Why did RTS die?
Why did RTS die?
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
Why did RTS die?
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
too stressfull for me personally.
can't enjoy the game properly while being aware I am supposed to be doing 5000 other things simultaneously in this very instance
Why do you have to be playing at that skill level? There's nothing wrong with just being a shitter who plays low ELO matches against other shitters
The genre is at its best when everyone is at around the same level, but the skill level of the average player became too big for newcomers to have any chance to jump into it and learn just from playing. The requirement to map out keybindings, learn build orders, training the macro+micro, just to have a fighting chance at any online match is too big of a hurdle for many.
Because at some point you will just play against shitters who will never make you better, and it's no fun to play and probably lose over and over without seeing any improvement.
Baby steps. You can't improve everything at once. Choose one thing to make sure to do right no matter what in a game and don't worry about the rest. Make sure you're making workers constantly until you've got that when. Then make sure you're scouting constantly throughout the game etc. No need to stress yourself for not being perfect.
>YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE AND PLAY COMPETITIVELY!
No I am just here to relax and enjoy the vidya
You care about numbers that have no affect in the real life
The dont expect to win.
We play to have fun we don't care
>fun and winning are mutually exclusive
Who are you quoting?
Not for everybody
You seem to think fun and winning are mutually exclusive, a common opinion held by idiots
Didn't say that though.
Winning is part of the fun though
>The requirement to map out keybindings, learn build orders, training the macro+micro, just to have a fighting chance at any online match is too big of a hurdle for many.
ELO and ranked queue exists for this exact reason. People are scared of playing ranked in Aoe2 because they have this mindset, but ranked filters you down to where you face off against people of similar skill levels. Playing random lobbies or "noobs only" lobbies is a recipe for getting clowned on.
ELO isn't a perfect solution. It's half of the time stomps and half of the time being stomped. You have to play literally dozens of games to find that medium where you're matched evenly against opponents who are your level all of the time, and most players quit online after a few games of getitng stomped.
I TURN TO STONE
WHEN YOU ARE GONE
I TURN TO STONE
>The requirement to map out keybindings, learn build orders, training the macro+micro, just to have a fighting chance at any online match is too big of a hurdle for many.
That's literally learning the game. The same could be said of all genre of game. You start with a campaign that teaches you the basics, and gets more and more advanced, play some unranked games, maybe play the campaign on harder difficulty to get more skill, etc.
I think the genre died is there was nothing really that could be done with it, so it splintered kinda like
said. Age of Empires series is GOAT but it's the same shit every new game. If there were innovative RTS like Starcraft and Supreme Commander with each faction being wildly different I think it would have gone further.
Have you even played any age of empires game? There are huge differences between aoe1+2, aoe3 and aoe4.
Same. I want to play the game more like Sim City, then go to battle.
What does a comfy RTS look like to you guys?
How do we make it?
Cut out as much micromanagement as possible. Skill should not be APM, but strategy. You should feel like the king issuing orders, not a puppetmaster individually controlling mindless robot troops.
>Instead of creating units manually, issue orders to make units automatically.
Like "Maintain a complement of 20 longbowmen, Priority: High".
>Buildings that require villager-style units should create them automatically.
Imagine you throw down a logging building and it starts creating villagers who automatically harvest trees within a certain radius. If the radius is cleared completely then the villagers enter the logging building and become available to other buildings. Buildings could intelligently distribute villagers to make sure no resource falls too low. Like if you use up all your wood and you're low on it, villagers could automatically be diverted from mining buildings to logging buildings.
>Combat units should have some level of AI.
You tell them to attack an area, and they can do so with a bit of intelligence on their own. Instead of just "run to area and attack anything along the way".
the game you want to play is called Stronghold
That definitely has some of the elements I'm talking about. Where there's a villager pool and they take care of themselves.
Majesty and Settlers if you're old enough
Majesty is a kino formula. Really shocked there aren't more clones.
Sadly its campaign suffers from "Russian Syndrome" where each mission only has one specific solution, and one has to resort to trial and error.
See also: Eador, Elven Legacy, Fantasy Wars.
Majesty has some really fucking dumb AI sometimes
Follow this guideline if you want to go bankrupt.
Just make a AOE2 or Total War shogun 2 clone
Has someone made an rts (with base building and all) with grand strategy overmap? I know dawn of war had it and apparently the latest company if Heroes was implementing similar but i can't recall a game with that has it as its core design
Not that i know of any. But i'm guessing the gameplay style is wildly different for them to mix
>What does a comfy RTS look like to you guys?
basically like the previous anon who said they want to play like Sim City, then go to battle
For me it's something like Stronghold or Knights & Merchants that has simple but satisfying town building and production lines that makes your town feel alive but not go overboard on infrastructure management. Then ideally have the maps be massive (like continent size) or at least some sort of overworld map with persistent changes, where you could expand and deal with neighboring settlements.
Also aesthetics are equally as important, so no indie pixelshit or half-assed cartoony 3D like AoE4. I want it to look and sound pleasing.
Basically just make AoE II where I'm far away from the enemy and can make farms and chop trees in peace while donating them to my team. You guys handle the battles and I'll pay you in resources.
Better scaling between small and large armies, both in the tactics and economy.
In most RTS there's a rock-paper-scissors mechanic between unit types. In early game this is important, as losing even a small force is a severe blow. However by mid game you're just chucking blobs at the enemy and leaving a small corps of elite units to do the heavy lifting. As long as these elites don't die you can afford to lose thousands of units. You go from tactically spawning and manoeuvring units in battle to just throwing your blob against the enemy's blob, and watching the carnage, maybe occasionally micromanaging your elites if they get distracted and start aggroing something that isn't worth it. It takes the S out of RTS.
>the blob is affordable because of the economy
>as long as the economy is running the blob is affordable
>the enemy cannot disrupt your economy with their blob while your blob is alive
So it ends being a ten minute plus spectator grindfest and usually boils down to which faction has the elite unit with the better base stats, rather than any particular player's skill
Then players developed cheese strats to prevent this, either rushing an early game win or turtling etc because everybody wants to avoid the blobmatch. The blobmatch isn't fun, and yet it's a core product of how most RTS games work.
The only game I've seen that's managed to completely avoid the blob is Dawn of War II. Units are expensive, have a low TTK, can fall back to base, and gain experience to increase their damage and health. The AI is fucked though in that game and it has its own cheese in multiplayer.
I think most RTS games would benefit from closer integration between the economy and military, like the units are one and the same. A resource gatherer can be respecialised as a military unit and vice versa. The players have to balance their population between fighting and producing, rather than having two population pools to continuously fight and labour which just makes blobs
>The players have to balance their population between fighting and producing
But in Dawn of War you don't have producing units period. Your army captures points that give you resources. Sure you need builders to build on the points to increase production and provide protection/fire support, but that's not the same.
>. A resource gatherer can be respecialised as a military unit and vice versa. The players have to balance their population between fighting and producing, rather than having two population pools to continuously fight and labour which just makes blobs
did a console port so the controls were fucked
Remove resource gathering.
Units just take time to create.
You can choose to create units fast, but they're shit, or slide the scale to slow, but elite units produced.
Gain territory by capturing and holding - the more territory you hold, the more production time reduction you get. To balance this out, the less territory you control, the longer it takes to capture it. Or maybe the time to capture is determined by distance to your home territory.
Not sure what combat would look like.
Spellforce 1 and 2
Play something like Rome total War. The big overworld map is where you do your diplomacy and trading n stuff and build armies and then you take those armies to battles.
total war sucks but yes it's a decent idea
Manor lords looks like it might hybrid the two pretty well, the demo week was quite fun
Heroes of Might and Magic with an in-deapth town-management system?
'They are Billions' campaign
Yeah I can't do multiplayer RTS. It's way too sweaty.
same but for the insane difficulty spikes, Tried playing Populus the beginning and was alright then BOOM sudden time missioned with boats :/
Just play against AI. I never played against other people because I greatly dislike rushing. I just want to build up my base into an unbreakable fortress and then engage the opponent in a long siege. Not rush with the cheapest unit 5 minutes after the beginning of the game to try and take out the enemies food production.
Then defend against it? Christ the world has become sensitive casual babies
The defense against rushing is to rush the enemy first.
Those two play styles are simply incompatible with each other. You cannot play competitive if you don't rush. So if you dislike rushing, the only other option is to play against AI.
Not sure how that's being a "sensitive crybaby", I simply realized that PvP will not allow me to play the games how I want, so I play them against an AI. I get to enjoy the game how I want, and it doesn't affect anyone else.
Maybe stop trying to find enemies behind every post, Anon.
The best faction in AoE4 is the Chinese, who are a purely late game faction that steadily grow in power until they're an unstoppable force. They do this by defending against rushes.
Git gud faget
AoE2 has a couple build orders which don't rely on rushing at all. Feudal age and lower units are vulnerable to town center fire so they can't actually threaten the core of your base, they can only harass outlying economy. Once you realize this, fending off feudal age attacks becomes a lot easier. You can still be caught off guard if you don't scout, though, so knowing what's coming is always the best course of action.
I was about to called you a low elo fren, but then i remember low elo players actually know how to defend their base. Some even able to organize a counter raid, maybe you should play more
Anon there's a youtube series called "low elo legends" where a caster whose involved with high level tournaments and whatnot casts games from players in the low elo range - usually 900 and down. If you watch any of that you'll see how wrong you are and where the average level of player really is.
I really don't think you've played the game much.
>Game ending in 5 minutes isn't fun
>Stop being sensitive
Im hoping WW3 comes just so retards like you don't continue wasting oxygen ngl
This. It's like playing real time chess. So many things to do all at once. Mobas are way more chill and easier to follow
It's basically this for most people. People have a hard enough time controlling one character in a moba, let alone a rapidly expanding expanding army in rts.
>It's basically this for most people. People have a hard enough time controlling one character in a moba, let alone a rapidly expanding expanding army in rts.
>Flynn effect reversal and decline in intelligence its about 6 points from genX to millennials and another 6 to zoomers as predicted by mouse utopia. Zoomers can't play RTSs and many can't even use a mouse.
Moba killed it.
EA killed C&C by making the last main line game a moba.
Aoe4 is pretty good for a recent RTS though. Much better than COH3.
Same, eventually it just feels like work. Some can be fun but most I've played end up taking a few hours of study before you do the same thing over and over each game
That's why i like Total War, it's a win-win, The turn-based map part is chill, "building the buildings" in peace, but when i want to fight, i get that wonderful frantic pace of the battlefield.
Split into subgenres
Moba for microfags
GSGs for actually strategy enjoyers
City/colony management sims for people who just built big bases
Those are the main ones, there are some other offshoots and that mix genres with stuff taken from RTS, like say, They Are Billions.
All in all though, RTS has been dead since 2010, Company of Heroes 1 being the last good one
Mobas were born from RTS, quite literally.
True, but these days I don't attribute them to the current problems with RTS
The moba audience has grown large enough that they're mostly made up of people who are interesting in that same genre
Current RTS players don't care about mobas, at least not to the point where they're abandoning the genre to play it
it was for the brainlets and koreans that wanted to hit 400APM microing one unit
Company of Heroes 1 things like tank micro and sniper micro were really important as well, but there are few actual RTS games where micro mattered.
RTS was more about macro aka: being able to multitask microing multiple units across the map at the same time.
This, the majority of RTS players just blobbed with huge groups of units and throwing them at the enemy
comfy? i find Northgard pretty comfy, Aged Vampires II is pretty comfy too.
They Are Billions technically isnt an RTS, but is very comfy as well.
>just blobbed with huge groups of units and throwing them at the enemy
Rise of Nations was heaps of fun cuz of this.
You just set rally points to the enemy's base and spammed shitty units at them non-stop until their defenses buckled.
fucking no strategy in that game whatsoever, but man it was fun
It really isn't. PDX fucked the genre.
I love to build big bases but also some fights
Nobody knows how to play them outside of those who play them. RTS is the vidya equilevant of incest. The reason they were popular to begin with was because it was seen as amazing, but normies play mobile garbage these days.
Fucking nerd, only half right.
I never thought about this, but yes RTS kind of died and a bunch of these maggots cralwed out of it's corpse.
>Why did RTS die?
Defense of the Ancients.
This, and it's been downhill ever since. Fuck DotA and fuck every gay that plays it, the entire WC3 map scene died overnight because of that piece of shit map.
>tfw a friend in my gaming group never played AoE2, so we have all been playing it nonstop over this weekend
Last time I played AoE2 was the 2012 HD edition shit…. Shameful I know, was desperate back then
How is the DE they released a while ago? I heard the AI in the campaign mode improved significantly making the game 10 times harder than before
>How is the DE they released a while ago?
It is the standard all remasters should be held to.
I am HYPE for age of mythology remaster
>that crumbling castle
Is that... pre-rendered sprites for the castle crumble?
They're all sprites made with 3D models, just like the original.
DE is really good. got back into it recently and even though im 0-25 im still having fun
Probably the only remaster that was done right.
Also the new nations are good.
Expect Burgundians and Sicilians, who were basically the all-in Revolution mechanics from AoE3, but most of that got thankfully patched out.
>How is the DE they released a while ago?
Insanely good. I recently co-oped the mongol campaign with a friend and yes, the higher tier difficulty was very difficult for us. We scraped through though.
Hey fuck you man, there was no deliberate attempt to kill RTS with DotA. It was always its own thing.
Warcraft 3 was a bad multiplayer game.
No one playes ladder and not everyone played dota as well.
Playing Tree Tag, Island troll survival or Warlocks was a better experience than anything else
WC3 was a shit "competitive" RTS game
>the entire WC3 map scene died overnight because of that piece of shit map.
Blizzard did it themselves
>Most friends played only CS 1.6
>I started playing with them because of dota
>Can expand to a casual AoE session now that they have knowledge on isometric gameplay.
gay. You were left behind and now you're salty.
I always thought of a "rainbow stronghold 6"
>5 v 5
>Each player has a loadout of a pre-built castle (picked at random, yes scenario is the one you might created or was created by an ally of yours) and three formations limited by a cost system. (Draft formations after you know which castle you defend).
>Attackers pick spawn point and draft between 5 starting formations.
>Switch places, scenario picks gets shuffled.
>Best of 5
> You can obviously snipe the AI king that has his designed patrol pattern space around the main keep.
This. A desire to skip all other elements and get to the "good stuff". Also this incarnation of the genre was much more popular with women and chink gamers.
It's lame, but a lot of these low effort models won the capitalism game.
>A desire to skip all other elements and get to the "good stuff"
>no base building
Zoomers can’t get into it
Every match you have to follow some faggy 500apm meta
Reminder Ganker is too casual to play RTS with posts like
These two posts prove
's point, tbqh. Hostility tends to appear between the two playstyles, for whatever reason, and that can destroy communities. Personally I wouldn't think it'd be *that* hard to build a system that both compstomp skirmish/campaign players and sweaty competitive players can enjoy, but I don't know how to resolve the animosity between the two outlooks.
Every time I played a RTS I had more fun making my city look beautiful than actually trying to win
always preferred my strategy games to be turn based
take my sweet time and plan out all the feigns and bluffs to distract my opponent while positioning all the backup units to converge in the real assault
doing that in real time is just sweaty especially while also fending off your opponents funny business
Carried again, by my English longbows
devs got obsessed with ranked matchmaking
the genre lived on custom maps, campaigns, and a robust map editor
what do you consider fun ?
Lads what's a good city builder that doesn't get boring within a few hours. I feel like a lot of the new ones are so shallow in content.
monster hunter tri
Farthest frontier has been pretty good so far. Still early access though, but it does have some combat in it which most are lacking. Not too Uchida but enough to keep you thinking.
Devs started chasing the esports meme at the expense of custom game support and decent single player campaigns that drove a large portion of sales and then mobas shit all over the rts esports scene
Online play. Back in the day everyone played locally or in lands and sucked. With online play and rankings, everyone suddenly understood how difficult it was to play at a high level. Same thing with fighting games to some extent.
SC2 was bustling for a long ass time and that was mainly online play.
I don't agree with the notion that because people see high level play that's difficult, they'll give up on the game. You can have fun playing at a intermediate level and not really progress past that if you don't want to grind out things you're not interested in.
In fighting games, you see pros just opt to do easy combos and when they do hard combos, they fuck it up a lot of times. Justin Wong is infamous for not really using anything other than fairly basic combos and focusing mainly on defensive play because he doesn't really like to bother learning the more advanced stuff and prefers to focus on punishing aggressive play. In the recent years, I think there's been a good resurgence in interest in fighting games in the last few years due to rollback finally being standard and people having a better idea on how they work.
Honestly I think RTS struggles because they're competing against a MOBA audience and there isn't really interest on the developer side to make more aside from remasters. Fighting games in comparison never really had companies give up on them despite being constantly shouted out as dead games.
AoE2 is doing well, so that's good.
honestly surprising how well SC2 did, when
>it was $120 on release
>for only the first 1/3rd of the game
>with the other two parts scheduled as $120 expansions down the line
>when even Koreans didnt like it that much and preferred SC1 still
>WoL was 120$
What banana republic do you live in
it literally was though
so a friend pirated it and sent me the .iso through Skype, played it for like 2hours, it was garbage and i uninstalled it
No it wasn't, it was a normal, $60 full price game. The collector's edition with the usb stick with brood war installed on it, some art books, and a few other things was $120
>it literally was though
Blizzard has announced the pricing of the regular edition and a brand new Collector's Edition of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. The regular version of the game will set you back $59.99 when it launches later this year while for the truly die hard fan weighing the collector's edition will set you back $99.99.
What third world country are you from when WoL cost 120 monopoly dollars?
>>it was $120 on release
No it wasn't
I think fighting games kept their head above water because of microtransactions, ever since the Street Fighter 4/Tekken Tag Tournament 2/Mortal Kombat 9/Injustice 1 generation
While Paradox exists, it would be scummy to charge for cosmetic changes in RTS
Murdered by autistic moron clickers
morons ruin all video games because their bug brains don't comprehend fun; just meta, grind, and numbers.
That is why morons should never be trusted with any sort of advisory or development role when it comes to vidya, because it will always become soulless garbage.
the japanese game industry has released some of the best games ever (final fantasy, hentai and touhou)
Japs aren't morons, Koreans are.
But you may as well lump chinks into that because both are soulless bugpeople.
RTS games never stopped releasing, i genuinely do not understand why people insist the genre is "dead".
Is it because most RTS "fans" only play 1-2 childhood games and don't actually like the genre beyond them?
Pretty much. RTS games stopped being major releases because they were always fairly niche. It's just that 20 years ago the gaming industry was much smaller, so the more niche genres like RTS made up a proportionately bigger part of the pie. But once sports games, racing games, and console FPS games took off and got tens of millions of people who previously weren't big video game consumers into gaming, the few million people into RTS were not as big a draw to game studios.
>they were always fairly niche
RTS games were the most popular PC game genre for several years and everyone was trying to make one, there were hundreds of them
no sex mods
Starcraft have UMS, its much better then sexo
The only good RTS was Starcraft.
rts games would be better if they were like turn based or something where u wouldnt have to learn all kinds of weird keybindings and grind up to doing 1000 apm to compete with korean 12 year olds
> RTS games would be better if the weren't realtime
I think those are just called strategy games
That's only Starcraft where you need to click mouse a thousand times a second and do shit. Starcraft is cancer of the RTS series imo.
The later Starcraft 2 campaigns were less about macro building missions and more about being Diablo-lite. Wings of Liberty for all the design flaws it had at least had a majority of its stages encon maps instead of controlling one or two super heroes to clear the map.
Extremely high stress because you have to think too much. We're more of an auto-battler gacha generation.
Last RTS worth playing IMO
They didn't find a way to dumb it down for consoles like they did with FPS games.
Got taken over by more specialized genres.
>people who want to play sim city
giving me ptsd of all my friends who hated age of empires because you didn't keep your city between each game
fucking clash of clans wrecked zoomer brains
Anon I'm in 4v4 comp-stomp zone and I know for a fact that I'd play an RTS with the right mechanics for more than a year because I've played the original CoH more than most other games for the past 4.
>people who would actually play for more than a year
What does this even mean? Who gives a shit about the online scene, I still boot up Medieval 2 every now and then and I've never played it online even once.
It means that this picture was made by a pvp-turboautist. I.e. his opinion should be instantly discarded.
By your definition, the genre isn't dead then. Or how do you define success? There are plenty of RTS games that people play. Those who online don't matter so everything is fine and dandy.
> people who wanted to run big armies into each other
> edited the wc3 rexxar final map into a endless war of attrition with all factions
>people who played enough to actually get good shares no overlap to people who want to watch huge armies run into each other
I am deleting this image that I saved. It's completely useless.
SC-induced terminal esports gayry and competitive pandering pushed 90% of the playerbase to mobas.
same reason Fighting games are a niche community compared to FPSs, Adventure, etc
>they cater to the sweaty crowd
Hyperfixation on trying to steal starcraft 2's competitive scene without understanding that starcraft got there by decades of playtime from a playerbase that loved the game because it was a good series. Whether people liked the multiplayer, or single player, or custom games, all of them had support and people that enjoyed them
If your game is good enough to form a core audience, that core audience will eventually try and push each other to get better and form some sort of competitive mindset with each other.
But you can't force that mindset or you end up like one of the countless dead "[Game] killers". This happens in more than just RTS.
Remember the countless shooters trying to kill tf2? Remember when Halo was at its peak and games were advertised as the Halo killer? They died. Remember all the various tab targeting MMOs trying to kill WoW? They're dead.
>none of the "killers" were able to kill TF2, Halo and WoW so they just ended up killing themselves
The perfect RTS is one that heavily focuses on base building with combat to Hispanice it up where games can go on for hours.
ASSgayS happening and RTS peaking out really early. It says a lot when the past couple of years for RTS have mostly been re-releases of the classics, and maybe some new entries in preexisting ones.
fun fact, the "wololo" is actually "ninini" in my ears, and many others.
Casuals. I'm not kidding.
people like this
People who were right about casuals destroying their hobby?
I just want to build a comfy base and occasionally watch my little men shoot other little men and/or bugs but the modern video game industry wont let me.
Anon aoe2de is perfect for that.
After about 20 games or so you will be settled right into the elo you play at and you'll have great matches against players of the same skill.
You just need to give it a try.
If you don't believe me have a look at aoe2.net and check the low elo rung of the leader board - players with hundreds of matches but they are still down in <400 elo land where the APMs are slow and the build orders are shitty.
Does it go on sale sometimes? 20€is reasonable but if I can get it for 5 I'll wait
It does for sure, I don't think it goes anywhere near that low though. If you can snag a free month of gamepass it's on there though so you can have a bash and see if you like it.
Nevermind just checked on SteamDB and it goes on sale regularly
I'll wait a bit I have other games to play
Just get a key from allkeyshop or something
>ai spams monks and converts your shit one screen away through the fog
no, FUCk the monk mechanic in aoe2, im so glad aoe4 reworked it
This is a fucking trap and you know it I played until I got to 1400-1500 and every game became "I wonder how I will be rushed today" until I got sick and started to rush everyone myself, Archer rush, militiamen rush, scout rush, tower rush, tc rush every goddamm game.
The only honourable strategy is Portuguese fast imperial into 3 feitorias.
>build your castle and farms
>enemy just spams houses, buys laddermen, sells them and cranks up the taxes
>floods your castle with arabs
>Anon discovers that literally every gsme ever has a meta and it isn't just an sc2 korean boogeyman outdated mindset (Koreans aren't even the best at the game anymore)
I will just stick to my single player colony sims
Diggles or Wiggles, it's on steam
>horde of muslims raid me and destroy everything
>build walls and towers
>infinite flow of muslims doesn't give a shit and destroy everything
In theory it looks really good but I couldn't even beat the first mission without cheating
They reached a fork in the road:
They chose poorly.
this is the truth so many Compfags will seethe at
>Why did solved moronclick with meta build orders and very little actual strategy die?
I don't know you tell me
What a terrible sounding genre, glad RTS isn't like that
MOBAs are better fr fr no cap
Because morons figured out autisticslly microing a few units is way more important than macro/big engagements/strategy, turning the genre into a twitch reflex test.
Keybinds alone gatekeep a large percentage of players from ever enjoying rts games at a high level.
Add macro meta builds, and microing units, and only a select few players will ever ladder seriously.
Compared to a MOBA where you just pick one unit and dont have to worry about anything else
How do Darwinia and Multiwinia play on console?
So anyone here try AoE2 remaster? Is it worth the cash?
Play Wargame Red Dragon. Get it on sale with the DLC nations and join a random 10v10. It's fun at any skill level.
Isn't the infamous chat now censored garbage?
Less about actual general strategy and more about abusing the games economy and micro managing to exploit terrible unit AI. Not fun when instead of a general your acting more like an ADHD computer telling everyone when to wipe their ass.
wait so why do we dislike AoE4?
same reason people hate 3
because its not 2
It moved away from the system of having a base civilization that the developers stacked bonuses and perks onto to develop a unique identity for that civ, and more into the starcraft style where each civ has its own game mechanics entirely. Just like AoE3.
>it came way too late, it would have a better chance if it was released around 2015
>I could be wrong, but this game didn’t have an identity. It desperately wanted to be AoE2
Terrible unit control that just results in sending blobs in
Dull campaign with an utterly idiotic ai
Pushed ranked 1v1s too hard at the expense of any other game mode
I personally think it’s excellent. It manages to preserve a lot of what makes 2 good while also Hispanicing up the design of each faction.
Ottomans in particular are very fun imo.
I unironically played 2 for the campaigns and enjoyed the multiplayer somewhat
the campaigns in 4 are dogshit atrocious
I also hate how units feel to move, general art style
they went from projectile simulation to guaranteed hit
buildings are no obstacles anymore, instead you are forced to wall instead
fortifying walls didn't turn out as great as they hoped.
campaign sucks, they focused too much on multiplayer. Even missed the chance of making a coop campaign.
lategame gunpowder units even though everyone knows early age/early-medieval is a better scenario
still a decent game
It's too hard. AoE2 is very much alive however.
How do you teach people to tolerate losing better?
I feel in 1v1 games, a lot of people really struggle accepting that it's completely normal to lose and you should take the time to understand why you lost. A lot of my friends refuse to play 1v1 games because they think it's too intense but I find it pretty easy to get into since I don't feel like I'm a burden to anyone if I fuck up. I just like doing experimental shit in games and if it causes me to lose, I learned something.
Giving rewards for losing/playing. More rewards for winning. Better matchmaking systems. Casual lobbies. Gamemodes wit different winning objectives, co-op or sandbox mode. Better cpu opponents that use machine learning to not feel so much like a cpu. Working on their self-steem.
>How do you teach people to tolerate losing better?
Make the game fun. The issue is rarely loosing, it's that loosing never feels like you had a chance or is to confusing to understand why you lost.
if you want an easy explanation, look at Sc2 when played in tryhard competitive 1V1 autist mode, vs coop commanders where
>you can build op units and superweapons
>neat synergies between different commanders
>objectives that go beyond delete the enemy base
>a simple 15 step progression system
One is played by way more people than the other
because 99.9% of those built structures have any purpose. oh wow, lets build walls... said no one ever. theyre bad and boring because theyve been solved into the bare minimum of effort.
bro people wall on Arabia all the time
Stronghold was the best
Catering to autistic PRO-MLG-ESPORT crowd.
OMG you can hide your chuds in the forest in AGEIV
I think the reality is that the genre was about tactics and somewhat about micro but then the internet came out and everyone got real good at tactics so then it became entirely about micro. If you want to focus entirely on micro, just play mobas.
If you really think access to the internet made everyone perfect at tactics you haven't played a single match of a multiplayer rts.
The average good player in something like SC2 is still dogshit at knowing what to do and when to do it. Myself included even though I wouldn't call myself good (I'm only in diamond now and I think I peaked at Master in HOTS). I still see and do shit that is utterly retarded because of basic fuckups
Because city building games like pic related give me everything I want from RTS (building, thinking about my economy, preventing my guys from dying to hostile shit) without having to put up with the micro needs that at this point basically all RTS ask you to do.
What games was this again? I recognize it and thought I had it bookmarked but I guess my dumb ass didn't do it.
Against the Storm
Full release when.
Too hard to make it work on consoles
It's just not a good genre.
North Korea best Korea
I was an avid starcraft and wc3 player from early 2000s til mid-2010s
Compared to other games, needing to have constant focus and maintain actions for 15-40 minute bursts really killed it for me. I also don't like having zero continuity between games other than rank, each game was an individual grind with almost no significance unless it was for a (1) rank promotion, (2) for a tournament or (3) something memorable and out of the ordinary happened
At least other competitive games give you an occasional breather and break from the action (whether it be waiting for a round, waiting to resurrected, downtime while looting). Basically, other competitive games that came out won our over RTS for me because they were less exhausting
way too complex and too hard to get good at. RTS games are sadly the complete opposite of what most of the players want, which is casual gameplay
They moved away from isometric 2D intricate single player SOUL and focused on high apm ugly 3d model e-sports online service competitive modes shit
not enough focus on single player campaigns with (mostly) retarded story
Doesn't this game still get decent viewers on streaming sites? Its kind of weird because the popularity is obviously there
Aoe 2 perfected the genre and everyone else gave up.
Then definitive edition restarted development and created a second golden age of RTS
>All factions are copy paste except some cosmetic assets and some units
Never get the circle jerk over the series, and I played it when it came out.
Same. I didn't like it much when it was new, and don't like it much now. It's way too rock-papers-scissory for my taste
Because every new RTS you make has to compete against AoE2. How are you going to improve on a game that people have played for 20+ years?
By making the same game with some added content, some QOL shit
>Because every new RTS you make has to compete against AoE2.
It's really just the most successful that's still being taken care of.
Starcraft 2 sure as fuck isn't getting the love AoE is right now.
too many zoomers flooded the market with shitty chatgpt written games with ai generated graphics
I actually liked aoe3
Anyone here like the new Settles game?
shit by most accounts. Though I haven't given it a go.
they murdered my boy. again
Aoe3 was good but they made the maps to small.
Why *didn't* World in Conflict take off more? It addressed a lot of the accessibility barriers of normal RTS games - no base building, matches were shorter and objective based, teams were 8 people a side with a smaller role to manage during gameplay. Most everyone who played it thought it was good.
>No base building
>no base building
That means it's not an RTS in the first place. There are four requirements that must be fulfilled for a game to be classified as an RTS:
>on-field base building
>direct control of units
(I am not talking about AOE2) The way most people want to play RTS (Blooming, Turtle, spamming large high tier unit army) is different from how competitive scene play (Rushing, end the game as fast as possible with low tier unit).
And each group hate how other group play the game.
I think part of it is that if one play style is winning, it means the other guy will be fundamentally dissatisfied with the game. If the rusher wins, the turtle feels like the game ended way too quickly. If the turtle starts winning, the rusher is likely gonna get bored and forfeit the game before long.
>why did RTS die?
A multitude of factors, one in particular is that someone made an easier version of it.
Anyway RTS "died" because people are dumb and like dumb things, and RTS, and especially the best of them are not popular at all simply because the players need to be smart in order to enjoy it.
Behold an RTS.
Was playing this earlier, only two complaints I have is no automated load/drop off zones like in SC, and that planes stacking on top of each other like they do is horrible since my anti air is AoE and just killed your shit instantly unless you painstakingly spread them out first.
Play Zero-K, it's better in everyway except graphics (but you're playing an RTS who cares about graphics anyways).
Then lose some friendships over a few matches because there will always be that one guy who turns the late game into The Hunt For Red October.
What is your expectation?
Both will be bad
Hoping they're not tho
soul less garbage
Blackbird is shit so zero hope for homeworld.
got replaced by mobas really
they still exist and have their own fanbases just not as big as they used to be
Doesn't work on console. And doesn't get much value out of 3d graphics.
Because the genre peaked here, there was nowhere else to go
I earnestly still think that one day we will get a RTS that looks insanely graphically impressive with amazing destruction particle effects and it will be the revival of the genre
Like Silent Storm-tier destruction? The closest I can remember is CoH where you can almost flatten everything down.
RTS died with Blizzard. They had the chance to ressurect the genre with WC3 remake and they wasted it.
RTS games were only big when it was a casual time waster on older PC's.
Can't play them in consoles. Yes it's that simple.
All developers switched to multiplatform garbage for room iq retards because console babs cannot comprehend the idea of playing an actual strategy.
You can't even play ARTS in consoles and they still went gangbusters, specifically DotA.
>Can't play them in consoles
Now what? As an aside these things are selling for a fuckload of money on ebay. collectors really are smoothbrains if theyre paying anywhere near these prices.
Aoe2 recently released on xbox, apparently the control scheme isn't terrible but it automates some of the gathering stuff. I think VR would be the ultimate platform for RTS, control it like youre the general moving pieces on the board. Kino.
As someone who actually played Starcraft 64, it was garbage compared to the PC version.
Besides animated portraits, cutscenes it's exactly the same game. It even has Brood war. Very considerate of blizzard.
Hero units that levelled up and had their own skills that were superior to normal ones.
AoE 4 was a recent thing, despite nobody actively playing it
AoE 4 was dropped because it was trying to be aoe 2 (2) but fucked up a number of things that made aoe 2 good
Aoe2 players just went back to aoe2
Guys who focused on campaign and other single player stuff found the campaign to be mediocre both in how it plays and how it presents itself
Casual rts players who tried it didn't find anything to stick around for because it didn't do anything well on that front either. Ai is braindead and can't challenge you if it works at all so you couldn't really use it to piss around with friends in co op
It’s like 10k concurrent players a day on Steam + people who play it through the Xbox app.
Because everyone making an RTS thinks it has to be the next huge e-sport. If it doesn't do as good as starcraft or aoe2 they just drop it. Players have this mindset as well. 'what's the point in learning this game if i can't go pro!!'
AoE 2 is just reskinned GBs
Fuck man I haven't played that game since I was a kid. Don't recognize those color schemes though, mod? Anyways, fug I wanna play it now.
It got a huge overhaul mod with like 20 factions, which became de-facto standard today.
This, Black & White, and Dungeon Siege were the games of my childhood.
No other games were needed,
Exemplary taste, my man.
Ganker should really start making their own games at this point.
This but unironically. the rare times Ganker is actually moved to create something they tend to end up at least good.
>make barebones RTS
>LMAO UR GRAPHICS SUCK
>WE NEED IT TO FRY OUR PC LIKE DEM ASHES OF SINGULARITY GAMES AN SHIIET
>OR WE WANT BOOM BOOM PLANET-CRACKER WITH SUBPAR GAMEPLAY LIKE PLANETARY ANNIHILATION
We could be having a bunch of RTS games with interesting gameplay like battle realms that are not as micro intensive, but the normification of gaming won't allow it.
Why the fuck are normalfags your target audience? Learn from Japanese indie devs.
>Why the fuck are normalfags your target audience?
Because there is a lot of them. And if you manage to please them, then your game earns decent amount of money. Obviously.
If you can afford to make less, make less.
Tryhards. RTS games are over in 5 minutes tops now because everyone base rushes early. If they succeed you lose, if they don't they dip right away.
RTS games are just overwhelming for me. WC3 for example:
>every race has specific build orders
>you need to farm creeps to level up your heros, paying attention to last hit and micro even in the most early game
>you have to scout and harass all game
>you have to expand to other gold mines and manage more heros
>all the while paying attention to your enemies and what they're doing
Also, fuck micro. I'm the general, I should be setting doctrines and units should follow them on their own. A commander doesn't tell a private when and where to throw a grenade, that's what the fireteam leader does.
>have to exhibit a modicum of effort
>literally too taxing for the tiktok generation
>My boring micro managing genre died.
>Clearly it's not an outdated model that people only played due to lack of options, not to mention that the custom maps were more popular than the regular game, but the people that are stupid.
you are smart for clicking fast
>normalgay can't even greentext right
have a nice day
Most people played singleplay before. In fact the talking point that got people together was always the campaign.
you're not fitting in
I'm 31 and I've played lots ot shit that took effort. But for me it's overwhelming to manage 500 things simultaneously. Rn I started playing Nebulous Fleet Command. That one feels nice because it's not about high apm, it's more about knowing your fleets capabilities and using them well, and while things might feel frantic, you'll only ever issue a few commands here and there and watch things play out. For example, I can set point defense and missile defense doctrine and then forget about it, at least as a beginner. My damage control teams seem to work well on their own, and when I tell my ships to engage a target, they automatically adjust their orientation to get the guns to bear. That let's me focus on the bigger picture.
Let's say in WC3 or AoE you could set a unit to scout mode, causing it to autonomously traverse the map while avoiding contact. That would shave of some apm in the early game, allowing people to better focus on their build order. What if I could set a doctrine for archers to retreat out of range of an enemy when their hp falls below a certain threshold, then re-engage once they're no longer taking damage? What if I could hold shift and issue an order to a unit, and all other units of that type would follow suit? What if multiplayer was Rimworld style so 2 or more people could control the same faction or units? Let me focus on building a base while my friend scouts and takes care of fighting and micro. Or do something like Line War where I can literally draw standing orders on the map so my new units automatically move to a defensive position or patrol route or whatever.
There are tons of ways to innovate and make the genre more accessible or less tedious.
RTS is never about high APM you casual retard, there are pros with 30apm
That's still 1 action every 2 seconds m8
You can literally type faster than 30apm lmfao
APM means nothing
Doesn't make it fun tho
You are scrubs, it´s okay if you stay in mid ranks
Look at how they massacred my admiral
Can't be worse than the SC2 version, that dude's just a funny drunk russian man with zero authority
>>you need to farm creeps to level up your heros, paying attention to last hit and micro even in the most early game
Wait is that a core part of Wc3?
I thought that insanity was cooked up by the Moba mods
Farming creeps in a standard WC3 is hugely important and failing to creep farm can definatly cost you the game. WC3 is hugely focused on heroes so having a low level hero with shit gear is a huge disadvantage. This is another reason why MOBAs took off, it's more fun just to be th hero and farm creeps than to try and comand an army at the same time.
casuals and normalfags
Here is another one for ya:
What in the fuck happened to the c&c and generals formula ?
>have bombardments on cooldowns
>build buildings that give you rockets, or paratroopers, or nukes on cooldown
>have lots of these, so you can have modern styled missile/bomb combat
Where is that outside of C&C/Suppcom ?
Lack of kewl races to play
RTS fun to watch but not fun to play.
I'm gonna admit I do enjoy watching commented sweaty PvP matches. But I'd never submit myself to actually play RTS games in this way.
I just want to show Ganker my first ever Age of Empires 2 multiplayer win in 2022.I first started playing Age of Empires in 1997.
I'm now 1000 ELO and I'm being matched up against tougher and tougher people. It's pretty stressful to play tbh but I'm having fun nonetheless.
That's awesome man. 1k elo is super strong these days - so if you're playing there that means you're doing really well.
Thanks bro. It really is starting to get real uphill from here. Having trouble fighting against simple, but effective civs like Franks or getting tilted from making basic mistakes like botched boar lures.
As you iron that out you'll go up a little, but from there you're going to want to learn how to deer push and use your scout effectively, and then really get those build orders down. Stuff like that will just come with time as you get it all down to instinct.
If that's too much for you it's fine, there's loads of fun to be had down in 1k elo because there's all sorts of players down there who do crazy shit.
>learn how to deer push
I don't play AoE and have no clue what this is, but the simple fact that you start a match knowing the other players will have sheep and shit and stealing/killing them is a good strategy is a huge turn off for me. I wanna build base and armies and not worry about falling behind because someone killed the 5th boar that I needed for rushing into the next tier or whatever
>stealing/killing them is a good strategy is a huge turn off for me
It's considered bad form in the 100+ open map games I've had no one has ever done it to me.
If you can steal a boar though that's really hard and I commend you for it.
It's called "laming" because it's a lame strategy and you slow your opponent's age up - honestly you really never see it.
People are also really friendly in AOE2 multiplayer.
I just want a good sequel to this. Is that too much to ask?
Making creatures was 99% of the fun, the actual rts part was very boring for me
For me it was everything whale
Tha’Roon chads, where we at???
confusing game, filtered me.
what I would give for a WW with acceptable unit AI, reworked campaigns and without crashes - the art design and gameplay concepts are pure sex
also obblinox is where it's at
That Eaggra grenadier though
Because all the pros developed early onset arthritis and/or carpel tunnel syndrome TMA0X2
For me its the most advanced and most expensive units in the game
>Big Burly spaceship armored to hell with anti fighter batteries aswell as bigger batteries for capital to capital ship fighting AWELL as ground bombardment batteries VS a Retard "pro"toss fighter carrier closing in melee range and his high atack speed low damage drones cant do much against the spezialised armor to defeat lots of small hits.
I love it, sadly Carrier based drones and weapon tactic if applied to the same battle using actual non retard videogame tacticts that carrier would be 5 screens away sending bullshit on the slow battlecruiser while the anti fighter batteries would not hit SHIT if they where crew manned and not AI manned, plus the attacker drones would carry capital ship cracker bombs and not flimsy lasers. Just like late ww2 naval combat.
The appeal of RTS games for the casual gamer was the spectacle.
Spectacle of combat, spectacle of base building, spectacle of so many units on the screen, etc. For each of those types of gamers, FAR better options now exist. Base building is everywhere, Arma for the military nuts, world of tanks/ships/etc for armor lovers, chivalry/mordhau/for honor for medieval shit, etc. Even the people who loved the tactical aspects have a dozen different ways to go, from TBS to Grand Strategy to Space stuff to tactical stuff, etc. RTS no longer offers something unique enough to the casual player to suffer through the clunkiness the genre has
The draw of them was never the gameplay itself for the vast majority of players, and those who did like it had their genre die as everyone else left them behind. Those people had their genre eclipsed by mobas for the same reason CoD-style shooters eclipsed Arena shooters, to keep casuals happy.
because you can't blame your teammates for a loss
I don't play Starcraft BW or 2 competitively. I played through the campaign once and learned how to stomp the AI and that's pretty much it.
But I do go to YouTube sometimes and watch when pro players go crazy and build a bunch of Carriers or Battlecruisers or Ultralisks, It just lights up my monkeybrain.
rts should have been more like c&c and less like aoe
>this is what smash could've looked like
Don't care, I still play StarCraft 2.
Yeah, coop is a blast. Too bad they stopped making new stuff for it
Dawn of War 1 is still fairly popular and mods like UA basically turn it into a different game and have huge followings.
Artosis wants to know how to counter mass stacked mutalisks.
DUNC will save RTS
how are we feeling about stormgate
They've got a cinematic trailer now, and a steam page, and they're taking signups for beta. So it might not be vaporware after all.
>free to play
red flag number 1
red flag number 2
Looks like off-brand Terrans vs off-brand Zerg from the art and cinematic. Given they're ex-Blizzard devs who worked on SC2 I guess I shouldn't be surprised, just feels super uninspired.
EA's refusal to remaster the ultimate C&C that is Red Alert 2
No teammates to blame or get mad at when you lose. See Battlerite for another example.
Too competitive, not fun enough.
The idea that players want to be constantly challenged is a big fucking lie that gets repeated everywhere because it makes you look like a badass gamer.
The reality is that majority of players want to perma win and stomp the enemy without ever having to struggle or lose. That's why every mmorpg and PvP sandbox with clans or factions becomes a monolithic PvE server with everyone playing on the same side unless devs actively prevent this from happening.
RTS games were fun when they allowed to host their own rooms and games, which created the big fish in a small pond syndrome allowing shitters to still have fun.
The modern emphasis on ranked ladders, ratings and personal mmr quickly destroys any delusions about "being good at the game" and most players just can't cope with that.
Only people still playing are toxic addicts who treat video games like personal accomplishments and failures.
>The idea that players want to be constantly challenged is a big fucking lie
Bullshit. Curbstomping is fun once on a while but it gets old and boring very fast. Ideally you want to always play against someone at your skill level, win some and lose some, learn new stuff and improve. That's actually fun.
>Bullshit. Curbstomping is fun once on a while but it gets old and boring very fast. Ideally you want to always play against someone at your skill level, win some and lose some, learn new stuff and improve. That's actually fun.
Most gamers are brainlets that will literally compstomp for hours on end and think its the height of gameplay.
There's a reason why every single Company of Heroes thread gets infested with Men of War gays because MoW is the ultimate compstomping retard game.
I'm in the middle of both opinions. I feel like there should be a middle ground where there's a difficult learning curve at first which forces you to struggle but in the long run you should be rewarded for your time and effort and stomp people who are worse than you. That's why I enjoy games like Mordhau and old style RPGs that reward grind. The idea that I get constantly challenged because there's always someone better behind the corner sounds like a tiresome job. I learned to accept that I won't be a pro player at anything.
At that point why not just play against AI?
Nta, but I would, please implement better AI cpus, especially in fighting games.
In RTS multiplayer I always just got so absorbed in building my base that someone who attacks early would steam roll me
wasn't a lot of rts just from lack of other games to play?
90s computers couldn't run much, fixed camera isometric was a lot easier then doing all the angles for fps
not much console access to internet until seventh generation, multiplayer meant plugging in an additional controller
quake (1998)/counter strike (1999), more access to fps
ea buys westwood (1998), ea focuses more on console games
ps2 (2000), better home games and remote multiplayer
wow (2004), blizzard could make way more off the ip without doing another wc, and ea focusing more
broadband internet, could handle more complicated games
rts seems like a bit of a stopgap, like a steam powered car
Some of it may have been due to limitations on graphics and such but limitations can produce good stuff. Reading/writing was made because we can't continuosly tell people instructions in person. But now with video recording absolutely everywhere we can but reading and writing has its own uses.
let me guess, you think control unit cap in broodwar made it better than sc2?
also rts didn't benefit much from improved graphics as other genres, easier to go back to play red alert than a contemporary fps
Build fps aged like fine wine, it is start of 3d era that is physically painful to get back to with few exceptions.
Maybe it played a role in the genre popularity but building a base/city and managing an army is still a cool game genre and power fantasy even with today's computers.
Unironically because of tryhard sweaties (AKA gays like TIGOLE)
>Pander to .000001% "elite" gaymers instead of the majority
>Wonder why said genre is dead
I miss rts saturdays playing with my bro, cousin and school buddy. Mostly Starcraft and Total Annihilation, we'd play on 8-player maps with plenty of space and resources and have these casual 2 to 3 hour long free for all matches of massive armies sometimes having 3-way battles.
Online against randoms just doesn't compare.
>not playing ranked aoe 2 team games
When I was in primary school my frind and I would sit at the computer together and play Dune 2. I would build the base and he would do the military offenses.
They are really fun but I suck very badly at it and I spend a lot of time zoomed in on my guys cutting wood and making little cute ghettos with the houses and stuff and then I get rolled by AI and power gamers alike. Fun though! I'm just too retarded to main any RTS and help sustain the genre.
Personally I blame the tower defence crazy of the late 2000's/early 2010's.
>super cool CoH ripoff
>plagued by $40 DLC
>Dead a year later
What did they mean by this?
It's beyond shit
>mechs turn around when retreating
Rear hits, dies before reaching base
>mechs can't reverse
Rear hits, dies before reaching base
>retreating infantry barely move faster than non-retreating infantry
Get chased, die before reaching base
>all infantry across factions are functionally identical
Not worth micromanaging ever
>if you don't micromanage infantry they stand out in the open and don't aggro
>moving infantry makes them stop firing
It's utterly shit, not even redeemed by the mech designs it's fucking shitty unintuitive brainlet garbage
mutts became too dumb
Anyone has any hopes in Stromgate or it will just be Starcraft 2.5?
Everything in this game looks so generic it's almost painful.
>Second best wc3 player in the world
>Starcraft 2 pro
>lots of experience playing stuff like AoE
>tries and play Dota
>can't get out of the average ranking even after playing for 8h a day for 8months
RTS players are not good at video games, RTS is just following a specific build order and meta and there's no actual strategy or thinking to be done.
>even more individual skill
>have to rely on 9 retards to make sure the stars align
>if you aren't a force of positive morale on your team you're guaranteed to lose more than you win
>good players have proven over and over again that you can easily climb ranks if you're good at the game
there are also literally hundreds, if not thousands, of fantastic players that don't even register on the scoreboards. cope more SBMM babby
If you're low MMR, you are not good. It's that simple.
>akke is bad
>loda, kuro, lanm, demon
anything over 6k mmr (8k NA) is cosmetic
playing well with others is a skill
the average dota player has like 5000 hours of experience, of course he can't get out easily there are liek 140 heroes whose kits he needs to memorise and 200 different active items
>Used to doing everything solo
>Have to rely on communicating and coordinating with 4 others
I thought he'd be higher up than where he is but he's pretty shit at reading the state of the game and timings. He doesn't use that famous rts micro all that much.
dota isn't really a micro game due to turn times and stuff, league is much more micro focused. Its about macro which needs game knowledge which needs hours
Micro = controlling multiple units for:
Grubby should be playing lots of Chen. Instead he farms with Naga nonstop to detriment of team until the precise moment that he shouldn't get involved in a teamfight; feeds and throws
yes, grubby is insane on Meepo and the like but has subnegative macro so he's hardstuck
>three games played by 100k vs 40mio
you have it backwards, MOBA levels your skills. Most people hit skill ceiling soon then you can only play for consistency by memorizing thousands of matchup combinations.
All you doing is playing chess with a single piece but there are hundreds of different pieces.
The genre """evolved""" to ASSgayS. It's not completely dead, but its soul has completely left.
>fire up Tiberium Sun
>that coloured lighting
>that gritty futurism
But AOE2 is more alive than ever, fuck, there's even a big tourney going on RIGHT NOW
I've never enjoyed RTS or grand strat genres. I don't really get how or why people do. I'm not saying the games are bad, but I just don't get it. You just click on some units, watch them do something, then click more units to do something else. That's it. And yeah I am boiling it down and you can do that to any other genre too. But to me, RTS/etc is just "nothing". You click a unit, make it do a thing, maybe make more units or build a base, send those units to kill enemy or enemy base, then the mission ends. Thats it. Every single time. Online or off. Whats the appeal?
outsmarting the opponent
In what way? Because you clicked a unit to send it to the left instead of the right this time? You made more tanks this round than last? Something else? Maybe I'm just a brainlet but they're just so boring and I don't get how you're supposed to "out smart" your opponent when there just aren't that many options in the game. You zerg rush or you build big defenses, maybe send an air unit. But in essence it is always the same thing. Your army VS their army, while you spend 90% of the game collecting resources or waiting for units to "build" themselves.
It's basically just watching a timer until a coin flip of who wins or not.
RTS can be thrilling. It's like spinning tons of plates against an opponent doing the same with the goal of knocking down all the opponents plates. Brute forcing through their defenses can be enjoyable, countering their units makes you feel big brain. There's always this pressure of the plates stopping. Im a shitter so I've had rather intense 2 hour long stalemates that were broken because I snuck some units past their defenses in a risky all in maneuver.
>Maybe I'm just a brainlet but they're just so boring and I don't get how you're supposed to "out smart" your opponent when there just aren't that many options in the game.
depends what game you played
I'd say it's rock/paper/scissors except there's like 10 instead of 3, and then you get into if I throw x, opponent will counter with y not knowing I've already had z built to counter their counter
>Maybe I'm just a brainlet
not to be rude, but yes.
Same reason arena fps are dead. People grew more and more coddled with the "no one is a loser, everybody wins" mentality so they are bad at handling losing in a 1v1.
They prefer playing a moba where they'll shift the blame on their jungler despite feeding like hell themselves or a battle royale like apex legends where they'll blame their teamates instead of their dogshit aim and gamesense.
When you lose in starcraft or quake you have no excuse, you are forced to admit that the other guy played better than you and you lost.
I WILL blame the game's balance
I WILL refuse to grow and improve
Partially this. I don't mind losing, don't mind blaming myself. But 1v1s in any genre feel very hollow to me. I'm reminded more that I'm playing a game rather than enjoying the gameplay; seeing the spectacle and antics of other players.
Following on from this I realized that RTS doesn't lend itself to social teamplay as much because you can invest 45 mins into the game and get knocked out or get knocked out instantly. I don't mind commiting an hour or two to a match but having it cut short and not being able to contribute to the ending is unpleasant.
AoE 2 is actually very team-play friendly and in such an environment even if you get focused on at the start, as long as you make the other side suffer for every inch they take you can get carried by your booming friend.
>assuming my friend can boom
>assuming my retarded ass can form any kind of defence
>assuming the few villagers I have can rebuild and contribute anything of use
That said I did play a 3v3 where I got nearly wiped but snuck around the map and fucked with their trade quite a bit allowing my boomer to mess them up.
You could see it that way, some people may also grow to not care about winning that much so they don't think the investment of learning the game is worth it.
>Spent my youth playing Warcraft 3 custom games
>Imagine the absolutely crazy custom games people could do in the future with SC2 and so on releasing
Blizzard killed the custom game scene in sc2 by ensuring that they could claim ownership in case the next dota popped up in the scene.
not only that, they killed the custom game scene for every other RTS game by doing that.
I hate blizzard so fucking much, I HATE THEM
I HATE THEM SO FUCKING MUCH AND I HATE THAT IT TOOK SO MANY FUCKERS TO REALIZE HOW FUCKING BAD BLIZZARD IS EVEN AFTER THE SC2 SHITFEST
They should design an RTS around turtling. Like you have to turtle. But without a strict time limit either because it's still fun sending small little armies out to attack too.
they are billions
It doesn't get any better than Total Annihilation imo. Still hasn't been dethroned as the king of RTS
Homeworld and C&C come close
>Why did RTS die?
Flynn effect reversal and decline in intelligence its about 6 points from genX to millennials and another 6 to zoomers as predicted by mouse utopia. Zoomers can't play RTSs and many can't even use a mouse.
>thread where RTS players show themselves to be rude poor tryhards
>wtf why does no one want us as customers
Publishers wanted the consolefag and esports money.
>Friend groups gets into a specific RTS game
>One gay sweats like crazy
>Always manages to amass a massive army before anyone of us manages to even build walls
>Even if we have 5v1 games against him, we always lose
>Playing with him always just means stroking his ego since he'll never lose
>Nobody plays anymore
You are all retards and he is not. result, instead of co-operating you sulk petulantly
That's most game genres though. Happens in fps and fighting games too. Hence why those are usually better played online with randoms unless you maintain a close skill level among friends. As soon as someone goes full sweaty beyond his friends, they will lose interest.
Can't you add an AI with high difficulty as your ally? Or a few...
I cannot imagine how fucking crap you are at that game.
God-damn you guys must suck, even bad players can give good players a run for their money 1v2 or 1v3.
excessively high input requirement
RTS were popular back when there was a high intelligence filter for personal computers.
PCfags don't buy games
Age of Empires 2 is more popular now than it’s ever been. But yeah also it kind of became a clickathon for autists
>Why did RTS die?
Pic related happened. IQ drop.
Flynn attributed this increase to better nutrition. Flynn continued his work and other scientists followed suit until they all noticed that children born in 1975 reached ‘peak IQ’ and average intelligence had been dropping ever since. This is called the ‘Reverse Flynn Effect’.
No one knows for sure why IQs are dropping but a study by Norwegian scientists with access to 30 years of IQ test results for young adults determined that the drop was not due to genetics. The IQ scores of younger siblings dropped more than their older brothers and sisters, in spite of the same parentage and the trend was evident across age groups.
Most likely the lack of attention makes them worse at doing IQ exams.
I've seen a tendency for people to avoid any and all cognitive load.
>good times create weak men
goyslop is one big answer, not the only one though.
eat normal foods, no vegetable oils, NO VEGETABLE OILS. Good meat, Local vegetables and fermented dairy, no added sugar at all
its stopped being fun when to play normally you would have to devote your whole life to achieve couple of victories
saw the last total war warhammer on sale but was turned off by drm and rumors of spyware and telemetry bs
realized the last strategy game i played was a pirated copy of aoe2 a professor gave me >20 years ago
i really should give this genre a proper try
is there any of those infographics that introduces to the genre?
takes too much skill
Over bloated genre for a decade that did little to innovate, and often have absolute shitty single player content for people that aren't into competitive 1v1. Fighting Games are in a similar situation, but have smoking hot bitches to drive enough sales to keep the genre alive.
The AAA seems dead, but the AA/Indie market of RTSs seems to still be alive. Like how it is with most good games currently;;;;
people playing them forgot what "fun" means and started take it way too seriously
i haven't read the thread but i guarantee you there's a bunch of retards sniffing their own farts saying something
>You need extremely high IQ to play this game
bro i played them when i was 13, yet you want me to reside all the rick and morty pasta of just how smart you are
RTS died because
I do not give 2 shits about RTS games, but have a huge longing to vidya adaptations of board games.
Nice summary of what's going on.
Truth is, there's no way to keep RTS alive without dumbing it down.
And dumbing it down means the fans won't enjoy it. See Tooth and Tail
We live in an age of gratuitous stupidity
It WILL come back
RTS needs to work well with controllers to make a comeback.
Has anyone tried the Xbox version of AoE2?
It's about a 400 elo difference with the same players playing in ranked between keyboard and controller.
Actually works OK though for what it is.
I tried it out and I think it works well enough. If you played Red Alert 3 or Kane's Wrath on the 360 you should have no trouble with the controls. They can never beat KBM but they work.
I hope they port it to the pc version as well so I can play some AoE campaigns while laying back.
You fucking idiots do realise you can just plug a USB mouse and keyboard in? Actually retarded.
not him but that's not going to work, console players want to use gamepads for their games, they don't want a game where it says: "use the X peripheral to play or get fucked"
That sounds too awkward to play in a couch, do I have to buy a mini table or smth?
because it doesn't work on consoles
>clicking rapidly intensifies
Holy mother fucking shit.
The amount of people willing to pay a 'necessary' amount of money for RTS games became too little in an expanding industry.
Or rather, the amount of RTS players stayed the same. The genre didnt die, it just seems so small today when the video game industry is larger than any other recreation.
Did those siege towers in pic related actually let you deploy soldiers to the otherside of the wall?
I can't remember ever trying to use them that way because I didn't know what they were truly for
>Did those siege towers in pic related actually let you deploy soldiers to the otherside of the wall?
Yes but it's just so much more efficient to just break a wall with rams instead. Rams can ALSO garison infantry so there's no need to have siege towers at all. Unless they'd fire arrows or something.
Minimum iq for RTS was about 110. That cut off about 95% of video game players that big publishers target.
If it can't be played on a smartphone why would you get money to develop it?
look at a game like diablo. easy money
SC2 was shit and requiring 500+APM ruined RTS games
this. After reaching master i just couldnt do any silly shit or even timed attacks. Its all macro ie click le fast on all of ur shit until one of the players makes more mistakes than the other. Pass
I can't tell if this is troll or not. The dude playing SC in that webm is actually doing nothing. He actually just needed 5-10 actions per minute to do the things in he did in that webm. He just spams unnecessary actions that gets the APM counter up cus it makes him look pro. Even in pro play SC you can have about 70 APM and do just fine. And MOBA's and RTS games have more APM then SC or strategy games.
>Even in pro play SC you can have about 70 APM and do just fine
Based retard. Name a single pro match where the winner had 70 APM.
The pursuit of Esports over the single player experience made one game very successful, and pretty much killed the rest of the genre. I don't think it can be fixed either, because the world now views RTS games as solely an autistic Korean sweatfest, instead of the varied genre it once was, any game trying something different faces a very steep uphill battle.
Lots of people also failed to notice the game which benefitted the most from Esports, also has the most robust singleplayer experience of any modern RTS.
Idea: Combine rts with AI automization. Instead of having to do apm spamming manually, you have different 'scripts' so it feels more like giving commands.
There's this battlefield simulation that does just that. You give commands to troops, and these commands have to be delivered by wire, radio or by foot, and they may be misinterpreted, the AI officers may decide otherwise etc. Or so I've read. I forgot what the name was.
That's pretty much the AoE 2 DE console edition though
>Why did RTS die?
Technical and complex, doesn't have waifu/cool muscle guy element like fighters have that helped them stay afloat.
Also, Blizzard. Why control 30 units and make micros and macros when you can just control one unit with 3-4 abilities?
The reality is that RTS evolved into moba and then stagnated.
If you want RTS games to make a comeback they have to innovate and wow people because the oldfag RTS player is getting older and older.
It didn't. They have their own board here.
>Their own board
>Total war game
>RTS thread gets 2 replies a day
>It didn't die
Actual reason: Games got too mainstream, lowering the average IQ and skill level of players, and in the end most video game players were too stupid for RTS games, so they died out.
Consider the following: RTS hasn't died, the playerbase has relatively minimal growth compared to other genres, and most of it is consolidated into a handful of games. Of course it looks dead when the rest of gaming has seen explosive, exponential growth over the years
Too much focus on fast paced competitive, multiplayer
Too little focus on comfy gameplay and SOVL
Here's your RTS, bro
Can't monetise it without seriously fucking up the balance.
There was a game, that tried it, I forgot it's name.
They used p2w cards, that allowed you to hire special units or build special buildings. You can figure out how that went.
Grand Strats is where it's at. Too bad one, shitty, company has a monopoly on it and makes all the games DLC hell.
Could I get banned for buying the official version and getting the dlc elsewhere?
I've pirated the DLC on my Steam copies for the past 6 years with no issues.
Because it's not really strategy and is uncomfortable to play at length.
The best RTS ever, AoE2, still has many active players. There's just no reason to release new games if they can only be worse.
>more than 1000 hrs into the game
>still in the begginers elo (1000 ~ 1200)
This is why, the game is too complex i can only play every other day like once... any other game you are more than a begginer after just a week of playing, not this one
Are there any RTS's that play a bit like Creeper World in terms of pacing?
Most base-building/turtling focused RTS I've seen like They Are Billions seem more just like tower defense games. While for me it's all about building a strong defense then launching small focused attacks and using guerrilla tactics and shit like that until I can reclaim the map. Talking about single-player obviously.
Some of Relics older titles like Dark Crusade and CoH scratch that itch a bit. Especially CoH. I've heard good things about SupCom?
Clicklets think you can have high APM without knowing what you should be doing. High APM is derived from a solid grasp on the strategy to be executed.
have a nice day, moron.
Play Rise of Legends
This game was so underrated and mismanaged by BHG it's a crime. Awesome soundtrack, battles looked really cool, there was action right from the first few minutes, and it wasn't too micro-intensive (compared to 300APM moronclick that gets memed at least). Too bad it was buggy and imbalanced to shit.
Indeed the OST was great https://youtu.be/1WbyYf8KmMk
Their biggest problem was not going just 2 factions.
Vinci and Alin were really nice and well thought out but the Azteclikes were shit, their campaign was shit and the faction was just boring to play.
Should've been an expansion faction.
>their campaign was shit
True, but I'm pretty sure that happened because it was rushed, you can clearly tell that the levels in the last campaign are largely just generic skirmishes, they were probably running out of time to finish the campaign.
>and the faction was just boring to play.
Probably because they had a weird combination of weak economy, poor mobility, strong defenses and the best hero in the game, Czin, which revolved into a very turtle-y playstyle where you rely on Czin to carry you into the late game while staying on the defensive so you can try to get a good Death Gate off. Meanwhile Alin and Vinci are constantly attacking or harrassing the opponent.
I like how in the last tournament they held, the top 4 players used Vinci, the bottom 4 used Alin, and the only guy who tried Cuotl once ended up in 8th place lol. A good show of how crappy the balance was.
fags tried to make it about multiplayer primarily instead of single player primarily because its cheaper and less effort to do so.
rts died when they stopped having long as fuck and good single player campaigns
Any talk about difficulty is nothing but cope, the plain truth is that it's due to lack of good single player campaigns
Nobody makes fun single player campaigns any more. Devs somehow got the idea that moron click is the future but somehow didn't realized these people were already busy playing brood war. Or SC2 these days, no idea how things are going in that area.
RTS only died because EA killed off C&C by chasing moba.
Investors seen EA fail and gave up on RTS.
play men of war assault squad 2 until men of war 2 comes out.
When is microshaft going to give Rise of Nations a definitive edition remaster?
RTS should have stayed 2d. 3d graphics add very little. Most rts games don't use terrain elevation mechanics anyways so it's pointless.
Market got dumbed down and more focused on multiplayer. And since RTS multiplayer has an ass learning curve its just not profitable cause it just boils down to who has the most clicks per minute, people just arent going to bother with it.
>it just boils down to who has the most clicks per minute
you have never played a single RTS in your life
>like singleplayer rts
>hardly any interest whatsoever in playing against other people
I find it difficult to not get bored of single player campaigns in RTS, Warcraft 3 was the exception because of the strong use of RPG elements to throw in some variety.
GET OUT OF HERE STALKER
I think most people are like you and the main reason for modern RTS failing is that they're all obsessed with esports and neglect the singleplayer parts
Any game you're not playing is dead.
Problem with RTS pretty much stems from 4 things that generall overlap with each other.
1. lack of creativity and interesting world.
2. shitty single player
3. no interesting or meaningful mechanics
4. focuse on competitive multiplayer.
Newer devs really aren't that creative or experimental anymore in any shape or form aside from how to garden gnome people. Say what you will about Warcraft and Starcraft but they had great campaigns, good stories, good lore and fun memorable characters. They also had some super crazy and uniqe mechanics that no other RTS had done at the time and still don't just to list the most notable:
>zerg creep to build buildings.
>zerg needing to morph units and buildings.
>protoss needing to build ammo for units like the carrier and reaver
>Each faction having their own style to build, from traditional building to morphing units to warping them in.
>terran how the only real turret they have is an AA turret and the rest of their defenses need to be manned.
I really can't think of any other RTS game that has even 1 of these mechanics I just listed and there are a ton more introduced in both WC3 and SC2. The most modern RTS games give you is a monk converter unite and a tank that needs to deploy to a long ranged artillery. Other than that everything is just build building, build tank, watch explosions.
This then all ties in to multiplayer. New devs can't balance for shit, and since they fear/hate/lack creativity they just make a shitty RPS RTS thats both boring to watch and to play. To add more insult to this majority of people do not give a shit about multiplayer and this goes hard with RTS players. Look at the acheivment list for every major RTS game on steam, specially for the big ones like AoE2 and CoH2. Last I check something around 1% of players played more than 3-5 matches online, but for the single player achievments over 80% have completed the single player campaigns.
80% of people on steam have completed the single player campaigns in AoE2 DE? That's pretty impressive considering that there's around 200 hours of them just in the base game and a load of the achievements are for completing the missions with additional conditions which make it far more difficult.
i think there's only one achievement that even requires pvp, the viper one
I want more RTS where you need to train workers into military such as Battle Realms and Three Kingdoms Fate of the Dragon
skill based and mostly 1v1.
same reason fighters will never be popular.
not sure why people didnt play teams in rts.
>like to play slowly building an army and as most units as the map allows me before doing battle
>ITS RUSH IN 2 MINUTES
multiplayer on rts isn't fun
I still like SCII so much, but it comes down to problems like ladders stress (the thinking that you'll be judged by your performance all the time), the game records all of your season ranking since the first one. I don't think that's health.
The game is not being supported anymore, it's in maintance mode, so you can't buy the older skin packs, also it needs some fixing and an UI update, the game still looks great, but the UI looks old.
I'm hoping that M$ overhauls SC2 if they end up buying actvision. Also they really, really should remake SC1 with the same team that has written 2, so the discrepancies in the characters development won't be so obvious.
Let SC1 be its own thing.
Because you think RTS is 3 games from 199x and will never play anything that's not a carbon copy of those games - but then you won't play those carbon copies either because you are still playing those 3 games from 199x.
sorry i like my games to improve not to go backwards like demakes and sequels from the last 20 years
Losers who play online games are simply not equipped to deal with loss and competition, 1v1 games force you to face your own inadequacies and that's just not something most people are willing to do. League of Legends allows you to deflect blame onto your teammates and onto Riot itself for matching you with them, Starcraft didn't.
If someone cheeses you in SC, you should be able to scout it and stop it and if you can't, that's your fault. YOU fucked up. If someone cheeses you in League and you die, but some other lane has also died 2/3 times then you can just go "gg teammates are bad again riot won't let me climb cant wait to get out of losers queue" and pretend like you had no share of the blame for your loss while blissfully maintaining your negative winrate in silver. It is what it is.
You act as if 2x2, 3x3 or even 4x4 aren't a thing in RTS multiplayer.
Will people still be playing AoE2 in another 20 years time?
I just want more Total War style games that arent made by fucking Creative Assembly
Lack of catering to the core demographic, which is casual comp stompers / campaign fags.
Competitive multiplayer is a niche club, it's mostly 1x1 so there's no deflecting blame, and it's stressful for newbies. Plus people associate losing to being stupid, so they don't want to risk looking like idiots.
RTS will never die for good, but it's always going to have a niche audience. It would probably be for the best if devs focused on just bringing back and polishing the classics like with AoE2, rather than try to release games that appeal to no one because they have neither the single player content to compete with Total War or Paradox games, nor the polish to surpass AoE2 / SC2.
As sad as it is, i'm pretty sure CoH1 remastered would have done much better than the CoH3 we got.
I miss Tzar.
Who here played Myth: The fallen lords