Did you even try out the 2 betas? This game is garbage.
They clearly went for the swetfest that is CoH2 instead the coop way which was MoWAS 2.
Inb4 git gut gayit, I do play CoH2 but I don't want CoH2 in Men of War. If you want to swet just hit the gym like any other bro.
Yeah I did. Which is why I think the game is great. If you don't want to play the matchmaking mode you can just not. CoH 2 is balanced on 1v1 on top of being a garbage game. This actually feels like a real multiplayer RTS with focus on 4v4 and 5v5. >CO-OP >MOW AS2
Everyone who played multiplayer would do 3v3 or 4v4 Assault or Combat. I know cause I got 1000 hours into it. If you want to be one of those people who just plays against the brain dead AI nothing is stopping you in this one either.
1. Stop trying to make fricking e-sports out of everything.
2. Don't focus on laddergays because they give the game a bad rep among cassuals so new people show up to breathe a new life into a genre on life support. >inb4 cassuals ruin games.
3. Put more focus in single player, co-op and user generated content.
3A. Balance the campaigns, co-op and multiplayer seperately. Nobody likes to have their experience ruined because a nerf in gamemode A affected gamemodes B and C.
4. Make sure to have spectacle.
5. Don't do anything that might be related to modern day politics.
6. Experiment with the genre again.
7. Make a Netflix series based on one of the preexisting IPs to get people interested. C&C would be the best option.
I think RTS games should look for a way to get massive replayability for single player, like Total War and Paradox games have. The competition with other types of games is too hard if you only have a simple linear campaign and repetitive skirmishes nowadays. Should add some roguelike or grand campaign map swing to it. Or at least heavy co-op integration and AI that scales to be an actual challenge. Modding support can also help of course, but need an addictive gameplay loop to add to first.
Right now it's usually only multiplayer that provides a varied enough experience that keeps you playing.
Rise of Nations had this, but for some reason rts games are repetitive as frick on the same map over and over, probably because you have to build and research everything all over again. Whereas in RTW and Shogun 2 you can fight on the same battlefield in a million different ways and have it still be fresh and fun.
>I think RTS games should look for a way to get massive replayability for single player, like Total War and Paradox games have.
This. I doubt that the EaW scene would be so noticeable without Galactic Conquest mode, and modern tech should handle randomly generated maps well, even with oblectives other than killing every single enemy unit. I think it is time to revive Rise of Nations.
they have movie script writers doing treatments on all the big action and adventure and role playing games.
the story cut scenes and a well developed sngle player is pretty rare.
cinematics are mostly all chintzy flash animations. (except for the trailers for marketing reasons)
Where were the trannies and antifa homosexuals during the campaigns? I'm curious. But in all seriousness it is about not putting trannies, BLM and all that other shit in the game. And the tiberium infestation should not be used as a "It is just like climate change guys" story element (Mostly because it is a shitty comparison beyond the fact that both affect the environment). People don't like being preached at. And "modern politics" are different than the "modern politics" from when C&C was being made. Maybe should have phrased that point as "Avoid modern day culture war garbage".
You should not need anyone to explain the difference.
C&C is a Cold War alternate reality that yields potential for interesting hypothetical military conflicts that never happened. Narratives were strictly meant to be cool and entertaining for warfare nerds.
When people say they want modern politics out of games they're talking about promoting narratives and depicting the world so as to confirm the prejudices of one faction or the other (almost always-- pandering to progressives.) C&C did not do that.
GLA is a pastiche of a lot of middle eastistani terrorists. Notice how religion is never brought up, the GLA's dialogue is closer to some kind of revolutionary arab socialist off-shoot and pre-911 movie terrorists; than to moderate headchoppers or other kinds of religious darkmen.
Yeah and even then, middle eastern militant terrorism was simple fact so taking inspiration for it makes sense. Different from say, having an orange-faced billionaire US politician antagonist who acts out all the fever dreams of American leftoids.
Politics in the 90s meant inspired from notable world events and conflicts. Today it means inspired by the hot takes of other morons in the dev's social media feed.
>C&C is a Cold War alternate reality
No it's not, it is middle 90s with sci fi injected, it has final mission in Sarajevo and retroactively inserted serb as a villain for frick's sake.
That GiantGrantGames guy is a fricking moron. I have no idea why redditards shill him so hard.
tl;dw RTS games cannot really be saved because they require a frickton of money while being a poor investment. People just don't really play RTS games in this day and age.
The RTS genre is doing fine. The games are still there, fans are still there, the market is still there.
Big budget AAA devs won't make them, but frick it do you want them making your games?
>The RTS genre is doing fine.
if you call playing two 20 year old games, sc2, and cheap chink sc2 clones "doing fine", then I wonder how's the FPS genre doing according to your scale. Galactically Orgasmically?
i think if broken arrow turns out well it could be a decent sleeper hit, but i dont see many other promising RTS games on the horizon. that game from frost giant looks incredibly bland.
RTTs are fine with Regiments, not-Wargame and MoW2.
RTS are still in topor since nobody can something "WOW worthy".
Best they can do are spiritual successors (as in shameless ripoffs) like Tempest Rising.
And DORF is still far away.
>maintain scale, unit variety, tech progression, and eco - these are the game's strongest points >polish unit order UI to make order queueing and reordering more intuitive. This is possible with hotkeys in FAF but could be done visually >fix moronic pathfinding. This would honestly be the hardest part >graphic update, just to make the terrain look better and more diverse if nothing else. As it is you're stuck on snow planet/desert planet/crystal planet/palm planet >Integrate supcom2's 3D map support. >streamline engine. Even supcom2 ran better on similar scale and with more detailed environments >MODULARITY. Better mod/script/macro API and mapmaker >strategy layer. I said it. >integrated "survival" PvE game mode because honestly this is enormously popular
FAF went miles into fulfilling the game's potential, but there's some problems only a proper sequel could ever fix. This will never happen, of course, but it does deserve to.
incorporate rts elements in action adventure and fps games.
being a genre gay is pretty limiting.
its like
how mant deathcore bands do you need to listen to before every album starts to sound the same and you just move on to another genre and be like >you know what this needs? >blast beats and screaming.
>make better rts for mobile phones.
I played some of those. It's actually pretty nice to have something to compstomp on the go. >incorporate rts elements in action adventure and fps games.
Seen those too. They're tend to be rather disappointing and basic.
Have fun with the dumb AI that you will solve very quickly. As people become more mature with strategy games, they realise most AI don't put up an engaging fight. Multiplayer can keep people engaged for years if done right.
Most players won't put up an engaging fight tho. And they abandon games left and right - there's only a handful of RTSes that actually have players you can play with.
Just make the AI overpowered, give me a challenge. I don't want baby games, which come down to following markers on the map. Shit like Total War is way to easy for me. Find a way to counter player snowballing.
Adults were never the bulk of people playing RTS games during the genre's golden years. Adults are not supposed to have that much free time in general.
In those days even the game makers were mostly a bunch of 20-somethings still mooching off their parents and weren’t making games based off of market-driven analytics, but what they thought would be “cool” so of course teenagers ate that shit up. Something got lost when you get the ”grown ups” involved, and all you get in return is mostly a lot of frickery and corner cutting at the middle and upper management level, not to mention a writing staff composed of a bunch of diversity hires. Nowadays the novelties lost so all you have are a bunch of nostalgiagays who want things exactly as they remember them while the teenagers move on to some other hot new thing.
Whatever you mean by "saving" it means it being riddled by normies that believe saying no-no jokes to others in the internet is being edgy and riddling the pockets of uncaring corporations with money. You don't want it.
Indies could have saved RTS games (and similar genres) but wokeism kinda destroyed that chance (the feminist dtke with blue hair is an obligatory character now, I always avoid those games)
Not an RTS exactly but I liked Domina, you should try that game, I wish we had more games like that but on a bigger scale (more units) and with more strategy elements
The only thing that could save this genre is a game that follows these rules >easy to play and understand >competitive /well balanced >visually attractive (maybe anime style, yes, I said it, not westoid anime, real anime) >decent single player campaign / interesting lore
It doesn't has to be unique, you can repeat the same formula but make it good and colorful
Hardcore gamers will hate it but they're homosexual, they ruined the genre and developers shouldn't listen to them
We should go back to the basics, the problem is, most RTS game fans are boomers and they just want an excel sheet and have "fun" watching NOOMBERSS go up
I don't think so. RTS games encourage micromanagement and economy 4x spam rather than sophisticated tactics. I've never played a rts that didn't ultimately devolve to this and build order nonsense
>build order nonsense
It's literally just having an objective in mind when starting out, and repeatedly using the most direct pathway to that objective.
RTS is fine, nothing to save. You can easily find at least 10 RTS games with alive multiplayer, full lobby for any game mode in a few minutes. On top of that, you get the SP ones, a couple new ones each year. Just enjoy not being under the spotlight of huge bussiness. The RTS games people play are not played because of marketing or streamers or normie hype or battlepass season grinds, but because they're fun and enjoyable. I really don't know why getting milked for money by homosexual uberstudio execs is so appealing to you people.
Stop trying to remove base building. For some reason developers started to limit and restrict base building in newer games, when RTS started to die. But base building is half of the appeal. Instead there should be bigger focus on base building and setting up production chains. There shouldnt simply be "food" as a single resource, but instead a variety of different ones providing different effects. You shouldn't be able to simply create a flesh golem out of gold and food as an unit. To create a soldier you should first create armor for him and then recruit him from civilians. Cities and castles should be teeming with life and full of citizens instead of being dead military camps. Bigger care should be put on Sieges too. Walls being a glorified fence on which you cant put troops are unacceptable.
Stronghold really is a perfect RTS.
Also sandbox campaign map is mandatory. Linear story focused campaign does not provide enough replayability
Incorporating 4x elements and slowing down gameplay so that actual strategy is what wins games rather than APM. Classic RTS gameplay isn’t worth preserving, it already diverged into genres of gsg, 4x, moba, etc. so in other words if you want your RTS game to be successful, you need to incorporate elements of those genres into it. >Players who played RTS for politics and map painting went into GSG >Players who played RTS for deeper economy and production of units went into 4x >Players who wanted high-octane clickfests with micromanagement went into MOBA.
There’s really nothing appealing about true RTS anymore that hasn’t been refined into another genre. It was more like an experimental genre that fulfilled its purpose and is now looked back at through rose-tinted glasses by dinosaurs.
>everyone gaslit themselves into thinking that rts is dead because genre itself is flawed and not because there hasn't been a single good rts game in 15years
just make a good game if you do that you can save any genre literally nothing changed in human nature or culture that would prevent rts games from being popular again
>just make a good game if you do that you can save any genre literally nothing changed in human nature or culture that would prevent rts games from being popular again
Truth is that RTS is not dead. But it will never be what it was because the market has changed. There are many more games now, and newer genres that compete with RTS, most notably MOBA. But there are also genres like survival crafting that may have stolen potential RTS audience. Minecraft did not exist in 1996.
Incorporating 4x elements and slowing down gameplay so that actual strategy is what wins games rather than APM. Classic RTS gameplay isn’t worth preserving, it already diverged into genres of gsg, 4x, moba, etc. so in other words if you want your RTS game to be successful, you need to incorporate elements of those genres into it. >Players who played RTS for politics and map painting went into GSG >Players who played RTS for deeper economy and production of units went into 4x >Players who wanted high-octane clickfests with micromanagement went into MOBA.
There’s really nothing appealing about true RTS anymore that hasn’t been refined into another genre. It was more like an experimental genre that fulfilled its purpose and is now looked back at through rose-tinted glasses by dinosaurs.
>Classic RTS gameplay isn’t worth preserving
It might be. Certainly the classics in the genre should be preserved. I think you just haven't really thought it through as well as you think you have. It seems like you have the right idea but the desire to be edgy ruins it. >There’s really nothing appealing about true RTS anymore that hasn’t been refined into another genre
Except that 4X games predated RTS and they co-evolved together through the 90s. 4X did not affect RTS much. Minecraft is a much bigger factor. In Minecraft you explore an area, gathering wood and stone to build a fort for fending off monsters. In Warcraft, you explore the map, gathering wood and stone to build a base and army to fend off enemies, and when you find their base and are strong enough you go wipe them out. Both games are smooth, real-time games that are intuitive and don't require delving into a manual covering the production economy like a 4X game. The combat is fun and fast-paced.
Minecraft was hugely popular with kids and although it trades war simulation for first-person immersion and deeper creative possibilities, there are important similarities. And of course Minecraft spawned a ton of new games including games with more competitive or challenging aspects. So if you're already having that gather/build creativity itch satisfied by Minecraft and games inspired by it, and MOBAs have the "competitive clickfest" crowd, you won't be as interested in RTS.
> There are many more games now, and newer genres that compete with RTS, most notably MOBA.
literally how? who even came up with this myth? and why do you homosexuals keep it alive? apart from being a born as wc3 mod there is no connection between moba and rts games whatsoever. When dota 1st came around people described it as an rpg mod while in reality its closer to a fricking fighting game. And i dont even know how fricking genres can compete with each other how does that even work? how the frick do you even "steal an audience" Black person please have you used your brain once in your life? and evne then how the frick turn based glorified city builders for 0 iq pajeets with racial inferiority complexes can steal rts games audience? how the frick a glorified top down fighting game steal rts games audience? what because there fricking npcs that you click on once every second to get recourses?
considering how literally noone plays any rts games on this board its no wonder you guys are this dumb and have 0 knowledge about the genre
there is nothing wrong with rts as a genre is it not irrelevant or flawed in its nature or whatever
its had a bad luck coz the only companies who made & funded rts games were EA, Blizzard and THQ
considering how its much harder to make an rts game compared to any other type of strategy game and the fact that strategy games in general are very niche
losing 3 of rtses biggest benefactors all roughly at the same time was a pretty hard blow
>post mostly about how minecraft sucked the wind out of the casual RTS >spergs out about the mere suggestion that MOBAs had any effect at all
Just a fact that obsessively competitive young males shifted away from battle.net RTS toward MOBAs in the late 2000s and 2010s. Though yew World of Warcraft might have been a bigger impact initially. >how genres compete
If you read my post you'd see the logic. It's about what kids and young people find appealing. Casually inclined: Minecraft. Hyper-competitive: battle royale, moba.
Has their growth slowed? You have to consider the entire industry has been growing (slowly). But you're also looking at the point the wrong way. The more competitive options there are (add fighting games maybe, also), the less prominent RTS will be.
Also, 2016 is only 7 years ago and FPS has always been there. Counterstrike and UT were popular alongside Starcraft. But for the players who don't like FPS they have more options than they did in 2001
Different players had different reasons to play, and now there are plenty of substitutes that cater directly to particular palates. Arguably, a full-blown RTS isn't even what most would want now.
If by saved you mean "be made mainstream" then it literally can't be saved
Too complicated for the masses, even relatively simple SP-focused RTS games like Halo Wars were commercial flops so anything relying on multiplayer is dead in the water outside of niche audiences. Most people nowadays are too scared to get invested in fighting games let alone a frickin RTS.
>just simplify it bro! just reduce focus on APM bro!
Listen, like it or not if you want a multiplayer game to survive you're gonna need a sizeable portion of the player base to be casual players who can only play it on weekends and sometimes after work, but there's always going to be hypercompetitive people who aren't good or committed enough to actually play competitive slaughtering those casuals. In popular genres of today like Battle Royale this is offset by having 99 other players, you're probably gonna run into someone worse than you and even if you don't it's 15 seconds tops to get another chance. An RTS loss is slow and soul crushing and not the kinda thing you want to experience after 8 hours of soul crushing capitalist extortion. Thus RTS will always be a niche genre for competitive nerds. Either that or you play SupCom 4v4 on Seton's because you wanna LARP being an airforce commander.
>seriously though just simplify the gameplay and it'll sell gangbusters
Even if we pretended that RTS fans wouldn't be crying nonstop over the slightest design concession, how exactly do you want things to be simplified? Changing the focus from micro to macro didn't work, removing base building didn't work, removing resource management didn't work, focusing on singleplayer didn't work, having only one faction didn't work. RTS is an inherently complicated genre, the closest thing I can think of is making multiplayer Dandori challenges from Pikmin 4 but I don't think even that would be enough to bring RTS to the mainstream.
There is just too many very specific sub genres and franchises in strategy genre in general for a market that is rather limited. >hate base building and want to control your medival army formation and tactics. here total war >want something similar but for modern stuff that aims for realism/appealing to military gays ,here eugen system games >want something just like before but more casual/gamey here coh >want to make a cool big cool ass intericate base and ressource gathering . Here the factorio like sub genre game >love playing turtle/defending . here new type of games that appeared with age of darkness/ they are billions...
... I could go on forever. But the point anyone can find a very specific niche subgenre that appeal to his favorite part of rts for example. That leaves only people that really want the whole package / love everything equally to care about having general rts games.
And the thing is that a strategy game in general never truely die / become completely obselete once a sequel appear. In same way , if someone tommrow make a new chess or board game varient, it wont make the original one obselete. It feels just like a different experience with different rules rather than "just an upgrade". This make planetary annhilation , supreme commander, beyond all reason, zero-k ... all games that you would want to play and dont feel that one make the other completely obselete. Same thing with c&c games etc. And this results with every good new rts games appearing , the general audience of the genre is fractured further.
Simple. >Make rounds faster to jump into, (pre-constructed bases in multiplayer) >less focused on individual performance, (bigger team games) >Different objectives besides just eliminating the enemy (Supcom did this right with ACU sniping, in PA it just felt annoying.) >More interesting multiplayer. it would be interesting if, rather than the same battle every time, instead it was more like Battlefield's Rush gamemode with multi-stage objectives. Like, beachhead assaults that turn into urban battles, that turn into attacks on a missile silo.
Yeah. Men of War 2 is dropping in 10 days and unlike all the other garbage we've had before it's good.
>https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1128860/view/3684562604963787185
lol
Umm sweety it's been delayed to 2024
Did you even try out the 2 betas? This game is garbage.
They clearly went for the swetfest that is CoH2 instead the coop way which was MoWAS 2.
Inb4 git gut gayit, I do play CoH2 but I don't want CoH2 in Men of War. If you want to swet just hit the gym like any other bro.
Yeah I did. Which is why I think the game is great. If you don't want to play the matchmaking mode you can just not. CoH 2 is balanced on 1v1 on top of being a garbage game. This actually feels like a real multiplayer RTS with focus on 4v4 and 5v5.
>CO-OP
>MOW AS2
Everyone who played multiplayer would do 3v3 or 4v4 Assault or Combat. I know cause I got 1000 hours into it. If you want to be one of those people who just plays against the brain dead AI nothing is stopping you in this one either.
>Men of War
That's an RTT moronchama.
>Recruit units in the middle of battle
>Have 2 resources to manage
Just like Close Combat
Remove historygays, especially ww2gays, the same way to save all strategy games.
>Remove all post-Napoleonic Historygays, especially WW2gays
FTFY
Drop base building.
I have a few ideas but I struggle with coding
>delete paradox
>remove creative assembly
>force all MOBAs to be console shooters
There's too much genre competition.
focus on singleplayer and coop first, teamgames second, competitive 1v1s last. it also needs a simple map editor
1. Stop trying to make fricking e-sports out of everything.
2. Don't focus on laddergays because they give the game a bad rep among cassuals so new people show up to breathe a new life into a genre on life support.
>inb4 cassuals ruin games.
3. Put more focus in single player, co-op and user generated content.
3A. Balance the campaigns, co-op and multiplayer seperately. Nobody likes to have their experience ruined because a nerf in gamemode A affected gamemodes B and C.
4. Make sure to have spectacle.
5. Don't do anything that might be related to modern day politics.
6. Experiment with the genre again.
7. Make a Netflix series based on one of the preexisting IPs to get people interested. C&C would be the best option.
Git gud casul
I think RTS games should look for a way to get massive replayability for single player, like Total War and Paradox games have. The competition with other types of games is too hard if you only have a simple linear campaign and repetitive skirmishes nowadays. Should add some roguelike or grand campaign map swing to it. Or at least heavy co-op integration and AI that scales to be an actual challenge. Modding support can also help of course, but need an addictive gameplay loop to add to first.
Right now it's usually only multiplayer that provides a varied enough experience that keeps you playing.
Throw away PvP, and you get to polish SP into perfection.
Rise of Nations had this, but for some reason rts games are repetitive as frick on the same map over and over, probably because you have to build and research everything all over again. Whereas in RTW and Shogun 2 you can fight on the same battlefield in a million different ways and have it still be fresh and fun.
>I think RTS games should look for a way to get massive replayability for single player, like Total War and Paradox games have.
This. I doubt that the EaW scene would be so noticeable without Galactic Conquest mode, and modern tech should handle randomly generated maps well, even with oblectives other than killing every single enemy unit. I think it is time to revive Rise of Nations.
>4. Make sure to have spectacle.
This, I got so many people to try supcom just because how glorious it looks on replays.
they have movie script writers doing treatments on all the big action and adventure and role playing games.
the story cut scenes and a well developed sngle player is pretty rare.
cinematics are mostly all chintzy flash animations. (except for the trailers for marketing reasons)
>Don't do anything that might be related to modern day politics
Yeah, C&C surely wasn't related to then modern day politics, no sir.
Where were the trannies and antifa homosexuals during the campaigns? I'm curious. But in all seriousness it is about not putting trannies, BLM and all that other shit in the game. And the tiberium infestation should not be used as a "It is just like climate change guys" story element (Mostly because it is a shitty comparison beyond the fact that both affect the environment). People don't like being preached at. And "modern politics" are different than the "modern politics" from when C&C was being made. Maybe should have phrased that point as "Avoid modern day culture war garbage".
>Black person with Black person level reading comprehension trying to make points like anyone will take him seriously
You should not need anyone to explain the difference.
C&C is a Cold War alternate reality that yields potential for interesting hypothetical military conflicts that never happened. Narratives were strictly meant to be cool and entertaining for warfare nerds.
When people say they want modern politics out of games they're talking about promoting narratives and depicting the world so as to confirm the prejudices of one faction or the other (almost always-- pandering to progressives.) C&C did not do that.
>Never happened
>GLA isn't just an analogy for back then relevant Al-Qaeda
GLA is a pastiche of a lot of middle eastistani terrorists. Notice how religion is never brought up, the GLA's dialogue is closer to some kind of revolutionary arab socialist off-shoot and pre-911 movie terrorists; than to moderate headchoppers or other kinds of religious darkmen.
Yeah and even then, middle eastern militant terrorism was simple fact so taking inspiration for it makes sense. Different from say, having an orange-faced billionaire US politician antagonist who acts out all the fever dreams of American leftoids.
Politics in the 90s meant inspired from notable world events and conflicts. Today it means inspired by the hot takes of other morons in the dev's social media feed.
>C&C is a Cold War alternate reality
No it's not, it is middle 90s with sci fi injected, it has final mission in Sarajevo and retroactively inserted serb as a villain for frick's sake.
My thoughts exactly. And all that was beef I had with StarCraft 2.
You should make an RTS anon.
there's no way Black personflix could ever make a C&C show without modern day politics, but if they did, yeah the genre would be saved
Kang'z Wrath
Make sure the game has a good campaign and it is fun to play with players of widely varying skill level.
listen to this guy
tl;dw: just make a great single player campaign and add modding/map creating possibilities. The rest will sprout from this root.
That GiantGrantGames guy is a fricking moron. I have no idea why redditards shill him so hard.
tl;dw RTS games cannot really be saved because they require a frickton of money while being a poor investment. People just don't really play RTS games in this day and age.
Yes, TibSun/RA2 remastered.
The RTS genre is doing fine. The games are still there, fans are still there, the market is still there.
Big budget AAA devs won't make them, but frick it do you want them making your games?
>The RTS genre is doing fine.
if you call playing two 20 year old games, sc2, and cheap chink sc2 clones "doing fine", then I wonder how's the FPS genre doing according to your scale. Galactically Orgasmically?
i think if broken arrow turns out well it could be a decent sleeper hit, but i dont see many other promising RTS games on the horizon. that game from frost giant looks incredibly bland.
RTTs are fine with Regiments, not-Wargame and MoW2.
RTS are still in topor since nobody can something "WOW worthy".
Best they can do are spiritual successors (as in shameless ripoffs) like Tempest Rising.
And DORF is still far away.
There is still homeworld 3
Line War but focused on singleplayer
add base-management to a MOBA
Make supreme commander: forged alliance 2
What would want changed or added?
>maintain scale, unit variety, tech progression, and eco - these are the game's strongest points
>polish unit order UI to make order queueing and reordering more intuitive. This is possible with hotkeys in FAF but could be done visually
>fix moronic pathfinding. This would honestly be the hardest part
>graphic update, just to make the terrain look better and more diverse if nothing else. As it is you're stuck on snow planet/desert planet/crystal planet/palm planet
>Integrate supcom2's 3D map support.
>streamline engine. Even supcom2 ran better on similar scale and with more detailed environments
>MODULARITY. Better mod/script/macro API and mapmaker
>strategy layer. I said it.
>integrated "survival" PvE game mode because honestly this is enormously popular
FAF went miles into fulfilling the game's potential, but there's some problems only a proper sequel could ever fix. This will never happen, of course, but it does deserve to.
Remaster Red Alert 2
make better rts for mobile phones.
incorporate rts elements in action adventure and fps games.
being a genre gay is pretty limiting.
its like
how mant deathcore bands do you need to listen to before every album starts to sound the same and you just move on to another genre and be like
>you know what this needs?
>blast beats and screaming.
>make better rts for mobile phones.
I played some of those. It's actually pretty nice to have something to compstomp on the go.
>incorporate rts elements in action adventure and fps games.
Seen those too. They're tend to be rather disappointing and basic.
I guess peace didn't sell
Yes, make unbalanced fun games and ignore MP Meta homosexuals.
Those don't sell either, dipshit.
They are gorillions sold well and the campaign wasn't even fun.
Have fun with the dumb AI that you will solve very quickly. As people become more mature with strategy games, they realise most AI don't put up an engaging fight. Multiplayer can keep people engaged for years if done right.
Most players won't put up an engaging fight tho. And they abandon games left and right - there's only a handful of RTSes that actually have players you can play with.
Just make the AI overpowered, give me a challenge. I don't want baby games, which come down to following markers on the map. Shit like Total War is way to easy for me. Find a way to counter player snowballing.
increase the white birth rate
If only people had more children, then they would have more time to play video games.
Adults were never the bulk of people playing RTS games during the genre's golden years. Adults are not supposed to have that much free time in general.
In those days even the game makers were mostly a bunch of 20-somethings still mooching off their parents and weren’t making games based off of market-driven analytics, but what they thought would be “cool” so of course teenagers ate that shit up. Something got lost when you get the ”grown ups” involved, and all you get in return is mostly a lot of frickery and corner cutting at the middle and upper management level, not to mention a writing staff composed of a bunch of diversity hires. Nowadays the novelties lost so all you have are a bunch of nostalgiagays who want things exactly as they remember them while the teenagers move on to some other hot new thing.
The RTS genre has always been carried by Asians thoughever
Whatever you mean by "saving" it means it being riddled by normies that believe saying no-no jokes to others in the internet is being edgy and riddling the pockets of uncaring corporations with money. You don't want it.
Indies could have saved RTS games (and similar genres) but wokeism kinda destroyed that chance (the feminist dtke with blue hair is an obligatory character now, I always avoid those games)
Not an RTS exactly but I liked Domina, you should try that game, I wish we had more games like that but on a bigger scale (more units) and with more strategy elements
Spend some time off the internet
The only thing that could save this genre is a game that follows these rules
>easy to play and understand
>competitive /well balanced
>visually attractive (maybe anime style, yes, I said it, not westoid anime, real anime)
>decent single player campaign / interesting lore
It doesn't has to be unique, you can repeat the same formula but make it good and colorful
Hardcore gamers will hate it but they're homosexual, they ruined the genre and developers shouldn't listen to them
We should go back to the basics, the problem is, most RTS game fans are boomers and they just want an excel sheet and have "fun" watching NOOMBERSS go up
So Starcraft 2 then?
>most RTS game fans are boomers and they just want an excel sheet and have "fun" watching NOOMBERSS go up
Where do you see this? Really, where?
I don't think so. RTS games encourage micromanagement and economy 4x spam rather than sophisticated tactics. I've never played a rts that didn't ultimately devolve to this and build order nonsense
World in Conflict, Men of War, Wargame
>build order nonsense
It's literally just having an objective in mind when starting out, and repeatedly using the most direct pathway to that objective.
RTS is fine, nothing to save. You can easily find at least 10 RTS games with alive multiplayer, full lobby for any game mode in a few minutes. On top of that, you get the SP ones, a couple new ones each year. Just enjoy not being under the spotlight of huge bussiness. The RTS games people play are not played because of marketing or streamers or normie hype or battlepass season grinds, but because they're fun and enjoyable. I really don't know why getting milked for money by homosexual uberstudio execs is so appealing to you people.
Stop trying to remove base building. For some reason developers started to limit and restrict base building in newer games, when RTS started to die. But base building is half of the appeal. Instead there should be bigger focus on base building and setting up production chains. There shouldnt simply be "food" as a single resource, but instead a variety of different ones providing different effects. You shouldn't be able to simply create a flesh golem out of gold and food as an unit. To create a soldier you should first create armor for him and then recruit him from civilians. Cities and castles should be teeming with life and full of citizens instead of being dead military camps. Bigger care should be put on Sieges too. Walls being a glorified fence on which you cant put troops are unacceptable.
Stronghold really is a perfect RTS.
Also sandbox campaign map is mandatory. Linear story focused campaign does not provide enough replayability
nah, it's dead cuz of the way it developed
you cannot undo the past, the fact it became a hotkey spamming fiesta cannot be undone
Nope, if you get rid of microhell then the autists will complain its not an rts so rts will continue to stay semi-dead
Incorporating 4x elements and slowing down gameplay so that actual strategy is what wins games rather than APM. Classic RTS gameplay isn’t worth preserving, it already diverged into genres of gsg, 4x, moba, etc. so in other words if you want your RTS game to be successful, you need to incorporate elements of those genres into it.
>Players who played RTS for politics and map painting went into GSG
>Players who played RTS for deeper economy and production of units went into 4x
>Players who wanted high-octane clickfests with micromanagement went into MOBA.
There’s really nothing appealing about true RTS anymore that hasn’t been refined into another genre. It was more like an experimental genre that fulfilled its purpose and is now looked back at through rose-tinted glasses by dinosaurs.
>everyone gaslit themselves into thinking that rts is dead because genre itself is flawed and not because there hasn't been a single good rts game in 15years
just make a good game if you do that you can save any genre literally nothing changed in human nature or culture that would prevent rts games from being popular again
>beyond all reason
i see bright future
>just make a good game if you do that you can save any genre literally nothing changed in human nature or culture that would prevent rts games from being popular again
Truth is that RTS is not dead. But it will never be what it was because the market has changed. There are many more games now, and newer genres that compete with RTS, most notably MOBA. But there are also genres like survival crafting that may have stolen potential RTS audience. Minecraft did not exist in 1996.
>Classic RTS gameplay isn’t worth preserving
It might be. Certainly the classics in the genre should be preserved. I think you just haven't really thought it through as well as you think you have. It seems like you have the right idea but the desire to be edgy ruins it.
>There’s really nothing appealing about true RTS anymore that hasn’t been refined into another genre
Except that 4X games predated RTS and they co-evolved together through the 90s. 4X did not affect RTS much. Minecraft is a much bigger factor. In Minecraft you explore an area, gathering wood and stone to build a fort for fending off monsters. In Warcraft, you explore the map, gathering wood and stone to build a base and army to fend off enemies, and when you find their base and are strong enough you go wipe them out. Both games are smooth, real-time games that are intuitive and don't require delving into a manual covering the production economy like a 4X game. The combat is fun and fast-paced.
Minecraft was hugely popular with kids and although it trades war simulation for first-person immersion and deeper creative possibilities, there are important similarities. And of course Minecraft spawned a ton of new games including games with more competitive or challenging aspects. So if you're already having that gather/build creativity itch satisfied by Minecraft and games inspired by it, and MOBAs have the "competitive clickfest" crowd, you won't be as interested in RTS.
> There are many more games now, and newer genres that compete with RTS, most notably MOBA.
literally how? who even came up with this myth? and why do you homosexuals keep it alive? apart from being a born as wc3 mod there is no connection between moba and rts games whatsoever. When dota 1st came around people described it as an rpg mod while in reality its closer to a fricking fighting game. And i dont even know how fricking genres can compete with each other how does that even work? how the frick do you even "steal an audience" Black person please have you used your brain once in your life? and evne then how the frick turn based glorified city builders for 0 iq pajeets with racial inferiority complexes can steal rts games audience? how the frick a glorified top down fighting game steal rts games audience? what because there fricking npcs that you click on once every second to get recourses?
considering how literally noone plays any rts games on this board its no wonder you guys are this dumb and have 0 knowledge about the genre
there is nothing wrong with rts as a genre is it not irrelevant or flawed in its nature or whatever
its had a bad luck coz the only companies who made & funded rts games were EA, Blizzard and THQ
considering how its much harder to make an rts game compared to any other type of strategy game and the fact that strategy games in general are very niche
losing 3 of rtses biggest benefactors all roughly at the same time was a pretty hard blow
>post mostly about how minecraft sucked the wind out of the casual RTS
>spergs out about the mere suggestion that MOBAs had any effect at all
Just a fact that obsessively competitive young males shifted away from battle.net RTS toward MOBAs in the late 2000s and 2010s. Though yew World of Warcraft might have been a bigger impact initially.
>how genres compete
If you read my post you'd see the logic. It's about what kids and young people find appealing. Casually inclined: Minecraft. Hyper-competitive: battle royale, moba.
If that was the case shouldn't MOBAs have had a drop in playerbase as from 2016-2019 that was the age of competitive team based FPS?
Has their growth slowed? You have to consider the entire industry has been growing (slowly). But you're also looking at the point the wrong way. The more competitive options there are (add fighting games maybe, also), the less prominent RTS will be.
Also, 2016 is only 7 years ago and FPS has always been there. Counterstrike and UT were popular alongside Starcraft. But for the players who don't like FPS they have more options than they did in 2001
Different players had different reasons to play, and now there are plenty of substitutes that cater directly to particular palates. Arguably, a full-blown RTS isn't even what most would want now.
Main campaigns
Hang everyone that suggests PVP with strangers in any way
Easy
Why hasn't a modern war RTS ever been made recently? Something post WW2?
There have been. It's just the whole genre is on life support so there aren't many recent RTS games of any setting.
MOBAs killed MMORPG games and RTS games yet you guys still defend these trash cash grabs.
If by saved you mean "be made mainstream" then it literally can't be saved
Too complicated for the masses, even relatively simple SP-focused RTS games like Halo Wars were commercial flops so anything relying on multiplayer is dead in the water outside of niche audiences. Most people nowadays are too scared to get invested in fighting games let alone a frickin RTS.
>just simplify it bro! just reduce focus on APM bro!
Listen, like it or not if you want a multiplayer game to survive you're gonna need a sizeable portion of the player base to be casual players who can only play it on weekends and sometimes after work, but there's always going to be hypercompetitive people who aren't good or committed enough to actually play competitive slaughtering those casuals. In popular genres of today like Battle Royale this is offset by having 99 other players, you're probably gonna run into someone worse than you and even if you don't it's 15 seconds tops to get another chance. An RTS loss is slow and soul crushing and not the kinda thing you want to experience after 8 hours of soul crushing capitalist extortion. Thus RTS will always be a niche genre for competitive nerds. Either that or you play SupCom 4v4 on Seton's because you wanna LARP being an airforce commander.
>seriously though just simplify the gameplay and it'll sell gangbusters
Even if we pretended that RTS fans wouldn't be crying nonstop over the slightest design concession, how exactly do you want things to be simplified? Changing the focus from micro to macro didn't work, removing base building didn't work, removing resource management didn't work, focusing on singleplayer didn't work, having only one faction didn't work. RTS is an inherently complicated genre, the closest thing I can think of is making multiplayer Dandori challenges from Pikmin 4 but I don't think even that would be enough to bring RTS to the mainstream.
bump
There is just too many very specific sub genres and franchises in strategy genre in general for a market that is rather limited.
>hate base building and want to control your medival army formation and tactics. here total war
>want something similar but for modern stuff that aims for realism/appealing to military gays ,here eugen system games
>want something just like before but more casual/gamey here coh
>want to make a cool big cool ass intericate base and ressource gathering . Here the factorio like sub genre game
>love playing turtle/defending . here new type of games that appeared with age of darkness/ they are billions...
... I could go on forever. But the point anyone can find a very specific niche subgenre that appeal to his favorite part of rts for example. That leaves only people that really want the whole package / love everything equally to care about having general rts games.
And the thing is that a strategy game in general never truely die / become completely obselete once a sequel appear. In same way , if someone tommrow make a new chess or board game varient, it wont make the original one obselete. It feels just like a different experience with different rules rather than "just an upgrade". This make planetary annhilation , supreme commander, beyond all reason, zero-k ... all games that you would want to play and dont feel that one make the other completely obselete. Same thing with c&c games etc. And this results with every good new rts games appearing , the general audience of the genre is fractured further.
Balance for casual instead of competitive
Buzzword for buzzword instead of buzzword
Simple.
>Make rounds faster to jump into, (pre-constructed bases in multiplayer)
>less focused on individual performance, (bigger team games)
>Different objectives besides just eliminating the enemy (Supcom did this right with ACU sniping, in PA it just felt annoying.)
>More interesting multiplayer. it would be interesting if, rather than the same battle every time, instead it was more like Battlefield's Rush gamemode with multi-stage objectives. Like, beachhead assaults that turn into urban battles, that turn into attacks on a missile silo.