>he exclusively plays RTS games in singleplayer
Why don't you actually play online? It's fricking invigorating when you win a match against someone.
>he exclusively plays RTS games in singleplayer
>he exclusively plays RTS games in singleplayer
Why don't you actually play online? It's fricking invigorating when you win a match against someone.
something something asiaticclick something something no real strategy something something i need a backstory something something sweatlord something something the game's been solved something something i don't feel like a general
you'll just never hear good arguments, idk what you expect in this thread
I'd say those are pretty good arguments since none of you morons have ever refuted any of them.
when an "argument" is fundamentally moronic and so is the person using it, there's nothing you can do, for they will live in their own delusions and talking to them is the equivalent of talking to a wall.
If the argument was so fundamentally moronic, it would've been especially easy for someone to explain why. But nobody ever has because there is no argument. These things are simply fact and you fricktards know it so you pretend the argument is stupid so you never have to answer. That's a troony way of arguing, anon.
if your IQ is so low that you could not understand for the first time, I'll write it clearer:
Shitters and PvE babbies are essentially the flat earthers of strategy. You can give them tips, you can show them data, you can disprove their completely dishonest whining, but they will just refuse to accept it. They will stay in their own world, they never wanted to leave it to begin with.
If you want every single one of those "arguments" to be dissected and refuted, then you better pay me for that, because I've done it way too many time for free. Each time with similar result, or rather none of it, because my opponent just never wanted to hear my arguments to begin with.
tl;dr:
no you have no argument
yes you will keep seething
yes you will keep being a mean evil Black person and wondering why most people don't want to interact with you online
Ignore the shitter.
how's that going for you? weren't you crying about your dead genre a few posts back? kek
keep sucking each other off in your increasingly smaller circlejerk cancergays
Different guy.
You're absolutely fricking moronic, I hope you'll never reproduce.
did that little tantrum make you feel better sweatlord? this is why people avoid you
It sounds like you're more interested in the "community" surrounding a game rather than enjoying the game. This is probably from being oversocialized from growing up in front of iPad and iPhone screens. Can't be helped, you will always be like this.
>It sounds like you're more interested in the "community" surrounding a game rather than enjoying the game
Games without communities are doomed to die. Multiplayer without, you know, players, will die.
Old Doom community is all fine because it still has a creative and welcome community despite being older than anybody here.
My favourite strategy games are dead because people have moved on and there's no influx of newbies.
>then you better pay me for that, because I've done it way too many time for free.
And yet you have no objections about "playing competitively" a.k.a. working a second (?) job for free. Peculiar.
>still no argument
And you never will have any. Dumb fricking troony.
I'm not going to devote hundreds of hours joining the discord keeping up with patch notes learning the meta just so I don't get fricking brutalized within 10 minutes by an average skill player. I can hope into 99% of FPS multiplayer blind and have just as much of a chance against an opponent as they have against me. This simply is not true for RTS and never will be by the very nature of the mechanics themslves. And conversely, I can still play Starcraft, Age of Empires, or Dawn of War campaigns and have far more fun goofing around in them than I could trying to become even average online.
>joining the discord keeping up with patch notes learning the meta
If you don't do that with FPS, you don't have to do that with RTS either. You're making up problems and it looks like you haven't played MP at all.
You do. I remember trying SC2 a few years ago and getting my butthole raped in half 10 games in a row because the enemies were doing things the campaigns simply don't prepare you for.
RTS games are similar to fighting games in this sense, the only way you'll be able to get by with mashing/doing random shit is if you're fighting a noob of the same level. Anyone that knows anything will rape you in half.
The same cannot be said of an FPS games, where aiming can make up for not knowing the game's tech or mechanics.
>I can hope into 99% of FPS multiplayer blind and have just as much of a chance against an opponent as they have against me
kek, i thought this too, then joined a free weekend of rainbox six siege a while back and got totally brained without even getting a shot off in every single game
on the other hand, you did say 99%, and i remember a few years back downloading quake 2 and seeing if i could find any games, i did, and i still did okay against what must have been elder gods of that game
So all SP games are for "PvE babbies" for you?
You are the cancer killing RTS MP and SP. Don't be surprised no one want to play with you more than once.
>So all SP games are for "PvE babbies" for you?
RTS? More or less. If they have zero nuance, complexity and replayability, then yes, absolutely. Linear campaigns are nothing more than puzzle games which you pretend to be complex. Risk-esque SP like DoW DC or Rise of Nations is just dressed up AI skirmish, which is even worse.
SP RTS is mostly designed to be beaten in one way only, so after doing it once I know the formula and given the frickton of scripts or very broad AI patterns, handicapping yourself is the equivalent of lying to yourself. Just like there is no joy in stealing candies from a kid, I find no joy in beating the lobotomized being that is AI in RTS games. Even if they have triple the resources, super saiyan units, zero buildtime and legal maphack. Contrary to the bullshit spewed by way too many people on this board, MP is fundamentally unpredictable. Even if you meet someone following a certain build, even if you meet someone doing the exact same beginner mistake, at some point it will differ. Not because a unit alligned in a slightly different shape, but because you're not facing a fricking machine, there's no way in hell that your opponent will replicate that 2-hour video entirely the same and that's only if you actually, unironically believe that everybody just follows the pros and their build orders and that's what all MP players do in-between matches, which, I guarantee, is just not true.
>If they have zero nuance, complexity and replayability, then yes
Then it is no different from multiplayer games, except SP game are less hypocrite about replayability.
I'm not saying MP don't have a distinct dynamic and that we aren't be entitled to have AI that are not insulting if we pay a game.
But most MP players oversell the variety of their match & how smart they (personally) are if player B sent 95 tank instead of 90 on the left line instead of the right line of a perfectly symmetrical map, requiring them to solve the exact same puzzle than in SP game, except more random.
Don't glorify playing 1000h of MP where only 100h felt honestly new, when a SP game can have 100h of content that's still replayable for 1000h.
And if other players don't like MP game because they don't deliver 100h of fun unless you play them 1000h, don't shit on SP game that deliver 100h of fun from the start even if they can't be replayed at all after that.
And the nuance and complexity of a singleplayer game built for immersion can be lost to a MP-only player who do not see the difference between carefully handcrafted/scripted map with scenario/limitation/objectives versus building the "optimal base" on 10 map with the exact same winning condition.
> carefully handcrafted/scripted map with scenario/limitation/objectives
Name one
"asiaticclick" is not an argument against RTS as a whole, only against star craft the first one, and is not applicable to other (read: good) games, not even star craft the second.
"No real strategy" is not an argument, because it is simply wrong. If you can't understand what strategy is, and how it is used in playing RTS games, you don't get to try the 'no true scotsman' argument line.
Lack of story is not an argument. I have a rivalry with another player, that is more than enough backstory, and I haven't even gone to any tournaments where the real juicy lore can get cooked up.
Being called a sweatlord is not an argument. Competition is always about being better, and some get better only through hard work and preserverance. Some also get stressed out in a pvp environment, and sweating under stress is a natural occurrence.
Games being solved is not an argument. People thought star craft the first was solved, then someone tried a new strategy around a unit combo that nobody used, and the game's metagame got shaken up.
Not feeling like a general is an actual argument, but not a good one IMHO. Real life general experience is closer to a grand strategy game, where you oversee a months or years long war, while RTS are about the boots on the ground fighting in one battle that's only a few hours long.
Because winning online requires gameplay that's antagonistic to having fun. Deal with it and keep playing with asiatic munchkins, b***hgay.
>games been solved
this is the only argument you need.
RTS games get "solved" by autistic koreans on adderall within 3 months of release unless they are a live service with an actively changing meta, something that not even giants like DOTA have been able to achieve
i can guarantee you that people don't run bots and scripts to play this game, because that's what it would mean that a game's been "solved".
this is pure shitter cope.
Loss aversion is a key factor in shitter behaviour. They don't like there's a chance they may lose if they try MP and want to play against dumb bots because it's "fair" and easy.
i play coh2 vs expert AIs
it's my wind down game when I just wanna see cool ww2 tech and explosions
For me it's more that I suck generally and don't like seeing my teammates and opponents shoving that in my face all the time
Don't wanna. Deal with it.
So games matches can have a decent time commitment. I'm a bigboy now, so I don't want to be a gay and leave mid-game but I also might not necessarily be able to play uninterrupted for 60+ minutes.
On days when I'm capable of making the time commitment, there's usually other things competing for that luxury other than playing bing-bing with randos on the internet.
for context: I was a senior in highschool when DOW2: Retribution was released, that was the last RTS I regularly played online.
There's a an indytrash Unity RTS called Executive Assault 2 that I've played online a few months ago when I wasn't working a buttload of overtime, but it's got a feature that essentially allows you to join mid-match and hop-out at anytime without ruining anything.
Check Dow2 retribution elite mod. Everyone else on here should too
>So games matches can have a decent time commitment. I'm a bigboy now, so I don't want to be a gay and leave mid-game but I also might not necessarily be able to play uninterrupted for 60+ minutes.
This.
That’s why I went neet. No other obligations to get in my way, can dedicate entire days to uninterrupted gaming. Although I usually still just play single player.
Patrician taste.
There's two types of online RTS-er. The guy that knows all the cheese strategies, and new people just looking to have fun and figure the game out.
The moment the second plays a match with the first, the second loses and never plays online again.
Eventually, the first guy no longer has easy wins against gullible newbies. The only people left playing are other chese-specialists. Cheese vs. cheese spawns more potent and unfun cheese, until every game follows the exact same perfectly optimized strategy, over and over again.
As fewer and fewer people have the satisfaction of winning, the playerbase continues to dwindle until it's completely dead.
A good rts doesn't have stinky cheese
>A good rts doesn't have stinky cheese
show me a single good rts that didn't get a french localization.
Supcom FAF lacks cheese of the potent variety except telemazer which is easily countered by making pd.
The more complex the game is the more likely it will have stinky cheese that is why developers need to keep updating it.
Total non-argument.
Every single RTS ever has tryhard strats.
As is customary on this site i will now insult you: homosexual
I've played MoWAS2 MP for a decade and never had to deal with too much cheese. Biggest problem was always potatoes crashing because they had 4gb of RAM
If getting stomped in a game is enough for them to quit we don't need them. Go play vs AI
>Waaaaaah, why u no wanna play with me online, pretty pls play with me online
b***h nobody wants to deal with your shit.
>Go play vs AI
We're happily doing exactly that. Frick off back to Korea.
found the tiberian sun player, quit on entry if it doesn't recognize the name
Unless you mean the nigh extinct TibSun MP player, then he's definitely not one of the core C&C fans.
Lmao, doesn't even deny it
If you find playing like that fun you should take up speed running. Sounds like your flavourful of autism
Do you give yourself handicap or play against masters so your win ratio is always 50% to share your "fun"?
Do you join team with complete amateur so you can help them have fun?
Do you encourage fairness by reporting every exploits, quitting match where you honestly think a player is cheating, badmouth publisher not fixing exploits?
Beside that,
MP focused RTS are usually overrated eSport shit with symmetrical map, equivalent units, and minimal showy gameplay to not push away the normies.
The developers of those are creatively bankrupt praying very hard you didn't notice they just reskinned Starcraft or Age of Empire2.
Finally it usually end up as say.
Most peoples will not spend more than 200h on the same MP game, once the game popularity burn out the only people left are autist who learned every single tricks and exploits.
That's why single-player RTS games usually have higher quality value.
I would play more MP-only game if they were PvE coop and even in those you've got nerds dedicating their life to experience schadenfreude nirvana.
>Loss aversion is a key factor in shitter behaviour.
Loss aversion apply just the same to MP players, only difference is that they had higher commitment/skills and will destroy more newbs to make up for losing against the few players like them.
i don't like putting in effort to get good at videogames
what's the point
Why do comp players seethe so hard when they learn people don't wanna play with them?
You don't understand.
You MUST play against sweatlords as a total newbie or you are a SHITTER.
Sweatlords need casuals to keep their game alive.
But casuals don't need sweatlords.
This relationship inequality makes them upset.
There's a tsundere aspect to that relationship too. Newbies are both required to provide fresh meat, but also unwanted because they can't play well. There's a conflict of interest between keeping the playerbase alive and gatekeeping.
That's why multiplayergays go with this reverse psychology approach where try to recruit noobs by insulting their ineptitude, hoping that their hurt pride drives them to git gud enough to face a real opponent.
I don't really care about the strategy part of RTSes, I just like how cool the bases look when I build them and how badass the little army men look when they go pow and ker-pew at things
>allegedly can win a 1 human vs. 7 hard AI game on any map
>cannot beat another human in a fair 1 vs. 1 duel somehow
So was it always a lie from these autists, or do those people just cannot interact with another human being without experiencing a panic attack?
The obvious answer is that the ai is predictable and can easily be countered since they play the same way every match.
The same cannot be said for humans.
you can abuse ai's stupidity.
a human should eventually learn not to fall for the same trick again.
they don't play for a challenge, they play to feel smart (not BE smart).
Even with random factions enabled?
...you know that it's not how this works, right?
Not really to be frank, I never managed to successfully finish any MP game to the end without salty tards disconnecting 20-30 minutes in, back when I still could play contemporary vidyas on my toaster (which still runs on Win7) 10 years ago - if not even further back.
I can't even play mobileshit competetively, let alone actual videogames anymore - not that anything made after 2015 is actually worth buying (or even pirating to waste your bandwith cap).
>be noob
>try online
>opponent insults me the entire match
>never play online again
compgays are such a toxic group
>Inb4 lol whiny gay just man up
no, enjoy your dead games
>opponent insults me the entire match
Doesn't happen in the games I play m8. Might just be a you problem.
>opponent insults me the entire match
>i win against him anyway
>"type gg ez" and report him
shrimple
Because all pvp rts are dead games, meaning the playerbase is made up of a bunch of sweatlords who treat the game as their second job.
I have no chance of beating them at their game, and I have no intention of trying hard to become like them.
you've never played MP.
Second quoted there, you're wrong. I used to practice in BroodWar every day for several months. Played only over LAN but some of the guys were really good. Eventually it got boring once I realized that I don't want a second job except this one doesn't pay.
because i don't play fast enough and am not good enough at multitasking to compete. every time i've ever tried online in any rts game i just get rushed and die. and even if i don't get rushed immediately, i eventually lag behind everyone else because they're playing faster and getting more done.
i like playing 2vX or 3vX with a buddy and/or ai on my team and grinding the game for hours on end. it's fun to simulate ww1 and try to develop breakthroughs while not devoting too many resources to one spot and allowing the enemy to do the same.
i kneel
Frick yeah, bro.
this is the way
the occasional 1v1 against a friend can be fun too, much different than fighting the ai
Love this. The only RTS games I play in MP are the ones that have persistent corpses/battlefield damage and saved replays. If it doesn't have those two conditions, I don't play it online.
what game is that?
looks like sudden strike or blitzkrieg, judging by filename it's probably sudden strike 2
because frick you
I used to play online but as I grew up older I stopped enjoying it and I don't have time to get good at it, especially since I like playing different games all the time and isn't realistic for me to get good enough in all of them just to play MP.
Besides, it isn't that fun to spend a lot of time optimizing your gameplay just to beat a guy who probably has years playing a forgotten game.
When playing online, I want to relax and unwind, but RTSes are all tense and taxing. My favorite games for multiplayer are low-stakes team deathmatch shooters where it really doesn't matter if you kill or die, win or lose, play well or goof off - it's all in good fun. I can pick up any of these shooters at random, jump in blind, fumble around for a while, get the hang of it after a few matches, and enjoy.
None of this works for RTS, which require consistent commitment to get do anything fun, and frankly there isn't one that I like enough to devote time to get good at.
Because multiplayer is a looshing session. You try to out-spite the opponent so you can feed on his loosh when he loses and gets humiliated. I don't want to loosh people or be looshed.
Because I am an adult and I don't want to sink 1000 hours of my limited free time into learning a skill that is both useless, as well as only usable in the limited time window before I inevitably get bored of the game and move on.
You might as well not play any game or any fun activity because it's useless.
Because I don't want to. I also generally prefer team games which still make much of the visible RTS comp community seethe. I just play with buddies and we usually comp stomp or whatever, because it's a fun way to unwind.
NTA, but there's a difference between unwinding by playing a game or some other fun activity at a casual level and actively pursuing development of a skill. There are also a number of fun activities that can provide some use.
"comp" being an abbreviation for two almost opposite things made this thread a bit confusing
An activity is not useless if it provides entertainment. I'm talking about skills not activities. Developing a skill is a massive investment so I expect to gain a lot from doing it. In this case, developing a skill only unlocks one specific activity for me to do, which is just not worth it. With that time I could a) do an activity that immediately let's me have fun without having to develop any major skills beforehand, b) learn a skill that actually has a major impact on my life
>play SP game
>guaranteed fun that light up your day
>play MP game
>get fun maybe 50% of the time and "fair" game just tell you how much you suck
SP doesn't apply to RTS and many shooters because of how dumb the AI is and how scripted all the missions are. I'd rather queue up for MP and get my ass kicked, at least by an actual smarter human being.
>how dumb the AI
As neural network improve you are going to beg the AI to let you win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI_Five
I'll take AI who give me an immersive experience by acting like the in-setting enemy, over an player who deduced how to break the game and can only be beaten by breaking the game myself.
Not saying there's no AI that are too insulting to play against, but those game are shit regardless if solo/multi
When I watch someone good at RTS they display some crazy fundamentals and speed and I have no idea how they even begin to develop those skills. The idea of trying to play them competitively seems like signing up to go fight an unwinnable war.
RTS games are more of an interactive screensaver for me while I work
Because my wifi is dogshit. I haven't had a wired connection since lightning struck my house and fried my pc a decade ago. Cant play any multiplayer game without packet loss and random 300 ping spikes.
just turn-off network discovery you fricking moron.
lol not everyone you going to be playing against is a pro. unless you play a dead RTS game. you will make mistakes and they will make mistakes. and you will both try to exploit them. thats the core of any strategy game. u guys need to stop making false assumptions.
Can you multiplayer Black folk just accept that some people just want a nice campaign instead of multiplayer nonsense?
No, I will not, you contribute nothing to the game and are worse than an npc because you genuinely believe in what you're doing.
I don't take anything away either. The vast majority of rts games are made with you and yours in mind. Stop b***hing.
>I don't take anything away either
Since we're talking about an extinct genre, this is exactly the issue.
RTS has the steepest learning curve out of any genre, asking people to get gud is too much
Multigays can't comprehend that majority simply wants to get comfy and play some singleplayer or compstomp instead of participating in the dick measuring and trying to learn more advanced tactics and playstyles in a genre with the hardest learning curve.
We're aware what you want. We'd gladly shake you off to protect the genre's integrity.
how can you talk like such a cringelord and take yourself so seriously? is it a total lack of self awareness
Better than selling out.
what the FRICK are you talking about cringelord? what do you think selling out means? is anybody offering you money to stop being cringe or something?
if so, you should take the offer lol
Isn't there some game genre you actually like? Go play that.
You’re suffering from severe autism if you think videogames are really that meaningful.
>genres integrity
What does this even mean? Do you think that the primary design goal of rts has always been 1v1 comp? If so then lol lmao even
things change. sometimes for the better. like in this case.
1v1 is objectively dogshit 3v3 is the bare minimum and 5v5 is preferred.
you really like to have your ass carried or put he blame on everyone but yourself don't you
1v1 forces you to play every part of the game, the more players on a team the more narrow your own role is. 5v5 and higher gets to the point where the person in the back can sim city and spam money buildings all game
Only other genre that does 1V1 is fighting games and only Black folk play those.
1v1 is absolute dogshit for RTS because it all boils down to who makes an mistake or gets RNG fricked first. While the more players in a match the less those individual moments matter and the more adaptability does as well as overall skill.
>1v1 punishes you for your mistakes
>in team games you matter less
>yet somehow team games require more skill than in 1v1
Yes anon because you are fighting up to 3 people. And to have an impact on your victory you need to be better than 2 other people.
Nice contradiction
I'm not interested in playing a tiny part of the game and delegating the rest to everyone else. I want the whole theater
just play a different role in another match.
you can't play all the races at the same time either genius, it's not that big of a deal
something that really bothers me in team games is that you can play your absolute best and still lose because someone else played like shit. In a 1v1 everything is your own mistake, or your own advantage, You can force your opponent into very cool variations of the game that just don't really exist in teamgames. For example you can rush extremely hard in a team game, crush your opponent, and then because your other teamates weren't paying attention the window of opportunity closes and then we're back to the boring turtle playstyle. It just sucks
yeah i know the pros and cons, it's up to everybody to decide what's worth it for them
1v1s are just very tactically boring. Meanwhile in a 2v2+ game I can take advantage of the enemy trying to exploit my teammates shortcomings to get a reversal. There is also a bigger feeling of reward when you carry so hard you alone force a victory.
2v2 is OK but any higher and tactics begin to lose relevance to eco and in large games strategy doesn't really matter at all, it's who can press the build eco building better that usually wins. The front feels like a mini game that decides a very slight advantage to the other players who rushed late game units and then the game is decided then.
That just depends on the game. In Wargame and Men of War where you can't build up an economy and it's just about resource management I don't feel that. Wargame RDs 10v10 tacticals have given me some of the best matches I've had in an RTS. That rush of crushing a player's force only for 3 more players to panic and throw everything they got at me to try and plug the hole in the line.
Do as you wish but those who want to distribute roles will still do so.
Doesn't change the point, if you can't put orders on your side this isn't going to help you win when they get annihilated and you need to pick up the gaping holes they left in your flank while the better organized enemies take their resources.
>narrow your own role
You mean like REAL military do?
I wish more games allowed to distribute roles. I would gladly play offense while someone else produce units and send them to me, or play heavy while another player play light units.
>the person in the back can sim city and spam money buildings all game
Is that supposed to be a problem?
If a player is doing support it mean they enjoy that part of the game and went that way on purpose.
Just like the others players went for what they like the most.
Everyone get their fun.
Real military follow a chain of command.
Videogames are a bunch of morons going wherever they want
>3v3
I don't think RTS devs understand what fun or depth is
?t=1454
>RTS
good luck getting anyone into RTS that stopped playing around 2000 which is probably the majority
I will be actively AVOIDING anything that even resembles RTS since I know I'm Bronze 5 trash
I fell for Dota but it's not going to happen again
I won't be playing any MP game where I'm not at least Platinum
fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me
No wonder this genre is fricking dead, if it's inhabited by dumb homosexuals like you.
>bro thinks 1v1 is the pinnacle of RTS and talks about the genre's "integrity"
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
If this shit is bait it's good
Actually I don't play MP because it always sum up to a few winning meta with the illusion of complexity.
And I prefer SP game because they are usually more complex & more immersive since they don't need to balance both side the exact same way.
I will say this. Every single successful RTS has a glut of Singleplayer content as well as the tools for the community to make more.
It simply don't like the stress
And I don't have that with other multiplayer genres either
It's extremely tiresome when you have to deal with literal children, savages without any semblance of manners for one thing. Another is having to see the same few meta-approved "builds" or at best combinations of "build" over and over again.
Also obligatory
>ha-ha, u SP gays b weak n sheeit, stay offline while me b master race!
>p-pls come play with me
it goes from "openly welcoming" to "defensive" or "aggressive" very quick when the ones you're trying to invite shit on you without a hindsight.
not even trying to get onto one's ambitions works.
the case is doomed so i might as well just insult strangers in retaliation and have fun with that.
>when the ones you're trying to invite shit on you without a hindsight.
Good luck with that windmill fighting.
>the case is doomed so i might as well just insult strangers in retaliation and have fun with that.
Yeah, pathetic attempts at trolling definitely mark you as the better man.
so you are having tantrum when people refuse to play with you? proving them that you are dumb jerk not worthy their time?
how mature
>i might as well just insult strangers in retaliation and have fun with that.
That's what i've been doing on Ganker for the past 17 years
>it goes from "openly welcoming" to "defensive" or "aggressive" very quick when the ones you're trying to invite shit on you without a hindsight.
I'll be straight with you, as someone who tries to get people into niche things, you just have to learn to deal with it. Especially on Ganker, people will always be eager to find a reason to shit on you or whatever you're trying to get people into. If you can't handle abrasiveness or answering the same questions ad nauseum, don't try to get people into things because you're going to be going through the same steps and statements for eternity. You ignore the shitposting and when answering certain questions gets too tedious, you let someone else handle it. Responding to abrasive morons in kind encourages the morons and convinces everyone else that your hobby is full of morons and best avoided.
I don't like the faster pace and don't want to put effort into adapting to it.
>singleplayer campaign
Big and interesting missions, some story
>Multiplayer
Game is over in 5 minutes because everyone is doing some kind of rush
good players wont die to the rush and then the real game starts
No, then the game is more-or-less over, since the person who failed his rush is now so far behind in economy that he'll inevitably lose.
You can rush without going all-in, you know? Have you ever played a multiplayer game in your life?
Also, if you want a grand campaign, join a tournament. Getting out of pools and surviving the elimination bracket is way more exciting than "just like make some units since the AI script won't attack you until you move out" that the average sp campaign feels like.
Because I'm shy.
Because every new video game is data mined to figure out the best mathematically result, so it becomes a game of rocket tag of execution of one of a handful of strategies. All the thinking is removed, it's down to just clicking the fastest and the most accurate.
bruh, you are not playing vs top 10 players in MP
you are playing vs some one who is as dumb as you most of the time
You're so insecure
because I want to shoot myself with a 12 gauge every time I lose after spending 30 minutes on a game.
Last time I even did a non-campaign vs. AI skirmish I had a panic attack. It ruined my day and I cried. I think I'd give it another try if there was no FoW and I could control it via brain signal or something.
Every strategy game is "solved". Build order, map control, unit counters. Even mid level play is dominated by autistic spreadsheet check boxes. There is no glory or invigoration to be had, if you won it's not because you had better strategy or more grit or determination, it's because your opponent fricked up their macro or build order. Victory is decided by who fricked up more. You don't actually win, your opponent just loses.
This only leaves a very narrow potential of actual pleasure where you don't autistically dissect the game mechanics and can just play for fun, which requires finding someone like you that wants to waste their time playing video games but also doesn't want to actually learn how you're supposed to win them, or just dunking on relaxed noobs who don't mind fricking around. Good luck finding either of those types of rare players at all let alone consistently, and good luck finding games that still allow that kind of crazy mismatched matchmaking and aren't trying to force some moronic ELOshit.
I want to play games to relax, and if I wanted to be competitive and feel like I earned an amazing win I wouldn't play a solved game genre like RTS.
That being said I will gladly compstomp with humans online though there is a problem with tryhards in that mode who go hard and want to act like playing against comps is something to get sweaty over when in reality it's about the journey.
You sound like a cool guy and I completely agree with you
>if I wanted to be competitive and feel like I earned an amazing win I wouldn't play a solved game genre like RTS.
You'd do much better playing actual sports, as in something requiring physical activity. Good for your health unless taken to extremes, lets you socialize in a sensible enough way, increases your prospects of finding a good mate (again, health) and starting a family if you hasn't done so yet.
>increases your prospects of finding a good mate (again, health) and starting a family if you hasn't done so yet
Are you gay and want to adopt? Women don't play sports, especially not these days. And, even if they did, you aren't playing coed.
>Women don't play sports, especially not these days
Nice incel cope
You're the one coping, mate. Women don't play sports and hardly go outside, unless to the store.
>and hardly go outside
i hope you are not baiting and are really this moronic holy kek
>has nothing to offer except ad homs
I accept your concession. It's quite evident withall the statistics out now that finding a woman these days is harder than ever for the younger generation.
yet there are tons of women at the gym whenever i go
Okay? Basically the same as finding them at the store. What are you going to do, approach them when they have their earbuds in and get thrown out for harassing the girls there, which has happened countless times?
>which has happened countless times
to you?
>if something negative hasn't happened to me, the chances of it happening are minimal!
Are you a normalhomosexual, by any chance? Perhaps you should try sticking a fork into an active outlet; nothing will probably happen, since you never experienced what would occur firsthand.
jesus christ dude who hurt you
They do "fitness", yoga and so forth. They don't have to be training in the same room as you.
>Every strategy game is "solved"
how to spot a shitter
>Victory is decided by who fricked up more
That's the essence of any competitive game. Not just RTS. Humans are not perfect creatures. Even when you are playing against an AI. What are you doing? Exploiting the AI script aka the programmed mistakes to win. Sounds like you are making fake problems like the rest of the shitters for not playing MP.
>That's the essence of any competitive game
NTA, it's not and you missed the point.
Most RTS are so simple you are just following a recipe and your only mental action is having the skill to counter your enemy then going back on track.
The purest essence of competition would involve systematically throwing new unexpected stuff at you midgame and see if you survive among competitor.
FPS do it easily because you don't have lasting infrastructure, you can die & respawn and victory is the Kill/Death ratio.
RTS can't because the game design to do that would be called unfair by competitive players.
>Every strategy game is solved
Go play Men of War or Wargame then you homosexual.
>This only leaves a very narrow potential of actual pleasure where you don't autistically dissect the game mechanics and can just play for fun
>I have never played and RTS
>which requires finding someone like you that wants to waste their time playing video games
>I am such a fricking fake ass homosexual I haven't even turned on a server browser for an RTS to see noob and level/match gated lobbies
Black person just admit you don't know anything about strategy games let alone RTS and are just looking for the attention you can't garner from anything else.
They mocked him because he told the truth
>and if I wanted to be competitive and feel like I earned an amazing win I wouldn't play a solved game genre like RTS
What genres would you recommend?
Yeah, that's what makes me sad about RTS in general. I'd rather play a Pikmin like game, since it's full micro and it's really fun. You only need map control and micro, in general. Dandori battles/Bingo Battle are super fun, I wish it had an online mode.
Anger issues
But I do, 1550 in AoE2
RTS is a genre with an infamous amount of snowballing. If I'm playing something where snowballing is a thing, I don't want the potential of plodding to an inevitable outcome over half an hour or more. Losing for all that time sucks, and even if they keep trying, winning for all that time is boring. At least in a sport like football you don't get more players for scoring, and chess is finished relatively quickly.
>It's fricking invigorating when you win a match against someone.
Disagree. Winning is nice, and nothing more. To those more competitive than me who get more of a rush, then speaking as someone who has never thrown a controller: that's cool, man. You do you.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize competitive RTS games are like comp DOTA 2. You spend hours watching pro players and learning strats, keeping up with the meta, grinding your micro skills, get in a game and either lose horribly and feel like killing yourself or win and feel empty because it just isn't that fun. That's why I stopped playing DOTA 2 as well.
It's just a 2nd job, but without the hype factor that Riot or Valve managed to build around their games.
I have almost 5k hours in Dota 2 abd barely touched ranked. I agree that games should never be your second job. It would be nice to have comfy yet bit competetive multiplayer TTS/4X game
Every sweat does one thing, they just Google how to play, they watch YouTube videos and copy whats going on.
Had been playing and RTS with my best friend for hundreds of hours, figuring out how to play or letting the game teach us and just having fun doing it.
Once invited a roommate to come join us, he curb stomped us on his first try, it took a while but he eventually admitted all he did was watch a few videos and Google what he needed to do. It was a really boring game and we never played with him again as we didn't want to waste our free time essentially doing homework just to play this game
>seething his roommate beat him in rts
>using the game mechanics to win is apparently unfair
hope you lose at any game activity. not everyone likes to play games like a dumb moron.
Play a friendly game with friend. He has to spend time and hours researching just so he can be the best at it.
Sweats spending hours doing homework to "pawn them noobs".
You probably don't even enjoy games anymore
Play a friendly game with a friend.
I like the game.
I start playing alone and gradually improving.
I don't watch tutorials or watch orders, I literally just play.
And you can either try to catch up or whine that you'll never be as good because someone actually understands the game now, unlike you.
You're making up issues.
I actually choose option 3 which is to play with like minded people who just want to launch a game play it and quit when they're done having fun.
This attitude of "try to catch up and get better" doesn't sound fun or appealing it sounds like homework.
>I don't watch tutorials or watch orders, I literally just play
are you trying to lie to the posters here or to yourself?
so in other words, you're making being a shitter your entire personality and shame others for not being like you.
>have fun playing PvP without knowing the game breaking exploits
>roommate come in and learned the game breaking exploits
It's not that hard to understand.
It's like playing a PVE campaign but your roommate spoiled everything that was going to surprise you, told you the winning move you wanted to discover by yourself, told you how to abuse the AI...etc.
Unless you are a moron who try to convince himself his PVP game is 2D4U so he is achtually a god for finding the meta that win most of the time.
Same reason I didn't play MOBAs when they were the hot thing.
>play single player for 15 min doing the same cookie cutter shit you always do
>slowly loose for 15 more min because the opponent was slightly more optimized with their meta build/pick
Or
>slowly win for 15 more min because opponent was a moron
Wow, engaging game play.
Because I have the original retail copies of the game, and don't feel like buying it all over again for 20 or 30 dollars just to play multiplayer.
Mostly time investment. I can't afford to spend several hours uninterrupted playing a game.
Why does an RTS MP thread always ends up affirming players that don't want to touch multiplayer? Who the frick would want to play with (you)?
Given that the threads always end up looking like
>why don't you guys play mp
>asiaticCLICK SOLVED SWEATLORD<more buzzwords>
>not real-
>NOT REAL STRATEGY NUMBERS BRAINLESS META
>well ok frick you then
I really can't tell.
>no, we didn't spend an entire thread flaming single-players
>single-players are the problem!
You forgot an MsPaint comic and a basedjack.
Reality
>We're aware what you want. We'd gladly shake you off to protect the genre's integrity.
>>no, we didn't spend an entire thread flaming single-players
-players are the problem!
are we reading two different threads?
i'm reading one different thread
Entire thread is sp cope.
Fricking shitters. Sub-race of the strategy. The proles.
Let the multiplayer class tremble at a single player revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their always-online DRM. They have a genre to win.
the point is that realistically, no rts will be made to be played primarily as sp or not require a lan/online connection
>no rts will be made to be played primarily as sp
unless its sp only like they are billions
maybe that's why it's not doing so well
A multiplayer RTS is only "doing well" for the brief period it is the "in" thing to be playing and be seen playing, with friends. Only due to social pressure. An RTS with a single player is good forever. Mods further extend the lifespan.
C&C3 TW and KW are both still played. C&C4 is fricking dead. And They Are Billions is doing better than any of them, or any GalCiv or Civ4 and before.
But here's the problem - single player and mods don't make game companies fat stacks. And have you SEEN the dosh Valve makes from selling skins it didn't even make through compendiums? Frankly, you have to be severely autistic to resist the material pull of capital. Hence, we have Paradox devs. That's right. I pranked you into thinking how the mechanisms of capital and profit motive is ruining your cultural items.
uhhhhhh spbros???
>one has 2,110
>the other has billions
case closed, mpgay
Right was given away for free.
Now how many of those on the right are playing with mods or compstomping.
Why would that matter? TAB has a huge amount of mods which make up at least half the players too.
>Why would that matter?
Why does the difference in player count of two games matter to a SP focused person?
CoH2 currently has around 5,1k people in-game.
from open custom lobbies, the statistics are as follows:
- 28 open games
- 12-14 PvE matches (two are hard to determine because a single guy is sitting in a 4v4 lobby with just one bot added)
- 1 Zombie mod, 2x Wikinger mod, 4x All Units mod, 1x Advanced Powers mod, 1x undefined mod
The rest is visibly set up for PvP, with quite a few full 4v4 lobbies.
Currently running custom games that an absolute random can spectate from the get go are interesting, because they show around 288 games. I tried my best to count PvE, but the server browser is a bit bugged and sometimes shows things you've already seen on previous pages, even if the matches are still ongoing, and it's not like 1 or 2 pages of difference, it can even be 7. You have to trust me, it's still something close to 50-50. Varying from 1v1s to 1 guy and 7 Expert AIs, for some reason made public.
Now, CoH2's customs are not the best example, because modding is essentially gutted and you cannot add custom content at all, unless it's just a few textures for a custom skin. Mods are referred to as "tuning packs" and they either just add single player units, go around the doctrine system or add their own versions of units, but as duplicated models, except this time with severely modified stats.
That being said, the split is close to 50/50. It's currently almost 3 PM in Europe, perhaps it changes once NA starts playing.
Now for unmodded, ranked automatch, the thing most CoH2 MP players do
- 45x 1v1 (90 players)
- 43x 2v2 (172 players)
- 24x 3v3 (144 players)
- 89x 4v4 (312 players)
Thus giving 718 active ladder players.
There's also around 90x automatches vs AI (yes, it's a separate thing from custom compstomp lobbies).
For obvious reasons I can't spectate campaigns and private games, also spectators still count as in-game for steam counters.
Do with this post what you want.
coh3 better
>uhhhhhh spbros???
Why would SP players care how many more players MP games have? It's not like they're gonna play with them in their SP game.
One of my favorite RTS' has maybe a dozen active players and only like 2 of them speak English.
Frick, I've had that one sitting on my hard drive waiting for me for two months now.
Oh it's a great game. I honestly wish the devs made more off it, so they'd make a sequel.
This game looked really interesting, but when I tried it I realised it's just a shitty shallow mobile game.
There are far more SP games than MP games. The playerbase is dispersed between dozens and dozens of titles.
so how many of those AREN'T tycoons/city builders
How many of those are, as some here claim, "true strategy games, but without the sweaty asiaticclick, that still offer a real challenge"?
>so how many of those AREN'T tycoons/city builders
That's not surprising seeing how SPgays say they want more base building with roads, upkeeps, production chains, etc.
>How many of those are, as some here claim, "true strategy games, but without the sweaty asiaticclick, that still offer a real challenge"?
SP is full of shitters who have no place in MP, so having loads of piss easy, relaxing games isn't surprising either.
Strawmen aside, I thought Infested Planet's dynamic campaign was pretty gud. Playing on Expert was challenging, even kind of bullshit, and apm doesn't help you as much as making a good use of your arsenal.
i wouldn't even be mad if they'd list city builders because despite being a pvpgay i still truly love management games and just building my little, seeing the machine grow or face rng bullshit, but i don't act like rts games absolutely need to be more like this. i don't want bandit raids in age of empires, i don't want to think of the supply chain in company of heroes, i don't want extra build time in warcraft because i want to make my base pretty.
as much as i consider 1v1 pvp rts to simply be the closest form of fair game competition next to fighting games, i do not fend myself off from other genres, but i also don't try to impose my vision onto others. i don't like chess, but i won't try to turn it into real-time asymmetric battle. i don't know what's hard about that. whoever's saying that "starcraft killed rts because everybody went crazy after esports and wanted to make their own starcraft" is simply dishonest and seems to have forgotten about multiple different hit rts games which are nowhere even close to starcraft's design.
fighting people is fun. if you keep saying that you'll just stick to replaying your campaigns because of how fun they are then why won't you do that.
take it for what it is, don't try to fundamentally change a game that you aren't even actually interested in.
I think you're taking this obvious bait thread way too seriously. If something reads like insane cope, it's not worth getting upset over.
i havent even read the thread because i know it's gotta be a shitshow, but i do play rts games online, but sometimes i dont like it because rts games make me feel exhausted / mad / annoyed when i lose much more than other genres of online games. so sometimes ill feel like i kinda want to play, but then i get to the multiplayer menu and just decide frick it not today im not in the mood lol
Real
i just play slow now and accept what rank that gives me while still trying to improve.
I don't want to play with strangers, only my mates
RTS is a niche genre so games have smaller playerbases, pretty much anyone still playing MP is bound to be much better at this point than the average person picking up the game or even someone who has completed the game SP, which is often the main focus of these games to begin with so plenty people already content after they finished SP and seek no more content.
People play big games like Fortnite, Battlefield, CoD, World of Tanks, League etc partially because the playerbase is big so the skill level is all over the place between hyper sweats and literal toddlers even years after the game's release, on average you're bound to get a game sooner rather than later that you'll win even as a newbie and stomps in your favour happen relatively frequently as well, that just doesn't happen in RTS games, even with newer titles, the honeymoon period is closer to a week than a month.
Frankly the reputation of competitive RTS MP might already be beyond saving, same as fighting games in a way, it's just too strongly associated with asiatic pros and wannabes so people don't even bother to participate in the MP scene even in new releases.
Imagine playing Poker as a newbie but there isn't a single fish at the table no matter what day you play on or where you play, or imagine a card game like Hearthstone but you're new and every match is against whales and esports players, that's what RTS MP and has been for a long time, no one wants to be a part of that.
If you want a successful RTS where MP is a big part of the game in this climate, I think you would have to put a big emphasis on co-op comp stomps rather than competitive PvP.
Meanwhile in reality every new RTS game focuses on pvp thinking they can be the next starcraft and then dying within a month
They aim for PvP because the devs want people to appreciate their vision and engage the game on its terms.
I don't ever see myself making a game for SP subhumans after witnessing all I have on /vst/.
And that's why you'll never make a successful and fun RTS.
>They aim for PvP because the devs want people to appreciate their vision and engage the game on its terms
>I don't ever see myself making a game for SP subhumans
This is so fricking moronic it had to come from a MP bawd. SP players will actually enjoy your game and MP morons will keep whining about random specific shit because of le meta. I actually hope you develop a sweatlord RTS game just for you to start hating yourself for being a MPtard
>omg this unit is useless
>omg this unit is too op
>omg change the fire rate of this unit from 20 to 22
>omg fix this cheese strat its too op
>omg pls change the map to make certain cheese not op
critique doesn't prevent enjoyment.
Those players complain because they actually take the time to notice these things and care. SP players will breeze through with nary a word because they don't have a way to evaluate the game, and (as half of this board asmits) just huddle up in a corner until they have full techs and a deathball to take out the map with.
>Those players complain because they actually take the time to notice these things
>and care.
They notice and "care" after playing Arabia for the 10th time today, and losing to Huns again.
Speaking of Arabia, remember that time it got patched, and despite the map's balance changing (a change that arguably made Huns even stronger), people kept playing it because it was Arabia? A new map got added after a tournament, Runestones, which was basically Arabia before the patch, but barely anyone cared because it wasn't Arabia.
You say singleplayers only play one way, huddling up in a corner.
I say the donkey calls the pig longears. Enjoy your meta-pick.
No one shits on runestones precisely because everyone knows it's old Arabia.
And people being bothered by a dominant civ is perfectly normal. They played, conversed, agreed that Huns were OP, and told the devs.
Making a new RTS with multiplayer focus is an impossible task because when you think about it nobody actually wants a new multiplayer RTS and nobody needs one.
I want one.
But I don't want a blatant Starcraft/C&C rip-off.
Seems to be impossible these days.
I want one, but I want it to be made by someone who truly loves the spirit of AoE2.
As a kid I kept getting stomped in aoe 1 on msn gaming zone but even before I tried online I always liked making my own maps and playing against the computer. I'm older now and while I still would love to play the genre there's just not enough worthwhile rts games coming out and I no longer have that primal instinct to beat others competitively, that's something for guys in the zoomer age range now and right now they're occupied with battle royales.
I don't enjoy rushing, and the few RTS I ever cared to try online are dominated entirely by rapid spam of low-tier units.
Because when I play strategy games, I like to relax and survey the field/map while analyzing the situation and thinking about what I’ll do next. I like to take my time and pause whenever I want.
Multiplayer in an RTS game is not relaxing in the slightest, and in fact is quite the opposite, requiring constant attention and split-second reflexes. It’s the opposite of what I want out of a strategy experience.
getting into an RTS with an established experienced playerbase when you're a new player fricking sucks
Because I'm bad and can't deal with the stress.
Rts is more fun offline
ok but why
Because i don't have to play with (you)
Because LAN parties with the lads will always be the optimal way to enjoy videogames that can't be played in split screen.
i agree with you, so when are we doing a Starcraft LAN Party?
I'm doing BfME2 lan party with me lads this weekend.
>sit in base for 40 minutes
>wait until you have an invincible army
>click opponent's base
>win
>this is supposed to be in-depth strategic gameplay according to people who play single player
You and I want different things out of rts.
I like a single player experience where each map is a different puzzle I need to solve. A new situation with my limited resources and unit pool. Sometimes it's fun to take a single guy and sneak around a facility, sometimes I like building deep defenses and watching hordes of aliens crash into it, sometimes I like building a big civilization but want a combat element to it.
Whenever you introduce another player into it all the things I enjoy go out the window. All the puzzles have been solved and you just have to memorize them, you'll fight the same enemy starting situation every single time, and success is determined almost entirely by speed. Don't kid yourself in thinking anything about rts is actually strategic, especially multiplayer.
i have yet to see an rts mission that's actually like a puzzle instead of a glorified tutorial for a new unit or something that you're supposed to just brute force
Never said they were hard, just that you're given a task and a set of tools to accomplish it.
You see I'm the kind of person who likes to build little neighborhoods in aoe2 and want buildable roads for no reason other than aesthetic appeal. In multi you don't have time for that, just build that shit where they stand or use it as a makeshift wall. I'll play mp occassionally but they're completely different games as far as I'm concerned and all people like me are saying is that we prefer the former.
A good example of a hard single player rts or rtt or whatever is the mods for sudden strike 2. Rwm and hs3 have some really good standalone levels that require a lot of time and effort.
>A good example of a hard single player rts or rtt or whatever is the mods for sudden strike 2
tbf, SS2 was considered easier than 1, and especially Forever has, to this day, a reputation even among the hardcore SS players for being very hard to straight-out unfair.
And just to put things into perspective, even pro players can take several hours to finish a single map (like that german mission where you have to save officers from different parts of the map that, at one point and depending on how well you played until then, send a whole army of russian armor into your back to prevent you from turtling).
You want a control scheme. Just another splinter.
You want to feel smart for winning a game you can't lose.
Modern Ganker is full of wannabe normalgays who don't wanna get that part of being a normalgay would be not knowing RTSs even exist.
Last time I was super competitive I could do three minute Roach Rushes in Starcraft 2, and I made my way to top 500 3 seasons in a row.
Apparently if you just do that enough the actual competitive people get super buttmad at you and enough of them reporting you gets you banned.
RTS were made for singleplayer, they live and die by it.
Yet, the most popular rts are ones with multiplayer. there is no popular singeplayer only rts.
Stronghold didn't have multiplayer until the recent DE.
moron
>battlezone
>populous the beginning
>sacrifice
>homeworld
>black&white
>original war
>early c&c
>earth 21xx
>perimeter
>empire at war
>rise of nations/legends
>spellforce
Multiplayer only really took off after sc and wc3, most of the old rts titles were played primarily in singleplayer by most of its playerbase.
half of this is obscure jank that still had multiplayer lol
what the frick is your point
21xx
Definitely have multiplayer modes. BZ is reasonably fun over LAN, and BZ2 was clearly built with improving MP in mind.
Earth 2150 is pretty good in MP and its only problem is lacking in map complexity and not having scripted events compared to campaigns.
The first Spellforce I can easily see being fun in MP if the maps are well built too.
I'm noticing a pattern here. But balancitism is a vengeful and bloodthirsty god and will not be denied its live offerings.
Pretty sure they have MP too, at least Cataclysm definitely does.
lmao, you think the argument is whether they have mp or not
I'm pointing out a mistake. The anon you replied to typed
>ones with multiplayer
and
>no popular singeplayer only rts
He is, of course, wrong solely because Dune II was popular enough to define the genre.
the same cope that CoD/Battlefield players tried to push.
And they were proven wrong. You'll beat a campaign once or twice and if you can keep doing it then there's something actually wrong with you.
Multiplayer is every game's second life and thus it dies only when the servers are shut down.
battlefield games having a campaign was a later development, they didn't use to have one and there was like one cod game that didn't have a campaign
there simply isn't this big of a divide/rivalry between sp players and mp players in fps games
>and if you can keep doing it then there's something actually wrong with you
It's called nostalgia.
t. guy who goes back and replays old RTS campaigns every few years
>team 2v2+
>behind 1v1 by a small margin
I understand it's "bare essentials vs luxury" but I can't agree with it because it's more fun to lose as a team than in 1v1.
oh no no no
>It's fricking invigorating when you win a match against someone.
Winning against xpablo69x whom you'll never again play against or talk to isn't anything. Winning or losing feels completely empty in online rts.
>Winning or losing feels completely empty in online rts
And winning or losing against AI somehow not empty???
No, dip, following Kane's commands is not empty.
i'll win against xpablo69x, then i'll win against maciek12pl, then pussydestroyer98 will frick me up in a way either so nasty that i'll learn a new trick or regardless of who'll win the match will be so pleasant that i'll talk with them later and eventually find a buddy for 2v2s.
and that's life. i enjoy matches no matter the outcome, because every single one will be different.
its scary
Reminds me of this time how I played shogun multiplayer and some malding brazilian monkey was raging at me because I wasn't going to fall for his bait so he ended up rage quiting since we were in a stalemate for over an hour while I was just working on my college work. Ended up typing ggez game on his profile and a while later he added me and wrote essays how I suck kek.
if singeplayer rts was so good, why don't rts developers just shave off the multiplayer mode to save costs? why do the biggest rts have strong multiplayer scenes? the narrative "mp bad and no one plays mp" doesn't hold up.
RTSes that aren't the biggest have close to zero MP activity, tho. Focusing on MP is suicidal for new releases.
our saving grace is that AI will get good enough to be challenging soon
They deliberately make the AI stupid to please you.
"Highly realistic AI gets accused of cheating even more often than its dishonest brethren, because on some level, all players are unnerved by the idea that a computer could outsmart them. Part of the fun is learning the patterns of the AI and successfully predicting them, and when computers don't act like computers, the only psychologically safe assumption is that they must have accessed information they shouldn't have. AI isn't allowed to gamble, or behave randomly, or get lucky-even though humans do al l of these things on a daily basis- not because we can't program it, but because experience tells us that players will get frustrated and quit, The same phenomenon doesn't happen when both opponents are humans, because they've already tempered their expectations for the possibility that the other guy is crazy. computers are too smart to be crazy, so if they start acting that way, we can't shake the suspicion that they know something we don't. Thus, from the designer's perspective, brilliant AI is usually not our highest priority." - Sid Meier
>That old quote
I wouldn't trust the guy behind a series that has a reputation for it's cheating AI as an authority on what would happen if they made smart AI. Even in games against people, shitters b***h and moan that their opponent was cheating.
>a reputation for it's cheating AI
the cheating AI is supposed to be the challenge.
It's dumb but it was born rich, to sum it up.
You are supposed to exploit it.
>devs didn't release it, therefore, it wasn't real in a closed beta test
Wait till you hear the shit Valve beta testers would do.
It's still the truth.
The same way you want to forbid FPS AI to act as aimbot, you need efforts to prevent a RTS AI to pretend to not minmax its economy. The AI still fail hard at almost else but technology march on.
There's no question on wether or not AI will beat players, the only question is when.
https://newatlas.com/open-ai-dota2-machine-learning/50882/
If you are only talking about people complaining, it's going to be gradual before meatbag finally accept that their games can be solved.
At first they'll find excuse about AI being horribly bad in some section but compensating with brute math.
Then they'll have to accept AI being better in aspect they believed to be "human only", without even being sentient.
I do look forward AI, we need to break eSport shit with spreadsheet balance, until we get RTS with more physical and immersive mechanics.
your only two choices is intentionally bad AI or AI directly copying pros, but with zero attention division.
you'll unironically have a better time playing PvP at this point.
Literally only Paradox are autistic enough to try to make actual AI, and the AoE2 remake lads.
>Highly realistic ai
Ai doesn't really read patch notes doesn't it? Nor does it efficiently harass with tight pressure builds unless it has resource and map hacks
>the narrative "mp bad and no one plays mp"
Is one you have made up to justifiy your beliefs. You are too blinded by bias to actually understand what you read.
I didn't make it up. One anon literally posted pie charts on how many people play SP vs MP.
1. The chart doesn't show methodology so it proves little. It does not contradict the long known fact of there existing several, not always overlapping playerbases. In fact it even hints that that is still the case.
2. The chart does not say that MP is bad, which was part of your claim. It shows that among those who participated in the study, which have 77% of self-described casuals, ranked online multi-player has very low priority.
3. The chart actually proves that some play MP, contrary to what you've claimed.
4. It's not a pie chart.
His POST, on the other hand, does claim two things.
First, that RTS were (WERE!) made for single-player. Which is a fact.
Second, that they live and die by it. Which is false nowadays. Games with the most discussion and player-hours are definitely going to be ranked online MP ones. What he might have been trying to say is that good SP content provides a sort of a spring-board that allows for a community to form eventually. If he did, he has failed at that.
>1. The chart doesn't show methodology so it proves little
Fair critique of that. I want to say it was originally from PC Gamer or some other online magazine type deal which might have more details on the methodology, but frick if I can find the source between it being probably a decade old and also every search engine wanting to redirect the results to RTX card ads.
>Games with the most discussion and player-hours are definitely going to be ranked online MP ones
Most discussion will be a given (but also pointless metric) considering every other match will have someone mad they lost to something and will cry for it to be nerfed, but hey, if you wanna take issue with the lack of support for their claims, feel free to post more solid sources to back your shit up.
>Most discussion will be a given (but also pointless metric) considering every other match will have someone mad they lost to something and will cry for it to be nerfed, but hey, if you wanna take issue with the lack of support for their claims, feel free to post more solid sources to back your shit up.
My reasoning is that no other metric beside annual discussion volume and annual player-hour dynamics matters. Well, before GPTslop was introduced to the masses. And discussion concerns the SP player part predominantly as their player-hours wouldn't necessarily be visible because many RTS games still played do not have the always-online requirement.
I could argue that RTS games that don't have official multiplayer support or widespread and collectively agreed on community support, like entirety of C&C for example, live only by singleplayer content, and when your mod has bombastic compstomp potential its good, but if it has its own campaign than its even better.
But then it could be argued that C&C3 and RA3 are alive today only thanks to community multiplayer with mods being only small part, but from what i saw most of RA3 and C&C3 competitive regulars are literal, and when i say literal, i mean literal, unhinged trannies or just morons that are salty because C&C3 and RA3 never became as popular as SC2 did despite all the efforts of EA to jump onto ESports train before SC2 comes out by turning SP focused franchise famous for its stories and campaigns with live action cutscenes into ESports games, you can see for yourself how "successful" it was, also i saw for myself as one of the RA3 MP pros was claiming that RA3 is much better in every aspect and far more balanced game than SC2, seriously, these people play C&C3 and RA3 only out of spite because they choose wrong game and time to jump onto that ESports hypetrain. Also funny thing, Generals has a more successful and thriving competitive MP community despite this game never being made with competitive balancing in mind.
>like entirety of C&C for example, live only by singleplayer content
https://www.openra.net/
still active to this day, easy to find games
>Also funny thing, Generals has a more successful and thriving competitive MP community despite this game never being made with competitive balancing in mind.
But it DOES have multiplayer and people play it in PvP
Contrary to the words of so many spgays in here, people actually enjoy multiplayer and games without it never see success as big as those with it. Frick, my favorite strategy is literally unfinished and doesn't even have actual AI in it and is the most unbalanced shit ever when it comes to MP, but me and the few last veterans still love it and play it regularly.
OpenRA is a fan project aiming to remake first 3 C&C games and Dune2000, has its own upsides and downsides, like being down in the bureaucratic hell and development being slow due to that, bureaucratic hell, in a community project, but at least they have some kind of financing i guess, their main focus is seems to be RA1 remake balance patches due to entirety of these 2.5 RA1 MP competitive players moving to it due to disgusting design of C&C Net's launcher. Also majority is playing mods like Shattered Paradise and/or waiting for them to finally release TS remake and finish campaigns.
An exception from the rules, Generals competitive scene functions with many handicaps and forced rules due to balance being THAT kind of broken. And i have only compared Generals CMP scene to that of C&C3 and RA3, when actually comparing active CMP scene of Generals to compstoms, majority MP games are either compstomps, team-games and MP games in mods in which the very concept of balance is unknown and games are decided by OP units just being ordered in the production.
Also, i'd like to mention that OpenRA's MP is like a fraction of a fraction comparing to the rest of things, some goofy and morbidly horrific custom game-modes that chinese play in Mental Omega's MP outnumber OpenRA by a mile for example, not even talking about the fact that MO itself is played and popular mostly for its campaign, with devs even admitting from time to time that their MP balance can go from okay-ish to utter garbage from patch to patch
C&C games are a bit of an outlier but the numbers of our fans aren't very high. You can tell that by how small the portion of the community that's visible online is. No matter how you're going to extrapolate, the real numbers can't much exceed a hundred thousands. World-wide.
>RA3 and C&C3 competitive regulars
Oh wow, C&C3 ranked is still alive? I've expected it to be nearly completely abandoned somewhere around 10 year mark after the last BCPT.
Also, there are 3 reasons C&C3 didn't take off as a "SC2 killer", from what I know. It tried to compete with a still huge SC fanbase while C&C's has dwindled significantly since its peak, it did not have a potential micro ceiling as high, and it had networking problems (KW especially). By RA3 it was probably over but I never cared about it so perhaps it was something else entirely.
>Games with the most discussion and player-hours are definitely going to be ranked online MP ones
That would be paradox gsg abortions, which can easily be proven if you take a single look at the absolute state of this board and reason for its inception. Almost nobody play that shit in competetive mp or discuss it for that matter. Hell almost nobody discuss competetive mp in general on this board, sc2 gays discuss their shit on /vm/, aoe threads are slow as frick, coh even more so.
I really doubt that Ganker is a good representation of the strategy games player base. Even so, we were talking about RTS games.
Actually, given the trend shifts, Paradox DOES deserve the title of the most played strategy games and most engaged communities. It's true that it's like 90% single player, but it has something crucial that campaigngays seem to forget - REPLAYABILITY. Even I have like at least 300 hours in legal EU4 and I'm a PvP MPgay.
Quality of Paradox games is a whole different question.
The exact thread of anything gets lost the moment someone wants to prove a point, but other people have been referring to games in general to prove a point, but so far, no one has pointed to an RTS that is both popular and purely SP or MP. SC and AoE both have chunks of their population playing it for comp stomps and such, so you'd be dishonest saying that a game can get by just on MP with those. Homeworld and most other RTSes better known for their SP side still had a multiplayer component despite no one ever talking about it, so that would get disqualified as being proof that SP games can take off.
>REPLAYABILITY
That's the big thing for me, pretty much every RTS I played a lot as a non-compgay had at least passable AI, custom maps, and mods to mix things up.
Because /vst/ is horribly casual, unfortunately. Reddit is better for discussing MP.
I think that's true.
Nah, reddit is just /VST/ No Black person-Word and You Get Harassed Even by Jannies for the Wrongthink Edition
Redditors actually play and discuss strategy.
I wouldn't call painting maps a strategy if its not done with actual military purpose
How about, "killing the one other player and winning"?
the deadliest hunt of all anon
hope you don't play shooters if your intent is not to kill people irl
>he exclusively plays RTS games in singleplayer
Yes why did you post that pic of me?
The only people who play RTS games online are people who have been playing them for 10+ years and I just get absolutely stomped every time. It's kind of like why I don't play fighting games.
I know "I'm dogshit" isn't really an excuse but I don't have the time/patience to grind for hundreds of hours in practice mode before I even have the chance of winning.
You'd be surprised. Starcraft 2 was my first computer game and I got to diamond in less than 2yrs like a decade ago. I'm thinking about picking it back up again but am sorta hoping Stormgate goes well. Also in my experience it's like the most friendly and honorable community I've played with online.
Keeping up with the hopped up kids in RTS is almost as hard as it is in FPS. I don't need any more carpal in my tunnels.
And besides I got all my competitiveness out by reaching a pretty decent level in Dota 2 and then ragequitting after I lost it. If I hop into AoE now I'll never reach that same level and feel that same rush playing with pros live on stream in front of billions of people, even if I steal Biden's boar.
SP and MP are so different that it's uncommon to find people who truly like both, because the gaming habits are simply incompatible. Most games prioritize one mode over the other, too.
SP
>intended for playing blind and experimenting, you learn as you play, guides are for quitters
>starts off with easy scenarios, gets harder as you play
>player starts with basic units, enemy gets multiple complete bases
>scarce resources for the player, extra nodes are protected by enemies, it's best to save some for emergencies
>defensive gameplay, enemies are usually walled-off and unraidable, you get attacked right away
MP
>you need to look up guides and thoroughly train the basics before you can start
>difficult from the beginning, gets easier only once you git gud
>all players have balanced starting conditions
>plentiful resources to be seized and fought over, you should immediately spend all resources you gain
>aggressive gameplay, defending is wasteful, raiding is beneficial, scouting is necessary
>>you need to look up guides and thoroughly train the basics before you can start
why the frick do people keep falling for this meme
MMR exists
if you suck then you'll meet people who suck too
yeah unless you are literally the best or worst at the game you're winning and losing 50/50 if i'm understanding. it's really a game against yourself.
and why is that a bad thing?
1v1 PvP RTS is literally the only genre where skill matters the most and everything depends on you and you alone, similar to fighting games
As long as there is balance within the game, you can truly outshine your opponents
Yeah i like it. I was just literally thinking about posting that this morning and saw anon's post.
He wants to win all the time
I wasn't saying that I hate this board most autistic board
>if you suck then you'll meet people who suck too
Only if you play very few popular ones. The moment you venture outside of shit like CoH, SC2 and AoE you get essentially discord fightan experience. Doubly so in anything that prefers lobby system over matchmaking like eugen abortions, have fun joining in stacked lobbies or having smurfs invade your level locked ones.
>MMR exists
Only valid for some games.
And still rather popular ones.
Past the MP game "prime time" you'll only see turboautist who learned every tricks/cheats the game have and are fanatic enough to only play that 'old' game out of the hundred he could have in his collections.
Same goes for niche game that didn't have a big public, the only players you'll meet are the one who are dedicated and know the game. You are either one of them, or you are a future loser.
Game being resolved in a 7th minute rush isn't even entertaining, not to mention invigorating.
The TW system is fine middle ground: you play solo campaign and you face against some random guy online on battlefield.
>More people losing to rushes
You wouldn't be trying to make that argument if it weren't for your belief that "rushes" are what's ending the match. A lack of tenacity and forethought ends the match. The rushes are just the first hurdle to consider.
Because people play online to win, and it quickly becomes not about the game but the metagame (what strategy counters what, exact buildorders and timings, what is OP this patch and what nation or fraction counters your opponent).
When i play rts, i want to feel like a general, not a software engineer who is about to read half a dozen textbooks. I also like to set-up my games for better larping, including dozens of mods.
Tldr: We are not the same
kek im loving the seething replies in this thread and after posting this i will now return to my comfy singleplayer
If you're Gold or lower your macro is probably so sub-optimal that the game is pretty much over after the first battle unless you're in bronze and neither of you having the killing power to finish the other off.
Refinement of the meta
Vs
Having fun
you can know how to macro and play outside the meta
you can't have fun in MP?
Who's forcing you to follow meta?
>SP babies make up shit about MP because they have never played MP
>MP chads just tell it how it is since everyone has played SP and realized how dogshit it is
What a cool and original thread. This discussion has never happened before, ever.
The sheer tsundere energy you can find in these threads is fricking amazing.
>we TOTALLY don't want you to play MP with us!
>we're TOTALLY fine with you fricking off and leaving!
>the entire genre is better off without you! baka!
Like, if it weren't multiplayer, sure, I could just write it off as Ganker complaining. But holy shit, the context makes it hilarious.
Listen, I'll say it again. You're welcome here. It needs fresh blood. Poeple can teach you everything. But if you preemptively shit at the very hand that's reaching to you, and say blatant lies, which is exactly what's happening whenever somebody mentions multiplayer, then there's no point in that. Frick off. If you're going to be like this then it's unironically better without you.
are you going to tell us what lies these are and correct them, or are we supposed to guess?
or are you going to be like this guy and say "there's no POINT in telling you what the lies are, ur too rarted to understand ;)"
>You gotta read guides n shit
>Like homie it's a 2nd job and I already am too stupid to have a 1st job
>Every game is a 1v1 to the death no hold barred match where you have to be on your A game or you got no game
>The game is solved homie. I don't know what solved means since I just beat the shit out of the asian kid for test answers but still that shit sounds gay
>You can lose and momma didn't raise no loser. I only win. It's why I quick save every 5 minutes, read up a walkthrough and alt f4 when the AI wins
>Like how well you can control the game matters and frick that. I look at the Keyboard when I make an input cause I like looking at what I am doing
your seethe is palpable. i can't believe you actually had the nerve to try to present yourself as wanting to engage with people honestly
>ugh us mp players are so misunderstood why do sp players give us such a bad rap and lie about us
*5 minutes* later
>> I already am too stupid to have a 1st job
>>I don't know what solved means since I just beat the shit out of the asian kid for test answers
>>It's why I quick save every 5 minutes, read up a walkthrough and alt f4 when the AI wins
>>I look at the Keyboard when I make an input cause I like looking at what I am doing
dishonest spiteful freak
>SP gay trying to pretend he has some high ground
>CTRL+F: Job: 9
>CTRL+F Guide: 5
>CTRL+F Solved: 14
>CTRL+F API: 5
>CTRL+F asiaticclick: 4
While am at it
>CTRL+F Dead:9
I doubt you Black folk have played a video game. For all I know you all are mobile gays. Post your steam hours or frick off.
Now you are just spergin' and boilin'
Post hours
Sorry chud, but GameRanger and Radmin VPN just can't count the sheer amount of time i spent playing Generals with my homies in 3v3 or compstomps
stop being coy. yes moron, all those things were mentioned. but you didn't disprove them or correct them, you just added a bunch of insults and strawmen on top of them.
fricking dishonest rat, grow a pair
>Man who can't find his shift or caps lock key
>Crying about strawmen
Nobody cares about your attempts at appearing intellectual you petulant child. None of you homosexuals have played any multiplayer RTS. Most of you have probably not played any RTS, very likely that you have played 0 video games. You all sound like redditors trying to appear knowledgeable.
I never in my life read a fricking guide for an RTS. My first proper multiplayer RTS was Men of War AS1. I jumped straight into that shit. I didn't have to play 1v1 ladder, I did a few matches but not my thing, I just spent a decade in MoW AS 1 and 2 just finding MP lobbies and having fun. API didn't matter. Cause API doesn't matter for Men of War. I lost some matches, won some that's fine that's how multiplayer games work. I didn't play just MoW. I also did CoH2, Wargame EE, Wargame RD, Kane's Wrath, 0 Hour, CoH 1. I did everything from 1v1s to 10 v 10s. Me and friend/s in MM for CoH2. Or me and friends vs each other or vs AI.
If you complain about it being a 2nd job. Maybe you don't see video games as a hobby. Hobbies are a bit like a job you put in time and effort. It's okay if all you do is just turn on game and turn off brain but some of us want and get a bit more. I've made mods for games, been part of modding teams, I've been part level competitive tournaments(not for RTS).
And I can't comprehend how one can truly be a SP gay unless they don't have the spare time or the attraction to RTS. I never played the campaign of an RTS more than twice simply because once you find all the secrets the game has nothing to give. Most games are linear. The scripting is shit and the idea for a challenge is normally throwing max level units at your face and the AI having infinite resources. Skirmishes eventually end the same way. The AI has a limited number of strategies and higher difficulty is just higher cheating. Even when fighting the AI with friends ends the same way.
what the frick do starwmen have to to with the caps lock key
i'm not reading the rest of that screed
>SP baby cries about being disingenuous
>Oh no too many words
Post hours or frick off
are you offended that i don't want to read your deranged screed where you call me a homosexual 50 times and make up little stories about me
sorry but i don't. for the same reason i don't want to play with your kind either
I didn't call you a homosexual a single time. And I don't need to make things up about you. You are quite clearly more than capable of making thigs up by yourself. If you don't actually want to discuss videogames maybe Ganker is more your sped.
It really is a losing game, isn't it? Why do I even bother? They never wanted to listen. Never. Their opinions are already established and they shall not change. Peak sealioning. Guess I'll just stick to the few civilized de-facto generals on this godforsaken board.
>Why do I even bother?
Considering you're so dog shit at the basics of persuasion, that's a good question.
Talking to a wall is pointless. I'd rather play a match instead.
But you seem to think getting the final word in against a wall is important.
Holy fricking shit, man, i should keep playing custom maps and other singlepleyer content or compstomps with homies solely because the very notion of the fact that i don't participate in the gay 69 suck-off's they call "competitive 1v1" makes mpgays seethe this hard
Also fellow singlechads, i'd like to inform you about upcoming, singleplayer-focused RTS game named Dust Front - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2610770/Dust_Front_RTS/
Also Terminator: Dark Fate - Defiance is pretty good from what i saw in beta - https://store.steampowered.com/app/1839950/Terminator_Dark_Fate__Defiance/
>terminator rts
Nice, it only took 40 years for us to get one
I really don't like to play efficiently. My favorite way to play RTS is to take my time building one large army, and then sending it in for one longish fight.
maybe try total war
you're gonna have to learn to use hotkeys for at least one army and how to attack A
you're gonna wanna learn to hotkey your base and how to make workers without looking
you're gonna wanna learn how to use rally points
you're gonna wanna saturate your resource extraction asap
you're gonna wanna expand
if you do this you can max out over and over again real fast and you just need additional bases to upgrade your army or for reinforcements
RTS is the only game genre where people that know the least how to play it, are at the same time most opinionated how they should be made and played.
i also agree that we should focus on pvp. if you don't then you don't know how to play it.
Because I illegally mod my games and cant just send it around to strangers unless we talk first, and its a huge hassle. Single player becomes a hell of a lot more fun though. And more buggy.
Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, the Shitters had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...sim cities, turtling, dying to rushes , replaying same AI scripts, seething about pros, sperging and above all, the asiaticclicking that fil up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.
I am bad at video games and I don't like losing.
At height of star craft 2 was in the top 1000 players ( I think like 6-700l and because of SHITTY ladder every game would be a super grueling grinding game short of cheese. So I was top 99.9 percent of players and was losing half my matches to hour long slogs.
Before I quit forever I'd just go in zerg channels and challenge anyone and I'd only build marines. Fun for a while.
So yes frick you to multiplayer
it's relaxing
because the wins don't feel satisfying enough to balance out the anger of losing.
You know I would if the online were alive. C&C MP is deader than dead and you have to jump through a dozen hoops to make it work.
Because I have no friends and do not want to
I'm not a fan of forced 50
>Forced 50
>In a 1v1 game mode
Yes. Any ranked game mode.
In 1v1, unless they're using handicaps, there's no way to implement forced 50. You don't even understand the terms you use to b***h.
and why is that a bad thing exactly?
I've never won a match in an RTS game
I was excited to get into it and was fortunate enough to win my very first game in spite of not knowing any hotkeys and using the mouse
wait no it was a laptop track pad
I played sc2 up to diamond when it was relevant. Now that it's dead I feel like there isn't much of a stake or bragging rights, like if i got back into it and got masters, big deal, nobody fricking cares anymore the game is dead as frick. No hype. And the meta is stale, I watched the last gsl with tastosis this shit was just the same as i when i played. Also let's not kid ourselves when you say "multiplayer rts" you probably just mean starcraft. If i wanted to play something competitive i'd play LoL or CS like everyone else.
I just play map painters or total war now. I did try getting into tw warhammer MP, i did quite good, but you have to go on discords and shit the actual ladder is pure trash.
I'm a xenophobe. I'm scared of other people.
I have zero interest in
>Starcraft
>Company of Heroes
>Age of Empires 2
I will not play games I don't like just to play multiplayer
Any RTS I like has playerbase so small that only oldgay autists remain playing it regularly, against which I stand no chance, no matter what I would be doing. I would need to make getting gud a job in order to compete and wasting all this time on getting gud in a single RTS is an absurd, insane waste of time.
I sometimes play DoW2 Elite and Stronghold against my brother.
I once found some newbie on Steam to play DoW2 Elite. We played two games, one point capture, which I won and one annihilation which he won, because I kinda suicided into his base since game was dragging on forever because annihilation fricking sucks in DoW2 and game wasn't designed around it. I couldn't understand why he likes annihilation in DoW2 where "base" is a single building and told him that if he wants to play this mode it's better to play DoW1 and we can try that instead. But he didn't like DoW1 and point capture in DoW2 so we never played again.
>I'm not SP, I swear!
>I just have no interest in playing games with existing online scenes and competitive balance!
>I'm not SP, I swear!
...what?
>I just have no interest in playing games with existing online scenes and competitive balance!
Yes, none of them happen to have gameplay and/or setting I like.
>Yes, none of them happen to have gameplay and/or setting I like.
>setting
This is your mistake. Compgays, and I do mean specifically compgays and not those who also like MP, don't care about the game itself. It might as well be sticks and circles to them. In fact they'd probably prefer it that way. They aren't playing a game, they are competing.
so what are the alleged strategy games which you like but its' mp scenes is veterans only
even my 23 years old jank gets newbies
I already listed Stronghold and DoW1&2, which were always my favorite RTS. Other RTS like Warlords Battlecry, BFME, Tzar, AoM and Galactic Battlegrounds or something else that I haven't tried yet I usually install once in a while, beat the campaigns, maybe frick around in skirmish for a while and then uninstall. Most strategy games I play aren't RTS, but more suited to singleplayer games like 4x, gsgs and Total Wars.
>even my 23 years old jank gets newbies
Yeah, if you get out of your way to find them and organize with them you may meet them, which is what I tried to do with DoW. You can't just start the game and look for oponent in server browser/quickplay because it's all old autists and pros. Sometimes when they feel funny they will name their games noob only, but those only exists to bully noobs. And even then old autists circlejerk on discords and organize their games their most of the time.
Balanced is another word for boring
Do you see people going on a stroll and demand they race against you? Are you into competitive eating? When encountering a barking dog do you get on all fours and bark back at it?
>Do you see people going on a stroll and demand they race against you?
Not OP, but I win any Race-off due to lack of melanin in my skin.
And I do bark back at dogs as well as meow at kittens because it gives me joy.
That's not "his" mistake, he's not responsible for compgays not understanding that a person may care for other things in game than compeeeting.
>There is your misunderstanding
would be more appropriate
I play multiplayer. By which I mean I play co-op and compstomp in Rise of Nations. I am still horrendously bad and lose to bots on my own. I have accepted this fact and only duel morons or go crying to my only friend who plays RTS, who is also much better than I am. This way I can slowly learn, I just beat a medium AI. Eventually I'll git gud, but for now I'm content to let RoN sit until he texts me to get on again.
My heart hurt when I get stressed and online RTSs makes me stressed
Boi, you need anti-depressants.
I think he needs heart surgery or mri or something
Because real men do pvp IRL. Vydia sucks up your competitive energy.
Me and my buddies are good at rts/mobas, still are the whenever one of us gets the urge and drags the rest of us in somehow
But all of us are content with the custom games in dota and wc3 or some other non rts game nowadays and it works for us
The best rts content for me after 25ish + years of playing computer games is just playing comp stomps with friends or randos,
RoN compstomp was pretty fun
AoE3's compstomp vs the ai's that love spamming arty and elite units are fun like the dutch
Some normie miltary guys I know got into AoE4 somehow, even though I think rts is one of the more unwelcoming genres and I play with some of them a couple days a month or two
Outside of the newguys or urges dragging us back into rts's we're more or less off of playing rts
Getting to the point of feeling content or the irrepressible urge to do things better and faster in w/e game caught your interest for the next few months is the best point imo
Knew a german guy who found 'The Game' for him, only plays it and knows it in and out since it just fits him in every way possible, that's the one state that's better than the previous two, but too rare to hope for imo, a sp game too, I envy that guy sometimes.
I'm hoping that AoM: Retold will fill that for me. It's looking great (for me) and the team is balancing the game and they are also bringing some QoLs.
I don’t have a lot of friends
automatch?
That's just playing against bots with extra steps
>humans are bots