What makes people seethe so much about RTS?
Is it really that hard to get into the RTS genre?
What makes people seethe so much about RTS? Is it really that hard to get into the RTS genre?
What makes people seethe so much about RTS?
Is it really that hard to get into the RTS genre?
Too much multitasking
Its not that micro is hard
Its the fact you need to do a billion things at once
I already have a job
>click button
>build building
>follow tech tree
>hard
Stick to call of duty games, kiddo
>Its not that micro is hard
>Its the fact you need to do a billion things at once
I love how gamer egos can be so colossal that they don't realize how much and often they contradict themselves.
You realize dota and lol are based around single unit rts micro right? And not the multitasking aids that is competitive rts?
you realize nobody who plays rts respects mobas right?
>nobody who plays rts respects mobas
*gasp*
>single unit
>micro
I get none of these gamer terms are recognised in any official dictionary but you're using them wrong.
He is using them correctly. Micro is about maximizing unit efficiency by giving individual specific commands instead of relying on lazy group commands and automated behaviors. MOBAs were originally derived from WC3 custom maps, meaning that DotA was literally players just microing a single hero unit in WC3's engine.
The only reason you need to do a million things at once is because RTS games, almost universally, have shitty pathfinding and order queuing which most moronic asiaticcliker players consider "skill issue" if you can't deal with blatantly obvious mechanical flaws.
Make unit AI be not moronic and you'll make RTS games 500% more bearable as a start. AoE2 is one of the best in this regard and is why it's still currently one of the most popular RTS games on the market.
>AoE1 gets a remake
>they keep the absolutely atrocious pathfinding
compgays, esportsgays, relatively high barrier to entry, and it's measurably not as interesting to watch as fightan
Playing StarCraft 1 campaign was awesome when I was 10. Now games are designed for sponsored Koreans and white people without jobs or dicks. I just want to have fun telling my doods to kill the bad doods.
Personally, what I hate about RTS games is when the higher difficulties in PVE basically involves allowing the game's AI to cheat more and more.
I want a nice and challenging RTS game that is also fair. I don't want the higher difficulties to just be more difficult because the AI starts off with way more resources or can actually see where you are (but you can't see where the AI is on the fog of war map).
Play Beyond All Reason
BARbarian AI is pretty good
Is the game available on Steam? If not, meh.
It's gonna be """soon""" but it's playable and healthy right now
Kinda wild that it's so good. I have this dread that they will frick it up somehow along the way, because even Relic fell off grace once.
My fellow BAR shiller. Everyone who enjoys RTS should give this game a shot, amazing game, 100% free.
I've been seeing people shilling BAR as well here, that's nice
I really want that ingame editor they've talked about. I want to make custom game modes and maps and shit. I really like how diverse the base gameplay can be, 1v1 to 4v4 is NOTHING like 8v8, and the game just adapts and gives your the units and mechanics to make it work flawlessly. Units that don't work so well in big matches are such a great shit in smaller matches like Gremlins
Yeah, game is already crazy, ingame editor would be insane in how much it would add to the package.
I want autoque of 1v1s, but I'm worried the team game formats will suffer. As it right now, I might try to learn more 1v1, but its' just a bother and not fun.
Not a huge problem though because I could play 8v8s all day.
I love this lil bastard like you wouldn't believe
CORTEX for life, kill all Armada
Interesting. How alive is the player base?
>this gets popular and zero-k dies
worst timeline
AoE II DE's AI at its hardest doesn't rely on cheating and also takes up some typical moves from competitive play from over the years. It's not like a high level player by any means but it doesn't always hilariously die to things the old AI would struggle or can't deal with.
Isn't that just something like endgame PoE? Completely different genre but a lot of the boss fights will need manual positioning.
moba and fps itch is stronger
>you don't NEED apm
>have 0 apm
>lose
>have 0 apm
Zero actions per minute? Are you a corpse or something?
>you dont NEED to have apm
>starts game, walks out of room
>come back to a "You Win!" screen
frick im good
>play C&C
>hide stealth tanks all over the map
>go to bed
>come back to victory screen
I would make an RTS where setting rally points and swapping between units doesn't count toward your APM just to see the confusion when veteran players suddenly have 50 APM.
they feel some bizarre need to ALWAYS play against another human and thus get trapped in the toxic SBMM shitfest and feel overwhelmed at the amount of shit they have to do to be "competitive"
comphomosexualry is poison, literal poison for the soul unless you have the requisite autism to cope with it
the optimal way of enjoying RTS is to play through campaigns or just regular matches against AI at a difficulty you're comfortable with and just take it easy or try out goofy tactics with silly units
>the optimal way of enjoying RTS is to play through campaigns or just regular matches against AI at a difficulty you're comfortable with and just take it easy or try out goofy tactics with silly units
This.
Also, What's the best modern RTS for someone who loved Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, and Sins of a Solar Empire?
Beyond All Reason
FAF is still alive
Zero K
Planetary Annihilation TITANS
What's a good strategy game like settlers or cultures lads?
gives me that kinda vibe.
You mean where you play in realistic setting, but more historical one? Yes that game (Age of Empires) is really good. But I don't know of the others. Maybe Tzar: The Burden of the Crown? But that's medieval fantasy.
>the optimal way of enjoying RTS is to play through campaigns or just regular matches against AI at a difficulty you're comfortable with and just take it easy or try out goofy tactics with silly units
This was boring to me even when I was 15 years old
How fricking bad are you at video games
Shouldn't you be busy memorizing build orders and working up that APM instead of shitposting? Hop to it, tiger, you've gotta prove yourself! Chop-chop!
There is no other genre in video games subject to so many mongoloids who take such a gleeful tone as they tell you they play the game in the most boring way possible.
Here we see the poisoned compgay mindset in all its "glory". The mere notion that not everyone wants to subject themselves to the same bullshit they do sends them reeling. The fact that not everyone is a slave to their ELO is inconceivable to them.
It's this very mindset that drives people away from the genre. The obsession with competitive balance and metagaming. The elitism and inability to understand other people's perspectives.
It's just sad.
>tendie image
>cannot fathom improving
ahahhaha
You just sound like you're scared of effort. Build orders, far from limiting you, open up the strategic possibilities of the game at a higher level. There's no point in even talking about it with you because you're so closed minded and convinced of your own superiority despite being so terrible at this game you have to justify your lack of skill with these whiny posts.
I'm not claiming to be superior or inferior to anything, you cretin. I don't care that people play the games for reasons different than me or that someone's a higher rank or has a bigger e-peen number than me.
That's the problem with your types: it's all about skilled/unskilled as if that's the only metric by which to judge these games by. People get convinced by you that there's one, and only one, valid way of enjoying an entire *genre* of games and get turned off by them entirely, leading to questions such as the one OP posted.
But go on, keep posturing, keep strutting about like the peawiener you think you are.
You impress no one and have completely missed the point of my posts.
You evidently care a lot because your posts are filled with butthurt. It's fine if you're bad at the game, just acknowledge that you don't actually know how to play.
It's less butthurt and more frustration at trying to drive the idea into your thick skull that not everyone plays games for the same reason. But the brainrot seems to have taken its toll on you. What a shame.
It has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with not being bored playing the game. Turtling for 40 minutes to fight moronic AI is boring
No one's gonna force you to play that way. But ranked PvP should not be promoted as the -only- way to play.
There's also custom maps and playing against friends in a relaxed setting. The versatility of the genre is one of its greatest strengths.
I would agree. I just think it’s odd that basically every RTS has a single player and skirmish and easy AI, and yet the more casual players still tend to ignore these games (and no, it’s not because the devs trying to push esports. That was only really true with DoW3).
Now, the loss of custom games is *significant*, but I think it’s more that most people aren’t satisfied with traditional linear campaigns anymore. Everyone wants some big nonlinear strategic campaign or branching path crap. Like CoH3’s campaign is pretty bad but i totally understand why they attempted to make a big strategic campaign. It’s the only thing people want out of strategy games these days.
i do think that company of heroes 2 is pretty good for playing vs AI or Coop. the AI will organize push from points to points together, and try to flank/use indirect fire frequently
esport shits are less fun too in multiplayers, 1v1 is boring af. and many people love bigger battles with 3v3 or 4v4 matches
I love this cringe false dichotomy that if you aren't a comp stomper then you're some tryhard compgay who memorizes build orders
Memorizing build orders takes like one day. And if all you can do is execute a build order flawlessly you'll never be better than mediocre.
I find roleplaying games fricking boring, but there are people who played thousands of hours into them and still have fun. Maybe people just enjoy different shit, eh?
RTS skrmish / campaign modes are extremely easy, they have no depth, if you don't get bored of them quickly then you might have a learning disability
Amen
>the optimal way of enjoying RTS is to play through campaigns or just regular matches against AI at a difficulty you're comfortable with and just take it easy or try out goofy tactics with silly units
How can anyone enjoy this? Are you mentally moronic? You're not even "playing game" against AI because AI can't even use tactic and basically moronic.
Jesus Christ what do such creatures play now? I can't imagine you playing FPS or RPG game because too much buttons to press and too much multitasking. Neither roguelikes/lites or even 4X
>Such creatures
ESL phrasing spotted.
What third world nation are you from?
EOPs lack eloquence, we know that, you didn't have to make this post.
Such creatures is technically right.
EOP anon was complaining about ESL anon using slightly less unorthodox English than what he's used to hear.
God thats so damn cozy.
it's pretty difficult, yes
why do you keep spamming these threads?
Shitposting is the only way to have discussions for real
because they have a high skill ceiling, and casual gamers for some reason don't like high skill ceilings in games even if they supposedly like the game itself
asiaticclickers babs cope.
Any PvP game has infinite skill celling.
It's just multitasking game desing build to overload player with actions is inherently toxic and uncomfortable design.
Some people get really upset that niche games don't cater or pander to them when their audience is perfectly happy with the way they are
It's hard to get into the COMPETITIVE RTS area, yeah. Just playing the game for fun against AI isn't a big deal though. I never bother with competitive 'cause it's almost always going to be people who are such veterans that I'll get stomped and it will not be enjoyable for either of us.
It might actually be funny to go into ranked AoE II and III just to play around like a moron so my opponent has no idea what's going on, with no actual desire of my own to be victorious... Omg I think I know what I want to do this weekend.
i think dividing the game into "macro" and "micro" as separate turn and battle phases is a good idea, but games like total war get it all wrong where the battles should be closer to the tempo and scale of regular RTS, and the turn phase should be closer to a city builder where you're actively sculpting the nations and battlefields, rather than like a 4X.
and that adding more mechanical complexity to the units and battlefields would be a good thing; company of heroes was probably the last major innovation on that front.
Played lots of RTS, played Total War
Total War games suck wieners in both 4x and as RTT games. They're all flare, no substance. Battles are stupid shit plain as frick and the 4x is plain too. It's not greater than the sum of its parts, it's just Epic Battle Simulator for geriatrics, and does it poorly as well there.
>play thousands of hours of dota
>fall in love with moving units for dodging and spacing the same way I fell in love with dodging and aiming in FPS games or Fightan
>start to only play micro heroes so I can DOOODGE more
>want to ditch the moba pretense and just play a top-down click'em up that focuses entirely on this aspect
>find out it doesnt exist
>Is it really that hard to get into the RTS genre?
I don't think that it is but i started back in the day with C&C:Red Alert.
No people to play with
Devolves into cheese
Too much strenous multitasking (pic related
Same build orders every game
Some RTS have devolved into MOBA (Supreme Commander) where each player takes a single role
It's not fun at all, in other games I can enjoy making my own build or play the variety of different combinations, but in RTS the player who asiaticclicks more marines wins the game.
You know all the memes people spout about fighting games?
They're actually true about RTS, if you don't have decades of experience you literally cannot compete at all
>compete
why not just enjoy the single player experience?
gets old quick
the RTS genre has room to improve or at least innovate.
The starship troopers game did something unique with lines of fire but it has one playable faction and no multiplayer.
Personally I want a co-op RTS where one person handles resource acquisition and another person handles the fighting. People already tried to do this in age of empires 2v2 but they banned slinging the cowards
Expectations vs reality. When people think about RTS they expect something where two people try to beat eachother by thinking outside the box, then when they look at actual games it's just more complicated mobas
I played RTS all the time as a young kid, it's not hard at all to get into. Granted I only played campaigns and against AIs and used cheat codes whenever I started to lose. I still had a blast though, spent countless hours playing AoE1, AoE2, Starcraft, C&C, WC2, Battle Realms, etc. Then I tried WC3 online and that changed things.
Playing against other people is pretty hard, and you will definitely hit a wall if you're not willing to study and practice. That said, games like WC3 had tons of custom maps which were way more fun than the base game, and I spent years playing those custom maps. I went back and tried doing some AoE2 online as well, and that was also really fun with the custom maps people would come up with.
TL;DR it's all about how you choose to play the game. If you're hyper-competitive and want to play against people, then you'd better not have a fragile ego or you will get butthurt when you start losing games (which will be your first few matches online until ELO places you where you belong).
>Ganker attempts to discuss an actually hard genre
Reminder this is the board that thinks fricking Monster Hunter is the pinnacle of difficulty
I don't hate it, I just realize I'll never be good at it. Just makes me feel like playing chess which I'm also bad at, I try to steamroll early rounds and end up steamrolled in return as I never plan ahead/predict the enemy's moves.
There's a pleasure in learning and getting a bit better day by day
If you don't get at super top level it's alright, you get your wins at your level and feels awesome when you do. No other genre can give you that feeling, maybe fighting games. It's about improving and knowing you outplayed the enemy player for once. APM and micromanaging isn't really that super important until high levels, and even then it's super overblown how important it is over pincer attacks, timed attacks, guerrilla warfare, harassing, or eco booming. Those are actual game winners, not moving Stalkers back and forth in Starcraft 2 (read: don't play SC2, play anything else)
I definitely see the appeal since I'm a fightan gay, but I'm talking about even just casual play againt friends. I'm not sure I've even won a single game. It's not for me and I'm okay with that.
Actually i've always wanted to get into fighting games because I saw the similarities but FGs are faster in short bursts, but never could because kept my ass kicked in every game i picked or the online always sucked ass, until I discovered Potemkin in Strive. Now I can't stop playing it. Got SF6.
That's awesome, grapplers seem like a good entry point for a RTS player (probably since a friend who played a bunch of SC2 also does Potemkin). Is there a game/playstyle that appeals to the dick-ass zoner/yolo mindset?
In RTS? Rush oriented factions or tactics are for YOLO, but they're actually risky if you try to pull it off against people that know what they're doing
Dick ass? Backline harass and guerrilla. It's impressive how well they work, it's more about the EMOTIONAL DAMAGE you apply to the other player
Zoner? Defensive advancing. You place fortified advanced positions near Points of interest and start sniping and choking the other player, while eco booming at the back
RTS have a lot of ways to do stuff. People that play them know this, but rarely post about the playstyles here because Ganker doesn't actually play these videogames lmao
>Dick ass? Backline harass and guerrilla. It's impressive how well they work, it's more about the EMOTIONAL DAMAGE you apply to the other player
This sounds right up my alley, thanks anon
Buy an ad.
BW vs 2 for 1v1 online? Genuinely which is better?
Does Ganker not realise build orders are only used for the first minute or so of gameplay? It's almost like Ganker doesn't actually play games or something
I've never played an RTS game online, they're way too sweaty.
>sweaty
What?
sweat inducing. I'm decent against hard AI but thats not the same thing as playing a human
thanks for reminding me to try BAR
>sweat inducing
What?
I'm guessing this means the game makes you actually think and work in REAL TIME and it makes you sweat?
I don't understand lazy twittergays
Stop playing dumb anon, or stop being underage, one of those two since this is a super old term. If you are trying hard, I think RTS is the most stressful genre bar none, just because you can always be doing more and multi-tasking is genuinely very difficult.
>trying hard
>sweaty
I don't understand twitter homosexualry, I just get good
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sweaty
>December 5, 2007
internet has poisoned your mind. That's an english phrase. RTS is way more challenging and hectic than an FPS.
Only ones I've done alot were Steel Division and BAR
Play AoE4 team matches or solo, it's fun and you will always be paired with people like you
Any RTS recs for the sale?
>I WANT TO PLAY RTS, THEY WERE MY FAVORITE GENRE!
>Nice, my dude. I fricking love RTS. I used to play AoE2 4v4 in LAN with friends all the time. Standard, quickstart, Deathmatch Post Imperial, whacky mods, you name them.
>I love strategy. I love Starcraft's pacing even though I'm not that fast. I love SupCom design. I fricking love every AoE, every Relic game, even gave DoW3 a chance, too bad it wasn't what we expected.
>Deserts of Kharak? i'm up to it
>Come on bro, why you shy?
>You like Campaign modes? I can point you into some awesome ones if you like, it's a great way to learn the MP
>Nah, man, don't be shy, everyone starts slow. It doesn't matter if you lose your first matches, whats important is that you learn and have fun doing so
>Ladder anxiety is real, no denying it. Can you imagine? I still got that feeling too sometimes! but it's part of growing up. It's a game, a training of mind and soul. The real enemy is within, not the other player, he's just testing himself too. So give it all you've got!
>Cities Skylines is cool, but that's not an RTS, senpai.
>Actually, yes, I have a copy of The Art of War right here. It's incredible how it actually can be applied to any vidya too. I can lend it to you if you like.
>Yes, see, I'll teach you the pacing and why build orders are important, but mostly to think like your enemy and be 2 steps ahead.
>Never give up! I won so many games with pincer attacks or guerrilla warfare behind the enemy production, outnumbered and outclassed. Scouting is vital! You see, you might have foresight, but it's better to actually have true sight
>Pushes, defenses, turtling, rushes, eco, micro, macro, cheeky infiltrations, offensive maneuvers, defensive tactics, tech domination, they're all valid, as long as you try your best
>Wanna hit me up at AoE4? I play RUS right now, eco boom is interesting
>Let's smash some bots in BAR next!
>Next we hit the gym and then some work. Healthy body and a healthy mind!
for me? its starcraft 2
It's because there are 1000s of people who have been playing RTS games for 25 years and they move like locust to every single game. So there is no real entry point for anyone to actually git gud with others at similar skill levels. It all just geta dominated by the same group of people who've been lording over it for the past few decades.
god fricking damn homosexual that's not true and you don't play
It is true, I've been playing for a decade now. It's just something I noticed and you have similar problems in fighting games or quake-like shooters. The people interested in these games tends to be small and they're dominated by a very dedicated group of veterans who make sure everyone know this is their club
Typically they might all know each other too and actively team up to curb stomp newbs or are hostile to them
For a decade? Then post your fighting game handle and tourney proofs along with your RTS handle and tourney victories
No RTS games I've been playing for a decade, lol and I was providing other examples I noticed over the years too.
Cry about it.
Alot of the old guard have a vested interest in people thinking this isn't true so they have more people to curb stomp because often they get bored of playing against people at similar skill levels.
Also that's not even true
The only thing you need to do as a new person in any scene, games or irl, is show up, be humble, leave your ego aside and be friendly
I've done all sorts of random shit and people are nice and you know the magic secret? Literally just saying "hey I'm new but I'm really interested, can you help me out"
>doesn't post proofs
Of course
Lmao what a shitter copout
How is this a cop out when it's literally just true? New players don't really have a chance to git gud in an environment that curates their skill at a reasonable pace.
(Outside of a games initial launch) so if they want to actually improve they'll have to dedicate time to experimenting and learning strategies offline, practicing constantly instead of learning naturally through gameplay.
You might say "well against veterans they can git gud" but often they curb stomp noobs so hard that players have a hard time learning anything beyond "this guy is way above my skill level" and I know this might seem crazy to you guys but a David and Goliath scenario isn't appealing to a lot of people, especially people new to the genre
Except in fighting games there's tons of beginner channels and new people, which you'd know if you actually played or went to locals
And in RTS it auto-matches you with people your skill level, but you don't play either, hence your lack of proofs
Why are you crying so hard about this, you know those aren't enough either because noobs don't want to have to be in a "playpen" to just have fun while the veterans play the "for real"
Also "RTS matches with skill level" well yeah, that's great! Except it means shit outside of a games launch because there's a massive drop off of people so really the only ones left are their veterans and anyone trying to get in at that point is forever wienerblocked.
>crying
>when i've literally played fighting games for 5 years with all sorts of people
>had a fun time
>meanwhile you're here actually whinging because you've created some weird reality
When you actually pick up fighting games you'll see
Also if you actually did play RTS you would've replied to my post
but you didn't, proving yet another non-player in Ganker
Most people who play RTS games are casual single player gamers
Comparing them to fighting games or arena shooters is ignorant
I'm comparing the phenomena of a "curated class of veterans who dominate every game in the genre" to each other so yes, arena shooters and fighting games are a fair comparison when they exist there too. Just like people who have been playing doom since it's launch, there are people who've been playing since fricking Dune and they tend to be very dedicated and move from game to game. I don't know why everyone is having such a hard time comprehending this? ESLs perhaps?
The point is that RTS games are mostly played single player
So you saying that old games develop a small insular playerbase who are really good at the game (which happens to every single game) is irrelevant
I'm saying this is particularly unique because they don't just stay to one old game. The old guard actively move from new RTS to RTS. I always see the same old players, same clan/group leaders ETC who move to new ground to stomp plebs.
So effectively there is no "in" because the people who do this are so good they effectively gatekeep new players out and frustrate them.
Again, you people here have a very poor reading comprehension and don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying? If this was just contained to the single game they hyperfixate about then I wouldn't complain but it's the entire genre.
New RTS games get dominated by players who've been in the game for 20 years or more and make sure to kill any new community that might grow.
I understand what you're saying
But no, there isn't a group of RTS gods who travel from game to game stomping all noobs in their path and preventing them from playing
>Just flat out denying it
Yeah. I can't help the ignorant.
Keep dreaming buddy.
If you don't believe me frequent RTS forums/discords and start comparing top players across games. You'll notice a pattern like I did.
There aren't even any new RTS games for pros to migrate to. It's a dead fricking genre. People who are good at the games are going to stick to the ones they already play
Yes you'll see the same people playing different RTS games, that doesn't mean there aren't new players aswell (we're talking in hypotheticals here because again, dead genre)
If they’re top players they’re not being matched against noobs
You’re moronic
No, because I am an RTS demi-god and crush the RTS god forum hoppers
>there are people who've been playing since fricking Dune and they tend to be very dedicated and move from game to game.
Just reminder that if you older than 30 you can't compete in asiaticclickers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261520479_Over_the_Hill_at_24_Persistent_Age-Related_CognitiveMotor_Decline_in_Reaction_Times_in_an_Ecologically_Valid_Video_Game_Task_Begins_in_Early_Adulthood
>so if they want to actually improve they'll have to dedicate time to experimenting and learning strategies offline, practicing constantly instead of learning naturally through gameplay.
It's so patently obvious that you've never actually played an RTS and have only thought about playing an RTS, because it's totally fricking backward. Literally the only way you improve is by actually playing other people. AI do not play like humans, and no amount of theory can replace actual gameplay experience against people. The only stuff you learn not in game is stuff like build orders, but these are a form of supplemental knowledge that are useless if you do not have the basic skills in the game to execute them. In fact it's far better for new players to just play online exclusively until they hit a wall where they can't improve anymore due to reaching the limits of their intuitive knowledge. At that point they should probably start looking up guides and build orders to help them figure out what they're not getting. That or just content themselves with their current level.
>Blah blah blah
Most of the skill in RTS is build orders and having high APM. You can 100% practice being lighting quick with your build orders and actions offline. That's what you have to do anyway to remain relevant against the old guard
The skill in an RTS game is responding to and playing around your opponent
You don't need to "pracitce" build orders
You do if you're slow like a new player. All that other stuff comes later but to get in you need to be quick. Quicker than your opponent or just as fast as them. So you need to learn to juggle workers, unit production, etc in a streamlined/fast manner
>Most of the skill in RTS is build orders and having high APM
See this right here tells me you've never played RTS. You think build orders are like some magical solution to strategy and that if you follow them you just automatically win. You have no clue what they even are or how they work. You also have no clue what APM is.
>>Most of the skill in RTS is build orders and having high APM
APM is just how fast you click things. Lots of players have insanely high APM and 90% of is wasted / redundant orders. Build orders are also not hard to learn, they're actually very simple. That's the point of them, really, it simplifies complex systems into easily repeatable steps. Any aspiring player will usually learn all of the major build orders for this reason. Truly gifted players are able to improvise on the fly or invent new ones, because the real skill in RTS is adaptation. Being able to read your enemy, think ahead of him, and get ahead of him.
>How is this a cop out when it's literally just true? New players don't really have a chance to git gud in an environment that curates their skill at a reasonable pace.
Holy shit did you even see how low ratings play in any video game?
Just read a guide and learn build orders and you'll discover you're now ten thousand times more efficient than you used to be.
>be bronzie in sc 2
>attack some homosexual terran with my lings at his ramp
>while he's dealing with that i send off a group of banes around his back
>feel like a tactical genius
What I don't understand is if something is hard, why do zooms just deem it "for sweaty tryhards" instead of just learning, and even if they fail, to keep trying?
Self improving is a right wing mindset
There are better games for that.
Arena shooters for example.
We are having a similar discussion here:
I'm in that thread too, but let's be honest, SC2 did more damage to the community and the genre than good. It's not a good example of a good RTS, it's just Starcraft.
Filtered, SC2 is genuinely amazing
Now it did have massive rough spots, but now, it's incredible
I mean it's a game you like or don't like
Personally, I don't. It has lots of annoying shit more than I enjoy. I did enjoy it for awhile, but comparing to others, eh.
I mean I get what you like about it. I wish it was polished around what i didn't.
people see that the genre has "strategy" in it and midwits think they will naturally be good at it without any practice or even learning basic game concepts. then of course they get btfo which makes them seethe. they can't believe it was their fault so obviously it must be a problem with the game.
Don't forget them not realising the real time part
Even SC2 has a fairly popular co-op mode. I would think that RTS is generally at its best when it can successfully appeal to players of all kinds of skill levels
>Even SC2 has a fairly popular co-op mode.
that ain't the main mode
That's like saying you play Motor Kombat only
It isn't, but neither is CBA for AoE II, Last Stand for DoW II, etc. And those games have pretty good competitive followings as well, those are just different avenues between everything else.
Well does anyone want to play something
>show up to new hobby
>loudly yell that everyone already here is gatekeeping me by being better at the hobby
>complain there's no point trying
>don't leave
>don't get good
>just cry
Imagine if you did that irl at a hobby, you'd be laughed at, if nothing else.
Getting base-rushed within the first 2 minutes of a match isn't fun.
Getting squashed by a turbo-autist who spends 10 hours a day doing nothing but playing this singular game isn't fun.
The only cure for RTS games is to turn them into Real Time Tactics games, so turbo-homosexual autists can't base-rush and can't micro as efficiently and need to rely more on lateral thinking and utilization of their resources better. Games should pivot AWAY from autists towards what's FUN.
>getting base-rushed
Scout
>le anyone better than me is a turbo-autist
RTS games matchmake you with your MMR, and for less populated games you can ask in the discord for other beginners
>matchmake you with your MMR
I have never once in my entire life played a match-making RTS. All the RTS games I play use lobbies.
Prime example of a shitter.
>Getting base-rushed within the first 2 minutes of a match isn't fun.
Defend yourself asshomosexual
>Getting base-rushed within the first 2 minutes of a match isn't fun.
Your defense?
RTS games themselves are fun.
What isn't fun is the multiplayer. No one likes getting ass fricked rn away because some turbonerd has learned to minmax a game to the point where it isn't fun.
Do zooms genuinely not comprehend that to get better at something you must fail first?
Yeah anyone better than me is a turbo-autist sweatlord incel and anyone worse is a filthy casual
Correct. I'm glad you agree.
>start going to gym
>can't lift 800kg
>proclaim anyone who can as a no life turbo nerd virgin autist finnish incel
>refuse to improve little by little
>make up strawman
>proceed to assume you're correct because your strawman was made up deliberately to refute another's argument and nothing else
>have a false sense of correctness
>strawman
>when it's literally what's happening ITT
New people are complaining they aren't instantly good instead of just learning and improving
I started getting into shmups recently, do you think I'll say jaimers is a no-life hyper autist because he's better than me so there's no point? No, I'll just improve myself little by little.
Why this is a hard concept for zoomoids to grasp is beyond me
I've been playing RTS games since the original Age of Empires and most of what people are saying ITT is 100% true.
If you disagree, well, okay, have fun with your dead genre.
>i've been playing rts for a decade bro
>i've been playing fighting games for a decade bro
>it's just that i have the same complaints as a 10 minute newbie and refuse to post proofs or see anyone ITT in a 1v1
>but trust me bro
Fighting games are also a borderline dead genre with only 3 franchises keeping it alive, each one seeing a new release every 3 or 4 years.
Not helping your point.
>refuses to post proofs or handle
>refuses to see me in either RTS or a fighting game
Keep digging your grave homosexual
This is my STEAM strategy library, and Fighting Game library.
>refuses to see me in either RTS or a fighting game
Congrats, you defeated me in 3rd Strike and Company of Heroes, now go back to watching your genre die.
>steam library
Doesn't mean shit, post handle, proofs and or square up in a lobby of a game of your choice provided I also have it
>proofs and or square up in a lobby of a game of your choice provided I also have it
Why? So you can refute anything anyone has said here with a non-sequitur? How about instead of "getting good" at video games you "get a good argument"?
>no proofs
>no squaring up
>his library doesn't even have anything installed
>but we're supposed to believe you've been playing for 10 years
You think someone has all their games installed all the time for 10 years?
Well if he played them for 10 years yes
>Well if he played them for 10 years yes
Where are you getting this from you absolute gorilla Black person moron? God, will you shut the frick up already?
Read the thread homosexual
Obviously he's not gonna be playing the same games over a 10 year period
Yeah. I mean, I have some of my favorite RTS games installed on every computer I've owned for the last 20+ years in some cases. Literally have had AoE2 on every comp I own almost continuously since 1999. Why would I stop installing and playing games I like?
Normal people tend to get bored of playing the same thing over and over and move onto different games
>no argument
>continues talking like a sperg
And here we have evidence numero uno of the fact that there is an autist infestation that needs to be squashed in the RTS community.
I don't understand, if you've been playing for 10 years you'd have some kind of accomplishment to be proud of right or want to show off your skills?
Or hell I don't know, something even more crazy like play videogames?
>I don't understand, if you've been playing for 10 years you'd have some kind of accomplishment to be proud of right or want to show off your skills?
Playing video games is not an accomplishment. I have a house, a wife, and a kid, those are my accomplishments. Maybe it makes more sense to me now that people who are that good at video games considering winning a match in an RTS an accomplishment. I don't.
WHERE IS YOUR BEAUTIFUL HOUSE
WHERE IS YOUR BEAUTIFUL WIFE
SAME AS IT EVER WAS
>Playing video games is not an accomplishment. I have a house, a wife, and a kid, those are my accomplishments
lmao
It's not surprising that you're saying you're seeing the same players when you basically own 20 copies of the same fricking game
Fighting games are multiplayer only
Most people play RTS single player
Just reminder that most successful recentl RTS title, Warhammer Total War was proped by SP campaign and it removed asiaticclicking from RTS with the combat pause.
>Nooooooo! Cried asiaticclickers
>APM doesn't matter!
>No! You can't pause the game ! Your must play on fastest speed!
Friendly reminder that the highest difficulty level in total war games doesn’t allow you to pause
>hello fellow rtsers
>New people are complaining they aren't instantly good instead of just learning and improving
Again simply there are better games for that.
>better games than pure gameplay focused skill based 1v1
>asiaticclicking gameplay
>good
>comparing getting healthy and fit to a worthless hobby
whoops, she mad lol
RTS games aren't the kind of games that people want to improve though, morons. Literally only fat incels and/or asiatics care about those.
Wait wait wait
You cannot be serious
I think what's happened, is that zoomies genuinely believe someone beating them is deliberate gatekeeping and exclusion
That cannot be right
I remember playing plenty of bad rts back then.
I wonder if the market became oversaturated and never recovered.
>play aoe at my own chill place
>make some gay on Ganker mad because im not good
ok
Wgrd and faf are the only good mp RTS games
Everything else is a clicker
>mfw zoomies hate RTS because they don't know how to use a mouse
>Play for a week to get to your estimated elo
>Sandbag down about 200 elo
>Play games where you can comfortably use fun units and strats
is this viable?
>here's my steam library of games i totally play
>uhhh just ignore the fact none of them are installed
>it's fricking Steel Division 2 and KOF HUE HUE
Once again this video
BTFOed Ganker
I regularly play fighting games and I see a lot of insane complaints from people who clearly do not play fighting games or have a basic idea on how they actually play. Do RTSgays suffer the same problem?
>Do RTSgays suffer the same problem?
Let's just bring this back:
>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?
>Why not play a tower defense then
Because tower defense doesn't come with a full package, they are also incredibly limiting in its scope and frankly fricking shit for the most part. Closest thing that come around to what casuals want is probably They Are Billions. Everything else barely fricking tries to engage with non mp crowd and as such delegated to 1k discord autism playerbase. Eugene abortions are the best example of it, moronic frogs still don't understand how to make a good single player campaign to at least try to recapture World In Conflict feel or why everyone wants map designer.
>Closest thing that come around to what casuals want is probably They Are Billions.
Fuuny because no casuals seem to be interested in this game
It was very popular when it was new hotness, obviously it is too dated now for any kind of mass appeal. Same with SC2 coop, it breathed new life into the game but blizzard were too fricking stupid to keep updates rolling out so it died with a whimper.
>obviously it is too dated now for any kind of mass appeal
All the RTS games people actually play are much older than TAB
And they are kept on life support by crab bucket mp playerbase.
>do rtsgays suffer the same problem
Have you read the last 200 posts
Most of the arguments about RTS center around complete fricking casuals who only play single player arguing with comp nerds
>arguments about RTS center around complete fricking casuals
It's hard to call them casuals. They're somewhere in negative dead zone. Casuals can paly games. But anons in RTS thread are journo tier.
It does boggle my mind that there are people who enjoy playing against the AI for more than 30 minutes
That's how I enjoyed the game as a kid. I just liked to make cool looking armies and smash them against other armies. It's similar to how other kids played with action figures. I played with digital army men instead.
That's also what I did as a kid
Then I grew up
It's how anyone with a full time job plays RTS games.
I can maintain a full-time job without being a brandead casual who wants a toy instead of a video game
Video games are toys. Only societal rejects think they are meaningful in any way.
They are games
Games provide a challenge for you to overcome, you have to use your wits and skills to beat it, that's where the fun comes from
Toys don't have a challenge for you to overcome, you just play around with them and use your imagination, it's goalless and unstructured
When you grow up you tend to move on from toys to games
This so much this! Games should be accessible!
KYS
I remember a lot campaigns in ancient rts were pretty tough. Full of cancerous missions. So how can current Ganker posters from shitty RTS threads even beat them?
They might be hard but they're not challenging. They're pure trial-and-error as you try to figure out exactly what the map designer intended for you to do to beat it
So like almost every other singleplayer game?
Not really, other single player strategy games like RPGs tend to give you options and you can learn the mechanics and learn how to build your character and actually think about what you're doing
So just like an RTS game in singleplayer...You just fire up a solo lobby and go to town.
No, RTS games have dogshit simple mechanics which you understand immediately after picking the game up, unless it's your very first game perhaps
So the campaign is pure trial-and-error with basically no thought on the part of the player
99% of RTS campaigns are like this
>99% of campaigns are like this
Every single RTS game that features a dynamic campaign isn't like that.
Also, I said "solo lobby", not campaign.
Whats a dynamic campaign? Is a solo lobby skirmish, like a match against the computer? The AI in RTS games is not good enough to provide a challenge to a human player in a skirmish game
The things you read in these threads.
As if building your character in RPGs isn't an extended trial and error.
As if learning mechanics in games in general isn't trial and error.
You just open the game and magically know what everything does.
I know this is bait but it's so idiotic that I feel obliged to reply to it.
Read my post carefully. I said PURE trial-and-error. All learning is trial-and-error, but you also need to do some thinking along the way. In an RTS game, you don't
I'd like to see you try to take Pig's castle by pure trial and error. Or go through terran final mission in SC2 on brutal. No thinking at all, just try random shit until it works, yeah.
I put SC2 in the 1% of RTS campaigns that don't suck ass because there is a timer on all the missions therefore it actually demands execution skill from the player
But All In on Brutal is still pretty much just trial and error, even though it's a good mission, you have no way of knowing Kerrigans weaknesses or what the attack waves are going to look like ahead of time, you can't really do much planning for the mission
You're moving the goalposts at this point. Yes, you can't plan some shit ahead of time, but are you implying that you don't need to think at all to get through this mission? Because depending on approach it can be either almost trivial or ballbustingly hard, which is, I'd say a matter of thought put into how you play it.
Same as in RPGs where most skills and abilities are initially obscure in description and you have no way of knowing how good they are in practice, or how well they fare in lategame because you have no idea how the endgame will look like.
>are you implying that you don't need to think at all to get through this mission?
Pretty much
I used the defensive strategy that I already knew worked, I had to try a few times and adapt when I learnt a few things about the mission, I wouldn't say I actually had to come up with a strategy to beat it. A standard defense line is enough to beat the mission
I see you're determinded to think that people are born with knowledge of underlying mechanics of every RTS game and can figure them out at a first glance.
Not that this mission is that hard in a mechanical sense, but it pushes the player significally harder than anything prior, and the standard defense line, which I assume consists of blocking enemy hordes with production buildings, may not be so obvious to newbie players, not even because it's hard to figure out, but that common logic dictates that civilian structures should be well protected.
Your problem is thinking that those nuances are "obvious to everyone" when in fact they have been indeed solved for years by the others and you left the process of learning the game so far behind that you can't fanthom someone not as invested as you.
lmfao
The standard defense line is seige tanks and bunkers full of marines. This has been a thing since SC1, and they fricking teach it to you during the campaign. Use these, along with the defensive structures you unlocked, and react appropriately to Kerrigan, and you will win the mission. It really is all in the execution
My memory might be hazy, but if you simply use tanks and bunkers, Kerrigan will easily chew through your line with AoE taking tank shots like mosquito bites, unless you build like 20 bunkers on each side maybe.
That's why I said you have to react to Kerrigan
There's numerous ways to deal with her, none you can actually plan for and strategize around, because they're surprise bullshit abilities that come out of nowhere. I assume most players would learn to bait out her strongest abilities so she doesn't tear up your defense line, which I would call reactionary play
So it's a bit more than "just" standard defense line, eh?
>surprise bullshit abilities
I can't imagine how you felt meeting Duriel for the first time.
It's standard defensive line + react to Kerrigan, which really means just baiting out her blade swarm with a pack of marines and not letting her implode your BCs if you're using them. The first time I played the mission it was definitely hard but I was also not thinking about what I was doing, I was just reacting, and that was enough to pull me through on hard and brutal. I think the final Protoss mission asks more of the player because you're given a lot more abilities and units to choose from
I don't know Duriel
Well the point is, it gives you something new to figure out and work around. Of course once you know exactly what to do, it becomes simple. And though I agree that final protoss mission is more demanding, it doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table.
Campaigns were often totally different from multiplayer experience, entirely different set of skills. Single player campaigns are like puzzles that are designed to be beatable under specific conditions. The scenario never changes, so if you're patient you can simply try again and again until you figure out the puzzle's win conditions. Multiplayer isn't like that at all, there's no guaranteed solution that will let you beat your enemy because he's not a pre-programmed scenario. Every game is different, some players are way more skilled than others, even the same player won't necessarily do the same thing every game. People who can beat campaigns are fine failing because they know it's theoretically possible to win if they just figure it out. They probably get easily discouraged when they lose badly in multiplayer because they can't just endlessly repeat the same game until they figure out how to beat their opponent.
>They probably get easily discouraged when they lose badly in multiplayer because they can't just endlessly repeat the same game until they figure out how to beat their opponent.
But that's exactly how it works. Only instead of it being literally the exact same scenario, it's about learning the basic mechanics of the game and how they work. You have to learn to extrapolate general strategy from individual experiences. I guess if you're the wrong kind of autistic and can't think abstractly it's too difficult.
The problem is that there is an inherent skill differential in people who play longer vs people who play casually.
In FPS games, a lot of the competition is strictly based on talent and hand-eye coordination. In Fighting Games, it's all about memorization and familiarity with an individual character. In RTS games, it's all about knowing the specific stats of units and how they counter-contrast with others. These are things that require hours upon hours upon hours of time investment, just to know, and then you have to actually get good at them.
>. In RTS games, it's all about knowing the specific stats of units and how they counter-contrast with others.
Objectively wrong.
In asiaticclickers it's all about asiaticclicking. Scientifically proven. Literally "stare time" (delay bettwen switching POV and start of the action) is the best objective measure that can predicts players rank.
Just waiting on your tourney proofs to qualify this opinion
Just waiting on your tourney proofs and your stare time to qualify your opinion.
>uh clickspeed is all that matters
>not accuracy
>not scouting
>not game knowledge
>not map knowledge
>mere click speed that can be easily inflated
>nooo it's not clickspeed, but effective clickspeed that I will give several names so it sounds cooler!
>>mere click speed that can be easily inflated
It's not just click speed it's effective click speed
>.This means that StarCraft 2 players must choose where to allocate their view-screen, which is important both for giving commands to one’s units, and also for assessing the current game state. This has allowed researchers to define a self-initiated response time measure (Looking-Doing Latency) in terms of the latency to an action after a new ‘‘fixation’’ of the view-screen [1]. Players typically have about 300 looking-doing cycles per game, and in the present work we consider each player’s mean looking-doing latency. The game also imposes dual-task constraints, which are thought to become more problematic with aging [4,5], as players must extract resources to build units, forcing players to constantly shift between economic and military tasks at regular intervals.
>Literally "stare time" (delay bettwen switching POV and start of the action)
This doesn't even make sense. Correct usage of hotkeys means you won't have to move your camera to use buildings or units.
>or have a basic idea on how they actually play.
Well maybe if fighting Black folk weren't so uppity and didn't assume that everyone played this shit as a kid you'd see less people like that??
Literally any genre's community, especially niche ones will shower you in guides of all levels and will help you to start, except fighting players who hate newbies.
Maybe rhythm games share similar audience, but at least rhythm games general idea isn't hard to grasp, unlike fighting games.
>except fighting players who hate newbies.
Pretty much every community I encountered in fighting games will give you a full rundown and links to various guides and basic tips. If you don't come in acting like a homosexual, they won't treat you like a homosexual.
Like do you expect random people online to figure out you're new and go easy on you?
>psh bro im a hardcore veteran 10 year fighting game and rts player
You got btfo liar
>uhhhh i mean i don't have time for that shit I have a wife and kids definitely
Because the vast majority of RTS games try to be the next starcraft and force the EPIC 1V1 RANKED LADDER EXPERIENCE where the only thing that matters is whatever rank you are
Forgetting that if you placed in bottom tier BRONZE you were a higher rank than 99% of starcraft 2 players because ranked 1v1 isn't what people want in an RTS
But muh asiaticclick
How will Asians enjoy my game if they can't click 10 times per second
The fact Ganker thinks APM matters when it can be inflated massively, and never even use the term EPM says it all
Ganker also thinks camera movement and selecting different hotkey groups increases apm in sc2 when it doesn't
>Ganker thinks camera movement increases APM
oh come on there's no way
not even Ganker is that dumb
r-right
Never played Starcraft 2, so I wouldn't know.
I'd just assume most of them don't play it, or at least don't look into this part specifically
Hell I never knew it until it came up in a pro game cast I watched to learn something I struggled with
The extent of my sc2 gameplay was hitting very low masters sometime back in WoL and I'd be trash at it now going back
Just only got into the genre a year ago. I'm going to keep playing campaigns and having fun. Get fricked
>NOOOOO, YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY!
>have full time job
>come home
>play a few matches
>maybe an hour to an hour and a half
>do other shit before sleeping before work the next day
In the time you spent being dumb in this thread you could've had some matches
Why is that in every RTS thread there's a group of hyperactive autists dedicated to protecting their precious genre at any cost? It's like they're struggling to get new players to curb stomp and have to resort to these desperate attempts so some moron will download aoe2 and get stomped.
Dead genre
Dying playerbase
Cry about it
>why are there knowledgeable people trying to stop the flow of bullshit
Dead genre
WC3 custom games are dead
Cry about it
MOBAs are better
>teamshit
Do you need someone else to help frick your wife too homosexual
WC3 was the most fun with versus team play. Cry about it.
>stop the flow of bullshit
We're already doing that. We're killing the RTS genre.
Again, good players do not get matched with noobs
Good players do not want to get matched with noobs
>It's like they're struggling to get new players to curb stomp
If you played any skill based games you would know that this "curb stomp" shit is only interesting for underage morons (the one who play FPS).
People literally kick new players from Wargame lobbies because no one want to waste their time against shitty player. The guy who PERFECT you in fighting game has 0 enjoyment doping this.
So don't worry, no one want to curb stomp you. Or even play against you.
Actually curbstomp is necessary step for making champions (among other necessary steps).
But they don't teach this ugly truth in schools because it is "problematic"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
>Actually curbstomp is necessary step for making champions
No, the better your opponents are the better you'll get by facing them, noob stomping doesn't make you a better player
That's what he's saying but from the perspective of the person getting curbstomped
Read the book. It's not only thing for making champion. But for chads beating the living shit of the underage weak babies is a good training on top of the other training
The book begins with the observation that a disproportionate number of elite Canadian hockey players are born in the earlier months of the calendar year. The reason behind this is that since youth hockey leagues determine eligibility by the calendar year, children born on January 1 play in the same league as those born on December 31 in the same year. Because children born earlier in the year are statistically larger and more physically mature than their younger competitors, and they are often identified as better athletes, this leads to extra coaching and a higher likelihood of being selected for elite hockey leagues. This phenomenon in which "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is dubbed "accumulative advantage" by Gladwell, while sociologist Robert K. Merton calls it "the Matthew Effect", named after a biblical verse in the Gospel of Matthew: "For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him, that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
I'm not going to read a fricking book to reply to your post
Beating weak players is the worst training
Losing to strong players is the best training
>Beating weak players is the worst training
>Losing to strong players is the best training
Yeah it's official political correct myth, proped by media etc.
Ugly toxic problematic reality is different. People who get it easy become top (getting easy is not only part, hard trainings and dedication is must too).
Again read the book.
What are you whining about exactly, that you never will be able to reach the top 1% because you weren’t there when the game launched? Neither were Reynor or Clem and they still somehow made it
Who said about complains? You are strawmaning.
I am dispelling popular myth that chads dunking on babies is not a good training.
Relative age effect is real
You are not debunking shit, do you think Chad keeps training against 7 years old on his way to the top?
It's not only thing for success. It's the one part of the many. Obviously completing against peers (and also dedicating all time to training) is important too.
Popular myth is the hard competition makes people stronger and it is wrong. In sports privileged people (larger stronger more mature because of the relative age effect) get on top. People training from behind (at disadvantage because of their younger relative age) doesn't become extra stronger because of extra hard competition, quite the opposite they stay behind as training bags for chads.
>People training from behind (at disadvantage because of their younger relative age) doesn't become extra stronger because of extra hard competition
Yes they do
Now anon it's time to read Guns, Germs, and Steel and post more shit online.
It's not about getting to the top
It's about being the better version of yourself
Why don't zooms get this?
Education prepares people for wageslaving, not critical thinking
People learn the bare minimum to earn whatever they need. Everyone just looks for money or "to win", not self improving for the joy of it. Few people realize that martial arts, sports, art and competition is about testing yourself against a match or against yourself, not to humiliate others.
So of course, a game that has actual rules and winning conditions are the bane of the lame.
Even then just being reasonably competent takes you pretty far.
I got to low Platinum in SC2 back then with an APM of 30-40 lol
Still felt the wall hitting me. I'm ok with that tho. SC2 kinda sucks.
People saying RTS are too hard for them are just shitters scared of a modicum of challenge. Its always (mostly) about game knowledge and creative strategies (things that Starcraft don't let you apply because it's all about fast deathballing Mutas or other clown unit)
>Again read the book.
"In an article about the book for The New York Times, Steven Pinker wrote, "The reasoning in 'Outliers,' which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle."
Steven Pinker (Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author, and public intellectual) vs Malcolm Gladwel ( English-born Canadian journalist, author, and public speaker, the c*ck)
Is that zoomer fashion? Read the book and decide about it's arguments yourself.
>Is that zoomer fashion?
Shilling shitty book? For sure.
>Yeah it's official political correct myth,
No, it's the fricking truth, you'd know this if you were actually fricking good at anything
The quote you posted is an example of selection bias and has nothing to do with actually being good at something - the hockey players get selected because they're the older than the rest of the people in the their team. You're confusing status with actually being good. We're talking about playing video games, you don't have fricking status, only your skill at the game
>- the hockey players get selected because they're the older than the rest of the people in the their team. You're confusing status with actually being good
Point is myth is people who get it easy become soft but it doesn't work like that. Eventually they play against peers in championships when ages level up... and they perform the best. Living in easy mode doesn't make them soft.
And playrrs who get it hard doesn't become stronger quite the opposite they stay behind forever even when ages level up.
Winners learn how to win
Losers learn how to lose.
And it's very problematic.
BTW in top sports it very known effect and people cheat with age if can. Famous Soviet hockey team that played against Canadians all had couple year shaved off during their youth. African soccer players routenly shave off years, Chechen martial arts athets all have age record reduced by couple years. They set life on easy mode ... and it works.
If you played video games, and you were good at playing video games, you would observe that that people who played against stronger opponents got better, and the people who stayed in their comfort zone remained at the same skill level
You're conflating this with people who get awarded status in real life based on unfair advantage, this has nothing to do with the fricking conversation at all, nobody is handpicking you for a video game team
>Humans are born with some innate
Feature that makes them better
>This can't apply to videogames
>Because videogames don't have specific real life skills that are called upon
>Even though humans play it and real human skill matters
Uhhh....?
Yeah you can be born with genetics that make you better or worse at video games, but it mostly boils down to your skill
You will find absolutely zero pro video game players who are just natural prodigies and don't play the game
>game players who are just natural prodigies and don't play the game
You really should read the book. It covers
>don't play the game
part
You should learn to use your fricking brain
Everything you've quoted from the book has nothign to do with skill or ability, the topic we're discussing, and everything to do with privilege
You have no privilege when you're playing a video game, you don't get selected for the the DOTA team because you were best in your age group, it's your fricking skill or nothing
>but it mostly boils down to your skill
it's just autism : people play the same game and genre for years and years to get where they are
I have no clue how they don't get bored after a while
But natural prodigies do play the game, they're just more successful because of that?
What the frick are you talking about honestly lmao.
It's like how in the Olympics no one is going to compete or be better than someone who's just born with a certain trait that makes them better at the sport. Same thing happens in RTS you cannot climb to the top because there are innate skills you cannot overcome
Genetics play a far bigger role in sport than they do in video games, for obvious reasons
Being good at a video game is 90% on your choices
>Being good at a video game is 90% on your choices
This is why performance of the e athletes declines after 24 and falls of the cliff after 30. Nope.
Yes, that's the 10%
You think you'd have a chance against a 30 year old CS pro just because you were 23? lmao
>t Shroud
Flash is 31
you're equating age with skill but it's more about time spent on the game and skill : 30+ people spend less time on vidya in general
the reaction time issue is grossly exaggerated
>the reaction time issue is grossly exaggerated
It's most accurate single measure predicting asiaticclickers players performance
>It's most accurate single measure
its the only thing that has been measured so that means little
I have doubts about this data being isolated from other variables, as in, on average, 30+ year olds have a completely different lifestyle and did live a specific life for years which could have impacted their reaction time
that doesn't mean reaction time gets worse with age as prominently, just that people in our society on average do
There is no such thing as prodigies.
Kids just found their passion at the age of 7 and did nothing but that till they became adults and surprise surprise they are world class.
Just look at any F1 driver and Pro soccer player.
The truth is not genetics. It's starting out when youre a toddler as that stage is super crucial to developing skills in any endeavor. The reason it's so rare is cause most of us don't know shit what we wanted to be or wasted time playing around with toys or video games at that age.
>There is no such thing as prodigies.
Yes there is
Talent exists and skill matters
Anyone trying to deny either of these is a moron
Nope. It's developed.
Anything else is a cope for failures who can't deal with the fact they missed their window by the time they hit puberty.
I am world class in my field and I started at an early age
I met people who started when they were teenagers who were better than me
Saying talent doesn't exist is cope
Just cause your uncle didled you as a kid doesn't mean you're a world class homosexual
>If you played video games, and you were good at playing video games, you would observe that that people who played against stronger opponents got better, and the people who stayed in their comfort zone remained at the same skill level
Citation of statistical study pls.
What a fricking moron.
Jesus fricking Christ
Your book is shit and was written by random journo
Hockey is uugaaa bugaaa sport where people are constantly beating each other on the field while being enraged 24/7. Literally apes. Curbstomping is shit and only good for apes
the greatest rts player of all time became a pro when he was only 15 and got the nickname "child labor" for carrying his team who was all older than him. at his absolute peak when he was considered unbeatable he still lost 1 out of every 3 games he played.
All your complaints just show you don't actually play RTS. Skilled players doing ranked matches go up against other skilled players, noobs go up against noobs. Skill mis-matches are not satisfying for either player. Noob gets destroyed before he can do anything, and the skilled player doesn't get any sort of challenge from beating him. The real pain from being up against a significantly weaker player as a skilled player is that you have to handicap yourself severely to make it even halfway interesting. Back in AoE2 lobbies with ELO disparities we did this by having the advanced player not be allowed to move his units until a certain amount of time had passed. A simple, crude method, but it only cost the experienced player a few minutes of boredom in exchange for a slightly interesting game instead of a boring one where he doesn't even get to castle age before the noob surrenders.
Dead genre
Dying playbase
Cry
AoE2 is alive and well, has more active players now than it ever did at any point.
Dead genre
Dying playerbase
Cry harder
Peaked at 20,000 people today on Steam 😉
Calling Olympic gold medalists sweaty tryhard no-lifers that need to stop gatekeeping me just because I can't run
RTS games are not Olympic sports.
You're right, they're better
SC2 has sexy alien babes and the olympics has none
Wrong.
How do I use my Ganker skills to be an olympic cameraman
Are there any RTS with procgen maps? Static maps are the main reason why RTS games are braindead, second reason is camera that is too close to the ground, but there are many games that fixed that
Aoe2, supcom faf
AoE2's primary ranked mode is random map. Maps are all randomly generated following different generation patterns themed on geographic locations, i.e. "islands", or "coastal", "arabia", etc. The amount of resources on the map are always the same, and with enough experience you become familiar with how the maps tend to array players on the map in relation to specific resources, but sometimes you can get really weird generations that throw players off.
So what RTS games have come out in the last 10 years that actually try something new?
The biggest thing that bothers me is that dungeon keeper, impossible creatures, WC3, battle realms, warlords battlecry etc. had more variety in them 20 years ago than what we've had in the last 10+ years. Seeing the most hyped new release (stormgate) literally just be sc2 version 0.4 is embarrassing to the genre as a whole.
I have high hopes for Homeworld 3
Wait a minute Deserts of Kharak isn't Homeworld 3?
No
We're getting a new one sometime early next year iirc
I am so fricking ready
The genre can't change because they're appealing to the old crowd of RTS gamers so anything that does something interesting like Grey Goo, Universe at war or AOE3 is dead in the water because not all the skills that they developed in SC2 or AOE2 are immediately transferable. So for it to be a successful game you have to make sure all the things they've learned are applicable in the new game too. Simple as that.
>So what RTS games have come out in the last 10 years that actually try something new?
why the frick didn't they call it total warhammer
>The first of the series, Shogun: Total War, was released in June 2000.
Rome wasn't the first TW game?
CA have always been weebs.
>simply scout enemy
>he hasn't built detection
>build two DTs
>instawin
asiaticclick simulators
No actual strategy
Dead genre
>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
Ugh. Is it so hard to understand?
Anyways, what RTS game lets me roleplay as a good general? Without those -pesky- mechanics in the way
I main Protoss btw
I love pincer attacks, so simple and effective
Hammer and anvil always works in every strategy game. It's the secret to beating every single Total War game on legendary difficulty too.
I love advancing with fortifications
Slowly but surely claiming ground that I can defend. Takes knowledge of the game though, as the other player could run around to you and you're burning money into your strongholds. Works on CoH with Wehrmacht freakishly well, and in AoE2/AoE4
>and in AoE2/AoE4
In a limited capacity maybe. Siege weapons are so powerful in both games that fortifications are at best a speed bump on their own, they work as supplements for your army and give you a staging position. AoE4 especially, since infantry can simply build rams in a forest then suddenly emerge and rush down your fortifications.
Yeah you can advance with fortifications to an extent but you certainly have to know when to push and when to wait and defend, as well to identify a good spot to sit on
For AoE2 I favor maps that have lots of natural chokepoints for that reason. Black Forest, obviously, but also Highlands and other maps with river crossings. Now and then somebody will think to make navy on a river map and that always makes things interesting. They usually lose, though, since there's a reason people don't go for navy on river maps as a general rule.
I dislike Starcraft so much because of this. In any other RTS the map makes or breaks the strategies you develop, while SC has none, just a fricking ramp, and deathballing. Maps make no difference, and the game offers no room for creativity.
deathballing wasn't as prevalent in sc1, but I'm not sure if it was a matter of control groups being limited to 12 units, stronger aoe effects in general or what
Units couldn't deathball in SC1 because of bad pathing and 12 unit selection
MINE SOME MORE MINERALS FRICKING homosexual
Although tosschad, me too
This is your typical lowest low player
It's literally your wet dream AI match. There is nothing to fear.
PvP RTS suck
Singleplayer RTS are fun as frick
you have to do a lot of shit at once because economy simulator. RTT are easier to get into because lol no economy
RTS games are the only genre I see this demented assault and proselytizing towards single-players, desperately trying to get them to become seals to be clubbed. Not been finding any matches, comptards?
Looks like the opposite to me, single player shitters whining about “compgays” and asking for the games to be causalised further
Frick shitters
Frick secondaries
Always be improving
Always be learning
Always be kings
Gigabased
Never be afraid of failure or trying to new things
So many demented compgays ITT
they can't find enough seals to club apparently. 20k players mean nothing if they can't find fresh noobs to humiliate
will there ever be a good AoE2 sequel, with unit asymmetry, sprite graphics and custom sprites for every single civ ?
nobody is seething about your dogshit genre
go play league you fricking fossil
Don't let schizo to derail thread.
His original statement was
>Actually curbstomp is necessary step for making champions (among other necessary steps).
>my book said so
He's a moron. Even worse: he's moron who doesn't play video games
>I'm bad at video games because I'm 24 yo+!
200 ELO 30 yo zone
300 ELO 25 yo zone
400 ELO is 20 yo zone
non-RTS gay here, I realized the problem when I was trying to learn how to play a 4X game with a turn timer for multiplayer. The core of the fear is that the player's attention is a resource they must divide across their entire empire/army/whatever, and raising your APM effectively increases how much of that resource is at your disposal. The problem is that people don't like the disadvantage that comes from being up against high APM players, and raising your APM is really difficult because it requires both increased dexterity with the controls and an ability to intuitively know which of your options will accomplish what on a second-to-second basis.
In RTS you're supposed to click shortcuts on KB instead of clicking building/icons with your mouse. Even 4X enjoyers are using shortcuts all time. You do it naturally in all video games (FPS, RPG, action games) without thinking. Except for RTS because you don't have basic RTS skills. Because you don't use keybinds you can't successfully learn how to multi-task. This is why normal people and low reaction boomers have issues with RTS gameplay
I include familiarity with hotkeys in "dexterity with the controls", but even if I was that dumb, it wouldn't take away from my point of trying to articulate why they SEEM scary.
I read about some study they did several years ago where they hooked up a starcraft pro to a brain imagine machine while he was playing. I think it was nada or xellos. they also scanned some amateur players to compare him with. they found that the amateur players' brains were most active in the area responsible for vision, while the pro was most active in the area for memory. basically the shitters spend all their brain power just looking at the screen, while the pro is comparing the game he is currently playing with his memory of the hundreds of games he has played before. I think they found similar results with pro chess players.
being experienced with game means you play by muscle memory. being new means you are looking and trying to figure things out while you go. its not that interesting. RTS games should be less about rote memorization imo. starcraft and its fans are a stain on the genre
t- played brood war for 2 hours today
>be too scared to play 1v1 because if i lose its my fault
>do a 2v2 match
>teammate blames me for losing because I dont know what im doing
>feel bad
>play mobas instead
id bet the farm this is the most popular experience for someone new getting into rts.
I played Red Alert 2, AoE II and Warcraft 3 as a kid because everyone did, but I ditched RTS as soon as I discovered Rome: Total War and Europa Universalis III. They just scratched my strategy itch much better.
It's similar to arena shooters. It's just full of oldgays that absolutely tear your butthole a new one every game which isn't fun at all. There are so few players that you can't learn the basics and it's just not fun.
Even as a seasoned RTS player I don't enjoy the matchmaking. There are people out there that have perfected their build they have ran for 10+ years down to every single click and it's not fun vsing.
I'm not seething, I'm just not buying most RTS games. Total War is fun with it's pause button, but ultimately I'm just not that good at videogames
I wish more RTS games went with simpler base building like in BFME1&2.
Less econ micro, but you still have to pick building comp, train units and such.
Dead genre
APM gays are moronic. It's moronic shit to impress young kids and feed your ego. Same shit happens on FPS games with "YY" spam that people literally macro for...
My APM is between 100-180 depending on what is going on. I couldn't imagine spamming keys for the lulz.
How many RTS games have there been that tried to recapture the magic of old RTS like Starcraft, C&C, Homeworld, Dune, WH40k DoW, etc, and somegow missed the mark? Grey goo, 8 bit armies, and others who have ultimately failed. What'd they miss?