>I WANT TO PLAY RTS GAMES! THEY WERE MY FAVORITE GENRE!
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
>Also I want a good story like the epic Red Alert
>Also I play in easy mode
>Also I don't want to really learn the game, I just want to build my dudes for an hour and then stomp the easy AI
>And turtle
>And I want to build bases, houses and decorate them
>And I don't actually want the tactics, build strats or think in the game cuz that's for tryhards. I want a relaxing game that is ACTUALLY strategy like turn based games.
>I actually want a turn based game
>I don't want to deal with other players
>And le epic Warcraft story too!
>Is Cities Skylines an RTS?
>If you tell me to git gud I will call you a tryhard and a blowout
>What you mean RTS are dead then?
Every RTS thread. Why are so many guys like this? Why not play a tower defense then?
>Every RTS thread
Comfyshitters exist. They are people who apparently like strategy and tactics but don't want to be challenged or engaged with strategy and tactics. They don't want to find the optimal solutions for any given scenario and they can't stand losing. Instead they focus on all the curtain dressing of strategy games like story. The core of strategy is figuring out mechanics and overcoming set challenges, not meandering through a story on easy like an RPG. Yet these people will complain about meta when figuring out ways to outplay or out-think the meta is part of the experience.
>Still no citation, just claims
ngmi
>like an RPG
This is I think the key. SPshiiters are attracted to RTS because they can beat missions in their own manner as opposed to games that feel more linear (and even the best old school RPG often feel too limiting). There isn't much immersion breaking hand holding if any at all, so you let your fantasy run wild. This is the reason why they hate MP and complain about weird stuff like build orders - optimization limits their imagination and autistic creativity.
Paradox have figured it out and produce mixes of RTS, RPG and VNs with DLCs that add more choices/branches and customization.
This is me. Hate knowing the meta because now there's a "right" way to play and it sucks all the fun out of everything.
It really depends on the game, but if you're willing to experiment there's a lot you can do outside of the meta
for example COH2 has had its last patch a while ago but people are still finding good off-meta strat
yes and?
Metahomosexualry is even worse than comfyshitters. Comfyshitters can sit in their own little sandboxes away from people who actually play the game. Metashitters will asiaticclick the same solved shit over and over for thousands of hours and actively kill interest.
you really think following scripted build orders and just pushing counters and outproducing an enemy is the peak rts experience?
I like aoe2 but come the frick on, it's nowhere near chess.
>following scripted build orders
how about not?
it's more fun if you find out yourself.
you're literally a part of the problem.
NTA
>Come up with build order
>Refine it into something consistent
>Make headway with it
>Apply it to a different civ I like
>Find out my build order is meta on the second civ
I hate this shit
I hate these anti build order gays so much because it's so obvious none of you played the games you're talking about.
Build orders in AOE2 only extended as far as to whatever your 10 minute option you've selected is (scout harrassment/man at arms/archers) and only teaches you how to manage your economy to branch into said units but afterwards for the next 20-30 minutes you're literally on your own.
Build orders dont tell you how to adapt to your opponent or if you should push or play defensively or if you should advance to imperial age or stay in castle to maintain pressure etc.
They also don't help you micro or macro that's still on you.
git gud.
this
the point is, you absolute fricking troglodyte, the entire game is dependent on how effectively you nail these 10-15 minutes of very specific, time constrained build orders. So the entire "RTS" part - aka "adaptive rock paper scissors" - is derived from brainless, dumbed down fricking guide repetitions on how to get set up most efficiently and the one who does it fastest, usually wins
there is no "strategy" involved in this
>the point is, you absolute fricking troglodyte, the entire game is dependent on how effectively you nail these 10-15 minutes of very specific
No?
Just say you suck at RTS games no need to right a cope novel about it.
Write*
>the entire game is dependent on how effectively you nail these 10-15 minutes of very specific, time constrained build orders
It really isn't, no. Even if you seriously frick up, you'll only be behind until the second TC goes up. It's not like your vills see you lose a vill to a boar and all stop gathering in protest.
You actually don't play the game.
>The core of strategy is figuring out mechanics and overcoming set challenges,
Literally every single game on the earth fits under this description, moron. Take your garbage thread and frick off to Ganker with the rest of your kind.
>paragraph
nobody cares how you play the game you bought with your money you moronic homosexual
I'm a comfyshitter as you put it. I like to build fun armies and turtle. In CoH I play the brits to build arty, in Sup Com I plau UEF for defences, in Sins I play humans for double fortress. However I'm only a comfyshitter cos I used to be a try hard that would make my friends sad they couldn't beat. It wasn't fun, my friends have never won a 1vs1 game of supcom against me until I changed my play style to be more accommodating. Some people like strategy and just suck at it.
Turtling is the only way to play Sins on higher difficulties.
>I used to be a try hard that would make my friends sad they couldn't beat
same but with board games
ended with nobody to play against
Try Harding in board games is a terrible experience cos it makes everyone feel uncomfortable
well
I was also crushing them
should just do tutorial matches or something
i learned my lesson
Chess players are pitiful creatures. They never seem to find enough victims to destroy in their dreadfully boring game.
it was wargames but whatever
There's nothing wrong with enjoying RTS casually
But it does feel like a lot of people grew up with games that, for a reason or another, offered a really unchallenging single player experience that never required them to actually learn the game and now these people want to essentially play action versions of paradox map painters
Thing is those complaints are about NOT being an RTS
all those great multiplayer RTS games seem to do really well. if only devs could cater to the clear MP majority, RTS wouldnt be a nearly dead genre.
starcraft, coh, AoE2 all seem to be doing fine
in fact I can't think of a single RTS with a competitive scene that's not doing good
>I can't think of a single RTS with a competitive scene that's not doing good
>coh
you've just mentioned it.
How is coh not doing good is still got big numbers despite coh2 being old as shit and there's a new game releasing soon
and 90% of the people play SP in those games. if they marketed it solely for MP, it wouldve done horribly.
>and 90% of the people play SP in those games
That doesn't invalidate the fact that the devs focus on balancing the game for multiplayer and they're fine games
If anything it proves OP's point that a lot of people just want to stomp easy AIs without being challenged or having to learn the game
lol c'mon man you've been found out already
i play SP to fight challenging AI in funny ways.
I'm not trying to invalidate your point but could you give me some examples?
i like to play coh2 with no tanks and infantry spam. i like to have them fight against the endless hordes of AI vehicles/infantry as i try to hold onto the victory points long enough to win.
if it were against a real player, theyd just destroy me by properly playing the game.
Literally Operation Market Garden.
>if it were against a real player, theyd just destroy me by properly playing the game.
I do wacky shit in coh2 MP, sometimes I will be like "oh let's try 6 Rear echelon squads and giving them all m1919s LMGs ahaha" or "oh let's try 6 Rear echelon squads and giving them all riflenades ahaha" and then sometimes it work sometimes I get shitstomped but point is you don't need to stick to meta all of the time if you get confident with it enough to deviate
To be fair infantry only PvE doesn't sound terrible but I hate the AI in coh it's so bad with infantry in particular it just retreats squads at random even when its winning
Company of Heroes is a good example of how all these arguments are inane because both SPgays and MPgays enjoy it immensely.
they mean compared to the height of the genre you absolute cement brick
The height of the genre coincided with a boom of computer players that wanted to experience new things
Nowadays the trickle of newbies is stunted because people have virtually infinite games in genres they already know they like as well as a bunch of "games as service" that keep players from trying out anything new since they already have a virtual job to grind daily
What I mean is that games that are doing well nowadays like coh really couldn't be doing that much better because the general public just isn't interested in real time strategy
I have never met someone who liked CoH 2's singleplayer that campaign is actual dogwater
why do people get so upset by build orders? they treat it like someone telling them this is the "correct" way to build everything when its just a list of buildings in the order you will get resources to build based on their dependencies, other resources needed (such as food/army limits), and then depending on what you need
I don't think its crazy to say yeah the best way is to build these 3 buildings then this farm then this building and another farm because your untis will be ready by this point, you can figure out a lot of this stuff by just playing a few times and you will generally come to your own build order very quickly, and its just a way for people to communicate what they have found is the best order to do it in
I see so much autistic rage about them when its just like defining the start of a build in an rpg, which the people who complain about them love to do
Any excuse is used to explain why they avoid multiplayer that isn't "I hate losing, even at a 50% win rate".
People who don't play multiplayer fondly think build orders are rigid "I win"buttons that have to followed at all costs. So they use that as a reason, despite how stupid it sounds to people who do actually play multiplayer.
it depends, I dislike the "build order" of AOE2 because dark age is the same every game, but if somebody in COH2 goes "hey bro try the 3 kubels into 8 volks build order" then it's the opposite because I can always start by doing something else, I guess you could call the second example a "strat" or an "opening" rather than a build order I'm really not sure
There's a similar phenomenon in chess where at decent elos the opening moves are more mechanical than strategic and a lot of people would rather solve chess puzzles than play full chess games.
if I had to guess I'd say that if you ask the player to memorize something then it's hard to feel ready to play in MP, and some autists will never touch MP if they don't feel ready, ergo they denounce "build orders" as shit, but maybe this is something that can be avoided by understanding a build order instead of simply memorizing it
pray tell, what game is actual strategy?
They're repetitive and boring and getting better at them has more to do with acting like a robot than strategy. Build the same set of buildings and units in the same order at the same times, again and again and again. And do it manually, because making anything automated is bad.
>They're repetitive and boring and getting better at them has more to do with acting like a robot than strategy.
They're literally just crutches we hand to new players so they can get into the game without stumbling over themselves. What do you mean, "getting better at them"?
You don't have a clue what you're on about.
>What do you mean, "getting better at them"
Execute them accurately and on-time. Not building things out of order or late.
Do you have another game in mind? Could you describe how build orders work there?
>Execute them accurately and on-time. Not building things out of order or late.
i can do this in every RTS game i play after 2 hours of playing with a build order. you are a fricking normalhomosexual moron if you think build orders are what define rts multiplayer
That's just Starcraft tho
My only problem with build orders is when the game is essentially solved and the strategic element no longer exists. In AOE 2 having a "bad" build order is fine so long as you still have the same number of villagers as your opponent because the 4 resources means you can do different strategies depending on how you gathered them. For something like Starcraft there's 2 resources, if you didn't spend them correctly you lose and there's nothing you can do about it.
I see /vst/ is not sending their best
>I WANT TO PLAY RTS GAMES! THEY WERE MY FAVORITE GENRE!
Nope, they were/are/will always be shit. Memorising a build order and micro aren't strategy.
Choosing a build order to memorize/execute is quite literally strategy.
>Choosing a build order
Ah yes, just as generals choose build orders in real war. Someone else has done the strategy and you're just copying them. There are almost no rts than give meaningful distinctions between build orders and it's mostly optimisation. Strategy requires choice.
Wargames are strategy games, 4x games too, and even city builders. Strategy requires planning and decision making. Something that cannot be done instantly.
>but rts games have decisions to make
Choosing which resource node to fight over isn't really deep enough to be a strategic decision. Is an FPS a strategy game? It has as many tactical decisions as RTS.
Is a MOBA?
I have nothing against RTS games, but calling them strategy is laughable.
>Something that cannot be done instantly.
>"If decision is fast then it isn't strategy"
lol obvious bait
Please learn the definition of strategy. All decisions in RTS are short term and therefore tactical. Choosing a build order could be considered strategy but that is usually very shallow and would be akin to choosing a different loadout in a shooter. One strategic element isn't enough to call something a strategy game.
>All decisions in RTS are short term and therefore tactical.
Yeah, anon. Choosing whether to drop a tower on a hill and build for a forward bluff or drop a forward TC in place of a battering ram for eco pressure is totally tactical. Teching against a unit line the opponent might not have even gone for? Tactical. Deciding whether I want to force the enemy off of his fish or directly target his docks with infantry? Tactical.
You're such a fricking moron.
>All decisions in a videogame are short term and therefore tactical
let me guess, autistic turn-based wargame gay?
Jokes on you. If every asiaticclick hater played wargames there'd be a lot more threads about wargames than the "rts is le bad" threads.
>build order isn't strategy
>Choosing a build order could be considered strategy
Literal schizo kek. You're equally bad in discussions and in strategy games.
Strategic aspects don't make a game strategy. Build order might be a strategic decision but every game has strategic decisions. Is every game a strategy game? A strategy game must be a game where strategy is the focus. Tactical decisions and micromanagement are not strategic decisions.
Yes it is tactical. All those decisions are short term and in almost every RTS they are not mutually exclusive and are simply an ordering choice. Does choosing to keep your distance in a fighting game because your opponent has strong short range moves make it a strategy game?
>drop a tower on a hill and build for a forward bluff or drop a forward TC in place of a battering ram for eco pressure is totally tactical
Yes, those are tactical decisions as they are small scale, not limiting, and are done to achieve the strategic aim of winning. A major deciding where to position his men and how to advance are not strategic decisions.
>Teching against a unit line the opponent might not have even gone for?
That's not strategy, that's guessing. I don't think there are any major RTS games that let you gather that level of information.
>Deciding whether I want to force the enemy off of his fish or directly target his docks with infantry?
Strategic objective: win the game
Operational objective: cut the enemy resources
Tactical choice: attack his boats or his dock
I suppose something like Rise of Nations's campaign mode makes it a strategy game, but it's certainly not a great one.
>That's not strategy, that's guessing.
All strategy is guessing.
Where's the guesswork in chess?
Chess is a tactical game.
At a low elo, sure. But all top level play is strategic as chess tactics are solved.
>tactics
>
>noun
>
>The study of the most effective ways of securing objectives set by strategy, as in deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft against an enemy.
>
>Military actions or maneuvers used against an enemy.
>
>A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.
It's a tactical game.
Arguing chess is a tactical game, concedes that RTS games are tactical games.
>So, any action taken within the context of a game that doesn't have a guaranteed win/loss condition attached to it isn't strategic?
No. A strategy game is a game that requires strategic decisions. Winning the game isn't a strategy.
>Educated guesses are a part of strategy
Your example of guessing whether an opponent has a certain tech is not strategic. You follow the build order and therefore are not making a decision.
>Strategic objective: cut the enemy resources
Is the end goal of the game to cut the enemies resources? No, it is to win the game.
>managing a base and/or an army
That definition makes minecraft and pikmin strategy games. No, I don't think so.
>that games are bad because you don't agree with the genre naming.
Fighting games are superior for quick thinking high-apm input. MOBAs are superior for micro and tactical decisions. War games are superior for strategic decision making. Management games are superior for resource management. Non of those are strategy games despite that.
RTS games are outclassed by other genres in every aspect.
They're bad because they're jack of all trades, but have very little depth in anything. This is why they're a dead genre.
They're not strategy games because there is very little strategic decision-making and therefore don't belong on /vst/.
>Arguing chess is a tactical game, concedes that RTS games are tactical games.
Yes.
Giving it more thought, you're right. Chess, while having basic strategic elements, isn't a strategy game. Just like RTS games.
>No. A strategy game is a game that requires strategic decisions. Winning the game isn't a strategy.
Winning the game is your primary objective. Your strategy is used to get you there.
>Your example of guessing whether an opponent has a certain tech is not strategic. You follow the build order and therefore are not making a decision.
I don't think you know what "build order" means. They have nothing to do with my decision to research pikes as soon as I hit castle against my scout-loving opponent.
>Is the end goal of the game to cut the enemies resources? No, it is to win the game.
See above.
>Winning the game is your primary objective. Your strategy is used to get you there.
Then strategy loses all meaning. In call of duty my objective is to win. Is it strategy when I decide to shoot my gun?
>They have nothing to do with my decision to research pikes as soon as I hit castle against my scout-loving opponent.
That's better than your example of guessing what your opponent will do. However, it's still not strategic because you are simply using a tactic to counter a tactic.
Creating your own build order is strategic, however, almost no one does this and the depth is so shallow that it is easy to optimise for almost any scenario.
If you could choose the units prior to the engagement, then that would add a real strategic element to the game. But XCOM is not a strategy game despite this.
>Then strategy loses all meaning. In call of duty my objective is to win. Is it strategy when I decide to shoot my gun?
Just firing the gun, no. Shooting a particular target, yes.
>That's better than your example of guessing what your opponent will do.
It's an educated guess.
>However, it's still not strategic because you are simply using a tactic to counter a tactic.
Wait until someone tells you how strategy works.
>Creating your own build order is strategic, however, almost no one does this
Everyone does this. I did that just last week when I attempted to incorporate double mill deer into my eco for a 5-M@A rush. You do it every time you finish a build order and transition into the regular game.
>If you could choose the units prior to the engagement, then that would add a real strategic element to the game.
That's literally what the eco is for.
You have 0 clue what you're talking about. No more (You)s. This is both boring and pathetic.
>Call of duty is a strategy game
You're a clown.
It's a difference in definitions. When Chess players use the word strategy, they mean more long term planning tactics that will pay off later in the game, as opposed to direct threats and how to deal with them. But if one were to use that definition for strategy in video games, then a lot of turn-based tactics game would have to be rebranded as strategy games.
>Yes, those are tactical decisions as they are small scale, not limiting, and are done to achieve the strategic aim of winning.
So, any action taken within the context of a game that doesn't have a guaranteed win/loss condition attached to it isn't strategic?
>That's not strategy, that's guessing.
Educated guesses are a part of strategy.
>Strategic objective: cut the enemy resources
>Tactical choice: attack his boats or his dock
FTFY
If you want to sperg about semantics of strategy, please be aware that those games you see as strategic are operative in scale at most. The are no (turn based or realtime) strategy games that are actually strategic in the level of warfare meaning. It's just a word they slapped on a genre, it doesn't mean what it really means in that context.
>If you want to sperg about semantics
You're on fricking Ganker bro, that's all we do around here
Everyone who b***hes about build orders is a shitter who doesn't play MP and most RTS players play coop modes or singleplayer vs AI and turtle like an autist because they are afraid of even losing a single match online
>Every RTS thread
>doesn't once mention APM and the asiaticCLICKER menace
Are you implying that Sins of a Solar Empire isn't RTS? Because that's what it sounds like you're describing.
These people don't actually want to play RTS games. They just want to feel the way they did when they were 12 and played Red Alert or Warcraft or whatever was popular at the time. They try to play games the same (stupid, juvenile) way they did when they were 12 because they're not interested in the actual game, they're trying to recreate a memory. And naturally, it inevitably fails because they're not wide-eyed children eager to play a cool new game, they're depressed incel manchildren desperate to cling on to the remnants of the time their life didn't suck shit, but being terrified of acknowledging this they'll blame the game or the players. That's how you get the people constantly whining about how we'll never get another game that's as good as their 20 year old nostalgiabait and every game made after is is trash, or how anything but attack-moving a blob of units is "asiaticclicking" and everyone who actually plays with any kind of skill is a tryhard. They're mad at the game because the only alternative is being mad at themselves and they don't have the mental fortitude to face their own character flaws.
>nostalgiabait
In vidya terms this refers to new games trying to emulate old games people are nostalgic for, not actual old games people are nostalgic for
small correction 🙂
>These people don't actually want to play RTS games.
Yes we do anon, I'm just not all that interested with dealing with every frickin edge lord or meta try hard killing the fun
And that means anyone able to reach the second age before the 20 minute mark, right?
homosexual I have no clue what game you're talking about tbh but whatever it is there's a hellva lot more to this genre than it
>And that means anyone able to reach the second age before the 20 minute mark, right?
No it's:
sub-3 spam when they're known to be broken
jeep rushes three seconds into the 1st phase
a dozen pings at the beginning of the match calling me a Black person and an unusable chat function because of said morons spamming it with "Black person"
Sounds like a game issue. Play AoE2.
I have, didn't really care for it, Age of Mythology is better
>Sounds like a game issue
No.
I enjoy the games I play, it's the other things that ruin them for me. Hence the whole sticking to SP thing
>I have, didn't really care for it, Age of Mythology is better
Poor taste.
>I enjoy the games I play, it's the other things that ruin them for me.
Ah. Fine enough. Not what OP or
is talking about though.
>Poor taste.
No, (you)
>>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
>These people don't actually want to play RTS games. They just want to feel the way they did when they were 12 and played Red Alert or Warcraft or whatever was popular at the time...they're depressed incel manchildren desperate to cling on to the remnants of the time their life didn't suck shit, but being terrified of acknowledging this they'll blame the game or the players...how anything but attack-moving a blob of units is "asiaticclicking" and everyone who actually plays with any kind of skill is a tryhard
A lot of this seems directed at people who hold opinions like mine anon
>A lot of this seems directed at people who hold opinions like mine anon
No, you want to avoid toxic players. Everyone does. They're mocking people who refuse to play online because they're scared to let other humans ruin their fantasies regarding the units and their uses.
>>they're scared to let other humans ruin their fantasies regarding the units...
>I don't like people spamming broken units regardless of their meta value (sub-3s)
>>...and their uses.
>I don't like people using units in stupid, gamey ways (jeep rush spam)
Again anon, seems like it's directed at people like me
Oh, nevermind. Yeah, he's mocking you, unless your game just has really bad balance or bad gameplay.
>I have, didn't really care for it, Age of Mythology is better
You admitted that you have no idea what "reaching the second age before the 20 minute mark" means.
>The game was released in 2002, I played it from 2008-2010
>I was frickin 8-10 yo
>not the only game that measures in ages either
Sorry I don't remember specific shit from a decade ago anon, doesn't change any of the points I made so address those please
>Play RTS
>Everyones using cookie cutter meta build orders that they've memorised
>No skill, no creativity, no expression
>Uninstall and play a real game instead
That's why RTS games are dead sorry, I don't feel like getting a hand injury because whoever mashes faster wins
lol we know it's just one of you being autistic dude there's a posters counter
I don't care for multiplayer anymore, the average player today is less challenging to me than a hard bot. Multiplayer also introduces shit like netcode latency which is made worse when you get matches with 3rd worlders. At this point I'd rather just play offline, the golden age is long gone anons
/vst/ is full of the worst, lowest possible skill shitters to ever taint the RTS sphere with their presence. I have nothing but disdain for this garbage ass board.
the problem is that popular action management games like starcraft are for some reason considered as rts games, while they become rts only in custom maps
people should play actual rts games like Supreme Commander, they would have far less complains
I'm diamond in sc2 and i say all that
>Why are so many guys like this? Why not play a tower defense then?
But they do, that's the thing, you trash talked them and devs decided to listen to you, so they packed up and left to play something else which is why the genre died.
This
Classic RTS is a mishmash of very strange design choices that just happened to be what was made at the time. it was also more reasonable because most fun was had in campaigns or at least friendly fun matches with your friends on LAN. This is also why custom game scene was so popular in WC3 days.
Then came along esports and took those shitty fricking mechanics and focused just on them. Obviously nobody except select few autistic asiatics enjoyed those, so people went to play TBS, active pause real time tactics, dota and its clones, tower defense, etc. All of which polish up select parts of what RTS design consisted of.
Honestly RTS gays are even worse than wargame gays, because at least the latter know they're super niche and are even proud of it.
exactly, the genre died because of esports garbage and MP forced balance
>bang keyboard against desk for 300 times per minute (this is decent APM)
>the korean announcer keeps telling me I don't have enough minerals (you can't be gosu if you don't play on KR client)
>carpal tunnel syndrome kicks in, i wince through the pain
>"Flash wouldn't let pain stop him"
>my opponent went expo first cross spawn no scout
>i immediately ragequit, smash my monitor and howl at the top of my lungs for 3 minutes straight
>"THESE PLAYERS ARE SO BAD! SO FRICKING BAAAD! "
>stop hyperventilating and queue for another game
>RTS games were massively successful when they fully catered to both MP and SP players
Wow, what a revelation.
>m-muh not a strategy cuz not strategic enough
"Strategy" in the context of video games means "managing a base and/or an army".
You have to be a hilariously delusional gay wiyh zero self-awareness to unironically argue that games are bad because you don't agree with the genre naming.
But then again all paraBlack folk are delusional gays, and they are attracted to this board like moths to a lamppost.
>Why not play a tower defense, city builder, 4X, autochess, idle game, roguelite deck builder, freaking match-3 hybrid or any other vaguely strategic game that would actually be fun for solo play?
RTS tends to be babby's first strategy game. You get to build a pretty base, watch ore trucks go vroom, see resource numbers go up, defend against evil hordes, care for the injured, liberate the land once you feel ready - it's a whole strategy/management/simulation package that's easy to play, easy on the eyes, easy to roleplay as the great commander the tiddy lieutenant lady insists on calling you.
Telling those guys to play e.g. a turn-based game if they can't handle the action would be like asking for an insulting downgrade to board games, where things are abstracted make-believe and not as cool as watching real action. They also simply enjoy complaining.
aren't the terms strategy and tactics relational? A strategy can be a tactic in relation to a grander strategy. And a tactic can be considered a (sub-)strategy in relation to even smaller tactical decisions.
>2005
>played starcraft in computer club with friends.
>every game's strategies are different, wacky, fun and in retrospect - not optimal
>had a lot of fun and though of ourselves as Sun Tzus
>2016
>tried playing starcraft 2 on a proper ladder.
>shit on opponents armies twice due to micro, but by the time I get to his base he has another one
>turns out he was building 1 to 1 to the most popular guide on the spawningpool and just outproduced me
>realize I can write a python bot that will be able to play the early game better than 80% of playerbase
Modern rts are not fun unless it's vs friends
If you actually ever tried playing starcraft 2 on the ladder, you'd know that players below dia1 all have wacky, fun and suboptimal strategies. Hell, players in gold and below just build shit impromptu, and that's like 50% of the ladder population. It's true now and it was especially true back in 2016 when people were still figuring out LotV. And then we have guys like Flo who come up with outlandish strats in masters.
Alas you've been filtered and now come up with excuses.
that's not true tho
It is true though
not in my experience. ladder is stale.
>Starcraft
>Playing it
Yeah i mean it's a shit game but not all genre is SC.
>I want an RTS
> But slow paced
>In fact turn based
>And wanna make my dudes and fight in epic big battles like im a general
> Different units comp? That sounds tryhard
>Techs? That sounds like build paths and i dont wanna learn that
>Pincer attacks? Lmao what a tryhard babble
>Disruption of economy? Lmao thats some tryhard words, im a general not an economist
> I want the biggest tank, and i want it now
>Building costs? Boring shit for tryhards
>I dont wanna hear "scouting", means nothing to me
>MP? Thats a solved building path and I... No I dont wanna play against a person who solved the game or me
>I wanna play against an AI that plays always the same so i can solve the game
>I wanna fight in my "own terms" and whenever i like, not when my enemy forces me to because i wanna be the one forcing, just dont know how
>And if you beat me youre a tryhard korean in age of stratcraft i played that game all the time as a kid and was a god i know what im talking about but dem evil koreans made it bad
What games make both sides happy?
Company of Heroes
starcraft 2 honestly
Age of Empire
Pretty much all of those with a good campaign, so most of everything released 2007 or earlier.
I want lots of tactics, no hero units and absolutely no building, which is why I play World in Conflict.
Personally, I don't play multi because games are generally too long and I don't want to hold it in if I need to go take a shit or a piss.
You guys are right that AI is too moronic in some games to maintain attention, though. What to do?
you can't go 45 minutes without shitting or pissing?
Who knows when the cobra will strike, you know?
I also need to shit and piss very often but not every 30 minutes you might want to see a doctor
Yes. It's not uncommon for me to piss loads and then 10 minutes later have to go again and piss loads again
Just game. Sigma style.
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
So your too much of pussy to play anything but the tutorial level? Get filtered homosexual
I usually spend more time in sp than mp but let's be honest campaigns seldoms are challenging
Not OP but the mystery for me is why FPS and moba games got swarms of newbie kids jumping online while most RTS have a majority hermit playerbase
People will give reasons like "but other players are sweaty korean tryhards :((" but if they all just queued up they'd match against each other and have a good time
If they all queued up they'd match against asiatics on smurf accounts
>Not OP but the mystery for me is why FPS and moba games got swarms of newbie kids jumping online while most RTS have a majority hermit playerbase
Because MOBA players want to hide from their own failings by ensuring there's a team to hide behind. If they go for RTS TGs, they'll just encounter bands of Chinese TG smurfs.
There is not a single game where smurfs aren't a thing, but only RTS players are so terrified of smurfs they never touch MP
Also doesn't explain people still steering clear of MP in lobby-based games with no matchmaking
Smurfing is notoriously worse in RTS than in any other competitive game genre. Its offshoot MOBA genre is not far behind. RTS gamers act like massive asiatic-sucking gatekeepers, mock people who want to play these games for fun, and then sit around moping about how RTS is a zombie genre because nobody wants to invest in it. Your autism is preventing you from connecting the dots.
>Your autism is preventing you from connecting the dots.
It's simply that my experience with MP has been different, I don't play MP that much but when I do I never feel like there's this unsurmountable wall of toxic smurfing asiatics that have keep their APM up by spamming "Black person" in chat as soon as they have a free half a second like some people ITT seem to suggest
What I'm getting at is that I have my fun with MP despite playing way more SP, and yet a lot people especially here on /vst/ preach that it is actually impossible and that (even games with atrocious SP like COH2) are better or "meant to be played" in SP
I mean was that seriously your experience? You tried getting into MP in a game but met nothing but "asiatics smurfs"? how do you know it wasn't just you being inexperienced?
>and then sit around moping about how RTS is a zombie genre
I mean we got coh3 incoming, coh2 is still alive and kicking, AOE 2, 3 and 4 keep getting updates and expansions, that one ST game looks good (but I haven't gotten around playing it yet)
Then there's the 3 or 4 Wargame clones if you count those as RTS
I don't think we'll ever get a renaissance like the one boomer shooters are getting, but we're doing okay
When people say that "RTS is dead" in general it always give me the impression that they just don't play RTS anymore, SP or MP
>AOE 2, 3 and 4 keep getting updates and expansions
the only one people are actually playing is AOE2 and that has a strong single-player component combined with a good variety of multiplayer game modes
good to know?
Yes, it is good to know that the picture you painted of RTS being in a relatively good state was false, in reality most of those games you listed are literal who tier
>fair amount of games to play with both SP and MP content
>uhmm but they le are le "literally who tier"?????
>doesn't reply to any other point
Okay so I was right and you don't actually play RTS and are arguing in bad faith
Now the next mystery is why must people like you shit up RTS threads? Besides Asperger's I mean
>ACKshually RTS is still in a good spot because they are still making a handful of RTS games
>yeah nobody is even playing the vast majority of these but ignore that
The problem here is our respective definitions of a healthy thriving genre are too far apart. Your standards are more or less rock-bottom.
Nah the problem is that you don't play RTS and project that nobody else does while spouting opinions based on your own projecting and not in reality, so when somebody asks you if you actually experienced a "smurf-asiatic" filled MP your only retort is "b-but my projection tell me RTS is dead!!" as if that were relevant at all to the discussion and as if it's impossible to have fun with RTS nowadays just because they aren't "thriving and healthy"
I mean of course, how could you think they're fun? You don't play them!
I get that you're autistic and thus you feel compelled to spout your opinion but please stop arguing about niche genres you don't actually play, thanks
There is no need to project that nobody else plays RTS, the numbers speak for themselves. AoE2 is in a decent spot but outside of that not really.
A few new games are coming out and they're fun in SP
New and old games have enough people to find a MP game at any time of the day
Again, You don't play RTS, stop arguing about games you don't play
Sure anon. And the PS3 was in a good spot with games too. There are video games that exist for it and there are people who played them. That means the PS3 library did great.
>why FPS and moba games got swarms of newbie kids jumping online while most RTS have a majority hermit playerbase
this is not even remotely complicated
RTS is just slower and more boring, thus the average person is less attracted to it
folks want adrenaline and reflex-based gameplay, not to think
simple
Age of empires is not any slower than dota2
oh and one more factor I forgot to mention
RTS has lots of things to focus on
Most people only want to focus on their own character and maybe a few more things (closely related to their character)
Maybe AoE2 is just as fast as Dota 2, but the style of its gameplay makes it feel slower anyways
Why do asiatics seethe so much about people wanting to play RTS games for fun instead of as a job?
RTS are like fighting games, since you're against a person. If the game is good there's a shitton of units and tactics and timings and combos and economyresources to manage to come out on top. If there's nothing of that, it was a shit RTS/fighting game all along.
This shouldn't need an explanation. RTS = good sandbox gameplay for tactics, meaning a competitive scene is implicit on it. It's not "a job", its just a game. What people really want are just SP isometric RPGs. That's not exactly a pure RTS. It's like people saying they want a single player fighting game, which that is a Beat Em Up, a different genre.
Or they're just morons and don't know what they want. Never gonna make it anyways.
RTS games are actually good though, fightingshit is not
>I fricking hate RTS, what a shitstain of a genre
>and u HAVE to let me set up Bellyzard
I wonder if you're even conscious of how much you're avoiding the main argument and just clinging to this shred of a point because of your projection
Go play fortnite or whatever else you play instead of RTS please, this is embarrassing
My main argument is and has been that RTS is a zombie genre, just barely clinging on. I stand by that, because it's true. I don't know why you think it's even possible to be embarrassed on a website like Ganker. Maybe tripBlack folk get embarrassed since they're here to make a name for themselves.
Ladder anxiety is real for betamax people.
It's just a game. There's no Shitter Police. If you lose no one really cares after the score screen. Either you like the thrill of the game or don't.
Constantly read people don't like to lose. That's bullshit. People don't like to learn. They feel humilliated at learning. That's not what it's supposed to be a healthy mindset. Imagine getting flustered at a game, and imagine getting flustered at a dangerous/risky actual job. One could train your thoughts, the other gets you fricked IRL. How can people wander in life without realizing you shouldn't feel so anxious about a game? you may not like it for reasons, but to hate learning? It's ridiculous.
>Constantly read people don't like to lose. That's bullshit. People don't like to learn
Nah I just don't want to lose
Guilty. There's nothing worse than reading guides, sitting through tutorials and doing practice drills for hours until it becomes second nature just to play on a basic level. I want to hop right in, be bad at playing for a while, get better with each match, find my feet and then maybe consult some advanced play tips & tricks.
It's cool when the campaign or bot matches can actually teach you something useful. In RTSes that's never the case, and preparing for MP is always like extra homework. You actually need to unlearn some of your singleplayer habits.
>Unlearn sp habits
Yeah I know some people that all they know how to do and all they want to do in RTS games is turtling against the AI
Like I tried PvE with a friend in RA3 and he couldn't get into it because "these defenses are so shit" so back to general's PvE where turtling is so easy
But don't try to finish the enemy too soon anon let them build up so the defense is more epic or something
It's annoying that I have so few friends who are into mp RTS
this is pretty much the entire problem.
spgays play for the fantasy. and they won't get rid of that fantasy unless they fully convert into mpgays.
>these defenses are so shit
That would just encourage me to use units more than defensive structures, it would not discourage me from playing.
>But don't try to finish the enemy too soon anon let them build up so the defense is more epic or something
I do agree with this one, I do find defending against AI onslaughts somewhat cool, even if AI is not particularly smart I can always just add an extra AI on the same team if it's not entertaining enough.
I just want to have fun you sperg
People don't like losing and don't like to admit that they're bad, that's why MOBAs took the place of RTS games.
Idea
>Single player RTS idle game
>you buff yourself, collect resources, and make your base pretty
>you can fight the other factions on the map at your pace, beating them earlier helps to advance faster, but if you want to wait until you are very buffed and has a guaranteed sweep its fine
>Maybe some semblance of defence gameplay with raids that will steal resources but never fully eliminate you
>No balance between factions, frick that, some will be op some will be challenging
That sounds very similar to those browser/mobile MMOs like OGame, Ikariam, Clash of Clans, etc.
Aye but no iap and with more detail
Why does this board love gatekeeping based on skill and competition so much? I would have thought the mindset to strategize would come in counter to eSports shittery
>based on skill
wrong
It's not about skill, it's about mindset. No one has anything against a newbie willing to learn. It's scrubs begging the world to agree with their delusions that need to stfu.
>newbies
>scrubs
These words alone should net an instant ban
scrub detected
>/vt/Black person
This board's decline in quality is starting to make a lot of sense
/vt/ is classic Ganker in spirit, unlike the post-2016 reddtiors from /misc/
No watching prostitutes stream is not in the spirit of Ganker you moronic newbie. Oldgays would have made sure it never got off the ground if they came around >10 years ago
Oldgays simped got every /b/ girl who showed up with a e-girl voice
moronic newbie
>/misc/ bad
>Ganker became bad in 2016
instant way to spot a post-chanology newbie
>he fell for the "election tourist" meme
more people came in from the 2017 hillary toxx than ever did in the 2014-2016 period combined
seethe harder.
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
If the people you don't like are already sequestering themselves in single-player and not encountering you in-game, what's the problem for you?
Peasants should know their place.
Unfortunately, we are the people with money, the ones who pay for the games. You can pirate the works based on our whims.
Usually you need to pay for a game to play it online
"We"
If you mattered there would be games being made with you in mind
There are, they're called GSGs
>GSG
>RTS
They dont keep their opinions where they belong
They're calling me a asiaticclicker tryhard just because I find fighting exploitable AI for the 40th time boring.
Games for this feel vst ?
Terraria
>the entire game is dependent on how effectively you nail these 10-15 minutes of very specific, time constrained build orders
SPbabbies' delusions never cease to amaze me.
I swear there was a bait thread on Ganker with this exact OP like a week ago, how is this shit still getting bumped?
the second or third thread ever on the board was an apmscreech and there's been at least one up ever since
what's an APM screech
the entire genre of complaints about rts games which all come from the root of not being able to compete in real time.
the greentext is actual quotes
>the second or third thread ever on the board was an apmscreech
Frick me thats hilarious, is it archived?
Combat Arms.. Viper my queen 🙁
>>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
All rts in the past had great campaigns. Multiplayer was a second tought. No rts in the world before esports was born for multiplayer only. No, not even starcraft.
>>Also I want a good story like the epic Red Alert
Or Dune, or warcraft or starcraft or litterally every rts pre '00
>>Also I play in easy mode
You play at whatever difficulty you want, who cares.
>>Also I don't want to really learn the game, I just want to build my dudes for an hour and then stomp the easy AI
Already answered
>>And turtle
>>And I want to build bases, houses and decorate them
Yeah.
>>And I don't actually want the tactics, build strats or think in the game cuz that's for tryhards. I want a relaxing game that is ACTUALLY strategy like turn based games.
You are not speaking of playing the game, you are speaking of metagaming and the cancer who killed every game which was balanced and modified for ESPORTS or multiplayer only.
>>I actually want a turn based game
Speed is not a value. Also stupid rebuttal.
>>Is Cities Skylines an RTS?
Nobody in the entire history of games said shit like that.
>>If you tell me to git gud I will call you a tryhard and a blowout
Yes you are. For you an rts is just a series of numbers and clicks, you could play something with the graphic of dwarf fortress and have your dopamine kick.
>>What you mean RTS are dead then?
Cause they always went for multiplayer only, people play just 1-2 rts and the rest fails. Without good support from singleplayer every rts is destined to failure. Dawn of war series was wonderful and never went for multiplayer, it existed and it was fun but that didn't carried the game. Then they went for multiplayer only, and the series failed. Just an example.
RTS are dead following idiots like you. Muh-ltiplayer shitters.
And i wish that was the only genre multiplayer and esports killed.
t. shitter
Please post the pic where you are first on the world championship tournament of any rts.
Yeah right you aren't even close to that.
Shitter.
OP is criticizing a mindset. You're criticizing results.
its funny tho
because his type of mindset killed old school rts and now he rage on people who enjoyed old school RTS
Starcraft - fast-paced, viable multiplayer
Warcraft - fast-paced, viable multiplayer
Age of Empires - fast-paced, viable multiplayer
C&C/Red Alert - fast-paced, viable multiplayer
Total Annihilation - fast-paced, viable multiplayer
All the
>old school RTS
can prove you wrong at any second.
and yet you miss the point that they were mostly played for SP and campaigns with MP being little percentage of all players
the fact that much less people had internet at the time doesn't mean that people wouldn't play MP if they could.
the thing is most people trickled into MP from playing SP
by concentrating only on MP you deny all that trickling player base
also you have internet access pretty common today and yet RTS that are focused on MP are niche
why?
>by concentrating only on MP you deny all that trickling player base
By making a game with shit MP, you also deny yourself that trickle. The difference is that you won't even have the benefit of other competitive players trickling in to play your game for decades.
>The difference is that you won't even have the benefit of other competitive players trickling in to play your game for decades.
and why you even want that?
if people still play your game 20 years later that means it's good.
you can use the same argument for SP(tbh even more because you play the game and not play with community)
Because games are made to be played.
Okay, so which single-player RTS games are still being played "20 years later"?
no idea, its harder to track it I guess as you don't need internet connections for SP
I can tell what rts I played recently
Majesty and Populous 3
>no idea
That's why your "counter"-argument is moronic.
Multiplayer is literally the best objective measure of longevity in all games.
>Majesty
No real MP mode but the game can sort-of turn into a sandbox.
>Populous 3
The former 2 titles are actually sandboxes, afaik this one was turned into an actual RTS, idk.
>Multiplayer is literally the best objective measure of longevity in all games.
by whom?
you can play SP all time you want - its immortal
for Mp you need opponent
your longevity only matter in case of MP games
SP is eternal as feature
>SP is eternal as feature
Yeah, until the player closes the program and doesn't open it again. When people stop playing games, we count them as dead. Only humans can keep humans entertained for the long run.
yeah but you don't need games for that
No, but we want to use games for that. That's why multiplayer is such a common mode in games.
yeah i got you
MP is a crutch for people with no social skills to have fun with people
yet you cry when people who want to spend time alone from people play SP
>MP is a crutch for people with no social skills to have fun with people
Are you crying as you type this?
>MP is a crutch for people with no social skills to have fun with people
There's have been a lot of things I disagree with typed ITT but this is just moronic
if you look at typical PvP or fighting game 'hardcore' player it make sense tho
>angry cries and keyboard/etc smashing noises
Kinda weird how a lot of people will go on about le comfy oldschool RTS but the only one that are talked about are only the ones with an active MP component, as evidenced by /vst/ itself
No im critizicing the fricking mindset. The mindset of putting multiplayer as the first thing important on an rts.
Strawman
OP is clearly talking about people who don't touch MP, it doesn't say that MP is the most important thing
He deliberately criticize every non-multiplayer aspect of the rts genre (story, difficulty, interaction with human opponents, tactics, gameplay) putting emphasis on the multplyaer aspects. His state of mind is very clear about that.
>B-but h-he d-d-deliberately
Cope
>"Please post the pic where you are first on the world championship tournament of any rts."
Ah. Gotcha. So that's what this means.
>The mindset of putting multiplayer as the first thing important on an rts.
It is. It's what makes it a good game.
>He deliberately criticize every non-multiplayer aspect of the rts genre (story, difficulty, interaction with human opponents, tactics, gameplay)
All of those are multiplayer aspects except "story".
That was an ironic rebuttal. He said i was a shitter so i pointed out that even if he is better than me in multiplayer he is still a grain of sand in the sea. So, basically i can be a shitter but he is a shitter too, on another order of importance.
>It's what makes it a good game.
Absolutely not, there are good RTS that didn't have multiplayer and, generally, very few of them has a big playerbase.
>All of those are multiplayer aspects
Absolutely not. I.A. difficulty, the "i don't want to interact with a human player", tactics and gameplay are part of the game, not "multiplayer only" aspects. And he criticized those aspects ONLY on multiplayer view.
>That was an ironic rebuttal. He said i was a shitter so i pointed out that even if he is better than me in multiplayer he is still a grain of sand in the sea. So, basically i can be a shitter but he is a shitter too, on another order of importance.
Hence, "OP is criticizing a mindset. You're criticizing results."
>Absolutely not, there are good RTS that didn't have multiplayer and, generally, very few of them has a big playerbase.
What makes them good?
>Absolutely not. I.A. difficulty, the "i don't want to interact with a human player", tactics and gameplay are part of the game, not "multiplayer only" aspects.
Difficulty comes from human opponents. "Story" is fluff. The other aspects are only engaged during multiplayer.
Outed and triggered
>Then they went for multiplayer only, and the series failed. Just an example.
Agree with your post, and it's also evident in the tabletop industry. I worked at the company behind Warmachine & Hordes, and the company went downhill as soon as they started uberfocusing on the tournament players
>comfyshitters still responding
This might just be supreme bait.
It's not that casuals and baddies are inherently afraid of RTS multiplayer, it's that they're afraid of 1v1 multiplayer games, and for RTS games it became ingrained that 1v1 is the main game while other modes are meme modes. The only other primarily 1v1 genre with a competitive multiplayer scene is fighting game, another genre these people stay clear of. If the primary multiplayer mode of MOBAs was 1v1 and of RTS games 4v4, Starcraft would to this day have a hundred times larger audience than League of Legends. Casuals HATE 1v1 games where they have no one to depend on but themselves and much prefer games where they can rely on teammates to cover for their mistakes and/or blame them for the loss. All that shit about muh asiaticclick muh build orders muh APM is just deflection.
i don't even why MP people cry and want casuals to play with them?
do they want easy target to stomp or what?
they can play against other hardcore players and enjoy the game against experienced opposition as they supposedly want and yet they cry
the problem with MP focused games is it lack good SP part that attract casuals and usually lack COOP part focusing only on VS modes
the biggest MP like Starcratf or Warcraft had not only great SP campaigns or skirmish modes but also editors and player made CooP or SP content
a lot for everyone and plenty of these casuals are getting aclimated with the game and look for more - trickling to PvE and then PvP MP modes
on the other hand modern MP focused games have only PvP MP and get only attention of 'hardocre' players with newbs getting stomped and leaving because its not fun for them
For me personally, I'm just annoyed when people who are bad at video games and are proud of being bad at video games call videogames shit because they're too hard for them. 90% of Ganker RTS threads are just shitters going waaaaah muh apm muh build orders muh asiaticclick, it gets tiring after a while.
>i don't even why MP people cry and want casuals to play with them?
You misunderstand. It's not that we want to play with you. We just look down on (and mock) you for having a weak mentality.
oh so you just want to feel better for yourself
why tho?
do you lack any other achievements in life?
anon, they just want to relax and have fun time
why you even try hard in video games and not in real life?
no
just trying to understand all these salt
play team based sports anon
playing 1v1 matches are not a height of social skills
>I just want to chill and enjoy my casual comfy city builder after a long day at the office
so just day that instead of sneeding about how genre is fundamentally broken?
>sneeding about how genre is fundamentally broken?
who is doing that tho?
not me
ask OP maybe
>I-I personally don't do this!!
So this thread isn't about you?
I guess
good night
>oh so you just want to feel better for yourself
What I said is that we mock you for having a weak mindset.
lmao at you
why you can't simply enjoy the game instead of raging and insulting people who don't want to play with you?
>If the primary multiplayer mode of MOBAs was 1v1 and of RTS games 4v4, Starcraft would to this day have a hundred times larger audience than League of Legends
I'm not so sure I agree, if you were to add a sixth player to dota or lol you'd completely shatter the meta, but the difference between a 5v5 and. 6v6 in an rts is really not that much and more based on the map than anything else, personally I stay clear of bigger team games because they often are a bunch of 1v1s with occasional aid from neighbouring players
Even when you think about spectating a game, team games raise the number of units for sure but that just mean less focus on individual plays and a bunch of confusions as the casters essentially cast several 1v1s at once
Imo the way to capture the team game audience is to give each player a role like in World in conflict, but then again WiC never took off so idk
You're looking at it from the completely wrong perspective. You don't create games as spectator sports from the ground up to get people invested in it as an e-sports. You create games that have a massive audience with millions who like playing them, and then these people go and also watch others play the game they love playing, and then it evolves into an e-sport. MOBAs and CSGO are absolutely dogshit as spectator sports, yet they have massive audiences as people watch them because they're games they like to play, not because they're so fun to watch on their own.
The obvious counter argument is TF2
The game is good and a frickton of people play it but its tournaments are absolute shit to spectate because the game just wasn't meant for it
Now, I don't think a game having an Esports scene is necessarily related to a game's quality but objectively making a game easy to spectate will mean more people will want to spectate it, surely designing a game from the ground up with that in mind would help its competitive scene get popular
And aside from spectating, design-wise it's true that pretty much all team-based Esports have players assuming different roles or picking different characters
AOE2 kinda does it in team games with pocket players who booms into knights, but imo most team games in RTSs really do feel like it's a bunch of 1v1s rather than a team game
What I'm getting at is that if a game plays pretty much the same with 4 or 20 players than it's not a very well crafted team game and people who already hate 1v1s won't want to play a 1v1 next to 3 teammates, if that makes sense, I believe this was the original point I was trying to make
Anon no you're PvPing in /vst/ you became what you hate!!
>playing with other people is for people with no social skills
I'm looking to get into RTS and would like to know some popular and new player friendly games. I have some familiarity with RTS and understand how they play generally, but I wouldn't really be able to compare them to each other. My only real attempt to try to get into RTS was with SC2 many years ago, though as a child I played a lot of WC3, SC1, and Empire Earth poorly.
AoE2 is both beginner-friendly and a good long-term investment.
What a weird question
Just play what looks fun to play?
I'd say you might already be too old to learn because this shit takes a lot of practice. Your best bet is finding some buddies to play casually.
People shit I. RTS MP because they are scared of losing, there is absolutely nothing else to it.
this thread of absurd rationalizations and ridiculous statements is all the proof I need.
all ill say on the matter is i frequently go into starcraft 2 team games and do my own thing.
i frequently do well while my teammates scream at me in chat for not playing 'meta' even when we win with ease.
just play how you want to play and chill.
last starcraft game i played i did the daring strategy of playing zerg and getting 3 queens before any zerglings. managed to get more roaches out after routing the other zerg players rush with more pure larva and won.
for fricks sake in hearthstone i frequently play an absolutely non-meta cobbled together deck because i don't own the 'meta' cards and still got to legend status.
it's just video games. stop focusing on what other people b***h at you about and have fun no matter if you're playing the starcraft 2 scene or the wargame red dragon scene. or if you drunkenly made the mistake to get steel division 2 it's all fine man.
Give me the final ultimate gigaredpill on BW vs 2
BW is the all-time classic; 2 is just a good game. Simple as.
Why the frick is this thread up? Is this trash what this board is for? Who are the fricking jannies on this shit board? Did Hiro replace them with trannies already? Fricking worthless morons.
bronze baby
OP might be bait but there's a couple of interesting exchanges of opinions ITT
Not like there's much else to talk about with the board being dead and all
True. It was written to incite discussion
Theres no other way to make discussions other than strawman and bait. But nontheless, its true what its said.
Shitters dont actually like RTS or games. They want pampered fantasies.
You aren't a better person because you play with toys a different way than other people.
>Missing the point
>Getting outed
>Getting triggered
>Getting assblasted
But mainly
>Not gittin gud
In any conceivable definition of the word, multiplayer turns a "toy" into a game or competition, that's if you're gay enough to call the videogames you play "toys"
t. shitter
if MP is so great why did the genre die? RTS is in the MMORPG phase of terminal decline where every game is the same, because every studio that makes them is trying to do the same thing.
>if MP is so great why did the genre die?
People moved to MOBAs and the genre looks more or less depleted because there's not much space for innovations.
But you're still a homosexual because all relevant RTS games which are still alive are so in a huge part thanks to their multiplayer aspects.
i disagree. modern computers could handle huge maps. like, how cool would an open world RTS be? the actual problem is the studios that make these things all began making what were basically parallel creations. all looking for a market that had already been captured, or trying to solve a problem that didn't exist.
>open world RTS
but why? what's the purpose? inventing something for the sake of inventing is wrong.
What else, MMORTS?
RTS is already MMORTS by design
how
~8 people is not MMO yet
Every person queueing for a match is a person in an invisible hub world.
And they chat with each other over Discord. Same thing.
Lots of games have a global chat
but why not? what isn't the purpose? inventing something for the sake of inventing is good
>if MP is so great why did the genre die?
Weakness of men. MOBAs are better at appealing to casuals and insecure players.
>Hold on, babe. This unit is a veteran that's survived multiple battles, so I'm going to keep him inside my base until the end of the game.
>playing an online quickmatch in C&C Generals: Zero Hour
>I'm stealth general, he's China infantry
>most of the game is us going back and forth, but I'm mostly on the defensive
>I make nub mistakes like taking 10 minutes before going for oil derricks
>I get my scud storm up but I have to use it defensively against his invading army
>he uses Black Lotus a few times but I destroy/sell my structures before he can take them
>I stealth my real buildings and leave my fake ones exposed, he blows up my fake structures with airstrikes
>I'm basically resolved to losing, but I'm an annoying chucklefrick so I hold out as long as I can; I'm basically on the defensive
>he starts building multiple nukes, I KNOW I'm fricked now
>he nukes my base, and I'm basically barely holding on
>finally without expecting it, I unlocked the sneak attack which opens a tunnel entrance anywhere on the map
>I open a tunnel in the back of his base and sent all my quad cannons, taking out his air force and some power
>he makes a counter-offensive, I use my anthrax bomb (I've been without my scud storm for a while now) in my own base to hold back for just a few more minutes
>meanwhile I keep pumping out quad cannons
>I say "frick it" and launch another sneak attack in the back of his base
>I take out his power, then eat away at his production buildings
>I go for his nukes, which are powered down
>just as I destroy his last nuke, he surrenders
>my entire body surges with adrenaline, and I cannot stay seated
>walking around and shaking for five minutes from the adrenaline rush
Pic related.
Comebacks in general are so satisfying, but especially in RTSs they feel amazing
This is it. This is why its so good to learn RTS.
I bet you had more adrenaline and fun in that game than in 10 hours of anything else
you know there's nothing wrong with wanting easy singleplayer content against braindead ai in an rts, but if that's all you want in the game then what does the multiplayer balance even matter to you?
and if a developer makes a game that's strictly multiplayer (or strictly "skirmish" with no campaigns) then why would you get mad at the people who want that instead of the developers?
all of that kind of arguing in these threads always boils down to "why do people like what I don't like? why is someone catering to someone other than me?" and then blaming the people being catered to instead of the caterer that's really only looking to maximize profits in an already very saturated and now fairly unpopular genre, unpopular because most people just don't want to play the genre at all anymore, not because of how developers are now making the games
Some of the most fun I've had in RTS' was playing co-op mods for campaigns. Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 were great for that.
SP is a lot more popular, but MP is better.
Things that are easy to get into are popular and disposable (that's why they're called plebeian).
Things that require commitment filter out a lot of newcomers so they won't ever be as popular. Investing your time to get really good at something sure feels great though.
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
>Also I want a good story like the epic Red Alert
>Also I play in easy mode
>Also I don't want to really learn the game, I just want to build my dudes for an hour and then stomp the easy AI
>And turtle
>And I want to build bases, houses and decorate them
>And I don't actually want the tactics, build strats or think in the game cuz that's for tryhards. I want a relaxing game that is ACTUALLY strategy like turn based games.
>I actually want a turn based game
>I don't want to deal with other players
>And le epic Warcraft story too!
>Is Cities Skylines an RTS?
>If you tell me to git gud I will call you a tryhard and a blowout
yeah, and? I hate other people
You don't hate other people. They avoid you so it's better to say it was on purpose all along
See? it all works out, everyone gets what they want
Except you, you don't get love, you get SP RTS games for sad people and cope
I also get to have fun, and you don't have to deal with someone who is antisocial
I like RTS I just fricking hate starcraft and how it turned the entire genre into various other games trying to capitalize on what it did right
>All those sweaty koreans addicted to playing with over 100APM itt
Listen gays, just let people enjoy their games like they want to, if somebody only wants to play SP and turtle in their base for 1h before roflstomping the AI its fine. Its just as valid way of having fun with the game as spending 6 hours daily in MP and following build orders and guides to a tee.
>100APM
>sweaty
have a (you)
>100APM
certified noob
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. The people you're describing make/made up the lifeblood and bulk of the RTS playerbase. The RTS genre died because YOU WON. Newer RTS games are (were lol) catered to e-sports, increased micro and apm requirements, resulting in the casuals all leaving RTS to become an insular genre for boomers with an impenetrable barrier to entry.
What's the last RTS you've played, doomer?
>Newer RTS games are (were lol) catered to e-sports, increased micro and apm requirements
funny that the exact opposite actually happened
>leaving RTS to become an insular genre for boomers with an impenetrable barrier to entry.
Such barrier never existed
You're just a shitter, that's the point, a loser at heart, and making easier games makes them not an RTS
What I learned from this discussion is that the term "strategy" has an incredibly loose definition.
Games like StarCraft:BW with their focus on micro should have been called Real Time Tactics. Only games like Supreme Commander really deserve the "strategy" label
Autist
It's all so tiresome, but I might as well bring up one thing that wasn't mentioned in the thread. Competetive RTS games and Starcraft in particular have a reputation of being very difficult games with a high barrier to entry. While that reputation is false, maintaining it by claiming that if you want a more casual experience you don't actually want to play an RTS is only going to hurt the genre and in fact already did. A genre without new players will die, there is no way around it, if an average person's view of a genre is entirely based around competetive tournaments new players won't come. Imagine of chess had that sort of a reputation, as opposed to something everyone has played at some point of their life
>that reputation is false
It's quite true, though. You can't simply beat the tutorial, then the campaign, then a compstomp match, and then consider yourself ready for MP - there are a lot more things to learn and skills to train before that.
That kinda commitment is enough of a barrier for most players who want to simply jump into the game and get better as they play without any required reading right off the bat.
By that logic even something like chess has a high barrier to entry. You are completely ignoring the fact that playing singleplayer is still playing the game as well as ignoring the fact that competetive multiplayer is not the only option for it, there can also be more casual games, or even if we were to discount more casual then at least low skill level competetive games. I do have respect for the high level competetive scenes of RTS games, but ignoring other parts of them is not helping the genre.
>By that logic even something like chess has a high barrier to entry.
People generally don't have to go online and ask how to get their back row units out of their starting positions.
People don't need to ask online for basic mechanics either in good RTS games. tutorials and campaigns should always serve to teach you these. Sure, they may not teach you the advanced techniques, but you shouldn't need them for beginner MP matches.
>People don't need to ask online for basic mechanics either in good RTS games.
Build orders are the most commonly-discussed elements of RTS games.
>tutorials and campaigns should always serve to teach you these.
SPgays huddle around campaigns and AI skirmishes on joke maps.
>Sure, they may not teach you the advanced techniques, but you shouldn't need them for beginner MP matches.
Most people don't, but they absolutely refuse to engage MP until they've poisoned themselves with "advanced" SP tactics and inapplicable knowledge that come from the separate formats and dumb AI, resulting in them needing to relearn the game just to face the glue-huffers in 600 elo.
I Think a good middle ground is to have extra sp content that's specifically made to prepare people for multiplayer
For example AoE 2's fast castle and boar luring practice, which were community made but now I think are officially in vanilla DE?
not sure I don't play AoE 2
This way you can have campaign setpieces about having an overpowered unit that rapes everything but also have more tutorial-esque content so that people can practice multiplayer concepts/strats before getting into it
The problem is that for most game the meta is found by players after the game launches so the devs can't really predict what they should teach, which is also why it's hard to make campaign content that's both good on its own and prepares people for multiplayer
No, that doesn't work at all. SP and MP gameplay work on completely different design paradigms and likewise the two player groups find completely opposite aspects fun, boring or bullshit. No amount of clever engineering can get them to them mingle at this point.
There's a reason strategy game devs focus their efforts on specialized solutions for specific playerbases. Comfyshitters want their pretty make-believe toy sets that give them a variety of ways to horse around and if they play online at all, it's to bully the AI with their siblings, etc. Now, with the sweaty hardcore folks, you need not bother with lore, stories, game modes, even graphics - they want rock-solid netcode, superb readability, flawless input, and a couple of expertly optimized maps they'll never get tired of.
You dont need to go online to know how to build workers, mine resources, and use those resources to build combat units. SP campaigns are a great basic tutorial for RTS games.
The only real difference between chess and competitive RTS is that chess has a steady flow of absolute shitters to populate the lower ranks. If RTS had the same amount of utter trash players (like they used to when the genre was new and exploding in popularity), you'd be able to play with your trash builds against other trash builds and perhaps then learn and refine your skills.
Everyone was trash back thrn but some dumb kids believed they were super strategists for beating their moron classmates. Advent of internet and open mmr-based matchmaking shattered those illusions, and apparently some kids egos just couldnt handle that.
Conversely, if chess had no inflow of shitters, you'd be seeing autists complain how it has a terrible barrier to entry because you totally need to learn all the common openings to be able to play multiplayer
90% of players in any RTS are complete morons that barely finished the tutorial. The "game is full of asiatics with 20 years of experience" is just a cope.
>90% of players in any RTS are complete morons that barely finished the tutorial.
>But also the tutorial is not enough you need to read how basic mechanics work online to be able to compete
>The "game is full of asiatics with 20 years of experience" cope
Or cheaters. Frick its so satisfying when a guy spergs out and starts accusing you of cheating. homie, we're barely in the top 30% of the playerbase, i dont need to cheat to beat your predictable ass
>90% of players in any RTS are complete morons that barely finished the tutorial
>we need more of them
like why?
I just want to build robits and have them hit energy plants bro
Sanctuary soon, fellow commander
Like just read sun tzu
Just recommend them games with good campaign
imagine playing call of duty for the campaign
I played the campaigns and MP, AoE 2 has good campaigns, stop comparing apples and oranges CoD is not even the same genre
>imagine playing call of duty
>let me quote your post
>and then add a greentext that you never wrote to try to make you look dumb
Why are spBlack folk like this?
>don't enjoy multiplayer since the games gets samey
>falls asleep when I try to do comfy shit
>only enjoys singleplayer rts with ultrahard mods.
I enjoy the weird bullshit odds and the creative solutions you can find(even if half of them are bug abuses).
>"being good" at wargames
It's a miracle you had any friends to begin with
ITT: people with aspergers pretending they're great tactical minds when in reality they can't enjoy a game unless they have build orders, spreadsheets and 3 discord servers dedicated to "meta discussion" (read: autism) open on their second monitor
ITT: people with aspergers pretending they're great tactical minds when in reality they can't enjoy a game unless they can place static defense for two hours before attack moving a deathball towards the braindead AI's base
ITT: people with aspergers pretending they're great tactical minds when in reality they can't enjoy a game
My 2cents:
>multiplayer
- map are literally symmetrical,
- you need to care about other players, can hardly stop for lunch,
- you need extra effort to avoid either a child noob or godlike cheater,
>singleplayer
- you can have custom made map & mission with unorthodox challenges,
- you can play one mission for dozen of hours and enjoy a story
- difficulty is (carefully) managed to give you a challenge,
Wether or not we can find better balancing mechanic than gate-triggered progression is another topic.
Sure it's jazzy to be able to build, turtle, then curbstomp, but there's other game who pressure you constantly should you choose to.
I'd love to play a PVE multiplayer RTS.
Go ahead and put us against an AI tailored to drop reinforcement inside our line of defense if it look like we are progressing too fast.
As long as it use gameplay mechanism we have control over and isn't predictable we will welcome the challenge.
I just don't like competitive game because there's no joy in losing.
I like cooperative game because no matter what you do it's win/win.
Starcraft 2 is literally exactly that.
>because there's no joy in losing.
Lmao what a fricking beta mindset
This sickens me and churns my stomach. I always thought better from this forum, much better than Ganker shitters
I agree with you, I really don't get how anons on this board can be such thin-skinned cowards afraid of ever experiencing failure. It must be because they're all NEET losers and use strategy games as escapism to feel important, smart, and powerful for once in their lives.
classic projection
What's killing RTS game isn't singleplayer kino it's e-spoort & phone game.
>LET'S MAKE A RTS GAME! BECAUSE ITS OUR JOB!
>but it must be online first, if there's no AI it can't be our fault it's unbalanced
>also it need to ride on that e-sport wave, we need the constant advertising
>basic tutorial only, who have time to write plot anyway?
>keep the gameplay simple, we don't want to alienate our young consumer base
>no physics, it's complex and we need to keep the game compatible with tablet
>just do it the way our grand-pa did but flashier with HP, range, Area of attack
>simple map too, make obvious lanes so it's catchy to name
>don't forget the symmetry, need to be balanced for e-spirt or something
>symmetry for units too, in fact, give the other side the exact same unit with different color
>oh and add some walking boob unit, half censored for China of course
>know what? it's been so cheap to make, how about we make it Free2Play?
>yes Free2Pay also make it ethical for us to monetize dumb skins for 2times the budget of a singleplayer game
>true F2P can't make money if they don't play it forever, so please procedurally generate grind
>Oh I heard about those cryptocurrency and NFT! We absolutely need to get on that scam!
>What do you mean players are "boycotting our shit"? We spent millions on marketing and those hamsters refuse to get into the skinner box? Why
holy cope
>gotta defend grinding for 500h
grinding? what grinding? is that another comfyshitter cope?
literally never happened
what the frick are you even talking about?
apmlets are truly delusional
Damn son, you've fricking destroyed that strawman! Thank you for saving this thread!
Please name one game that this applies to
It refer to the RTS genre in general silly anon
if it applies to the whole genre then you can name at least one title, right?
Take most e-sport RTS games, this mentality transpire across the whole genre now.
One. Title.
I'm waiting.
ok, sir nitpicker: Age of Empire 4
old-school game recycled to be e-sport friendly without taking any risk
except that it's barely e-sport friendly with faction mechanics, fricked up ship balance and multiple simplifications.
It took them some time to add ranked mode and you still have the campaigns.
They just wanted to make a more modern AoE2 and either succeeded because that's exactly what it is or failed because it didn't beat AoE2.
I'm yet to see actual examples.
You are complaining about exactly the sort of simplification bullshit caused by attempt to be e-sport friendly.
No improvement, decades old mechanic, sometime inferior to the original, "look at me, my gameplay is rigid enough for e-sport".
It won't even matter if they don't make it into e-sport, they try because there's lot of money in it and will guaranty the game last forever.
AoE4 is as valid as the well known e-sport RTS Warcraft, Starcraft 2, and the myriad of other who tried, Dawn of War 3, C&C4 ,Blitzkrieg 3, Rise of Legends, World in Conflict
Even a franchise like Total War with sophisticated game mechanic still risk new installments being dumbed down.
Total War:ARENA did in fact attempt to remove the TBS side to focus on the RTS battles into a MOBA, the result was not enough for e-spurt but enough to be wasted.
Supreme commander 2 seem to have avoided the simplification but the franchise was already esport friendly to begin with.
One major mistake, my friend.
The games are not being simplified to cater to e-sports, they're being simplified to widen the audience, which, for the whole genre of strategy, is on the risk of extinction, if it isn't extinct already.
This happens to literally all genres where one game becomes popular and thus influential.
>widen the audience
No mistake. What do you think e-sport is for if not to widen the audience?
The point of e-sport is to bring the normies who go religious over football to do the same for a video game, allowing to sell tickets for competition and goodies.
Hope you don't feel the need to be contrarian, we are in agreement here.
Not going as far as saying the RTS is almost extinct thought. Unlike physical sport the digital market is not subject to infinite inertia and people can play (good) RTS without needing to buy e-sport equipments. We will lose big-budget RTS game but I trust Indy studio to show something new that work and force big studio to up their games.
>not being simplified to cater to e-sports, they're being simplified to widen the audience
In part because you can't make bank on esports unless you have a wide enough audience to power the hype machine and fill out events.
Problem they've missed is that rarely does a game sustain such a hype machine unless it panders to every niche audience to fuel their fanart and fanfic desires, but you can't really do that with an RTS
None of this
applies to AoE4
>multiple examples of extremely competitive RTS without a focus on micro (Supcom, Wargame, etc)
>dare to mention that you want more of those instead of shitty asiaticclick
>NOOOOOO RTS IS ALL MICRO WHY DO YOU HATE STRATEGY THIS IS WHAT THE GENRE SHOULD BE
Using the word "asiaticclick" instantly disqualifies your opinion from being valid. Your seething is just oozing out.
>Supcom
At the very least as micro intensive as Starcraft 2.
>Wargame
An RTT, so it's literally nothing but micro.
Why are apmlets so utterly delusional?
No. Both games literally have command delays you schizophrenic moron.
Good luck playing wargame without microing superheavies, planes and units in cqc
Actual schizo.
most games have command delays, you're just looking for excuses.
>/vt/ is classic Ganker in spirit, unlike the post-2016 reddtiors from /misc/
sure is a lot of autistic arguing about the definition of strategy game in here
trying to apply the military definition of strategy to games is peak sperg
Extremely strategic post
I play singleplayer rts because I don't have friends
>Why are so many guys like this?
Because 80% or more of the customer base legitimately doesn't give a frick about esports bullshit, that's just a very small slice of cash-cows that has a hellish time sustaining ladders.
>Why not play a tower defense then?
Dude, we INVENTED Tower Defense. In Starcraft. We also invented MOBAs there. The big money-makers that drag on forever are canvases, not finite experiences.
LAPD Future Cop had Precinct Assault before Aeon of Strife was a gleam in somebody's eye.
>LAPD Future Cop
I played the shit out of that game, tbh. Actually underrated and underexposed game.
>we INVENTED Tower Defense
This just proves the point that some RTS players would have more fun playing tower defense games
Also
>We
lol
>some RTS players would have more fun playing streamlined RTS substitutes
Didn't they do just that? The kind of players who enjoyed the novelty of mining resources, watching units do their thing, defending against vicious waves of enemies, aesthetically arranging their bases, and many other basic components forming rather complex gameplay mechanics, figured they could play games that include their favorite features and omit the ones they don't like.
They play defense games, city builders, colony survival, farming sims, god games, autobattlers, time management games, factory builders, roguelites - all sorts of games, casual and hardcore, each satisfying a specific craving.
True, true.
So why do people want RTS to be that instead of playing BLOONS forever?
At the end of the day SP and MP do come bundled together in one game so the two tribes end up sharing the same game and being anal about it. I don't get why some devs still won't design them as separate units that could be better tailored to the needs of either group of players.
>Why don't devs do twice the work??
moron
Not him but you're the moron
>make SP and MP on one disc
>make SP and MP on two discs
This is not doubling the work load
Since when does doing less take more work?
>This just proves the point that some RTS players would have more fun playing tower defense games
The point being made is that the popularity literally predates most of the "substitutes" due to how many of them are direct spinoffs. So there's a bunch attached to the origin as a hotspot of varied interests.
Main utility is that it gets matchmaking community effects going for a wide range of wonkiness that would never have had a playerbase otherwise. Instead of needing to be told about and pay for a hyper-niche game, you can end up seeing it in lobby listings and give it a try just-because.
I love RTS of the old because of the sandboxiness of them and you could play serious or a complete farming sim minigame
But a loud group wants to be just mindless minigames, and back in the day with all seriousness 90% of them sucked and dont replace the actual game. Like for one DOTA there were hundreds of cookie clickers. Its cool that the baegame lets you do sandbox stuff though.
>it's another "RTS incels seethe impotently about the massive success of MOBA" episode
the tastiest kind of treat
90% of people on earth just want a comfyshitter game to play around in with their friends instead of some broken game from the late 90s to tryhard in. That's why RTS is a dead genre, the fanbase are decrepit old boomers who have been playing the same game since 1999. Every time they try to fix the genre there is a backlash from old boomers. IT would be like if every FPS fan only played Quake 2, or if every fighting game fan played street fighter 2. Just broken unplayable games only accessible for ultimate tryhards with 1000 hours.
Interesting comparison because arena shooters suffer from a similar problem.
But for rts there's relatively recent games like coh2 that you can play online and meet plenty of morons, not only "tryhardy boomers"
you just don't play MP.
You talk like you know but you don't know you don't know
>Muh boomers
>Muh old game
>The asiaticieman
Shitters
This thread cured me of my ladder anxiety
Thank you
How
Good job, anon! Now go and crush your opponents so hard that they come to this thread to complain about asiaticclick
I got motivated
My peepee is hard playing HRE
?t=98
I shed the blood of 4 thousand saxon men today
Forgot image
Getting shit on by an overmedicated Korean teen playing his 47th match of the day is not an enjoyable experience. People who have jobs and families (unlike yourself) don’t have time to read every patch summary and meticulously practice the optimal way to counter a Trebuzian base rush sidewinder.
>Getting shit on by an overmedicated Korean teen playing his 47th match of the day is not an enjoyable experience
Don't worry you'll never get an mmr required to get matched against a player like this.
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
But that's true.
>Also I want a good story like the epic Red Alert
Red Alert, assuming we're talking about the first one, did have a great story.
>Also I play in easy mode
Strawman
>Also I don't want to really learn the game, I just want to build my dudes for an hour and then stomp the easy AI
NoFunAllowed.jpg
>And turtle
Strawman
>And I want to build bases, houses and decorate them
Never heard anyone argue for fashion in an RTS.
>And I don't actually want the tactics, build strats or think in the game cuz that's for tryhards. I want a relaxing game that is ACTUALLY strategy like turn based games.
Strawman
>I actually want a turn based game
Strawman
>I don't want to deal with other players
Repeating your 1st point
>And le epic Warcraft story too!
Repeating your 2nd point
>Is Cities Skylines an RTS?
Non-sequitur
>If you tell me to git gud I will call you a tryhard and a blowout
Restatement of 3rd, 4th, and 7th points
>What you mean RTS are dead then?
Non-sequitur
Overall, nice projection anon. In your attempt to make RTS players look like small-minded simpletons, you proved yourself to be the biggest midwit of all.
What an epic takedown anon you must be proud of yourself
>They are called real time strategy
>The "strategy" is just clicking fast than your opponent
Im gonna ask for shit like in the OP completely unironically:
Is there a game that's basicly The Settlers (1~5), but turn-based?
Is there a game that's basicly The Settlers (3), but with a better citibuilder?
Is there a game that's basicly The Settlers (2), but with a better combat element?
Is there a game that's basicly The Settlers (4), but with any sort of on-line PvE?
Lords of the Realm 2
Cultures 2
Creeper World 3
Northgard
stop being a lazy homosexual and produce a game that's AT LEAST as good as past games.
We are not action shooter fans to be spoonfed shit and liking it. "Strategy" is in the fricking name of the gender
>YOU CAN ONLY PLAY HOW I WANT YOU TO PLAY OR YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!
>HEY, DIDN'T YOU LISTEN TO WHAT I SAID? STOP HAVING FUN!!!!!
okay, go have fun your own way, but please, for the love of god, stop complaining about imaginary problems like "asiaticclicking" or "build orders".
Primitive RTS like -crafts and others died because people who wanted actual strategy and simulation moved on to more interesting and complex games, while competitive dopamine prostitutes who wanted the genre to stop developing and stay as glorified isometric action click games moved on to MOBA as they can get more money and action from clicking very fast with only a few autists remaining.
>400 replies
frick all of you
Why the frick are all the western "women" who play starcraft trannies?
Same as other sports - superior muscles. It gives them superior clicking ability.
zie my beloved...
Frick i love the way she titles her streams
>do corsets make you a better starcraft player? help i cant breathe
>objectively the worst player to ever learn from pros in korea shows how not to do it.
>new player just learning please help i need backseat advice!!
>playing Minecraft sequel but it's in space??
Wish i had more saved.
Does mann vs machine count as an RTS?
because going outside of the 'meta' with competent teamates can be a lot more fun once you've got a good handle on shit, going full damage-scout and relying on dodging rather than resistances can be stupid fun.
No
What's even the point of this autistic thread
All I have to say is that I have zero interest in playing RTS games in multiplayer because getting beat by some sweaty asiatic Black person who can click faster than me and got sequences of hotkeys permanently burned into his brain is not my idea of "fun" and is not "strategy" either. If you play chess with some Black person that starts moving his pieces at superspeed and slaps your hands away when you want to make your move theres nothing "strategic" or "challenging" about it
>What's even the point of this autistic thread
I believe it's to make fun of people like you
We don't laugh with you, we laugh at you
Outed, triggered and filtered
Speedchess is a thing
But also you can be in a winning position in regular chess and run out of time
you are not, and will never be, good enough to even match against one of those sweaty asiatic Black folk who can click ten times as fast as you can
I matched against Rain when laddering in brood war once.
We had like 800 MMR differential and he got +0 points for beating me within 5 minutes. Frick i was so bad at marine micro against zealots.
Too bad the matchmaking has been (kinda) fixed since then.