Why are RTS games so comfy?
Why are RTS games so comfy?
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8
— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
Community-driven video game blog & discussion
its the 2d graphics
You have keen observational skills. I am in awe.
>2d graphics
>literal 3d game
Yes anons pre-rendered is comfy.
They're almost always 3d models rendered as sprites.
The masculine urge to build
build trannies are the worst. i love a fun base building from time to time but combat based RTS's always get crying buildtrannies
The fact that you associate the urge to build with trannies only reinforces how ultimately masculine that urge is.
It is the masculine urge to build
It is the chud urge to seethe if someone tries to disrupt their building (seriously a friend of mine thinks rushing is a broken cheese strat in every game)
Combat isn’t the comfy part, combat is the exhilarating part, building is the comfy part. Man is comforted creating, man is exhilarated destroying.
play singleplayer?
buildings fun and rts combat like most games now just devolves into a meta that limits the game to single style.
Build.
This! I absolutely love building. I was mapping for Half Life in 2001. I love building games. I wanted to become an Architect but found out its pretty much the worst job ever. Very underpaid for the schooling required and less than 5% of the time is spent actually designing cool buildings. The other 95% is spent accommodating changes the clients want and that's 9-12 hours a day.
Combat and losing your amassed army is the last comfy part of an RTS.
You get to build a little town, and then ruin someone else's
underrated post
what game is that
Cossacks
Cossacks: European Wars
Same dev that made STALKER
>European Wars
Those wooden blockhouses got added in Art of War IIRC.
I remember killing thousands of Indians desperately trying to hold on to one of those blockhouses in American Conquest. Good times.
Garrisonable buildings made defence in AC very fun (aside from microing repairs), but assaulting a base was an arduous task. Unless you're fighting Hurons, I guess.
With enough artillery you can just level everything at a distance provided you have the troops to defend the guns.
You can, but even then it takes a while. Pulling the guns up a bit closer and shotgunning everyone with grapeshot is a delight though.
But what if you're playing natives yourself? I suppose you're expected to rush before the enemy has time to build up, but still.
>Same dev that made STALKER
Didn't he get blown to pieces in the name of greater Israel recently or was that another STALKER dev?
the music
>remember enjoying Age of Empires II as a kid
>reinstall it after the HD release comes out on Steam
>get absolutely shitter stomped, learn that memorizing build orders and autistically managing hotkeys at 150 apm is necessary
Base building is comfy but RTS games are incredibly uncomfy I find.
>Base building is comfy but RTS games are incredibly uncomfy I find.
Playing RTS games is fun. Playing against someone else trying to win is not.
>play tic tac toe by placing triangles outside the grid
>get absolutely demolished against people actually playing the game instead of goofing off
>make zero effort to learn the basic of the game and instead go "i can't believe tictactoe is dead because of esports"
bro I have no problem playing chess
But when you introduce meta build orders
All you do is just replicate someone else's game
And in that case wins the one who has the most apm
And I don't need to do a homework every week to know what is meta today
Fuck off nerd, I refuse to watch some chink on twitch
I had a friend who played SC2 and literally all he ever did was rush carriers. Every single fucking game the carriers were coming. So when my friend and I played against him for fun we knew what to expect and counted it easily. Then he started seething over it and we just told him to do something other than build carriers.
He quit the game instead and hasn’t played it since.
>he can’t play off-meta and win
>he just follows the same write build order and doesn’t even consider possible counters
>this is the fault of the game and not his own lack of skill
>play off-meta
>be cheesed by some bullshit
>build a wall against that cheese
>enemy goes with the meta build
>you build shit to counters his shit
>you both are playing meta again but it took 5 games longer to come up with it
>and no one had fun
Th-thanks
skill issue
Game has an issue in being entertaining or varied
You do the same shit from match to match
How can you enjoy this groundhog day
Everyone cheats with maphacks and hotkey helpers anyways
>Play off-meta
>Cheese enemy with bullshit
>Don't have to build a wall
>Enemy builds defensive units
>Ignore them and raid
>You both are playing meta again but it took 5 games longer to come up with it
>And both of you had fun
You're welcome.
>cheese enemy
>he plays meta and already has the wall
>regular meta match where you both are going through the motions
>he plays meta and already has the wall
Sounds like you just don't know how to cheese.
Oh I'm sorry that my reapers can't jump over pylons in the mineral lane
If your attack isn't working, it's because you designed it poorly.
Only one I know of is Rimworld.
Hence meta exists
...So your objection is to the existence of strategies which people generally accept as usable in a normal context, and not the context that makes these usable?
My objection that people who play rts don't actually play them
They just replicate the match they saw online and try to perfect it
Its fucking grinding
>They just replicate the match they saw online and try to perfect it
This isn't what happens at all. Please learn the relationship between the parts.
Are we really gonna pretend like build orders dont exist
It guides you to a fucking second
A build order is there to guide you through the first 5-10 minutes of a match. It’s a gameplan so you aren’t just fucking around, but no build order will ever be strong enough to be an auto win against anyone else assuming they build the requisite counters.
They don't even have to build counters. They can just counter-attack and fuck you up anyway.
have you ever head of scouting, anon?
Yes, I have. It's not the panacea you seem to think it is.
Surprised you use a word like "panacea"
Yet, diss scouting. What RTS are we talking about?
AoE2.
>then you should know it's not just about following a build order, but to a far higher degree about reacting to your opponent.
Yes, I know. Did you respond to the right anon?
>i dont know what panacea means, anon.
Cure-all.
sorry, anon, i might have brain problems.
have a nice evening.
>Yes, I have.
then you should know it's not just about following a build order, but to a far higher degree about reacting to your opponent.
>It's not the panacea you seem to think it is.
i dont know what panacea means, anon.
Literal brainlet mentality.
this assumes that your opponent always follow the same strategy. most of the game is about adapting to what your opponent is doing.
you are a brainlet and haven't ever played an RTS, have you?
It may work for the first 10 mins, but RTS spread out massively with each decision
I mean, the good ones, unlike SC2
It’s why I prefer AoE and CoH
I like SC2 a lot. What's bad about it?
He blames apm for his inability to win and not his timings.
Long RTS player here
I dislike SC2 for its core design more than anything that goes back to its launch. Making the sequel to an already super popular korean game was hard, because it would need to be a sequel that doesnt do anything different to piss fans off. So SC2 starts developing with QoL changes like sepecting every attack unit at once and really inventive protoypes, but they make the game too different. So SC2 ends up being the same clunky pathfinding, low TTK game without map design.
I mean, think of a map of SC2 and realize its just a long walk to the same ramp in each base. The whole map is a ETA for killing time, a buffer of sorts. Every build starts off the same and ends up pretty much the same, same winning conditions and scenarios each time. There's little room to build, shroud, pincer attack, turtle or cheeky build. Each race has core flaws that restrict their gameplay with expansions on their mind since release, like holes in the armies that werent patched until LotV. The low TTK makes everything a critical mass deathball gameplay for everyone, and selecting all and A moving is pretty much what it is. Some AoE abilities here and there, but thats how the matches are resolved, by timing and critical mass.
Other things like inject larva, chrono boost and MULEs are no decisions but busywork. The game, since it started as a SC1 copy paste with filler units added, and QoL to the UI, was obvious it was in no way that deep. It was a lot of busywork, and QoL destroyed lots of it. So Blizzard just adds more busywork in the meantime, and balances around ramps and playing the match exactly like the other, like a petri dish on a lab.
Its a game about being fast, more than taking big decisions. Even when pros do things outside the box it gets patched out or act like a surprise, when an RTS, being sandboxes, should be filled with these moments. But each their own. You may like the fast pacedness of it.
>Its a game about being fast, more than taking big decisions.
That was an intentional design decision from Blizzard to make it "esports"
Big decisions just makes scouting even more important, which swings back around to being fast. Anything in real-time is going to ultimately revolve around speed, because getting hit first puts you at an immediate disadvantage.
>Anything in real-time is going to ultimately revolve around speed
Of course, but you can have more or less emphasis on it
Starcraft 2 is overwhelmingly about mechanical skill, its 90% RT and 10% S
I think that comes down to solved meta more than anything. Sc2 is just too responsive for the off meta counters meta slaves that fucks the weird manlet guy whose rage clips are posted in brood war threads.
Sc2 and other long running rts could benefit from rotation style seasons. Like this season swaps High Temps with those line storm spells from campaign, or hellion gets swapped with diamondback. Keep the meta from being solved for so long, but your worst mistakes only lasts season.
>I think that comes down to solved meta more than anything
And why is that? Because there's limited strategic options, so the meta solidifies quickly
This is a problem with pretty much all RTS games though
Yes but AoE2 recently got new civs, which helps their meta of pick and counter pick. CoH can get new company specializations, stuff like that that can expand options without really breaking anything. I’ve brought up in wc3 threads that StarCraft 2 coop is likely the foundation to build off of, so you pick your faction and then whichever commander that changes your tech tree and it’s strengths and weaknesses, makes your meta wider without the need for constant balance updates and like fighting games you can profit off dlc commanders
Blizzard don't want to do that though, they want to create a game with limited options for the sake of eSports
or at least, they did, they gave up on SC2
Anyone with a brain can see the money is not in esports, nickel and dime dlc is the easiest way to make money in video games, could even do the stupid moba thing with a free rotation of commanders for each faction to bait transactions.
Are you a time traveller? SC2 is dead. They gave up on it years ago. SC2 was made to try and cater to esports fags - it failed. They got the most money out of the game via the co-op mode which worked like you said, but they've given up on that aswell
This is a hypothetical for going forward. Don’t try and be StarCraft. You already have that, use the profit making thing you had in starcraft to make money and keep new=good crowd, and the content creators on your game, then use moba style releases to rake in money from meta players, whales, and collector autists, and the odd natural costumer.
>I mean, think of a map of SC2 and realize its just a long walk to the same ramp in each base. The whole map is a ETA for killing time, a buffer of sorts.
That's not true and has historically not been true for SC2. But yes, you often get a trade-off in sort of sterile maps because you have different races with different strengths unlike other RTS games where all the options are just reskins of each other with shuffled stats.
>Every build starts off the same and ends up pretty much the same, same winning conditions and scenarios each time. There's little room to build, shroud, pincer attack, turtle or cheeky build.
This is again also wrong. There are plenty of timing attacks and cheeses. Have a look at Has or PartinG if you believe it can't be done on a competent level. And it's even more true for lower skill levels where it's not nearly as restrictive as there's larger margin for error.
>Each race has core flaws that restrict their gameplay with expansions on their mind since release, like holes in the armies that werent patched until LotV.
Yes, it's hard to balance three very different races, I agree. Again a trade-off for variety, which I think they have managed relatively well.
>The low TTK makes everything a critical mass deathball gameplay for everyone, and selecting all and A moving is pretty much what it is.
Plenty of builds that require intensive micro and is not a-click. Far more so than other RTS games. This assumes that all games reach end-game, which they definitely don't.
>Some AoE abilities here and there, but thats how the matches are resolved, by timing and critical mass.
It's how some matches are resolved, sure, but that just shows that there are other aspects to the game than micro - i.e. macro.
>Other things like inject larva, chrono boost and MULEs are no decisions but busywork.
This is not inherently bad. It's a management aspect of the game.
>"Comment too long"
I'll stop here - we value different things.
just play city builders
I like fighting things too
Building army compositions
Setting up defenses
Finding a weak spot in the enemy fortress
I need to have both. If it's just building in a sandbox with no threats it's boring, but at the same time I don't want it to just be Starcraft where you start over again every half hour because maps have finite resources, and after the first 10 minutes it really just becomes micromanagement of your army.
Against Rome had a game mode which is basically sandbox but random factions would occasionally arrive at the map.
Pretty neat, sadly the game has a vomit like artstyle. 50 shades of brown.
build orders is what makes competitive rts gay. Why would I want to do 2 variants of the same thing everyone does every game.
That's AoE2 biggest flaw.
Surprisingly its less of an issue in AoE1 because you can't garrison villagers or shoot outside of buildings, so you can actually hurt the enemy with stone age trash.
>Why would I want to do 2 variants of the same thing everyone does every game.
It's literally just an optional opener.
>so you can actually hurt the enemy with stone age trash.
As you can with drushes and Feudal age units. Enough of a difference to basically get an early win.
Just play vs AI then. Most of them are retarded.
>I don't want it to just be Starcraft where you start over again every half hour because maps have finite resources, and after the first 10 minutes it really just becomes micromanagement of your army.
brainlet take that sc2 is all micro. you get a lot further with macro than micro. you can say "it's all micro" after you are actually capable of proper macro.
Factorio comes kinda close to this (and more so before the changed getting resources from bug hives). There doesn't really seem to be a game like "an infinite RTS" like you describe, but I want it, too.
City builders always fall victim to the "loads of identical buildings next to each other" problem and it makes them look like shit. Even something like Tropico had different skins for the same buildings and would randomly select them.
Which one is this?
that one is emperor rise of them iddle kingdom
>try to play Anno 1800
>am an actual dyslexic retard and can't into city planning and spacing at all
>get filtered
>quit
My every experience with city builders. I'm too slow for RTS games and too dumb for city builders so 4X games are my home.
RTS as a genre fell into esports meme and died because of that
Now we dont get any
RTS died 5 years before esports were a thing
RTS died because it refused to innovate and it doesn't solve some basic gameplay issues people tend to have.
For instance, when playing Age of Mythology, you can set your barracks and archery range to auto-produce units, which helps to reduce the micro.
But your frontline units will die more often than the archers, so overtime what you get is a large amount of archers, unless you go manage the auto-production, voiding the entire point of using them.
There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't just say "I want 20 Hoplite and 15 Toxotes" and the game produces enough to that amount, auto-queing more units if any dies.
Just for villagers alone would be a huge improvement, you wouldn't have to count how many you have after a few were attacked, literally just say you want 20 and let the game queue them as needed.
It's just that most people that give RTS games a try are expecting large scale conflicts with large armies and intricate base building.
And what they find is that early game is often about heavy micro with 5-6 units and late game sees about 20-25 units only while base building is just the strictly necessary and quite lackluster.
You don't want to automate this process too much
Plus it would be annoying if say you have your max supplied build but it was gathering in at the point in the map where nothing is going on and where you can loose track of that group
And what if you need siege weapons but you ate maxed? You would have to go and suicide your guys wasting your resources
It f2 key in starcraft all over again
You shouldn't use this feature because it will screw you
>it was gathering in at the point in the map where nothing is going on
That's what spawn points are for.
>what if you need siege weapons but you ate maxed?
You already have this problem with the current system. At least automation could "reserve" supply points that would always only be used by siege units.
You can double the production and slow the problem, but it wouldn't solve it either. If you're losing spearmen because they are frontline, you'll still eventually get a surplus of archers.
Plus, if you are at max supply and someone raids your villagers, they'll be replaced by army, fucking with your economy.
Not having automation of any kind contributes more to the FAST FAST FAST mentality.
A lot more inputs to keep units being produced, especially if you want to be optimal and not queue more than 1.
Automation let's every production be as fast as possible, leaving the player open to do everything else slower and more methodical.
That's not management, it's busywork. Making decisions is management and if you decide that you want 15 of a certain unit or that your army should be 20% of this unit, that's your management done. Everything else is just bullshit to keep you busy to hide the fact that there's very little else to do.
>That's not management, it's busywork
>making decisions is management
you're so fucking retarded. deciding what units to build and when to build them fits your criteria.
>the fact that there's little else to do
scouting, building, fighting. if you're not doing one of these or producing units, you're fucked.
just say you're bad at RTS and okay your league of legends account.
>making decisions is management
Yes. Repeating the same action multiple times to achieve what you decided is not management, it's the very definition of busywork.
Flipping burgers is not managing the restaurant, Anon.
>scouting
>sending a single expendable unit to gain fov
Only in games where you have specific units for this with their own gimmick, like Priests in AoM.
>building
Gated by your resources, another stupid limitation because the game is basically retarded and you can't queue buildings.
It's not management, it's you doing something else and having to interrupt it because you finally got enough resources for the next building in your build order.
There's literally no reason why you couldn't queue every building you plan to build and workers start on them as soon as they have the resources. Units are often cheaper, so you can still build those and nothing stops you from re-adjusting the queue if you change your mind.
>fighting
The actual fun part that will constantly be interrupted by pointless queuing of more shit just so you have something more to do besides right clicking things.
Ever played SupCom? Its what you want
>That's not management, it's busywork.
There's plenty of busywork in management. Management != decision making.
>But your frontline units will die more often than the archers, so overtime what you get is a large amount of archers, unless you go manage the auto-production, voiding the entire point of using them.
Can't you just queue 2 spearmen, 2 swordsmen and 1 archer and then hit the repeat button?
>auto-produce
Literally contributed to the unit spam shit that you can sometimes even see early game GOING FAST FAST FAST was the worst mistake RTS could have made
>There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't just say "I want 20 Hoplite and 15 Toxotes" and the game produces enough to that amount, auto-queing more units if any dies
sure there is. the game has a management aspect. you might not find it fun, but some do.
Press shift and click to queue 5x5
Depending on the game, you're locking a large amount of resources in a queue that won't affect the game for a long while, resources that you could use to queue on other places or build something.
You'll also have to do it again every minute throughout the match, so the problem of breaking the pacing in the game is still there.
Play Mindustry then because it works even better than that.
>But your frontline units will die more often than the archers, so overtime what you get is a large amount of archers
You're retarded if you don't see the issue with this statement.
Unless you're letting your archers being flanked, you will lose frontline units before you even start losing archers. If you have auto-production for both, for every 2 spearmen you lose, you'll produce 1 to replace him and another archer.
You really don't see how this works overtime?
You're making assumptions and you know what they say about those.
I love arena shooters, especially Unreal and I participate in public competitions of Mount & Blade, competition and losing isn't a problem for me.
But if I want a fast-paced gameplay, I already have my fix with the first and even some fighting games.
I'm expecting that strategy games are something different, about strategy and managing several units across a battlefield but apparently I'm actually playing RTT with an heavier focus on economy and I need twitch reflexes to be competitive. This makes as much sense as having base building in arena FPS.
>Unless you're letting your archers being flanked, you will lose frontline units before you even start losing archers.
No, you just put your melee units behind your archers until someone starts engaging them. They aren't constantly engaged like archers are. You'd know this if you played the game.
Anon, think about timespans longer than 3 seconds before posting again.
You have your melee units behind your archers, so you are losing no units. Someone starts engaging them and now you retreat the archers. NOW you start losing units, specifically the melee units. Unless you were dumb enough to try and let your archers tank a few hits for some reason.
So we are back at the same situation. When you're trading units, you'll be trading frontline first and archers second, but there's no such priority when auto-producing units. That's where the imbalance comes from.
>what do they say?
You can't make assumptions without making an ass of yourself. But you're just playing dumb and fucking up quotes in your reply.
If you legit can't understand that calling something RTS and yet strategy takes a back seat to reflexes and busywork, I guess there's no reason to reply to you anymore.
>You can't make assumptions without making an ass of yourself. But you're just playing dumb and fucking up quotes in your reply.
umm no, im not playing dumb. i think it's quite rude of you to say that i am. fucking up a quote is just a mistake. not knowing an idiom does also not equate low iq.
seems like you are the one making an ass of yourself, heh.
>If you legit can't understand that calling something RTS and yet strategy takes a back seat to reflexes and busywork, I guess there's no reason to reply to you anymore.
so yes, the problem is with the label "RTS"? you also keep saying busywork as if it is inherently bad, but it isn't. being able to handle a lot of busywork alongside decision making and reacting to new information is a skill in itself. real time strategy does also not mean that the game should be pure strategy - that would remove most gameplay elements and relegate it to a spreadsheet. it's just a classification and i dont understand why you get so hung up on the label a game is given.
rts games like starcraft or wc3 are not heavy on strategy (strategy is still required, though), but are still considered strategy games. that they are given an arbitrary label does not make the games any worse. and a game involving "busywork" is not inherently bad as you try and portray it to be.
>Anon, think about timespans longer than 3 seconds before posting again.
You sound like you have a clue with your tone, but your words show otherwise.
>You have your melee units behind your archers, so you are losing no units. Someone starts engaging them and now you retreat the archers.
Please tell me what they're engaging them with.
It has to be a melee unit, so not archers or siege.
It can't be infantry because archers shred those and functionally outpace them.
If it's cavalry, they're taking greater losses than you by a large margin.
>NOW you start losing units, specifically the melee units. Unless you were dumb enough to try and let your archers tank a few hits for some reason.
An archer mass can, on its own, take any cavalry that doesn't take 3 or less damage from each arrow, yes.
Dipshits in my RTS thread.
>what about all these situations where you aren't losing any units? You wouldn't have a problem with skewed production then!
You are so smart, Anon! Turns out the mistake was using anything other than archers in the first place. Really, I should have just used all my supply to spam them and I'd never lose a single unit or have any use for melee units either.
I think you're overestimating 2000's hardware. That was more than 20 years ago, PCs were shitboxes back then and you still had popcaps more to limit what the game would have to render than for any balance reasons.
You're underestimating 2000s hardware
RA2 was a 2D RTS released in 2000 and you could have literally thousands of units (so long as they were sprites and not voxel tanks) without much of a problem
By the end of the 2000s there was no real technical limit to the amount of units you could have or the complexity of the AI
this
>Some of my favorite maps were the 4000 unit stomps that brought my amd athlon x2 to a crawl
>what about all these situations where you aren't losing any units?
Learn to read, dumbass. I'm showing that the only situation where you'd need to put your melee units in front of your archers is one where you're winning even by deploying them late.
Archer-pike beats knights defensively for this reason, and you'd know this if you played the game.
Last (You)
>You're making assumptions and you know what they say about those.
i dont. what do they say?
>But if I want a fast-paced gameplay, I already have my fix with the first and even some fighting games.
I'm expecting that strategy games are something different, about strategy and managing several units across a battlefield but apparently I'm actually playing RTT with an heavier focus on economy and I need twitch reflexes to be competitive. This makes as much sense as having base building in arena FPS.
so what you dislike is the label of "RTS"
>RTS died because it refused to innovate and it doesn't solve some basic gameplay issues people tend to have.
RTS died, because it was a wide coalition and it split into two:
>multiplayer skill action APM tourney ELO rating whatever went into MOBAs
>build optimize macro economy expand whatever went into 4X and colony managers
There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't just say "I want 20 Hoplite and 15 Toxotes" and the game produces enough to that amount, auto-queing more units if any dies.
Supcom does exactly this, it's great.
>plays a multiplayer game
>cries about other fistfucking him and having to learn how to play
>proceeds to call them autistics, tryhards and losers
>"game is shit, devs should take into account players like me who want to have fun and free wins"
one of the oldest tales in gaming
who are you quoting?
I never said any of that shit anon. I just learned that RTS games for not for me and are not as comfy as I remembered.
It has singleplayer for this very reason you massive retard.
I kind of get where you're coming from, most RTS MP is just something you can't even think about touching unless you're ready to dedicate a lot of time to git gud. So then if you're a casual RTS player you don't really want to buy them too often (or at full price) since you can't imagine spending a lot of money on just messing around on easy mode campaign/skirmish. Not that there's anything wrong with messing around on easy skirmish forever, I've never played an MP game in my life when I own plenty of RTS games, but there definitely is a bit of a shorter "life expectancy" thing going on if you know you won't touch MP. You just kind of have to have expectations set on the genre as a whole when you are looking at these games.
i've played the shit out of dow1 and 2 in singleplayer, think i've tried mp twice or something
god if only dow3 was good and improved upon the series...i'd be playing it forever
RTS are only fun when playing singleplayer. When playing multiplayer you have to be fast and memorizing hotkeys and it drain all the fun.
single player RTS games are braindead and require neither strategy or mechanical mastery, just you playing the map a few times and winning via trial and error
its the same with multiplayer and ai will prove it with enough time. hell the reasoning behind most bad ai's for rts is so that you can have fun.
>strategy and mechanical mastery
>macros, meta, and muscle memory
its why fighting games are the worst genre with the worst playerbase.
RTS games have bad AI because good AI is hard to make, stop giving developers undue credit
Playing RTS games against a human is how they're meant to be played
wont matter. if an ai can mimic human behavior enough to dupe you its just as good for future singleplayer rts games. its not really undue credit there are things i dont think anyone likes with ai difficulty like any paradox game but bad design doesnt equate to bad gameplay as seen in any bethesda game.
Good AI would be a massive boon for RTS games, perhaps machine learning could achieve this, but people don't really make RTS anymore
oh they make them. just the ones made arent very good. finding good style with good play in todays time is hard. in the future though it will be excessive on demand creation. I for one cant wait to see what others would consider bloatware sandboxes because it lends itself to bigger concepts like having nested gamestyles within one giant work.
Your post reads like it was generated by an AI because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about
sorry for being retarded ig. thought you were an ai because of the quick response.
It was already proven by people. I climbed SC2 ladder with a sheet of paper next to me, which had my timings for buildings, drones, etc. Executing this well was half the game, the other half was a little micro battle with the enemy, and usually 5 minutes in the winner was decided, and one person quit.
So yes, literally checking boxes of a list on a sheet.
You are just showing you don't know shit about the game, lmao.
You can get a lot further with pure macro than pure micro.
>No! I fought my way all the way to the top of silver!
Lmaoing @ your life.
This post should be screencapped and reposted every time someone asks why RTS is dead. Here's a biopsy of the cancer.
>rts multiplayer is on par with moba's
i'm not sure why this surprises people.
Don't like how much micro matters but like RTS? Come home brother. The faf community would love to have you in for some comfy coop comp stomps.
This is part of why they died.
RTS games need to have more macro and micro focused automation, but no one wants to add that.
Funnily enough, AoE 2 in xbox does exactly that. On the economy side anyway.
>play against AI and play all the campaigns
>hundreds of hours of fun, barely use hotkeys and have incredibly low apm
I don't see the problem, you're trying to play a game you don't want to play competitively competitively
You are correct. Playing RTS at high level is mental illness. When you get good at a fighting game or a shooter for example, your gameplay looks more beautiful as you improve. When you get good at a RTS, any inherent grace or beauty of the game is stamped out by abuse of all the game's systems to pump out as many units as possible.
Stop playing moronclick rts. Just play faf. They work to remove as much tedious micro as possible before things get dumbed down so you can concentrate on macro strategy.
Play the campaigns you fuck. RTS Multiplayer is only fun with friends using made up rules / handicap to account for variations in skill level.
i hate the bullshots of intricately built bases when you know the game will never be like that and you're going to have shit scattered everywhere depending on whats going on
>Playing a game where building location doesn't matter
>Expecting people to build like it does
>not dominating your opponent so hard you surround his entire base with hatcheries
anno 1800
>Why are RTS games so comfy?
An individual match of a good RTS game has excellent pacing. The decisions on how to build your army, when to be aggressive and when to be conservative, all the while also trying to counter your opponent’s strategy just makes the genre endlessly replayable.
The skill floor is really high though and it’s easy to see why a lot of people don’t stick with it.
I hate Sich Cossacks! I hate Sich Cossacks!
>EXPAND AND EXTERMINATE
>sequel never ever
>campaign dlc never ever
>sequel never ever
It's in early access on the ebin :DDD store.
>ebin store
ok so it doesn't exist
Might as well, if only you knew at what they did to the artstyle. "Mobile strategy game ported to console then ported to PC with a few UI tweaks" is the best description I can give. Fucking awful, haven't seen such butchering since Synthetik 2 went early-access, but at least that game is shaping up to something on steam.
Oh no...
I picked up s2 recently because I know the devs won't rugpull me but yeah it needs more work
Baffles me that Sins never had a campaign. Such a waste.
>send a capital ship into a hostile system
>look away and manage stuff at home
>check back on the ship later
>still has a ton of health and is holding against a swarm of cheap shit
>send in a second capital ship
I know there are faster ways to play this game but just focusing on the big units is supremely comfy.
That was one of my fav parts of the early/mid game, when all of a capital's escorts get btfod but the cap is there slugging it out and you're rushing to send in reinforcements to save it
End stage doom stacks were ok but it took forever to move it around
Is there an rts that lets me do comfy building with lots of things to build and decorate and then fight instead of rushing both?
Building in Stronghold was cool.
For that, you'll want games where military units have significant maintenance costs.
>doesn't name any
AAAAAAAAAAAA
Unironically, Cossacks (OP's pic) lets you do that. You can set "peace time" at the beginning of a custom match during which you can't be attacked.
can't wait
You sure? I think they revealed an ingame shop and season pass.
i don't feel so good anymore
They did not, fuck off with your misinformation.
Season pass, 'ship decals & icons' and 'banners' are in the CE. Also HW:DoK had shitty cash-grab DLCs.
It's safe to assume there is going to be more cosmetic shit to buy and they will abandon the base game to shit out dlcs with unbalanced sub factions or worse.
>Gearbox
can't wait to be let down one last time
why do all sci-fi franchises die horrid deaths?
Name some obscure ones
>armies of exago
Discount warcraft but it's still pretty fun
>submarine titans
Dont remember much about it but I loved it as a kid
There were also one that was based in Japan or China and the main gimmick was that you train your units out of peasant instead of barracks and shit like that
Dont remember the name though
>armies of exigo
Yeah it's a WC3 copycat but I wouldn't call it 'discount'. It's pretty good and the cgi cut scenes are kino.
>Asian artstyle w/ the peasant gimmick
Battle Realms
btw ty for reminding of that obscure submarine titans, anon. There's so much old treasure stuff from back in the day. Especially when you consider obscure german stuff or slavjank
only the ones with comfy base building not the blizzturd ones
Pre rendered graphics with a medieval setting are the peak of videogames
They age like finely preserved gold ornaments, and will be enjoyed by future generations as such.
>Why are RTS games so comfy?
>*blocks your path and gives you a colic*
Same energy.
whats that?
Seems to be Spellforce 3, with the latest expansion.
Shame about the game, I liked the supply mechanics in the base game even though they weren't very well implemented.
The visual style sucks, though. You'll have a hard time distinguishing units from each other and often from the environment itself.
RTS stands for Real Time Strategy, not Real Time Management, though. I want to implement a strategy in real time, not autistically check my barracks every 15 seconds to queue another unit, or micro 5 units around like I'm playing DOTA.
Achron, The Tone Rebellion, Homeworld and AI Wars beg to differ.
>Command and Conquer has shit story
>Age of Mythology has shit story
>Rise of Legends has shit story
tasteless gay
and Conquer has shit story
Are you fucking serious? It's complete schlock they made up on the spot for the sake of it, it's on par with the Mario story
FMV cutscenes were cool in the 90s, but it doesn't have a story
>RTS stands for Real Time Strategy, not Real Time Management, though. I want to implement a strategy in real time, not autistically check my barracks every 15 seconds to queue another unit, or micro 5 units around like I'm playing DOTA.
>moving the goalposts
I'll reiterate. Management != decision making. Management is an aspect of the game. Some enjoy it. Others don't.
*lacrimosa dies illa intensifies*
CoH3 is so fun. I wish it was finished.
does this shit count? It tickled my 'tism as a child
>yes I know about manic miners. praise be to baraklava, king of all autists
hey i played this. i dont remember a great deal about it, though.
i only remember collecting minerals or ores, can't actually remember what the game was about.
Collecting minerals and ores
huh, guess i did remember
>AN ENERGY CRYSTAL HAS BEEN FOUND
the voice lines from this game live in my head rent free
My parents got me the Playstation version of this, which I later came to learn was far shittier as it didn't have any of the base building stuff.
It was pretty buggy when I replayed some of it recently. Manic miners plays sooo much smoother. Can't wait for the finished product.
Should I play Tropico 3 or 4? I have both but never played them, I guess I bought them dirt cheap
4 is basically what 3 should have been from the start
If you're completely new to the series and don't plan to play all then 4. It's a slightly upgraded 3 that was disappointing after the jump between 2 and 3.
Any games like Warcraft 2? I like the artstyle.
Playing AoE4
I just really like it. Even if they cheese me in ranked, im in no way as mad as SC2 ever made me.
SC2 is just too tight that even single mistakes can be catastrophic.
Yeah SC2 poisoned the RTS well for too long. So restrictive it made people quit developing the genre
I hate what starcraft made with the genre
But its unfair to blame sc2 for that
It released 11 fucking years ago and arguably was the last rts
Even before that genre was kinda twiddling down with c&c being retarded and so on
those games aged incredibly well. Its not just 2d art.
Look at games like World in Conflict.
You can see the faces of Soldiers, a game where you are meant to look at stuff from a mile above
based
sauce?
Click on the post he was responding to and you'll find your answer.
WiC is an incredible game with tremendous love put into it. It's not just the faces; soldiers have idle animations and chatter even as vehicle crew, they are not just ornamental like in warthunder for example. And when your tanks get damaged, if you zoom in at the models, you'll see detailed damage decals that are literally animated in some aspects and have geometry in others!
That is to say, your MBT might have a big glowing hole blown into it with the metal peeing out, or if the engine was damaged you'll see an open hole with a wobblying texture underneath. Crazy detail. And don't get me started on fucking terrain deformation the likes of which have literally never been reproduced since, or all the volumetric smoke particles that only BFBC2 managed to get right.
Everybody responsible for that probably already quit years ago after they got forced to work on the division.
Masterpiece. Haven't played anything that strikes the same tunes for me.
Ground Control 2 is older and still looks great
Never played it. How is GC2?
In many ways like World In Conflict, only sci-fi. Great campaign too.
We should have gotten a sequel where Parker gets to burn Moscow while Webb goes around raping Chink girls in Beijing.
pikmin was the best rts game ever made imo
No one asked tendie
It's old school graphics that makes things comfy. There are details but no room for clutter, while simultaneously leaving space for the imagination
A campaign mode for a basebuilding RTS where the map just expands whenever you complete missions or conquer your current area.
That sounds fucking awesome. It's a shame developers suck so fucking much and they are all creatively bankrupt so it will never happen.
>A campaign mode for a basebuilding RTS where the map just expands whenever you complete missions
Supreme Commander does exactly this, but this leads to over preparation. If you know the map will have a face 2 and 3 you are tempted to build 20 experimentals and steamroll the rest of the map.
In that case you just gate off certain resources until you expand the map.
Doesn't really work with supcom because a big part of its economy is getting to the point where you're fabricating your resources or trading one resource for another.
I like the building part but not the fighting part. It’s so fucking stressful I never had more stress in my life than playing an RTS
ENTER
ty for sharing! That looks so fucking comfy. Exactly what I'm looking for
Are there any other RTS games that feel as responsive as the ones developed by Blizzard?
I feel like AoE and the like feel floaty as fuck.
Maybe it's just the pace of the game? I don't know.
No only Blizzard makes moronclick.
Oh, okay. I really like moronclick ;_;
AoE feels slippery to me because units hold formation and they organize a weird blob once you select all of them
And some units in that blob can behave retard like
I suck at AoE2, but I love to play 256x tech mod against 7 extreme AIs on a chokepoint map like Black Forest. It's a race to boom and get the techs you need in order to defeat them before they can get through your buildings.
holy shit thats' even better than the nuke in Red Alert
They researched Torsion Engines (a tech that increases siege blast radius) 256 times.
>boot up AoE2
>get shit stomped because I spent too much time making my town pretty instead of actually amassing units
>every single time
The graphics are just too pretty for me not to do it
Tell me you got filtered without telling me.
>this entire thread
Holy shit are you guys pathetic.
>noo you cant try to win!
>noo you cant try to get better!
>noo you cant have more than 10 apm!
Go on twitch and look at you favorite tiny hand man already
I have games to play where I actually have to think about shit
>I'm actually so smart I cant win a competitive game
i don't care about playing the game that forces me to do the same shit over and over again because its fucking boring
>all sports are boring, it's just the same thing over and over again
>noo i cant have fun if we have to compete :-(( cant we just be friends
Whoosh.
sports aren't strategy games
>what is an analogy
Did I say watch a sport?
Playing a sport is the analogy, goober.
>all sports are boring, it's just the same thing over and over again
yes
especially watching esports is boring
why dont play the game yourself instead
>noo you can't have fun if you don't play tryhard meta just like my moronidol
you have to go back
What's the point of bragging about being good at a dying genre? Congratulations, Anon. You're the best among nobody.
Antagonizing people won't make them want to play your game, especially if you imply it's this amazing rubik cube of difficulty you'll take years to be half-decent at.
You have no one else to blame but yourself and your frog-boiling, Anon.
Just because you like the particular flavor of shit you are eating, it doesn't mean anyone else wants to join in.
Singleplayer RTS allow for interesting and fun AI that isn't restricted by "muh e-sports" mentality that you can play against and it's notable that plenty RTS, especially the most famous ones have truly memorable singleplayer campaigns.
>Singleplayer RTS allow for interesting and fun AI
Theoretically, sure, in real life all singleplayer RTS is fucking retarded and has never provided a challenge
>Singleplayer RTS allow for interesting and fun AI
Leave.
>Leave
>why did RTS die?
Mindustry works pretty well for that reason, actually. You can plan out your base right from the start but focus on specific parts that you want to prioritize first as you build it.
It's essentially like Factorio post-drones, where you can just place ghost plans for every building and have drones build it as long as it's in stock.
>Singleplayer RTS allow for interesting and fun AI
This has literally never occurred once unless you're a complete brainlet.
>truly memorable singleplayer campaigns.
at the end of the day everyone advocating for single player RTS is a complete casual who plays them for the story, even though they have garbage stories even by video game standards
seems like the problem is you don't like multiplayer games and competitiveness
factoria is a good rts albeit boring enemies with how single note they are. rts is such a vauge genre its not really dying off so much as it is rebranding/specializing.
Ganker is insanely casual when it comes to RTS.
They're all stuck in the past of being 10 and playing against their friends thinking they're hot shit.
its just ass to take a DF like mindset and then insert competition into it with stupid shit like villager rushing. for those that didnt use it for multiplayer it stopped appealing to them and sandbox and map painters took their place.
pretty much. I remember i only really played rts games like wc3 casually when i was young. By highschool i was playing a lot of FPS like quake live and CSS. A friend of mine who played a lot of brood war when he was a kid was excited alongside me for SC2. He was sure he'd be the stronger player out of the gate. Just learning a build order opening and making sure to unit split/stutter step my units was enough to let me win every game I played against him.
Nothing against him, he was a good guy. It just seems like a lot of people from my generation played against AI and got big hurt feelings once they had access to real competition. Same story with fighting games honestly. It feels like "all rts games are is who can micro better" is the rts equivalent to the fighting game classic of "all fighitng games are is who memorized the best combo."
Shits dumb but the way it is.
morons just need to be humbled from time to time.
They build up this ego based on complete falsehoods from beating the AI or completing the campaign.
I remember thinking I was hot shit at Starcraft:BW because I completed the campaign while only cheating on 1 or 2 missions and tried my hand at multiplayer.
Teammate was endlessly ree'ing about "noob teammate" while I got ling-flooded.
My request to join a starcraft clan also got rejected as they too were not impressed with my credentials of being 11 and beating the campaign.
In short. People need to abandon this inflated ego of theirs and understand they're not GM-level.
Thankfully, there's matchmaking now, so you can face off against other wood-leaguers and have a good time.
>Nothing against him, he was a good guy. It just seems like a lot of people from my generation played against AI and got big hurt feelings once they had access to real competition.
This, but this is true for EVERY RTS game. Every RTS game dies after it's honeymoon period and results in an 1/8th of its playerbase because of it. Even Starcraft 2 and AOE2, games that had millions of people playing it, are a shadow of their former selves because of it.
WC3 was fucking amazing and I wish devs would learn from it for this reason: If you didn't want to play the base game, there were options people made to let you play it however you wanted.
Way to miss the point.
What was your point? Other than 'my friend was a big casual who got his feefees hurt'.
You were never good at RTS.
It's not the game's fault that you suck.
you're literally just proving my point. let's say I'm NOT good at RTS games (I was really good at RA2, but that game is 20 years old, so it's beside the point), most people aren't good at them. So why aren't they given consideration?
The game is ultimately a product, and you're telling most people who will inevitably play it, be bad at it, and then not have much of a game to play aside from single player (if it has any, SC2 and AOE2's success is entirely thanks to its single player) 'fuck off, you were never good. it's not the game's fault you suck' then wondering why people like your friend stay away from them.
Ganker is literally the ONLY place where people are elitist, you fucking retard. The only game with some elitism in game is Brood War and it's mostly just people raping you with a dumb strat because they're way better than you. The games and their communities have only become more casual/new player/shitter friendly with time.
Even Brood War has small tournaments and mentor groups for bottom of the barrel garbage known as the majority of players in the bottom ranks.
Some of the idiots in the outer "community" actually think your retarded ideas are good. This is how I know you're a moron who doesn't play RTS. The community is small and welcoming to the worst degree. Full of mouthbreathers like you.
Using Gankerer elitists to judge a game's community is fucking retarded, you are a fucking retard.
Way to completely miss his point about praising WC3 because it gave casuals more ways to play the game than just battles against AI or competitive multiplayer.
> It just seems like a lot of people from my generation played against AI and got big hurt feelings
>that's true for every RTS game and kind of why we're having this discussion
>Fuck off moron you were never good at it.
Wow, I wonder why the genre has 4 ""alive"" games even if you stretch the definition of alive? (including remakes of games older than the demographics of most video games)
>waaa waaaa RTS is dead DEAD I say
Are you just going to repeat this ad infinitum because it makes you feel better about being shit at RTS?
I'm not even that guy, I'm just pointing out you're acting like a huge fucking baby bitching that other people don't want to "play right" and then wondering why your genre is a shadow of its past self.
We ALL got upset and bitched when DOW became moba shit and C&C became a mobile tappity-tap game, but look at your gay posts and ask yourself if they even made the wrong decision when your advice is "Just stop being shit, retard" to 99% of people who play video games.
That's where you are wrong. None of "options people made" would exist if the base game was shit. Or if it was mediocre. Or okay. Or even good. It has to be a fucking masterpiece for people to care enough to make thousands of custom maps, campaigns, mods and whatever.
nta but you hit on a good point of why people quit playing RTS games: Those casuals deserve to play the game, too. People quit RTS games past a certain point because the ELO system is hot garbage at matching like players who want fun games and it becomes a game devoted to either getting stomped in such a way that you cannot see a way to improve or utterly trivialize the opponent in a way where you never learn.
The old games were great in that much of the matchmaking was grassroots. There were very few matching systems in place and thus required people to find one another in order to have a fun game, and by doing that they found friend circles where they learned from each other, loved losing/winning, it wasn't the equivalent of a cheap fuck on tinder where no one knows what happened when it's over and maybe only one person had fun.
>Those casuals deserve to play the game, too
And they fucking can. There's plenty of casual options available to them.
>the ELO system is hot garbage
Fuck off. You have no clue.
>And they fucking can. There's plenty of casual options available to them.
unless they want to play the main mode of the multiplayer, which is of course: the matchmaking. games robbed themselves of the custom games audience outside of comp stomps because it funnels everyone into matchmaking.
it's the argument for dedicated servers vs any kind of matchmaking in FPS games. forcing all players to play the same way makes the niche players leave.
>Fuck off. You have no clue.
I do have a clue, it seems like you're denying the reality of the matter.
but that's okay, denying reality and trying to pretend what doesn't work is superior has been the modus operandi of RTS devs the last 15 years and kind of why we're having this discussion.
Why do you HAVE to play ranked?
Why can't you just go make custom lobbies to shit on AI or friends?
>Why do you HAVE to play ranked?
Because nobody plays custom, nobody plays custom because ranked is the main mode of multiplayer. You go to multiplayer, you click 'find game', it puts you in ranked. so most people stray far away from it leading to maybe a tiny contingent playing custom.
AOE2 customs on a saturday night are fun, but do I want to play that every time I boot the game up?
>this isn't a real problem and you're retarded for suggesting it's a problem now why do people like my friend quit playing this game?
Real mystery innit? The modern RTS sperg is so explosive and emotional that he cannot even comprehend the possibility that there exists problems that other game devs of RTS games have said is a problem.
>How exactly is the matchmaker a problem in RTS?
I just said it and you ignored it apparently, so repeating it is pointless.
>Because nobody plays custom, nobody plays custom because ranked is the main mode of multiplayer.
Oh I see. We're back in your mind-palace. Probably more like a mind-sewer though.
Go on. Repeat the phrase again.
So you have no response? No answer? Not even an attempt to reason or argue? Just "Fuck off your mind is a sewer also everyone in this thread is a samefag".
Maybe RTS games died because the people who play them are clearly insane autists like you are.
>Maybe RTS games died
He said the thing again.
NTA but it's true.
I can boot up runescape and find people, too. This is not a healthy genre where you have to name games that came out before most people on Ganker were even alive or remakes of games older than their parents.
>Maybe RTS games died
Then why is it I can boot up 4 RTS games right now and instantly find a match?
4 rts that came out twenty years ago that the remaining community clings to because no one is making RTS anymore. Young moronclickers play mobas and casuals play colony managers or 4x, the RTS genre is dead and buried
Dead and buried except I can find a game at any time of day. Do you even speak English?
>I can play with Russians and BRs anytime I want, that means the genre is thriving!
lol
or as they say in your language
HUE
>he thinks i play with russians and brs
Lmao projecting ASSgay player.
You do because these are the only people still playing 15 year old Starcraft 2 in 2023 you coping gay LOL
>Sorry I forgot the maphacking chinks who are now more numerous than mutts, surely they will be good companions for my strategy genre
>Rational argument
>OH I SEE, we're back in your MIND PALACE, PFWAH
We're onto peak schizo hours, I see. This seems to happen when we have an RTS threads.
Oh that is rich.
A rational argument? Denying reality and substituting it with your own schizo-delusions is hardly a rational argument.
Do post more grand takes like "no one plays custom games".
>A rational argument? Denying reality and substituting it with your own schizo-delusions is hardly a rational argument.
Then answer the question.
Where do you go if you don't want to play the same game in custom and you don't want to play quickplay?
Most players quit, or play singleplayer. Custom is a barren wasteland most of the time littered with the same few games or game modes. Literal hour long waits to find a game if you don't want to play 256x or comp stomp.
Is this the part where you pretend this isn't real because the voices in your head tell you it's not?
We're having this "discussion" because you're mentally deficient and complaining about a "problem" that doesn't exist.
How exactly is the matchmaker a problem in RTS?
>implying you are not a stream monster
Hate to see it
>casuals come out of the woodwork proving anon right
You love to see it.
It's utterly pathetic. You give people an actual challenge of decision-making, dexterity, and strategy and they curl up and cry like little babies rather than even try to get good.
RTS games are not good strategy games
They are, you're just mad cause bad.
I'm good at RTS games
Winning against your mouthbreathing friends on 1 hour no rush maps does not make you good at RTS games.
I've been top of the ladder in more than one game
And yet you don't mention what game nor what rank.
This is getting pretty pathetic.
BFME 1 and 2 and Dawn of War
Maybe C&C3 aswell
It's hilarious how shit Ganker is at vidya. holy fuck this site really did get brigaded by tourists that chose to stay and now demand that vidya be dumbed down to sub-zero IQ requirements.
They usually aren't.
They're usually very hectic and dramatic, sometimes rage-inducing, sometimes anxiety-inducing.
Oh, unless you're talking about singleplayer, and especially singleplayer campaigns.
Empire Earth's singleplayer campaigns were the GOAT.
my caveman
>female citizen
>clearly a topless portrait
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS
dont listen to morons
the genre is dead because devs bought esports meme from them
and none amounts of cope can change this fact
RTS games died with WC3, long before the esports cancer metastasized
RTS died with consoles and all bigger companies shitting their pants over piracy, unconsolidated distribution (before Steam took of) and finally 2008 financial crisis killing some studios or lead to them being absorbed into big publishers (ea, ubisoft, microsoft).
RTS was already past its peak, being stuck to pc was a big risk for studios and publishers.
Nowadays all the knowledge in RTS making is apparently dead and you don't see any indie games even attempting to make RTS games.
This would take actually effort, not something you can just slap some assets together and let a tutorial explain to you how to make a pathfinding AI in a complex and changing environment.
>RTS died with consoles
That's more accurate
I'd say they died because of consoles and because they ran into a design dead-end where they didn't know how to improve the genre
RTS games had fucking terrible single player modes for the most part and that's what most people want to play
RTS games are also very hard to make, its not lost knowledge but that puts it out of the scope of most indies
>they died because of consoles and because they ran into a design dead-end
Which I honestly don't understand when you have plenty of older RTS games with very different ideas about the genre. You'd think at some point someone would try to remake those ideas with better tech and knowledge.
For instance, Kohan had unit groups like you often see in other RTS, but instead of being a single group of 5-10 units of the same type, it was a customizable group where you chose what leader, what main unit, what flanking units and support unit it had, leading to some strategic depth building them and easily introducing 3-4 different types of units to be used without increasing the burden on your micro to do so.
Maybe it's because the combat itself was mostly out of your hands or the economy easily being reduced to gold that kinda screwed it.
Or War Wind, where you recruited units from an Inn and training them into the different units you needed. It completely separated how fast you recruit from your resource intake because even if you had plenty of resources, an empty Inn has nobody to hire. Plus, selecting different policies to change what units show up to hire.
Or Seven Kingdoms 2, which was a fine game if only replenishing your population wasn't such a meme that you were better off just buying people from the Inn instead.
>you have plenty of older RTS games with very different ideas about the genre.
And they all fucking sucked. All attempts to innovate on RTS games were worse than the standard Starcraft / C&C model
Well, all except MOBAs and Grand Strategy
>Impossible Creatures
lets you create your own units
>Battle Realms
training units instead of building them
>AoE
shared faction units, random maps, buildings are obstacles
>Battleforge
TCG units without base building and high focus on pve/coop
>Ashes of Singularity
fighting over map control through nodes
>Universe at War
mobile bases, networking, everything is a resource
>Supreme Commander
unlimited zoom, infinite stream resources
>Stronghold
castle defense and various siege options
>earth 2160, warzone
unit customization, agent system (hiring ai to take control of your econmy, resource, basebuilding etc.)
>Spellforce, Warcraft
mixing in rpg elements
>C&C Generals, SupCom2
tech skill trees
>Planetary Annihilation, Spore
round earth maps and multi planet battles
>Paraworld
unrestricted rank up system
RTS never run out of creative ideas and a lot of them worked pretty well.
The last big RTS games that failed might have tried too hard to reinvent RTS
>RTS never run out of creative ideas
They can and did
Individually naming the different features RTS games have doesn't actually mean anything
>why are RTS games not something completely different
maybe you should play League of Legends or Clash of Clans
RTS games are fundamentally flawed and they need to evolve to be relevant again
SC2 has 6 digit playerbase, I don't think they care if you think RTS are irrelevant
one game
>Goalposts moved [x]
goalposts moved from RTS games aren't relevant to RTS games aren't relevant
AoE2, AoE4, Brood War also have respectable playercounts. You can find a match at any time in any of those games. I don't think anyone who actually plays RTS games care about you thinking they're irrelevant because you're bad at them.
rts is literally just 2 franchises now, yep the genre issa dead
>rts isn't relevant
>this game is popular
>oh wow only one game, rts is irrelevant
>two franchises and four games
>oh wow only two franchises, rts is irrelevant
lmao
You are right about esports killing the genre, but it wasn't the debs huffing esports that caused this it was the players. Developers have released tons of creative ideas in the space of rts that could be expanded upon and really innovate the genre. But nope, the players just wanna moron click forever, because they think its perfect and nothing else will appease them. They also got meme'd about the genre being real time chess only to find out later it isn't even close and these losers have to sunk cost fallacy the entire fucking genre.
>After few hours of training with bots I decide to try multiplayer
>My opponent reach the colonial age first and have higher score
>Whatever, send some janissaries to raid and slow him
>He immediately resign
Is that common in RTSs? I play chess from time to time and it's kinda common for some people to resign after a simple miss click
>Is that common in RTSs?
Yes
1v1 RTS games online is not an enjoyable experience
yes, you see.. people like the ones in this thread dont actually enjoy playing against other humans
they begin sweating profusely and shaking and pissing themselves
it's sad, but it's true
If they assume you're good at the game, carrying on is just delaying the inevitable, unless they are really good.
It's dead man syndrome, no point in prolonging a lost game instead of resigning and trying again.
There's absolutely no reason you couldn't have a middle ground between both and create it's own niche.
Some people like the strategy and scale of 4X but dislike how slow it sometimes plays, especially if it's turn based, while plenty of fans of colony managers still like any military aspect the game might have.
You could have a middle ground with an RTS where micro and macro is 80% decision making and setup by the player, with a focus on interacting with the world itself through your units, getting the best of both worlds and creating something different enough from what exists that it would justify it's existence.
It's just the stubborness in making RTS either e-sports trash or some arcadey experience that limits it severely to the high APM crowd.
i think AoE3 and WC3 are the only RTSes i really played a decent amount of MP on. and yeah, i sucked.
RTS multiplayer is shit
You either get gays building castles right outside your base or ragequitters.
>building castles right outside your base or ragequitters.
Lel and I will keep doing it to you
Scout more gay
Building an ultra death fortress in Supreme Commander is one of the most fun things. Then constructing artillery to shoot at your enemies without even leaving your shield grid.
>completes scathis
Better luck next time my boy, oh yes.
Kino of the highest order. Looks like the land bridge in Seton's Clutch? My absolute favorite map for building an invincible fortress.
>t3 SAMs along the coastline
>t3 torpedo turrets innawater
>subs patrolling the coast
>arty batteries holding down the bridge
>arty batteries backed up with point defense, anti-nuke missiles, shield generators, and a small team of t3 units in case something slips through
>ten air factories deep behind the frontline building massive bomber formations
redownloading now, time to get autistic
They're extremely uncomfy what do you mean? Every second of gameplay is nagging in your head that you're forgetting to do something, not working fast enough.
I wish devs would stop balancing offline play around online PvP. I hate booting up TWWH to fuck around and finding out that CA needed something into the ground because it was too strong in the limited PvP mode that no one plays
>steam doesnt have rts tab even
>all games sit now in "strategy"
>"stronghold hd" sits next to a fucking "laptop tycoon"
this is sad bros
grim
Why would it have an RTS tab, when there are fewer than 5 RTS releases per year?
Souls-like is a wider genre than RTS is. VNs sell more copies than RTS do.
Action-strategy is just a dead genre. People split into action or strategy, and the hybrid is abandoned.
Paradox games are techincally RTS games
Real time with pause is not an action genre the same way RTS is.
Baldur's Gate 1/2 is noticeably different from Diablo 1/2, and in the same way RTS is different from Paradox games.
Adding in pause doesn't significantly change the gameplay
>Adding in pause doesn't significantly change the gameplay
To say that Victoria 2 plays like StarCraft 2 is to tell a lie. Stop lying.
That's because they're different types of games dumbass
Play They Are Billions with pause or without pause. Is it a different game? No, just slightly harder with no pause
>Play They Are Billions with pause or without pause. Is it a different game? No, just slightly harder with no pause
Yes, because its not an RTS, with or without the pause button. It was designed around it, you can choose not to use it and its still a game about pausing.
Now add a pause button to StarCraft II. See if its the same game. Protip: you are a fag.
>Yes, because its not an RTS
have you even played the game you retard
Yes, I've played it. In the clutch moments it was pausing the game, issuing a few commands, letting it play for a few seconds, pausing it again. Literally Baldur's Gate gameplay, and not RTS gameplay.
Have YOU played it?
Yes
It is a traditional RTS in every respect, except it has an asymmetric enemy
How you play the game doesn't change when you don't pause, it just reduces your capacity for micro
>How you play the game doesn't change when you don't pause
Yes, because its a game with pause, regardless if you use the pause. It was designed in a certain way.
Again, try adding a pause button to a typical RTS, that was designed around not having it.
TAB wasn't designed around pause, it's perfectly playable with or without and doesn't significantly change the way you play
Wouldn't significantly change the way you played SC2 either, it just makes it easier to micro
coh3 just came out
Did you know you can pause and issue orders in many maaany RTS? Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Cossacks, I could go on.
>It is a traditional RTS in every respect, except it isn't real-time
very based
It helps to make caster units far more functional and useful, though. When you can pause the game, analyze the field and plan every cast, they play a bigger role in battle than if it'd take extra effort to micro them in addition to your main army.
Also, multiplayer suffers since you'd be pausing your oponent as well.
I recognize you from the Skyrim thread where your answer to how shit magic progresses throughout the game is "lower the difficulty".
Imagine being such an insufferable cunt that you can be recognized across threads of entirely different topics.
I won't disagree there, but I do think it's because they were severely limited by tech and didn't had the polish they needed to make them better.
I'll say I like War Wind but the micro necessary to play that is even worse than moron clickers, especially with the casters.
But there's no reason newer RTS games don't just take an idea from the past and try to implement it better in the future with the bonus of foresight.
>they were severely limited by tech
What do you mean? RTS developers have had every opportunity to innovate up until right now
Certainly when the genre died around the late 2000s there weren't any technical limitations preventing people from innovating
I think devs just don't understand RTS that well, it is a pretty strange genre when you think about it
I mean that, for instance in older games, you actually have an hard limit in how many units you can select because of hardware limitations or that pathfinding wasn't that good, completely changing what is and isn't viable to do.
But maybe you are right. The example I have previously about Seven Kingdoms 2 would be a much better game if population growth wasn't such a joke.
One of the deities, Isis, has a passive to increase it and it's seen by the fans as an empty ability because it's still too low to be worth it.
It just changes the mechanics of the game towards hoarding towns and hiring population instead of proper building and expanding, so I guess devs sometimes fuck up their own ideas too.
>you actually have an hard limit in how many units you can select because of hardware limitations or that pathfinding wasn't that good, completely changing what is and isn't viable to do.
in the 90s sure, but during the 2000s there were no real technical limits on what you could do with an RTS
>I recognize you from the Skyrim thread where your answer to how shit magic progresses throughout the game is "lower the difficulty".
i dont think you do, anon. i havent played skyrim and i haven't been in any skyrim threads. i tried oblivion once but didnt like it.
>Imagine being such an insufferable cunt that you can be recognized across threads of entirely different topics.
i think im being quite nice even with how unfriendly you are being. you are also obviously mistaking me for another insufferable cunt.
but i see you decided to not even answer me, so i dont know why you bothered to reply.
it was stand alone genre once
Civilization V started a 4X boom. Nu-XCOM started a tactical game boom. Rimworld started a colony game boom.
These all took strategy players in, who were tired of moronclick and APM, and wanted a more strategic experience, rather than action gameplay.
Because they are
Because exterminating xenos with glorious Imperial weaponry is fun to watch
I think the last one I played was Tiberium Sun Firestorm. Good fun.
I dont think anything stresses me as much as an intense rts match. Theres always so much to do, but not nearly enough APM to keep up.
no need to worry so much, anon. your opponent is also a human with limited apm.
these beautiful RTS games died out sometime in the late 2000s but seem to be making a comeback since deserts of kharak a few years back. It's hard to see RTS overtaking grand strategy though, the real time strategy genre has moved away from macros and spamming waves of units
I wish there were RTS games where the meta was to play just like this. Instead everything is geared toward efficiency and thus all bases look like shit.
>play any stronghold game
>every single hold looks like a fucking industrial complex with weapon wokshops back to back, surrounded by a network of farms
>everything looks like shit
Would be nice if you instead could just upgrade the capability of your buildings by "stacking" things on them, for aesthetic reasons. Maybe up to a point at least.
This thread:
>waaaah these games are too taxing on my skelly physique!
Point A, this kind of elitism tourneyfagging killed the genre.
Second, you don't need any physique to move zerglings.
And 3: people ITT are making nuanced arguments and you are just kvetching in defeat.
In conclusion, dillate.
not him but any nuance against speed is immediately useless because being faster at things is always better.
Not in turn based games, for once.
But then again, even if being a better action game player always wins at RTS... that's bad. That's not what more than half the players want or like. Which is why the genre died.
Repeating the same builds over and over and over so you can become faster at implementing them and better at doing the optimized and solved unit movement you saw on a YouTube video and practiced for 20 hours is not fun. We don't like doing that. I don't want to get good at doing it, because I don't like doing it. I'll play some Factorio instead.
>Not in turn based games, for once.
This is the RTS thread.
Real Time Strategy.
Notice the "Real Time"-part?
>ACKTHUALLY IM VERY SMA-
>AAAA, MY BRITTLE BONES SHATTERED WRITING THIS
I want another DOW2
Beautiful bases, barely any basebuilding at all, all of the gameplay is in combat with a few units.
coh3
>I want another game that killed the series
Some people never learn.
That's DOW3 and it's MOBA bullshit.
Take a shit, then eat it
Thats what you like
>your game is bad because it's not 100% only strategy and it requires other skills! THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS.... OKAY?
RTS games are bad because they're 90% micro and 10% decision making
Only StarCraft and WarCraft.
Older games are much slower pace, and usually played 2v2 or 3v3, with one player being aggro, another booming the economy, etc. Its literally a team effort with dedicated roles and with enough room for error and enough time to react.
Starcraft is the worst offender, but pretty much all RTS games suffert from it
It's mechanical skill and tactical decision making, not strategic decision making
It's bad because people want strategy in their RTS games and they aren't getting it
microing is decision making
The decision being "move my low HP guy away from his guy" and "move my ranged guy away from his melee guy".
its still decision making and comes with an opportunity cost. The problem is that you people dont want to play an RTS. There is literally no more defining characteristic of an RTS vs a turn based strategy game than the fact that you have execution skill involved with direct control of units.
>The problem is that you people dont want to play an RTS
I want to play an RTS though
Not an RTT
>i want to play a real time strategy game but without real time and without strategy
lmao
games called RTS are severely lacking in S
why
Because they all aped Starcraft
>they're lacking in strategy because........i said so
lmao
>a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
>"time to develop a coherent economic strategy"
>synonyms: master plan, grand design, game plan, plan of action, plan, policy, proposed action, scheme, blueprint, program, procedure, approach, schedule, tactics, set of tactics
sounds like starcraft has quite a bit of strategy
they're lacking in strategy because the biggest determining factor in how you win is how you micro, and you aren't really doing much thinking about strategy
I don't know shit about StarCraft: the post.
where did I mention Starcraft?
Tell me what you were referring to, then?
RTS games in general
Even more retarded take, then.
>The entire genre is lacking strategy!
How so?
>They just are... Okay?!
So StarCraft too?
>Nooo, I never said that!
Please provide examples that lack strategy and where micro is the main component that wins you games.
What, you want me to list the RTS games I've played? I've played Starcraft aswell, just not enough to make a definitive statement on it
LMAO. Way to not commit to any statement ever.
Fuck off, retard.
>It's all these games that I have totally played and am very good at and knowledgeable about... I just won't tell you about them.
Maybe read what I wrote again: provide examples. StarCraft apparently wasnt part of your "entire RTS genre" - so what games are you talking about?
You are talking out of your ass.
I was making a generalization about RTS games
Generalizations don't apply to one thing in a category specifically - they're an average spread out over all of them
Do you understand?
Then mention some it apply to. If it's an average you must know a lot of games that are basically only reliant on micro and are still considered RTS.
Do you understand what an average is? An average is made up of several observations and I'm asking you for examples of these. You can even provide the extremes if you want to make your argument even more clear.
Seems like you are grasping at straws and actually have no clue what you are talking about.
Do you understand?
ok, Starcraft 2 is lacking in the strategy department
>ok, Starcraft 2 is lacking in the strategy department
And right back to where we started
Good job, retard.
C&C Generals is lacking in the strategy department
I couldn't say. I haven't played it and I don't talk out of my ass unlike you.
Have a great night, ass whisperer.
I could say, I've played it and got pretty high up the ranking system or ladder or whatever the fuck it was
Also played many other RTS games and got high up the ladder, sometimes even first for a bit
Starcraft 2 I haven't played that much, but doesn't differ signficantly from the games I have played
Good for you, retard. If you notice I were challenging you on SC2 lacking strategy and only relying on micro - which is false.
You then spent a couple of posts dodging the question and we got right back to the start again.
Are you a literal AI? I know they have a habit of repeating themselves.
Good night, not spending anymore time on your retarded ass and your straw man arguments and awful takes on stuff you don't know shit about.
>only relying on micro
Did I say this? I didn't even mention Starcraft 2, not did I say it or any game only required micro
You aren't very smart are you
You're just complaining about not being able to do things as fast as your opponent. That isn't an issue with the game, that's just you being bad.
No I'm not, I'm pretty good at RTS games
>And that's bad because... Because it just is, okay?!?
But that's wrong as fuck, it's 90% decision making. Flash tier micro won't save you when go I two hatch muta and you go cc first. Also where and when and how to micro is also decision making.
>it's 90% decision making
thousands of hours of RTS experience tell me otherwise
Thousands of hours of RTS experience tells me you are wrong.
what RTSes have you been playing that you're having a strategic experience after hundreds of hours
These rock-paper-scissors decisions aren't made by the player in the match. They are made in advance, on forums and YouTube channels.
You don't make that decision, you implement the objectively correct decision someone else made when the game got solved, and so is your opponent, and the game is solved by who can moronclick faster.
>AIIIIIIEEEE NAPOLEON YOU FUCKING moronCLICKER STOP ISSUING YOUR ORDERS SO WELL
>you did X more efficiently than me? moron!!!!!!
I have yet to hear why micro is bad.
>Because it isn't strategy!
And apples aren't oranges, that doesn't make apples bad.
Now tell me why micro is bad.
I'm not saying SC is a good strategy game. I'm saying it's a good game.
>I'm too shit at this game
>That's it.. I'm not bad.. it's the game that's bad!
The thread.
I don't know exactly. But, I accidently spent 3 hours on AOE2 last night. I could have sworn I was only playing for like 45 mins. It's just so good.
AI can be really good, if effort is made. Supcom loud mod AI, for example. It does a good job of acting more like a real player, doing things like prodding defenses to find holes and building counters to whatever you are amassing if they can scout it. It's clearly still AI, but you have less of a feeling of total superiority that you feel over other rts ai once you can keep up with the typical rush behavior they employ.
Normal supcom ai is trash and predictable in comparison, with your only danger being the ai ecos and techs too fast for your defenses to keep up.
>RTS
>dead
what the fuck are you talking about, you retard zoomers? Get on some ADHD mess, stop staring at steam charts and twitch and actually play some video games.
You don't understand anon! If anon doesn't like RTS, then no one does!
How could it possibly be possible that the world doesn't revolve around anon? Clearly RTS must be dead, anon doesn't play it after all.
I have like 10,000 hours played in RTSes in all my life and I never PVPed once
Sorry anon to break it to you
But you got zero experience, then
I find them, and most strategy games, to be the least comfy vidya. Shit stresses me out.
RTS stopped being comfy when it moved to polygon graphics. Older polygon RTS aged like shit visually. A real shame.
>game has pop limit
>structures count as units
Reminder that Ganker thinks League of Legends counts as an RTS.
Chances are most of the absolute SHITTERS ITT are mobafags crying because they have to control more than 1 unit.
>AAAIIIEEEEEE SHITTTERS, PEAK SHITTERS MOBAFAGS UTTER, UTTER moronS WHO WON'T RISE TO MY LEVEL IN WHO GIVES A FUCK 2 NETWORK EDITION
>please come play with me my game has less people playing than shovelware 🙁
No. Who the fuck would want to play a game with people like you in it?
Fuck off mobafag.
Who the fuck would want to play a MOBA filled with people like you in it?
>please play my game 🙁
No.
>triggered lolbab
lol
lmao even
>lolbab so triggered he must samefag
olololol
we've been over this before you mentally ill autist
>pl-please give me a (you)
Last one for pity's sake. Only because you've made me laugh with your stupidity.
>I'm not mad I'm actually laughing and screaming everyone is a samefag I'm not mad I'm not mad
You mad
Oh no, we broke the last English-speaking RTS player in existence.
Can he still manage to work his """""""""job""""""""" of shilling four games that came out over a decade ago?
moba's popularity is directly tied to shitty RTS players unable to control their units.
pro RTS players who migrate to MOBAs find they aren't that good at them
Yes, having to tardwrangle 4 retards instead of being able to control all 5 units proves a challenge.
At some point the shitter-levels reaches critical mass and the thread becomes a shitflinging contest of shitters seething and coping and everyone else telling them to shut the fuck up.
Feels like it happens faster and faster. The zoomer menace grows.
>having to tardwrangle 4 retards
they aren't individually good at them when placed in a team of people better than they are
god you people are idiots
>tfw i only see the good threads like this just as theyre about to die
fucking hell
Guys guys guys
what RTS game has the best singleplayer experience
Is it WC3 and it aint even close?
AOE2 is my favorite.
We talking gameplay or what?
Starcraft 2: WoL.
Wings of Liberty and it's not even close
Rise of Legends campaign was fucking great.
>play RTS game
>mines/deposits run out before I'm halfway done with the base
>have to gather outside my city walls like a pleb
>eventually AI runs out of money too
>finally have a nice city but the AI has no money left to attack it
What are some comfy base/castle buildan games with LONG games and preferably infinite money?
There's Stronghold, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander that comes to mind.
I wanted to like AoE2 single player but I always get bored at around the 4th campaign. I never even played the expansions or the new ones.
By that time you've played like 30 missions that mostly all play out the same.
They can be comfy and I like RPing vs bots but cmon now, most of the time it's just an apm build order fest
What's a good RTS for single player where I can just level the entire map
CoH1
destructible environments
use all and any explosives
Thanks
Never tried TA but played SupCom FA and it wasn't really an option. Mostly I guess because the bildings/trees were just mostly pointless outside of mass
any pvp TA game that goes on for more than 4 minutes involves a lot of tactical nukes and artillery thrown across the whole map
iirc nukes are a lot more expensive and late-game in supcom
total annihilation and its successors
World in Conflict
what's that RTS where you program your own units? i saw it some months back on /vg/
What are some RTS games where you personally control a single unit like Battlezone, Giants, Sacrifice?
There was that one Rise and Fall Civilizations at War or something, you could become Cleopatra and snipe enemies with a bow.
It was pretty dumb but I really liked it. Sadly never found anywhere to download it again.
For me, it's American Conquest Fightback and having any base attack turn into 18th century Stalingrad streetfighting.
can we have one thread where people aren't trying to score epic pwns or talking about trannies?
No because RTS genre attracts such huge spergs that mere suggestions like "Hey maybe this genre is a fucking graveyard because it does not even attempt to appeal to the casual player market" results in an explosion of emotions like that one autist who just broke down into calling everyone bad and stupid, not even replying to their posts or their suggestions.
The people it currently appeals to are manchildren.
>The people it currently appeals to
RTS is dead, it doesn't currently appeal to anyone
You're talking to a bunch of Starcraft larpers who just watch pro games
This thread is utterly pathetic.
It's not but bitter gays that nobody wants to play their favorite genre the way they want and they'd rather mock non-players online than actually having someone they could play.
Ironically, the same gays that will complain about AI and how it's shit compared to multiplayer are now doomed to playing against it if they ever want to play their game.
Doubly ironic is that they'll state that their idea of an RTS is the perfect one because every other attempt failed, meanwhile the most popular RTS are all moron clickers and everything else is overshadowed by MOBAs anyway.
Stay mad, bitter and lonely in the very pit you gays dug. You're the same gay that always praised the elitism behind arena shooters and "muh skill ceiling" and now you're alone playing against bots at best or not playing at all anymore.
All this talk about competition, as if you were all tourneyfags making a living out of winning tourneys, instead of just being regular players like everyone else that play these games for fun. Have fun competing alone. You earned that win, champ.
They'll have other people to play against, it will just be all of the Chinese and Russians they could ever hope to get hacked and cheated by
>They'll have other people to play against, it will just be all of the Chinese and Russians
Like I said, playing against bots, lmao.
You've had your games the way you wanted for decades now and this lead to nothing but dead of the genre. Are you seriously going to shout that everyone else is wrong and you're the only sane person in the room, when people tell you that there are fundamental issues with the gameplay that limit these games to a very small amount of people, despite this being the exact and verifiable situation the entire genre is at?
You're just like the "hardcore survival loot drop in pvp" crowd that plagues most small mmo's, who want the game to play a specific way and everything else is casual shit for them. And yet there just aren't enough of these gays to sustain a single server nor are they even able to make an actual community in any place they frequent.
You say you want something and you're used to what you want so you'll never admit that you might be the minority, the boiling frog that got used to something that's actually quite terrible, and you'll always point at anyone suggesting something new as being automatically wrong.
Oh my god... You are a boomer.
>You've had your games the way you wanted for decades now and this lead to nothing but dead of the genre.
No you don't get it I got FOUR GAMES
FOUR
GAMES
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST ON A POGO STICK MY GENRE IS BOOMING
>can find games at any time of day
>NOOOOOOOO YOU'RE GENRE IS DEAD YOU DON'T PLAY IT NO ONE PLAYS IT LALALALALALA
>>can find games at any time of day
that doesn't mean a genre isn't dead
a few games might be alive, the genre as a whole has been dead for 15 years
>gets new games every year
next you say
>i have never heard of them so those don't count
then i say
LMAO CASUL FAG
>>gets new games every year
steam gets thousands of games a day, that doesnt mean shit
the few RTS games we get are not good
Wow amazing, can you post some of these games that came out last year and how many people are playing them right now?
>can find games at any time of day
>he said the thing again
With who, anon?
very epic pwn
He said the line again.
>bros why can't I just say utter nonsense about games I don't even play??
Then answer my question. Or don't. It's clear you don't have an answer and "git gud gay" is the best your puny moronclick brain can manage.
When I was a kid I played all RTS games as a city builder. Didn't even care about winning the match. I used to imagine every unit as small real dude and would get sad if they got killed.
wholesome.
defend your tiny dudes, brother
I made sure I set up garrisons in all my allies bases, as they invariably went down the shitter otherwise. Wasn't even trying to win most of the time, I just wanted to augment the AIs shitty base defence.
With retards like these I kinda miss the APM-"discussion"-fags.
APM is great and someone with APM always beat someone without it, but at the same time part of the problem is that attempts at the genre don't even attempt to automate the process to lower the APM barrier to entry.
Supcom and ZeroK is great because I can automate every step of the way. ZeroK even moreso because the best players have bad APMs, they're better at unit composition.
That reminds me that Conan Unchained is an interesting RTS with a twist to the economy that helps to reduce APM fuckery in a very simple way.
Instead of workersbuildings producing resources every few seconds, you instead have a time counter of about 30 seconds and when it's full, you get the full resource production for everything you have built.
It sounds simple but it means you can be a bit slower to build stuff and it won't affect the resources you earn, as long as the building completes before the cycle ends. At most you miss a single cycle.
Whenever a new cycle starts, you go back to the base and spend your resources, freeing you to focus on your army until the new cycle begins. No interruptions or breaks in flow of gameplay.
Anyone that bitches about build orders wipes first and shits second IRL
i just wanna see more survival RTSes in the future, thats all.
TAB is the best single player RTS, put hundreds of hours into that game
i wanna say i have high hopes for age of darkness in that department, but the hero nonsense is a huge turn off
yh. it really is that fun.
Also
>No one mentioned ZeroK in a huge spergout about multiplayer
For shame. Best multiplayer by a mile. I can tell which people are holed up in trash games and think they're hot shit.
PS: Starcraft 2 was never good.
TA dervative games are not competitive
bruh, you just had a big argument with someone trying to find games to add to the compilation of RTS games that are alive and you're going to exclude an entire branch of the RTS genre because it's 'not competitive'? Are you serious man? Is clicking and deathballs all that make something competitive?
I'm a new poster, I'm just saying, they're not good serious multiplayer games
I have to ask then, what makes an RTS competitive?
I would think Supcom, FAF, TA and its family would fall more into the strategy genre where preparation of your economy is more important than clicking really quickly
depth and balance
TA games aren't very deep
dude
I would have to press further on that one because a lot of RTS games aren't deep at all.
Most C&C games are just tank spam, and they have/had a healthy competitive base.
It's in a weird place because Spring's UI(ZeroK's engine) was considered legendary for its era, but that was 20 years ago. So a lot of hte vestiges of Spring is on the game but at the same time, some units wouldn't be the same without it.
The ability to tell planes to break off the moment they achieve their bombing run is something that seems useless if you've never played TA, but if you played TA, nothing is more frustrating than a horde of 20 bombers all dying because they dropped bombs and flew in a straight fucking line into the air defenses.
>Most C&C games are just tank spam, and they have/had a healthy competitive base.
from RA2 and onwards they're pretty good
I would say Tib Sun is the first C&C game I would consider broke the mold. RA2 only if you're playing as allies, and even then you're just building and spamming different tanks. Tanks are still king. Pretty much remained king all through the C&C Generals era (if playing as China). Not a lot of depth, just having better tanks with better positioning. Maybe hard counters in the form of artillery.
That's kind of TA's mindset too. There's a light rock-paper-scissors thing going on with the resource costs of mechs vs tanks vs defenses
You really don't know what you're talking about
C&C Generals especially, tank massing is not a viable strategy
It's the mainstay of the Chinese faction. Tanks + support.
GLA and USA, for sure no. But I mentioned that with (If playing as China)
All factions in Generals need to combine units, all units have hard counters, and if you mass any of one unit you'll just get airstriked
The tactical combat in Generals is amazing, the economic side of the game is far too basic though
>All factions in Generals need to combine units, all units have hard counters
Chinese tanks? Nah. You go from regular tanks to bigger tanks.
I do agree airstrikes are a big problem, but thats' also why I mentioned support. The mainstay is tanks but you get no where if you don't have AAA on every flank and a fresh set of MiGs back at base. Also map control, gatling guns are so good that they need to be built anyplace a bulldozer can get to.
You suck at Generals, Overlord tanks are awful
Battlemasters are useful but depends on the situation you're in
There is no tank rush in Generals, there's just no massing of units period because they're too vunerable to airstrikes
>You suck at Generals,
Wrong
> Overlord tanks are awful
True
>Battlemasters are useful but depends on the situation you're in
There you go. They are, in fact, the natural upgrade.
>They are, in fact, the natural upgrade.
How are they an upgrade? They're the basic tank, there's nothing below them
Nothing you're saying is correct
I mean in strategy. They are the Chinese main unit.
There is no "main unit" for any side, because every unit has a hard counter
What you build depends entirely on the situation
tanks + support is the Chinese staple strategy. It has counters, but you offset the counters with its support.
that's not how you play Generals at all
China inf was the strongest Chinese general and he couldn't even build Battlemasters
in Zero Hour?
only played Vanilla
well yeah, you can't claim to know a game when you've only played half of it can you
I can, I was good at Vanilla Generals. Not as familiar with Zero Hour because it was long dead competitively when I got to it. I don't even think the servers worked anymore.
I didn't play Zero Hour until YEARS later because I was 13 at the time and it was either that or Dawn of War, I picked Dawn of war. I am happy with my decision.
the main support unit for battlemasters, the ecm, wasn't even in vanilla generals
I recall doing some theoryfagging for one of the C&C games and 3 soldiers were the equivalent to a tank both in health, cost, production time and damage.
The only difference was that these 3 soldiers would loser firepower at 2/3 and 1/3 health (since you'd have killed a squad) while the tank remained at full damage until it was destroyed, plus it could crush soldiers.
A lot of older RTS that include combined arms never seem to give infantry a proper role with tanks as auxiliary, it always ends up the reverse. Infantry with very specific support roles and tanks being the main force.
I remember this being true for Earth 2160 too, where there was even a lot of customization for vehicles but soldiers were weak as shit and the best you could do was capture buildings or vehicles with them, if you had enough.
in C&C games infantry are generally just used to garrison buildings or vehicles
Nah there are plenty of infantry with generalized use.
Soviets in RA2 are DEPENDENT on Desolators for that very reason. Light, weak tanks such as the mirage tank late game = revealed with a patch of radiation.
Which results in the counterplay of snipers, and the counterplay of terror drones, and the counterplay of forts with guardian infantry etc. etc.
Those are specialized uses
You can never have infantry armies like in real life, because they're so vunerable to any form of aoe
That is true, and the aforementioned 'squish' problem.
Tesla troopers in RA2 are great because you can't squish them and they chain. Tesla and flak cannons used to be a viable rush in RA2 vanilla.
Squishing is the least of their problems, its giant AoE attacks and things like snipers which kill them instantly
RA2 doesn't have much for giant AOE attacks. Except huge explosions which lesser-seen units use like Apocalypse tanks and launchers.
Snipers, Boris, and seals are the biggest concern.
desolators and mirage tanks too
>I recall doing some theoryfagging for one of the C&C games and 3 soldiers were the equivalent to a tank both in health, cost, production time and damage.
that was Tib Sun, just from experience.
It doesn't work that way in some of the other games up until C&C3 because you can squish the infantry. Minus something like Tesla Troopers.
SupCom player here
Actually micro is still important as fuck. In PA Titans for example it feels like not so much, but FA it is, youre just accepting more losses by nature of the game than in SC2 or AoE. But in no way you can just leave the wave pushing by its own, specially with T2 or T3 units which are expensive and have some abilities
> In PA Titans
Does anyone play that game anymore? What a neat idea it was.
Yeah there are some people
I like it enough
I played it quite a bit, I had some issues with connectivity because apparently Uber games fucked up matchmaking back when I was trying to play it.
Like outright crash at the 30 minute mark each game.
I tried it but looks like shit and not a graphics fag but... It really looks like shit
BAR looks better but its far less finished
No you're right, it is ROUGH. Most of the models are straight from an attempt to re-make TA over a decade ago.
I know and i'm sure its good. I love SupCom and the likes
Tried it, seemed pretty nice and had a lot of QoL commands especially for your basic units.
However, I didn't found most units to be very intuitive and there was some balance regarding how they were supposed to be used that took a while to figure out.
Best way I can describe it is "This is a game paying homage to something else and anyone familiar with that something else will understand it, everyone else will struggle to understand it".
It seems like a really nice game and the visual design really helps, making units stand out very easily. I just don't think it's as intuitive for newer fans as older players, especially the devs, might think. Just the good old Dunning Krueger, you know?
One day you'll grow up and understand that just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean others can't.
Continuing to insist that RTS is dead because YOU'RE not having fun is such an infantile mindset.
Makes sense that the mental midgets unable to form a coherent argument would also be shit at RTS, the thinking man's game.
One day you'll grow up and realize that repeating yourself over and over again isn't the same as addressing an argument. You've ignored, countless times, physical evidence that there are few games coming out that have the momentum needed to sustain a large player base, and most of the industry staples came out before the target demographic of video games were even born or in diapers. When pressed on who plays these games, you seemingly ignore that the vast majority of people who do are Chinese/Russian and are thus not the kind of people most want to have as their 'community'.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over again like a broken record, and when cornered, your reply was 'you just suck fuck you'.
One day you'll grow up and understand that just because YOU like something doesn't mean others have to as well.
Continuing to insist that RTS is not dead because YOU'RE having fun is such an infantile mindset.
Makes sense that the mental midgets unable to form a coherent argument would also be good at RTS where gameplay revolves around repetition and busywork instead of strategy.
I think the issue is that RTS used to be this blanket term for any top down war game at large scale enjoyed in variety of ways. And now RTS is this narrow definition that follows the starcraft/aoe path with an esports focus that not everyone enjoys to the same capacity.
Was conan unchained worth a play? The co op appealed to me but reviews leaned towards janky
>RTS used to be this blanket term for any top down war game at large scale enjoyed in variety of ways
RTS used to mean Command and Conquer clone
That's what it still means today
It's a bit janky, get it cheap or pirate it.
It's essentially a survival game actually, you're fighting against invading waves of enemies, not other players.
It looks pretty, can get quite chaotic and challenging but it's quite nice if you're a fan of the setting too.
Just focus on houses a lot. Every other resource is important but Gold is the fundamental resource that dictates the rest of the game.
>The ability to tell planes to break off the moment they achieve their bombing run is something that seems useless if you've never played TA
I recall some old RTS where you had the option to auto-recall units once their HP reached a certain amount (not Seven Kingdoms 2, even though that was also an option there).
It was pretty neat that you had an option to conserve troops at the cost of losing firepower much sooner and often conceding battles. These kinds of features should be more common IMO.
I especially liked how SC handled transports where you could pretty much turn them into a sort of lane, with rally points on them, instead of just another unit you have to micro to get any benefit out of it.
tbh we need a new stronghold that isn't pozzed, a new wic, dow1 remaster, red alert 2+yr remaster and generals+zh remaster
i have no faith in blizzard to pull a starcraft 3 and warcraft 4
Autism
I mean, you are in the Real Time Strategy thread.
nitpicking over minor differences between units and strategy is kind of what all RTS discussion has been since Dune.
PvPmorons can't even win an internet argument and bitch out instantly, yet call everyone else shitters.