casting other spells. Swarm Hosts don't have that problem. With them there's no middle ground between "borderline useless" and "overpowered".
there most definitely is
>it's not about strategy, it's only about APM!
>several SC2 pros have gotten to grandmaster while gimping their APM on purpose (low APM challenge)
explain this
>gimping their APM
>still click clacking on their keyboard faster than a fat nigress who's just got her nails done
>It's not a strategy game because I can't take 2 hours to play city builder and I die the second a basic b***h military unit shows up
>I can't form a coherent argument so I will continue to use the same strawman over and over
Even better, I'm a fan of fighting games but I have never played an online match
Same here.
i just enjoy gg's survival mode.
M.O.M. 's cool too
Blacksheepwall
poweroverwhelming
Yep, It's Starcraft time single player time.
I like how the arguments have gone from
>Nobody cares about multiplayer
>Not a lot of people care about multiplayer
>People only care about multiplayer custom lobbies and campaigns
>Well multiplayer isn't fun
>Well I meant not a lot of people find multiplayer fun
>Well RTS isn't popular anyway
You want a piece of meat, boy?
Why does 90% of Ganker suck at PvP?
I don't care about pvp, I'm not a zoomer.
I don't like online PvP.
I'm very happy to fight someone locally, it's just a shame that it's not possible nowadays...
>take PC to friend's place for all kinds of vidya shenanigans
>he moves
i wish i didn't have such an aversion to playing online with voice chat. I wish it wasn't fricking ruined for me by other friends.
>red alert 2 on lan free for all
>team up with someone next to me and trash the other guy
>said guy came up to our pcs and bonked our heads
good times
The only RTS I have ever played online is Wargame, and that was limited to 10v10 team games.
multiplayer is a mistake. playing RTS single player is the best way to enjoy life.
no need to worry about some sweaty metagaming nerd using "optimal strategies" against you and rushing you before the game starts or creating a massive army of just 1 unit and no tech to completely overun your base.
honestly, either co-op vs bots for a chill friendly time or play single player. because fighting other humans is just plain infuriating...like you can either have fun, or you can try to win.
and for some people winning is everything.
It's nice to play with people you know, you can always give each other handicaps or other stuff if one is clearly better than the other.
Otherwise yeah, I would rather play alone
>its another episode of "compgays cry people don't like their metaslave asiaticclicker mode"
someone change the channel already
People don't like thinking in their video games, otherwise there would at least be more singleplayer strategies
I like how all these build orders have ways to counter them but the average poster here is too stupid to know how to do it anyway so it doesn't matter.
>asiaticclicker
You aren't and would never be good enough to play against anyone remotely close to "asiaticclicking" numbers.
I like single-player AND multi-player RTS
it's either a hour long battle of attrition or getting cheesed in the couple of the first minutes
there's a reason why most people prefered UMS maps
Reminder that all the dick ripped axe wounded trannies in here seething WANT inexperienced people to jump on ladder so they can smurf roll over them. Fighting game threads are exactly the same, and it’s because the multiplayer scenes for all but the top games in these genres are utterly dead and the last 20 crossdressers left are trying to browbeat the board into playing *their* game that they have such an insane sunk cost attachment too. Every multiplayer RTS game match (that isn’t coop with your friends) that you don’t queue up for makes one of these creatures off themselves, keep up the good work.
>it’s because the multiplayer scenes for all but the top games in these genres are utterly dead
Source on those numbers?
The source is blow your brains out you Reddithomosexual, not writing a dissertation so you can le epicly debate like your favorite YouTuber
>Dissertation
I just wanted a link to pop numbers, sorry that upset you.
seek mental help.
why are compgays so goddamned insufferable? they are singlehandedly keeping this genre divided and bitter due to their shitheaded attitudes which they project onto everyone else
we should just round them up and cordon them off so they just screech at each other and let the people who aren't emotionally stunted have a conversation
most "noncomp" rts gamers are just failures who get mad if you beat them in any mode
t experience
>wah, wah why are you try harding in direct strike
>wah wah why are you trying to clear this week's mutation so fast with ravens only
thank you for proving my point
>hey bro, you like this game? good I like it too!
>try anything, he seethes about it and even though he was the one who initially asked me he stops
someone is seething about sour grapes, and it aint "compgays'
imagine thinking pubstomping is something "compgays" cant or never do. nothing wrong with being bad at a game but when you seethe and try to be passive aggressive at others for it is moronic
you remind me of a tall guy who thought he could play basketball just because he is a bit tall and doesnt get short on breath too quickly
>bro, why are you not slipping on a grandma tier slow fake
>bro why are you scoring 3s and dunking on mine
>bro why are you taking rebounds
>someone is seething about sour grapes, and it aint "compgays'
thread was made by a compgay
And it's filled with seething unwilling casuals.
>YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY *I* WANT TO PLAY IT
No.
lmao sure, lose your queen turn 3 then complain when you lose the game.
lmao sure, score an own goal then complain when you lose.
>I posted the chad that means I'm based and you're cringe
Look casual. It's fine.
You wanna do the whole 30min no-rush build a nice looking base and plan big epic battles in the middle of the map.
Cool. I'm all for it. You do you.
But then don't for a second come and claim that le big bad competitive is all about "asiaticclick" and there's "no strategy".
We could co-exist, but you insist on being a whiny little b***h.
Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
It's the insufferable compgays who have to start shit like the OP. They have this complex where they MUST feel superior to someone AT ALL TIMES or their entire worldview falls apart.
The fact, the mere *notion*, that someone can have genuine, actual fun in a different way than then sends them into a conniption.
It's the compgays who have an ego and projection problem, SPbros are in self-defense mode
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
This is definitely not true, it's very easy to find examples of that in this very thread.
The OP is literally a compgay rage-baiting instead of leaving well enough alone
if SP enjoyers are hardening in their stances it's as a reaction to the mentally-unstable compgays who can't STFU and stay in their lane
Yeah there's whiny b***hes on both sides, OP is also a homosexual. I also prefer singleplayer, but it's moronic to act like this thread isn't full of singleplayer-only players who think they're superior for it and call anything they lose to "asiaticclick"
>SP casualbabs can only turtle in response to being called out
lol of course, b***hes in-game and b***hes outside
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business
This entire thread is single player babies crying about imaginary compgays "ruining" RTS for them.
>Single-player chads are the ones minding their own business.
There are people in this thread claiming that single-player is the only real way to play rts.
There are people in this thread claiming that attacking your opponent before waiting 30 minutes is "asiaticclick"
>>YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY *I* WANT TO PLAY IT
That's half the posts ITT and they all come from casuls.
literally nobody is saying that except the scrubs
The OP is literally insinuating that if you don't play multiplayer you don't support the entire genre.
Cmon.
>one extremely low quality and obvious bait post that was shit on the entire thread
>200+ posts of casuls seething because people are mean to them on Ganker
That subhuman spams these threads all the time
>anyone who doesn't play the game exactly like me is a "failure"
>anyone who doesn't share my exact mindset is "seething"
yeah i wonder why they don't want to play with you, anon, you seem like a real enjoyable person to be around
nice projection, all I did when playing c&c generals and zero hour is make some attacking units with china or usa (not even gla) before the 10 min mark and here come the complaints. I Didnt lecture the guy, he just seethed about losing even though he was the one who started inviting me for various strategy games, either 1v1 or together on lan or online
The really bad thing is that he did exactly what you homosexuals did and here is my "dirty" secret: I used to have this exact opinion of "compgays" you guys do about 5-6 years ago. Then I made an effort to become better
I still play treat mode vs comp in aoe3 for example as a way to kill time and not study but I dont do just that
The only time I've ever played an rts online and it wasn't a pure sweat fest with map hacks was age of empires
Can someone else who has been here since the early days tell me when exactly casuals started feeling welcome on Ganker?
My early memories are of any casual whining getting dunked on, then next thing I know it feels like pussy whiners were the majority.
What happened? Did I not gatekeep hard enough?
Since like 2007.
Not how I remember it.
>when exactly casuals started feeling welcome on Ganker
Around the same time we got Xbox 360 nostalgia threads, it's been slowly creeping in since 2016.
Chanology
Why would I play online?
>NOOOOOOOO UR JUST BAD IF YOU DONT WANT TO PLAY WITH ME!!!!!!!
>buys the game 7 times to keep makin smurf accounts and keep people from sticking with the game
who are you quoting?
This dude got fricking dunked on by a smurf and he's seething about it years later lmao.
LMAO this thread is the living proof why the entire market is fricked like this.
Shit players with short attention spans who project their insecurities on people who actually put the time and effort to git gud. This is why arena shooters are dead and fighting games are on the verge of dying. Just keep consuming your yearly goyslop because you are so based and rich and you just have to flex with your 1 gorrilion trophies and showcases and participation awards that you earned through guides. I hope you all die fricking worthless Gankerermins.
>u-u-u-uur just bad!!!!!
compgay comping at its finest
fricking christ i knew Ganker has been infested with casuals but i didn't realize it had gotten this bad
I play single player because sometimes my favorite units to use are ones that "are not good in the online meta", and I'm playing to unwind, not win thousands of dollars that don't exist in online competitive modes where everyone uses the exact same strategy and everything comes down to a coinflip.
>mfw been loving rts since Dune 2 on sega and never played an online match besides some War3 custom games
Currently replaying Brood War and having a blast, also tackling Achron bit by bit. Later planning to go through Red Alert trilogy and give Earth 2150 and Perimeter a try.
Anyone know some unique less known RTS with a good campaign?
Not a good campaign per se but still pretty fun. Forged Battalion, an RTS that has an out of game tech tree you can utilize to fully customize the units you can then build in game for both single and multiplayer.
Build your units gimmick seems nice but also reminds me of the horror called robo rumble.
I remember trying that one years ago, but never got far for some reason. Thanks for reminding of it.
Tried and liked it, until the point where in one defensive mission I hit a unit cap I didn't know about and couldn't progress further so I shelved it. Gotta give it another shot sometime.
That one looks pretty cool. From what I understand it's like RTS with dynasty warriors mode? I imagine there's a lot of jank, but now I really want to give it a try.
>hit a unit cap I didn't know about and couldn't progress further
Not sure if it's a FAF-only thing, but ctrl+K will initiate self-destruct on units including the ACU so have carefuls
Can I suggest you Battle Realm? Similar to WC3.
I'll just ignore the "less known RTS" and suggest Supreme Commander.
Kingdom Under Fire is a fun RTS/RPG hybrid, but it's apparently been hijacked for a crypto scam. See if you can't pirate the old version somewhere, it's got a fun campaign.
Kknd has funny little live action cutscenes.
If I'm not having fun I just won't play tbh.
yep, it's that simple.
asiaticclick killed RTS
I just like good singleplayer campaigns
I like it fighting games too
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play only singleplayer, or play skirmishes vs AI, or just play dumb builds on LAN with your friends. Those are all fun ways to play. But the people who go
>well, I WOULD play ranked, but it's not about strategy, it's only about APM, if it were actually about strategy, an intellectual like myself would win every match
are delusional shitters
>gigazoom has an opinion on the direction of rts
Why do rts games have defensive buildings you can build to defend yourself if you're not supposed to attack your enemy before they have a big army? What's the point of these things when you're never supposed to defend yourself anyway? Somebody really needs to tell rts devs to stop putting these things in their games, completely worthless.
>playing against some dude who just lost his kids in the custody battle
No thanks
People still talk about Starcraft because of the PvP. Ergo, PvP is why it's successful. Don't bother replying, I'm right, you're wrong. Good-bye, until the next thread.
>ctrl+f asiatic
>31 results
>ctrl+f troony
>7 results
Holy frick Ganker is full of mindbroken casuals. It's no surprise that the people that don't actually play games are here pissing and shitting themselves.
Why do you care that someone might want to play the game for more than just the 10 hour campaign?
Why shouldn't devs cater towards people that buy the game and play it for 1000 hours, rather than the poorgay that pirates the game and drops it after 10 hours, then moving onto forums to complain about how the genre is dead and muh asiaticclick?
Face it, if the multiplayer is shit, then everyone will look at the player count or the ladder wait times and think it's a dead game, everyone will doompost, TORtanic etc.
Double fricking standards.
Even Warcraft 2 is kept alive due to its multiplayer.
Dumbfrick casual shitters, god nu-Ganker is so awful. I remember a time when I could host a 1v1 lobby and someone would always join.
It's not just Ganker, you'll find casuls all over Ganker nowadays. It's different for other media but their casuls love shoveling shit down their throats just as much.
Yeah, I know here I'm in the minority. This schizo for example is just here to seethe endlessly, there's no point engaging with people that don't play video games on the video game board. Crying about asiaticclick all day doesn't sound fun to me.
>He's still going
My funniest clown
I'm a new IP and have never posted in these threads before, schizo. Tell me why are you here not playing RTS games sweetie? Is it perhaps because single player isn't as fun or replayable as multiplayer?
Astounding performance!