Metamorphosed into MOBAs which fulfilled what people wanted from them
teammates so they have other people to blame for their own failures
no economy/macro so you can focus on EPIC MICRO
MOBA have literally nothing in common with rts other than that the first one was a mod made in an RTS game which had RPG elements.
Rts then: fun single player games with optional multiplayer
Rts now: sweaty tryhard no fun allowed asiaticclick with barebones singleplayer
try Skylords Reborn. The devs made sure to prevent asiaticclick mechanics. Sadly the pvp is dead outside from tournaments, but you can compete even without touching keyboard.
Too much focus on Korean APM flowchart spam instead of the campaigns.
Starcraft was the worst thing that ever happened to RTS despite being one of the best games ever made.
Starcraft 1 and 2 have fantastic campaigns though. Replaying them currently. 10/10 campaigns. Middle of heart of the swarm right now - only real complaint is that Kerrigan made the zero one too easy, even on brutal difficulty.
>Starcraft 1 and 2 have fantastic campaigns though.
I hope in case of 2 you mean fantastic mechanics-wise because after WoL it's absolute garbage story-wise. Abathur, Stukov and Alarak were not enough to salvage those.
yeah, i will never get that criticism. starcraft 2 were three fantastic rts games in one giant awesome package. how the rts fans could get themselves to b***h about that, i'll never know. i am firmly in the camp, where i want more awesome rts campaigns, not less. those fricking morons who don't even play the campaign and just rush straight to the mp portion of the game, can suck my fat fricking taint, the way i see it.
You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre. As you might expect such niche games don't generate a lot of money compared to safer options. And so early 2000s-style RTS have evaporated, dumbed down to be MOBAs and shit instead.
/thread
There is something called complexity wall and video games that have that can be prohibitively complex. People are not dumb, they can instantly see if a game is too much for them to handle and that can harm profits so if you're a big publisher that wants big returns for your clients because those ferraris and yachts won't buy themselves, you have to dumb down the video game to slop level.
Complex games are great if you're into them though, see 4x and mmos like eve online. Their level of complexity does a great deal of the heavy lifting of gatekeeping that has to be done in order for a hobby or game genre to continue existing instead of being watered down into a shit paste of meh.
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
[...] >You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre.
lol nah u just need to take aderall and memorize strategies to muscle memory, that's why korean bugs excel at sc
basically rtses degenerated into something that is palatable to bugmen
>i get my ass beat by 16 year olds, better call them bugs, the post
1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
This dissuaded new players and eventually RTS dried up. The fact is, most people are bad at video games. In MOBAs you can get away with having a literal 20 APM and not knowing how half the mechanics work and get carried by your 4 allies.
Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
Plus the programming that is necessary for a good RTS is too much for today's lazy devs. You have to try and code in good pathing, resource management, target prioritizing, artificial stupidity for lower difficulty, unit balance, unit counters, tech research, etc etc, all for a miniscule audience. It's far easier for AAA studios just to release another Open World Survival Crafting RPG Lite game or indie devs to drop another 2d side rolling metroidvania platformer.
because the best was made so anything new had to compete against them
people no longer got games while knowing nothing about them so not much new blood
and rts are fricking hard competitively and generally 1v1 so people didn't like getting trashed in relatively long games while having nobody to blame but themselves
also a bunch of moronic, incompetent devs that didn't know nor care why people liked the good rts games
1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
This dissuaded new players and eventually RTS dried up. The fact is, most people are bad at video games. In MOBAs you can get away with having a literal 20 APM and not knowing how half the mechanics work and get carried by your 4 allies.
Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre. As you might expect such niche games don't generate a lot of money compared to safer options. And so early 2000s-style RTS have evaporated, dumbed down to be MOBAs and shit instead.
>You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre.
lol nah u just need to take aderall and memorize strategies to muscle memory, that's why korean bugs excel at sc
basically rtses degenerated into something that is palatable to bugmen
Kind of like what Yugioh turned into. Chaining together cards and decks that win you the game in-between 1-4 turns with 4x the same cards. Everyone just builds the same decks
>Memorize 6 pool and get insane micro >Enemy builds a turret/bunker >Lose
Wow it's almost like you have to scout and adjust your build order and play macro. You're the same kind of moron that complains that fighting games are just memorizing the instant kill combo.
>No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
Pretty much this, I enjoy my 2 hour games in AoE2 where me and my opponent both kinda suck. But the moment I fight a half decent opponent he just rolls my base before I can every wall up. (And even if I manage to wall he will still frick my shit)
Problem is the chances of running into a similar skilled player is WAY too low, and most of my games end up with me getting rushed by some 600APM sweatlord.
I think fighting games and fps both have a higher skill floor than rts. you can be an absolute drooling moron and still manage to build some guys and move them to your opponent's base. being wood league in rts is way more fun than in a fighting game.
that's not really true at all
Smash Bros is the archetypal example
Fighting games actually have a MUCH MUCH lower skill floor than RTS. You're only controlling one entity, you've only got limited mobility and inputs. Most of the combat mechanics come down to split second timing on basic inputs, and just a few esoteric mechanics like wavedashing are rewarded above that. Low skill floor, medium skill cap. Meanwhile in an RTS game, you have to independently control dozens of entities, controlling workers, buildings, units, heroes. Even if you take only the skill floor of the minimum necessary inputs to just play the game at a basic level, you've got to learn what different units do, what buildings you need to make, how to independently switch between and control those workers/buildings/units/heroes. That's a far higher skill floor than button mashing in smash bros. Then when it comes to skill cap, you've got the ability to micromanage each unit independently and heavy rewards for dancing units in combat, while microing and macroing at the same time and flickering around your map to view and interpret new information revealed, and payoffs for complicated build order trickery like human stop-cancel power building- which quickly reaches a point where its simply impossible for humans to control everything optimally at the same time, leaving the upper limit of skill cap at player APM.
If you put a drooling toddler in front of a nintendo and hand them smash bros, they can beat the single player campaign no problem. Just push buttons and attack. If you put that same kid in front of the WC3 campaign and told them to go purge stratholm, they wouldn't have a fricking clue how to build farms to create food and harvest lumber and gold and build barracks and blacksmith and upgrade to tier 2 and research upgrades and so on.
smash bros is a party game. fighting games have high skill floors because if you are a scrub you want to hold forward and mash but that's pretty much the worst thing you can do. you land a hit and think "I got him now" and push more buttons, but it doesn't combo because you don't know the frame data so your opponent who is just mashing dp counter hits you and you have no idea what happened. or your opponent is just sitting in the corner spamming fireball and you have no idea how to get in so you just get lamed to death. basically you actually have to actually learn the game to be offensive, while defense is very easy, but you can win just by defending which frustrates the other player.
in a rts bad players just turtle and have no idea how to actually kill each other so they end up with "epic" games where they max out on one base and one of them manages to finally win.
a good player is always going to beat a bad player in every game that has any difference in skill floor vs skill cap. If they didn't, then that gap wouldn't exist. A smash pro will beat a smash noob just like an RTS pro will beat an RTS noob. The only games where that aren't true are what, Candyland? Pure luck card games?
The high skill floor of an RTS is that you need to learn how to perform dozens of different mechanical actions to even function, the bare minimum required to know how to beat a normal difficulty campaign let alone matchup against other players. That means learning how to harvest multiple types of resources, make workers, make buildings, what the tech trees are, how to upgrade, how to select and hotkey units and issue orders, etc etc. You cannot simply hold forward and mash attacks in an RTS, there is no means by which you can try to bullshit your way through the game without knowing how it works.
In a fighting game you actually CAN play without having a clue what you're doing, and smash bros is proof of that. The only inputs you need to learn are "how to move left/right", "press jump, press attack". Everything else is just gravy on top of that, the skill cap as you learn to block, dodge, grab, use specials, etc. You can beat the smash bros single player campaign by just picking little mac and running up to everything and spamming punches lmao
Similarly the skill cap on an RTS is far higher than a fighting game because it becomes limited by human APM, you could go up to 1000+ apm and still not be playing optimally. In fighting games its not even possible to go above the 100-200 APM range, because your inputs are buffered and delayed by animations, at some point its simply impossible to exceed
I didn't even think about input buffering but that's a great point. RTSes being completely uncapped means their ceiling is at least tenfold a Fighting Game
1 year ago
Anonymous
Who's talking about fighting games? He said Smash.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Moving the goalposts because you know you already lost the argument
lol @ FGCshitters
you're missing the point. building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice. you just have to click on the icons. even if you only have 20 apm, you are still doing it, just in slow motion. in a fighting game you need a certain level of skill just to use your character's attacks. if you lose a fight because you only have 5 dudes and your opponent has 20, it's obvious what went wrong, if not how he got that many.
in a fighting game if you don't input your commands correctly your moves literally won't work. you will hit one attack but then you have the wrong link timing so the second attack doesn't come out and you're just confused because you were hitting your opponent but then suddenly he could counter hit you. or you try to walk forward and throw a fireball but it comes out as a dp instead. there is significantly more skill required to learn the controls before you can even worry about learning the game.
that protoss player won't know how to force workers to mine on the axis, pop units over obstacles, trap a probe to group with corsairs, how to block gaps in a wall with zealots or hide them behind minerals or micro back from zerglings to exploit the animation delay, how to kill mines with dragoons without detection or drag them with zealots, or storm drop with shuttles or use them to disjoint projectiles
you can get out of bronze or whatever without doing any of that
1 year ago
Anonymous
You can't get out of bronze without learning how to make units, buildings, research, harvest resources, select units, issue commands, etc. Even an action as basic as "walk up to a shop, select it, buy a new scroll of town portal" in warcraft III required more inputs than a combo in a fighting game. You have to move your camera, drag select the shop with mouse, click the hotkey
I've seen fighting game players try to play an RTS and fail so hard its disgusting. They cannot even get to the point of training a hero in WC3. Putting 5 peasants on a gold mine? Making an altar? Training more peasants? Harvesting lumber? Making a farm for food? You have to select each individually, issue commands from a tree of actions. Noobs can't even figure out how to play the game in the first place, let alone get good at it.
Its not exaggeration that a literal toddler pressing random buttons on a controller can play a fighting game and beat it on easy mode. As long as they happen to press the attack button once in a while, they can win. You cannot even start a game in an RTS without knowing how to do 20 different actions
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You have to move your camera, drag select the shop with mouse, click the hotkey
my god. the white man has indeed fallen. sad.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice.
And you think pressing and mashing goddamn buttons in a fightan game does? >bu-but le you can't le win against human opponent >*wins by literally mashing buttons in literally every fightan game*
Here's the thing. 7 year old me already beat fricking Krizalid on a normal day. 7 year old me couldn't even get past the 4th fricking campaign in Warcraft 3 on fricking easy until I was a teenager and even then barely. It's true that in order to have a competitive edge in fightan game, you need to time your move and execute your special correctly but that is still significantly easier to do than juggling the shit out of your unit and workers.
1 year ago
Anonymous
*4th fricking human campaign level
1 year ago
Anonymous
>building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice
In broodwar it does. Have you ever tried attack moving with a group of dragoons or some medic/marines? You can't even A-Move in that game or they units will run all over the place like morons and file in one by one, some might even go to a completely different location just because the pathing is so archaic.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Go to some house party with gf >Mouth breathers playing smash Bros on switch >Gf never even plays Vidya but give her a controller anyway >She doesn't do amazing but is still able to play and have an ok time >Even gets a few KOs in
>Try to show someone SC2 for the first time >3 minutes in they still haven't built a military unit because they don't know what the frick they are doing, why can't I build this? Oh I need a green thing? What's the green stuff? I need to make more houses again? I'm being attacked by a giant army what the heck?
In RTS games you are expected to know what to do, ans to do it fast.
Like other anons have said in fighting games you can pick up the controller and as long as you know the move and attack button you can play the game. Yes there's a billion combos and nuances but that's the skill ceiling not the floor.
In an rts you could argue they just need to click attack but if you sat someone down with 0 instructions in Smash bros they could press a few buttons and in seconds know how to move/attack whereas doing the same in SC2 there's a decent chance they won't even find the fricking building option, let alone figure out supply/vespene
>Inb4 accused of larping because i mentioned gf
1 year ago
Anonymous
What you're saying is true, but fighting games these days are also niche as frick. A better example would be a shooter.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm replying to a guy specifically talking about fighting game lol.
I mean fps games have an even lower skill floor than fighting games
1 year ago
Anonymous
depends on which shooter
plenty of fighting games where you can literally just press random buttons and get wins against easy opponents, button mashing is an actual thing. Smash they can run off a platform and suicide, but other games have no bounds and automatically face opponents so just hitting the attack key once in a while will get them
shooters you actually have to learn to move around the map, maybe jump, then learn to aim your gun and click it. Its a low skill floor too, but not as low as a fighting game. Pressing random buttons won't do anything but waste ammo, and the whole concept of ammo that FPS games almost always have and fighting games don't, puts another resource management into play. Then maybe you have friendly fire in team games, or moving walls in battle royales, or so on.
Pretty sure the only category of games with a skill floor lower than fighting games is games that play themselves, like card games, candyland, etc
1 year ago
Anonymous
>be a party >girl tries to pick up halo and play >winds up falling into ravine and dying multiple times >... >we play smash instead >items are enabled and on high >she gets a few kos throughout the game by just spamming projectiles and grabbing OP items like pokeballs once in a while
I think a game of starcraft would have lasted all of 20 seconds
1 year ago
Anonymous
You know that you can play RTS games against the computer right?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes? Does that make the game suddenly able to be understood within seconds?
1 year ago
Anonymous
computers adjust to your skill level. RTS campaigns on easy are dogshit easy, one of the easiest games to play infact
1 year ago
Anonymous
>it's not intuitive!
Which is exactly why every single campaign is a glorified tutorial. Slowly adding complexity each mission.
It's a high barrier of entry, sure, but if you've played 1 RTS you'll be able to play all RTS.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Things not being intuitive and having a high barrier to entry is basically the definition of a skill floor.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's literally every RPG system ever. It's fun to slowly level up and unlock more stuff, it's the easiest way to slowdrop dopamine to any player just for playing the game. Every genre follows that rule.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>RTS >RPG
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
1 year ago
Anonymous
His terminology was kinda jank but his point is correct.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Whether it's some arbitrary player level or number of missions completed, it's simply a way to reward players based on their play time. Every game tries to be a skinner box to some extent.
1 year ago
Anonymous
trying to play Warcraft 3 on a LAN party with a bunch of normies over a decade ago made realize that I fricking hate people. The comments I got from these buttholes of me just trying to explain the absolute very basics just so we can have a fun 4 vs 4 were so insulting that I still seethe today when I just think about it. It was also the last LAN party I've seen since then. The only good thing I can say is that at least they enjoyed UT2004.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>fighting game >smash >anything other than gf
you need to go back
smash bros is a party game. fighting games have high skill floors because if you are a scrub you want to hold forward and mash but that's pretty much the worst thing you can do. you land a hit and think "I got him now" and push more buttons, but it doesn't combo because you don't know the frame data so your opponent who is just mashing dp counter hits you and you have no idea what happened. or your opponent is just sitting in the corner spamming fireball and you have no idea how to get in so you just get lamed to death. basically you actually have to actually learn the game to be offensive, while defense is very easy, but you can win just by defending which frustrates the other player.
in a rts bad players just turtle and have no idea how to actually kill each other so they end up with "epic" games where they max out on one base and one of them manages to finally win.
that's not what skill floor means
a good player is always going to beat a bad player in every game that has any difference in skill floor vs skill cap. If they didn't, then that gap wouldn't exist. A smash pro will beat a smash noob just like an RTS pro will beat an RTS noob. The only games where that aren't true are what, Candyland? Pure luck card games?
The high skill floor of an RTS is that you need to learn how to perform dozens of different mechanical actions to even function, the bare minimum required to know how to beat a normal difficulty campaign let alone matchup against other players. That means learning how to harvest multiple types of resources, make workers, make buildings, what the tech trees are, how to upgrade, how to select and hotkey units and issue orders, etc etc. You cannot simply hold forward and mash attacks in an RTS, there is no means by which you can try to bullshit your way through the game without knowing how it works.
In a fighting game you actually CAN play without having a clue what you're doing, and smash bros is proof of that. The only inputs you need to learn are "how to move left/right", "press jump, press attack". Everything else is just gravy on top of that, the skill cap as you learn to block, dodge, grab, use specials, etc. You can beat the smash bros single player campaign by just picking little mac and running up to everything and spamming punches lmao
Similarly the skill cap on an RTS is far higher than a fighting game because it becomes limited by human APM, you could go up to 1000+ apm and still not be playing optimally. In fighting games its not even possible to go above the 100-200 APM range, because your inputs are buffered and delayed by animations, at some point its simply impossible to exceed
The real issue is spergs like you guys go on places like this, crap on about skill floors and act like only the elite can play these games and go "frick that why would I want anything to do with this bullshit". Same with AFPS and Shoot-em-Ups, you keep scaring off new players.
Sperglords don't scare off new players. New players don't hang out where the sperglords do and hear stuff like this. Everyone in this thread already knows how to play RTS games.
New players might try one or two, or just see it in action, and realize how complicated it is compared to their fighting game slop
Its just a fact that RTS is inherently complicated and high skill floor and that's what scares off players and dried up the genre. No amount of autistic screeching could change that for better or worse, it just is
FPS games and Fighting Games have comparable skill ceilings but much much lower floors. Look how many more normies play CoD and Smash than even Starcraft at its cultural zenith
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS >2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
lmao try fighting games moron
FGCgays are barely one order of magnitude above TCGgays in terms of skill required to function. I know you're both full of shit because my friend group had an AOE2 stint when DE came out. One of my buddies was a top Paul player in Tekken 7 and he could barely even function and dropped the game a week later out of frustration.
Meanwhile another friend of mine was top 100 GM in SC2 for a few years, picked up GGXRD, and became one of the top Kums within 4 months.
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS >2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
lmao try fighting games moron
that's not really true at all
Smash Bros is the archetypal example
Fighting games actually have a MUCH MUCH lower skill floor than RTS. You're only controlling one entity, you've only got limited mobility and inputs. Most of the combat mechanics come down to split second timing on basic inputs, and just a few esoteric mechanics like wavedashing are rewarded above that. Low skill floor, medium skill cap. Meanwhile in an RTS game, you have to independently control dozens of entities, controlling workers, buildings, units, heroes. Even if you take only the skill floor of the minimum necessary inputs to just play the game at a basic level, you've got to learn what different units do, what buildings you need to make, how to independently switch between and control those workers/buildings/units/heroes. That's a far higher skill floor than button mashing in smash bros. Then when it comes to skill cap, you've got the ability to micromanage each unit independently and heavy rewards for dancing units in combat, while microing and macroing at the same time and flickering around your map to view and interpret new information revealed, and payoffs for complicated build order trickery like human stop-cancel power building- which quickly reaches a point where its simply impossible for humans to control everything optimally at the same time, leaving the upper limit of skill cap at player APM.
If you put a drooling toddler in front of a nintendo and hand them smash bros, they can beat the single player campaign no problem. Just push buttons and attack. If you put that same kid in front of the WC3 campaign and told them to go purge stratholm, they wouldn't have a fricking clue how to build farms to create food and harvest lumber and gold and build barracks and blacksmith and upgrade to tier 2 and research upgrades and so on.
>Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
This is the only real reason why RTS is dead, the playerbase are subhumans who don't know how to have fun and who's stability of their ego is dependent solely on how good they are at an game.
>Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
Yeah and that is why they are boring. There's no real strategy involved, it's all just flowcharting.
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
single player RTS games are fricking easy to play, anyone who's used a computer can point and click
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
this is true but we can go even further and point to the obvious problem-
under the highest level of play, matches are overwhelmingly decided by who has faster macro
the play encouraged by these systems is to turbo sweat as hard as possible until the X minute mark, completely ignoring your opponent, until you are ready to a-move at which point you return to macro
I went from bronze to masters in sc2 without ever paying attention to my opponent by just doing macro. there is an absolutely massive dissonance between playing the game and spectating it
Too complicated and MOBAS became accessible to everyone. Normies flocked into the simpler game and RTS players saw this and moved into this as well because More people=Good. Fast forward a few years and MOBAS makes a shit ton of money now while RTS games got left behind with only a few hardcore players still playing in secret discords and forums, AAA companies are also not interested in making them anymore for the same reason, More People=More Money.
TL;DR: Too complex to exist in today's standards, lost to MOBAS monetization.
PotM can buy antimagic potion to stop 10 seconds of stun. She can still get stopped by raider ensnare, but that's still not the real issue
the real issue is that when you cast starfall the enemy team can just walk away lmao
Starfall deals 33 dps (11.6 to buildings) in 1000 aoe for 45 seconds. Most units have around 270 movespeed, so if they start 500 range from potm they can escape her in about 2 seconds of just walking away. You might deal 100-150 damage total if they just walk away. If a tauren casts shockwave on your army, it deals 200 damage instantly, then 200 damage every 8 seconds after that. T*33 vs 200+T*25. TC isn't stunning himself, he can chase your army and keep spamming shockwaves. Same with carrion swarm, breathe fire, etc.
just spamming lightning shields from ~6+ shamans means you'll blanket their whole ground army to take 20 DPS on most of them. That's not even a hero unit.
starfall is actually a truly underwhelming ultimate. Even kotg's tranquility is far better even without the CD/mana cost disparity that existed for years (changed again recently), because kotg and his army can get the full effect of tranquility by standing BEHIND his army and healing it where they can't disrupt him, whereas potm needs to be in front of the enemy army or they just walk away.
oh and on top of that the real joke is PotM has 2 skills that boost her own right click DPS but she artificially has gimped stats that put her DPS way lower than other heroes, so she's just making up the difference
potm at level 1/5/10 has 15/21/27 dps + her skills
blood mage at level 1/5/10 has 19/30/46 dps
even if you go a 0/3/2 build on a level 5 potm, and you're spending 8 mana per attack, you get 44 dps.
so effectively you've got like +50% over what bloodmage gets for free at that level, and that's your peak
meanwhile the ACTUAL right click menace of the game blademaster has 28/38/49 base dps and then 1.45x from crit and 1.45x from mirror image so at level 10 even without items he's got up to 103+ dps
potm has to spend her skill points to do what a ranged hero should do by default
blood mage is out there spamming flame strikes and sucking your balls dry
nothing has come close to this magic ever since. What the frick happen? You cant blame the players for not being interested in RTS when there simply havent been released as good RTS as this since
I could determine who had he upper hand the instant the rest of the UD army tp'd in
the nelves were stupid trying to initiate an even fight with UD on creep from the start anyway
>why couldn't my army of shit tier-one archers, 2 anti air units and 3 giant rocks that can't attack the air beat an army entirely made up of air units?!
archers deal 200% to air and take 60% from gryphons / 49% from gargs
air isn't the problem, its the mountain king and tinker massacring the archers with aoe
also the NE not focus firing the air units with archers. You need to make sure they aren't wasting shots on heroes, just shift queue attacks on air units or swap between them with right clicks and they just evaporate
RTS peaked quite early. I would also think the prevalence of consoles during the later 00's didn't help, as well as some of the more well-regarded studios making these games eventually got dissolved or went to fresher pastures.
Because no-one tried to capitalise on the popularity of the genre except Relic and they bungled it with CoH2's dlc commanders and DoW3 not shipping with a skirmish node (but by then it was already over anyway).
they didnt evolve into the supcom role as they should have. Very few people care about autistic things like build order. We want to be able to have fun while seeing huge battles and making strategic decisions. Strategy games should have all taken the phantom mod gameplay path like shooters went for the king of the hill path. Real diplomacy, real strategy can only evolve in a phantom mod and open diplomacy games. Instead RTS games all focus on 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 fixed team sessions. It's boring. I don't play strategy games to forget all strategy and only do battle tactics.
Think about it this way: Fortnite has the same kind of "diplomacy" built in, in a sense at least. Because you can choose to let people live for a while because they attack someone else.
Strategy games need to offer actual strategy gaming. Same reason why MMORPGs died: They are not massive, nor multiplayer nor role playing anymore.
dont know why RTS games didnt embrace battle royale style ffa combat more. Spawn in a random part of a map, have to build differently depending on where you are, make alliances, huge fights due to the number of players involved. Most of all it's not 1v1 so shitters dont get scared off, can always blame your losses on rng or other people.
As a spectator FFA games are more interesting to watch than other game modes imo. WC3 has a FFA tournament league thats been around forever, has like 33 seasons or so. Not only would you see players utilize strategies that wouldn't be considered in other modes but players would have to communicate with each other constantly, guessing at each others intentions, resources and form ad hoc alliances that would last until someone would backstab their ally. Occasionally you'd see games were one players base was annihilated early in a game, but would sneak some workers away and slowly rebuild in hiding as the remaining players turned on each other until they were able mount a comeback when the others exhausted themselves. Its more interesting than simple micro/macro gameplay.
Can't Nomad-style maps in AoE II kind of fit this bill? You start with no Town Center while the villagers are scattered and need to build one during a grace period (since DE). In an eight-way multiplayer game without locked teams they essentially become diplomatic affairs.
Ironically, they also added a novelty battle royale game mode with the shrinking land and everything.
Here's my moronic phantom game proposal made up in four seconds. >One of the players has made a pact with an eldritch god >There is the initial stage, where the possessed player(s) are indistinguishable from the rest >Then there is the summoning phase, where the player's units and buildings transform into their eldritch counterparts >The summoning phase means their units and abilities are stronger, but they can no longer hide >Each god has different goals you need to achieve in order to reach the summoning phase
Basically the same idea as Parasite or Zerg Infestation, where you gradually incubate your civilisation into its final form.
I think MOBA's will die soon and make way to something that is easier to play
just like zoomers couldn't into RTS, gen alpha won't bother with learning MOBA meta
The idea that their map editors might make their next competition like Dota lead them to lock them down and prevent the stream of new content that made them thrive. Starcraft2 was the last not smothered.
No idea, but I played CoH utterely to death online (never got around to playing the single player campaign). Did the same with DoW, until the melee patch fricked the game up entirely.
>Sc2 >Become NEET so I can spend more time grinding the ladder >Every match is a stressful experience, get anxiety thinking about queing again >Finally make it to master league >Feel dopamine for 0,5seconds >No sense of accomplishment >Play 3 more games in master league >Realize my mistake >Quit and uninstall
I genuinely do not understand why I even got into it
I don't get why anyone bothers with 1v1 ranked
You can't even do fun stuff in 1v1 or have anyone witness it
In 4v4 you can get into absurd lategame scenarios with mass units and pitched battles
1v1 is always so fast and efficient you only get to see the same tired builds every game
yeh, this is why you need to be an autistic freak in order to get to the top in these games. there's just no way to do it, if you're a normie. you HAVE to be a no-lifer, otherwise you won't stand a chance.
I'd been getting nostalgic about Dawn of War (the first one before they removed buildings and made it shit) and been thinking about trying some mods. Must be at least 10 years since i played last and the mods were all jank as frick, there was this tyranid race pack which functionally was good but the unit models uad about 7 frames of animation between them
Every game played on a controller has a low skill cap and an implicit low skill floor
You can't even play an RTS game on a controller lmao
basic fricking actions in an RTS are things like >selecting and hotkeying and unselecting and specifying units out of a group and issuing them various commands like move, attack, stop, hold position, patrol, build, repair, board, etc >select building positions, making units from them, clicking workers on specific resources, buying items from shops,
that's already multiple clicks, drag selecting areas with a mouse, choosing from so many commands that they have alphabet hotkeys, more commands than a controller has buttons
meanwhile what do you do in a fighting game >a = attack >b = special >y = jump >x = block
In a typical game of WC3 you're probably going to do 30+ different actions with 50+ different units of 10+ different sets of abilities. And you need to switch between what you're selecting and what commands you are issuing rapidly. In a typical fighting game you're going to do 4+ actions with 1 unit with 1 set of abilities
in an rts a beginner has full access to everything his race can do without any practice. you can build your guys, you can move them around and make them attack. maybe there are some micro tricks, but you basically have all of your tools without even having to use hotkeys. getting better at the game is just a matter of doing it faster and more than one thing at the same time. in a fighting game a beginner will not even be able to use some characters correctly without significant practice. a zangief player that can't do 360s is like being protoss and not being able to make dragoons.
that protoss player won't know how to force workers to mine on the axis, pop units over obstacles, trap a probe to group with corsairs, how to block gaps in a wall with zealots or hide them behind minerals or micro back from zerglings to exploit the animation delay, how to kill mines with dragoons without detection or drag them with zealots, or storm drop with shuttles or use them to disjoint projectiles
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
this is true but we can go even further and point to the obvious problem-
under the highest level of play, matches are overwhelmingly decided by who has faster macro
the play encouraged by these systems is to turbo sweat as hard as possible until the X minute mark, completely ignoring your opponent, until you are ready to a-move at which point you return to macro
I went from bronze to masters in sc2 without ever paying attention to my opponent by just doing macro. there is an absolutely massive dissonance between playing the game and spectating it
>I went from bronze to masters in sc2 without ever paying attention to my opponent by just doing macro.
>called "real time strategy games" >RTS games where you actually use strategy and not just quickly imput hotkeys for building your base, find the opponent's base then start spamming units that are "meta" to just send them all towards the enemy's base so you can win in 10 minutes are rare as frick, especially today
RTS are being made in abundance every year, but they all suck ass because the devs are talentless hacks and diversity hires. The development costs for a good RTS game are rather high, and it's very difficult to attract investments. Good devs that love the strategy genre are making wargames these days - the audience for such games is miniscule, but very passionate and grateful. Therefore those who want to play RTS games are stuck with the old ones - AoE2, SC2, Brood War.
I am so fricking tired of morons complaining about micro, hotkeys and build orders as if they somehow detract from the strategy part.
No, learning a build order and hotkeys does not mean you don't have to scout, counter your opponent's build, get good engagement and play macro. This is like someone complaining that you shouldn't need to positioning and game awareness in a shooter because "hurr durr it's called a shooter so all I should be doing is shoot".
If you want a genre where timing and macro doesn't matter go play turn based strategy games because you obviously got filtered by RTS.
>to scout, counter your opponent's build, get good engagement and play macro
I know you just put "play macro" there as a mistake but all the other things are significanly countered by just being slower than your opponent, your grand strategy doesn't mean shit if your opponent have the resource to out number you and the micro skills to target your weak points.
A more sensible comparision to a fps is more like you don't know how to aim when playing a high ttk fps game like Apex, or in fighter games, you will get btfo 10/10 times agaisnt someone who is mechanically better than you, time is a very strong resource and being faster beats everything everytime.
>3:14
so you went 6 pool against an opponent who went hatchery first and won because its just rock paper scissors played blindly.
yeah if opponent greeds out and you go maximum punish, then sure their 330 APM drones can't stop your 123 APM attack-move zerglings
>6 pool
You start with 12 workers since LotV. 12 pool is a thing, but it's a macro build unable to outright kill anyone above silver. The guy went 13-12 speedling flood, which I out-executed.
Now try to analyze pic related. >sure their 330 APM drones can't stop your 123 APM attack-move zerglings
So you admit that being faster doesn't actually beat everything everytime. What's even the point of your post then?
>morons complaining about micro, hotkeys and build orders as if they somehow detract from the strategy part.
It's unironically redditards. They always demand welfare in games - "quality of life", hand holding, free wins. They also have extremely fragile ego and think that losing in a strategy game means they're dumb (and they are). This is where the "RTS is not strategy cuz yada-yada" mental gymnastics come from.
>"strategy" genre is more about twitch muscle movement and reaction speed >There's no real strategy involved >RTS is all about execution, not strategy >strategy for most RTS games is pretty basic
<...>
(me) >They also have extremely fragile ego and think that losing in a strategy game means they're dumb (and they are). This is where the "RTS is not strategy cuz yada-yada" mental gymnastics come from.
It's like pottery, isn't it?
I used to love RTS games. Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Command & Conquer (main series, Red Alert and Generals), Age of Mythology, Dawn of War, Homeworld, Rise of Nations, Company of Heroes, Total Annihilation, Earth 21X0, Myth, Dark Colony, Populous, Kingdom Under Fire, Stronghold, Warlords Battlecry, Empire Earth, Spellforce and probably some more.
The only multiplayer I played was Warcraft 3 and like two games in Starcraft 2.
>morons still think APM is the only defining skill of RTSes
Holy frick, learn just 3 different cheese strats and when to execute them and you can easily get 1400 Elo+ or Platinum or whatever rank equivalent.
>ELOgays >Metagays >asiatic clickers balanced around 300apm >"strategy" genre is more about twitch muscle movement and reaction speed >Every map/game/encounter needs to be perfectly balanced around a 50% winrate, meaning no interesting variables to consider or strategize around >Monolithic titles swallow up the playerbase, difficult to eek out a profit in an already niche genre with more experimental titles >New generation of gamers isn't interested in the streamlined face of the genre anymore and because competitors were squeezed out, nothing else is left
There were hundreds of absolutely amazing, imaginative, genuinely strategic RTS games being made all the time and they flopped or didn't get the airtime they needed to succeed. Even though I grew up loving games like starcraft and age of empires, part of me really resents just how much the genre bent itself around those two titles and refused to experiment. Basically it's what happens when game development caters exclusively to the autistic 0.0001% of top players that have memorized every inch of the game and never drop below 300apm, nobody else wants to play that shit.
Of course people with no fricking idea what they're talking about will say they were replaced by MOBA's but anyone comparing a MOBA to an RTS has the IQ of a fricking gnat.
That wasn't my point at all anon, and I find it hilarious that any attempt to criticize the inherently non strategic casualized streamlined 300apm game design of RTS immediately gets hit with "C-CASUL!!!".
>inherently non strategic
You clearly have no idea what being "strategic" means. >300apm
Only top 3% of all players in any RTS game can play this fast doing meaningful actions. The rest either play slowly or just frick around and get beaten:
>being faster beats everything everytime
Ask me how I know that you've never played an RTS game in multiplayer.
>6 pool
You start with 12 workers since LotV. 12 pool is a thing, but it's a macro build unable to outright kill anyone above silver. The guy went 13-12 speedling flood, which I out-executed.
Now try to analyze pic related. >sure their 330 APM drones can't stop your 123 APM attack-move zerglings
So you admit that being faster doesn't actually beat everything everytime. What's even the point of your post then?
If you are truly interested in RTS games, you need to get rid of your stupid "my opponents are unbeatable korean aliens" mindset and realize that people who actually play these games are normalhomosexuals just like you, and the difficulty of your matches is directly tied to your MMR. It takes a few losses (you can literally just instaquit a few games) to adjust your MMR, and then you won't encounter any of the "300 apm metagay asiaticclickers" until you become good at the game. And if you do like RTS, even bronze matches will be enjoyable to you.
>You clearly have no idea what being "strategic" means.
RTS is all about execution, not strategy
It's famously said that you can win at low-level Starcraft just by managing your economy properly
>low level >meaning people incapable of managing simple shit like worker-production
I don't think this is the got'cha you're looking for.
1 year ago
Anonymous
"Low-level" as in the the lower 99%
1 year ago
Anonymous
"People" being moronic does not mean there isn't strategy involved.
It just means the level of strategic genius boils down to "do I remember making workers this game?".
1 year ago
Anonymous
If the vast majority of people playing your game really just have to pay attention to execution and can get by on a strategy they read off a guide, is it really a strategy game?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah?
The users being moronic does not detract from its potential.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Being unskilled at the game doesn't mean you're moronic
If the game is mostly a test of skill and not strategy it doesn't really deserve the title of a strategy game, and it's not like they become very deep once you do become mechanically competent
1 year ago
Anonymous
In the same way a toddler has to learn to crawl before it can walk, so too can you not critique a game for a lack of strategy when your example involves "people" who can't even play in the first place.
What stupidity made you think this was a good angle to begin with?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I don't know why you think the experience of players below a certain skill level doesn't matter
Strategy is about dealing with unknowns, most games involve the most strategic thinking before the meta is figured out and everyone just plays the few dominant strategies that remain
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I don't know why you think the experience of players below a certain skill level doesn't matter
Because if you can't get to tier 3 units before 20 minutes whatever strategy you might have in mind is utterly worthless.
A certain level of competence is required. Same as any other game.
Buying 2 flashbangs and going short A doesn't matter if you can't throw the flashbang in the correct direction.
It doesn't matter that you're camping the omega health if you can't track with +50% accuracy on lightning gun.
You're moronic.
It's the best explanation I got. Why else would you think this line of reasoning is sound?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A certain level of competence is required
Required for what? Strategy? That's certainly not true, there's games that manage to have strategic depth at every level of play
And this isn't to say RTS games become deep strategy games once you're very good at them, because they don't, they're still mostly about execution
1 year ago
Anonymous
>strategy >at every level of skill
Sure. It's just going to be pathetic displays, that are, as you stated, beaten by simply having good macro.
But you want to take that statement, and extrapolate it into meaning that there is no strategy to begin with.
So are you now arguing my point or what are we doing here?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>beaten by simply having good macro.
No, it depends on the game, that's what I was complaining about. In Starcraft your ability to execute matters far more than any strategy you might think of, which makes it a shitty strategy game
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Starcraft your ability to execute matters far more than any strategy you might think of
That goes for any and all RTS.
Complex games require that you actually learn the basics.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>That goes for any and all RTS.
And that's why they're bad, Starcraft is the worst offender though and pretty much the trendsetter for that
And you're distorting my point from "execution matters far more than strategy" into "you should be able to be good at the game without even knowing the basics"
1 year ago
Anonymous
>RTS is bad because I can't play them competently
Have you considered RTS just isn't for you?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Who said anything about me? I used to play RTS games competitively
1 year ago
Anonymous
Good for you.
Then why are you making these moronic points?
1 year ago
Anonymous
You haven't actually refuted my "moronic points" and you've just fallen back on trying to insult me
You only think in black and white, so you think me complaining about the lack of strategy in RTS games mean I must be a complete casual who doesn't like RTS games and wants to win without putting in any effort
1 year ago
Anonymous
NTA but what games do you play instead then?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nothing has really filled the gap that RTS games left behind. I enjoyed DOTA but that's different, so I don't play anything "instead"
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Nothing has really filled the gap that RTS games left behind.
I don't get it. You don't play RTS games because you don't think they're "strategic". Which implies that you want an actual "strategic" game. There's an abundance of such games: real-time tactics, wargames, TBS, etc. Seems like you never actually wanted to play a strategy game in the first place.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Oh yeah I play all sorts of single-player strategy games but that's different, that's not competitive
1 year ago
Anonymous
>single-player
Beating AI is not strategy, it's just play pretend with toy soldiers. >that's not competitive
There are competitive real-time tactics, wargames and TBS.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I agree with what you said
things like 4x feel a lot more strategic than rts despite their own (arguably worse) problems with snowballing
1 year ago
Anonymous
Your points are moronic.
I've already established this.
Your tried to re-establish your point here
>That goes for any and all RTS.
And that's why they're bad, Starcraft is the worst offender though and pretty much the trendsetter for that
And you're distorting my point from "execution matters far more than strategy" into "you should be able to be good at the game without even knowing the basics"
>execution matters far more than strategy
Which isn't what you've been clamoring about. Rather that strategy is non-existent.
Meanwhile, I'm telling you that, obviously, you need a level of competence in order to execute a strategy, because again, if you're too fricking stupid to even manage the basics, you don't have any business trying to do a 2-rax proxy into raven harass.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Rather that strategy is non-existent.
I never said that. Again, stupid black and white thinking, learn to read
1 year ago
Anonymous
see
>You clearly have no idea what being "strategic" means.
RTS is all about execution, not strategy
It's famously said that you can win at low-level Starcraft just by managing your economy properly
>RTS is all about execution, not strategy
t. (you).
1 year ago
Anonymous
well you can read my ten or so other posts where I've said ten times that it doesn't have enough strategy, not that there's no strategy at all, because obviously there's some, just not enough
1 year ago
Anonymous
And (you) can read all my replies to those posts wherein I explain to (you) that people being bad at the game does not detract from the strategic potential.
It's not the game's fault that you're moronic.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>people being bad at the game does not detract from the strategic potential.
that's true, but Starcraft's mechanical focus applies at every level of play
>single-player
Beating AI is not strategy, it's just play pretend with toy soldiers. >that's not competitive
There are competitive real-time tactics, wargames and TBS.
what's a competitive RTT game? Turn-based games are too slow-paced for me
1 year ago
Anonymous
>what's a competitive RTT game?
Wargame Red Dragon is one of the most prominent ones.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Never played that game by my experience with milsim themed games is they're made for roleplayers and don't play particularly well
1 year ago
Anonymous
it's realistic, not milsim
the sequel (warno) is also pretty good
1 year ago
Anonymous
same shit, they're made for people who jerk off over model numbers of military vehicles
1 year ago
Anonymous
>but Starcraft's mechanical focus applies at every level of play
Obviously.
It's the same game.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm not sure what you think strategy means or why you're so upset that the games require a certain level of execution. Starting with a basic strategy (build more dudes than the other guy) and branching out from there is just how you learn strategy in general.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>why you're so upset that the games require a certain level of execution
I'm not. You can't have a strategy game without any execution requirements. Strategy requires complexity which requires depth in how you execute things.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Many RTS are way more forgiving on poor execution. Warcraft 3 lets you reliably build towers even when the enemy army is in your base, while in starcraft static d builds too slowly and dies too fast.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The frick you talking about lmao
Fricking human moron thinking everyone got the same mechanics. You try that as undead.
1 year ago
Anonymous
games are inherently limited by their rulesets, and therefore their meta will be inherently limited, but people really like to overblow the lack of variety in strategy at the highest level in these types of games
and at the lower level there's even more variety because you can use less effective strategies successfully because your opponent may be less capable of countering it
1 year ago
Anonymous
considering that in real life most military actions are "by the book" and not some avante strategy no one has ever heard of, I'd say yes
>RTS is all about execution, not strategy
Strategy is what you execute. It doesn't matter how good your execution is if your strategy sucks.
Strategy is your plan that you have in mind before even starting a match, with all possible branches and deviations. Your build order is the skeleton of your strategy, the branches and deviations is the flesh. If you have to improvise during a match ("strategize on the fly", as redditards like you love to say), then you never had a good strategy in the first place. If you encounter something new, you spend time after the match analyzing it and figuring out a proper response - even if you managed to win somehow. >managing your economy properly
A part of any strategy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I know what a strategy is, the strategy for most RTS games is pretty basic
>you need to get rid of your stupid "my opponents are unbeatable korean aliens"
The problem isn't losing, it's playing the same 2 matches 50 billion times because everyone just wants to optimize and play meta. You need to understand that the people who play like Koreans don't do it for fun, but to win.
They are called bugmen for a reason.
Most of this post is word vomit, but there was a point hidden in there. Chasing the success of those two games (starcraft, age of empires) did hurt the genre. They're good games, but everyone trying to be the same two good games didn't leave much room for anything else.
Because companies keep focusing on asiaticclick to get that sweet sweet esport instead of improving the genre like supreme commander: forged alliance did.
To this day there is no better RTS available.
I will be very hated for this answer but it's the hard to swallow truth.
RTSes as a genre have completely peaked. Much like how Star Fox 64 killed off the (non-arcade) rail shooter market because it was the apex of what could be done; AOE2 and Starcraft Brood War were the peak of RTSes and staled the entire genre because there was simply nowhere else to go with it.
And I know SC2 was still a great game but it was an objective downgrade from 1 and only did so well because of the artificial amounts of money Blizzard poured into it to bolster its popularity.
You got it all backwards. >only did so well because of the artificial amounts of money Blizzard poured into it to bolster its popularity
That's Brood War. >the peak of RTSes
That's Starcraft 2 and AoE2, which remain the only relevant RTS games..
You got it all backwards. >only did so well because of the artificial amounts of money Blizzard poured into it to bolster its popularity
That's Brood War. >the peak of RTSes
That's Starcraft 2 and AoE2, which remain the only relevant RTS games..
[...]
[...]
The real issue is spergs like you guys go on places like this, crap on about skill floors and act like only the elite can play these games and go "frick that why would I want anything to do with this bullshit". Same with AFPS and Shoot-em-Ups, you keep scaring off new players.
SC and AoE is not a peak of anything.
It just has a very firm consumer base that won't venture to any other RTS for long or at all.
Back then you would get new blood because internet culture wasn't so homogenized.
Now a potential RTS player will play Fortnight or Amogus because this is what is popular.
Reminding anons about DORF >https://store.steampowered.com/app/2388620/DORF_RealTime_Strategic_Conflict/
Also apparently the recent Dune one is genuinely good, the devs rebalanced a lot of it and continually add new units and features and modes.
i like to play old RTS against AI with my buddy since there's a lot of mod maps. i dont like playing on the same maps over and over again. i wish more RTS games had a lot of unique maps.
games like starcraft it doesn't even matter because there so little difference between maps
warcraft III has way more map variety due to neutral buildings + creeps/items + destructible trees
starcraft maps have to use clumsy gimmicks like 10 mineral patches or geysers blocking paths just to have any distinctiveness, and then starcraft II formalized that with the moronic piles of rocks blocking paths/expos
because the genre is dated and stuck on shit stuck in the 90s. i think it took like three fricking decades for Relic to bother adding key rebinds in the options menu, let alone have them reflected on your UI after you rebind them. the cameras in the modern ones basically all suck, the FOV is extremely low and zoom level seems to be more focused on hugging on some unit's ass. the 2d ones, that had adjustable resolutions, had better FOVs for some reason.
other issues:
the genre seems hellbent on reducing the fronts you can fight on in exchange for more tactical combat. basically, not a single modern one really utilizes air, sea, and land combat like CnC.
the SP in all of them is basically dogshit. its either zero challenge like Relic's and Blizzard's games or basically a puzzle like CnC.
the combat is mostly shit outside of micromanaging blobs. games like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation had it where elevation and projectiles were physical objects that mattered.
Supreme Commander is the only modern one that actually tried pushing the genre forward. even though aspects of it, the scalable zoom and large unit count, are some of the most popular mods in modern ones. Devs seem fricking hellbent on being morons instead. which seems to be the case with Relic, the last major one.
>why is something not popular >because everyone agrees it's boring >there's no way something would be unpopular because everyone agrees it's boring, right?
What is it like, having no brain?
Good RTS are fairly popular. AoE2 is a top 50 game on Steam - and Steam is not the only platform where you can get the game. https://steamcharts.com/app/813780
Have you considered that you find RTS boring because the genre is not for you? Crazy I know...
Having to put in the time to learn a new genre and all its complexities before it's fun. I think it'd be fun to play/learn RTS, but having to get my ass stomped for hours after I'm done working and having to put more work into it to get better, when I could just instead hop into some shitty FPS and click heads and have fun.
the honest to god reason that very few people seem to want to accept is that most people just got tired of rts
it's not the fault of esports, it's not the fault of "asiaticclick", it's not even the fault of shitty moronic developers that can't make a good game to save their lives
people just got tired of rts and the inflow of new blood largely dried up, relegating the genre to a relatively small niche
anyone who says there is or was some silver bullet that could've kept the genre as popular as it ever was lacks a brain
times change and tastes change, but rts is still alive so what does it matter if it isn't as popular anymore
>People got tired of genre >Meanwhile people still play the same copy-paste FPS games almost 20 years later.
Nope, the genre failed to keep moving on with design, stagnated, devolved into asiaticclock and died.
Im sorry your brain is so fricked to the point where you cannot comprehend what others are trying to say, but i can't be bothered to explain it to you.
Two games I enjoyed was Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and Company of Heroes(1) one is a RTS the other is a RTT both are good and can I suggest Dawn of War if you want to hear some great voice acting.
You could play them on local area network and mess with the map editor to make your own games, there weren't as many cheaters as there are today, to the Chinese, if they can't cheat they won't play your game because it's unfair to them and that mindset has been spreading to other multiplayer games and other people.
Why practice to become good at something when you can simply cheat?
RTS genre didn't die, AoE 2, Starcraft 1 and 2, Warcraft 3, CoH etc are all evidence that there still is an active playerbase.
The only thing that changed was the RTS genre didn't see the same amount of growth over the years as shooters, RPGs and MMOs did. RTS market share may be small, but a good RTS will absolutely still sell.
What happened is youre a casual babb who cant name a single RTS despite the genre being perfectly alive, because you only ever knew 5 games in the genre in the first place.
Why hasn't the genre adapted to the audience and simply created coop RTS? People are tired of getting stomped by sweat lords and dropped it completely.
You mean 2v2/3v3/4v4 matchmaking, or playing together against AI? SC2 has both of those, and the latter is probably the single most popular RTS game mode being played today by a wide margin.
There were multiple tower defense games on the warcraft 3 custom maps, some people played those all day every day.
There were "MMOs" within the custom games on wc3 and several other styles of games, most people didn't played competitive play games.
People cheated on lanhouses way back when the game was new, I'm not touching something people can maphack with the current generation of videogame players.
You understand Age of Empires II "Definite Edition" is a remastered version of a game from 1999, don't you?
People played the regular one on lanhouses back then.
>mobas
What? RTS games were far from the most popular genre long before MOBAS became popular. League became mainstream in ~2011. The only AAA RTS release around that time was what - Starcraft 2?
People suck at MOBAs, too, every single match has cheaters on the major ones.
The moderation of those games does nothing because they're busy policing speech, it's the same for every multiplayer game.
You can cheat to rank 1 but you can't call someone a "homosexual".
People used too much meta. RTS was fun, when people just treated it like a game. I think that is the problem with many old genre games, like fighting games have that problem too.
People treated every match like competition. Instead of just having fun. With RTS games I remember people started memorizing every single hotkey for buildings, memorized at what exact minute they had to built this specific building, memorize how quick each and every unit is, memorize ALL the counters in the game etc.
Remember back in the day how we just mocked about or just experimented a lot. Nowadays you have to memorize each and all strategies for every race and just follow that strategy. Until you meet the enemy. If your strategy counters his, you're good. If your strategy gets countered, you immediately switch to one of 3 or 4 different established meta strategies that counter your enemies strategy.
Its just no fun allowed.
No, its just about the medium not being relaxing entertainment this way. I don't feel like memorizing all that crap, for one video game. I don't plan to be competitive and join competitions or similar. I also memorize some basic things. But I don't feel like looking at the clock back and forth if I'm behind schedule or not for that one building I have to build.
Why do you act like you're even remotely good enough to play with people like that? You'll be matched based off your casual tier elo/mmr in what respective rts you play and play against other shitters with the same mentality.
No you don't. Optimally the system matches you with somebody that has a similar elo/mmr but for that there are too few players.
Meaning some high elo/mmr player will get matched with you. Even if you have a low elo/mmr.
You don't need to learn shit to frick around in bronze, building towers and dudes at your own pace and sending the dudes at your equally clueless and slow opponent. Stop pretending that Korean pros you see on youtube is the norm.
>Optimally the system matches you with somebody that has a similar elo/mmr but for that there are too few players.
AoE2 playerbase is 90% under the 1300 elo mark and all the pros are over 2.6k. You will be matched with someone within your elo range in under 3m depending on your timezone for lower elo. I'm sorry your game is dead.
Why do you act like you're even remotely good enough to play with people like that? You'll be matched based off your casual tier elo/mmr in what respective rts you play and play against other shitters with the same mentality.
hard to top established games, whenever a new rts game comes out people just compare them to sc2,wc2 aoe2 cnc etc and they die, which is probably good, compared to another niche genre of games which is fighting games in which no matter what, or how shit games are, a newer generation of fighters would always be more played than older generation of fighters which is not the case in rts, rts players stick to their games for much longer, and competitive gays also get their treat from tourneys too, wc3 still have ton of tourneys, hell no one even mentions wc3 dota 1, but there are ton of dota 1 platforms all of them have more players than an average fighting game,
>muh asiaticclick >muh ladder anxiety
you are part of the problem and the reason RTS is fricking dead
the instant gratification culture of 2010s and forward killed any sort of brainpower-focused games, nowadays its either full casual braindead or twitchfest for zoomers on ADHD meds.
>brain-focused games
There is work and then there is playing a video game. I don't feel like coming home from work, to work more and analyze the last 10 matches I played. Then try and memorize all the hotkeys like learning a new language.
I had fun playing them when people didn't have that extremely autistic way of playing. I occasionally still play the campaigns, which are very nice in some RTS games. But Multiplayer? With these people? Frick no.
You don't need to learn shit to frick around in bronze, building towers and dudes at your own pace and sending the dudes at your equally clueless and slow opponent. Stop pretending that Korean pros you see on youtube is the norm.
But it is the norm. That is why people left RTS because people like you treat it more like work.
>Optimally the system matches you with somebody that has a similar elo/mmr but for that there are too few players.
AoE2 playerbase is 90% under the 1300 elo mark and all the pros are over 2.6k. You will be matched with someone within your elo range in under 3m depending on your timezone for lower elo. I'm sorry your game is dead.
No you won't be. I remember playing AoE 2 and sometimes you would get those insane matches with pro players. That is basically unwinnable from the start. Then there are also smurfs that are a massive issue.
Those insane matches happen once in a blue moon, but they're hardly unwinnable in team games. Trust me I've played against enough to know. >Smurfs
The only time I've ever seen actual smurfs is when people complaining about it are in the sub 900 elo category and post a recording where it's pretty obvious.
Haven't played rts in years, but the reason I never got into them was that the decisions I made while playing felt inconsequential on a moment to moment basis.
Many people mentioned moba overtaking them and I think they deliver on that way better:
Making a good play in a moba feels really good and it gives you immediate feedback for the most part. Doing the same in an rts doesn't have the same impact.
(also frick the autistic unit micromanaging in many rts games)
ASShomosexualS are a bigger audience and thus more profitable. Companies also mistook micro heavy koreans as the core audience of RTS so the few attempts that were made were aimed at them and subsequently flopped.
hey Ganker - come play BAR
plenty of lobbies with 8v8 clownfests where its just good fun
and yes, I am shamelessly shilling for it, I am in love with the game
Those insane matches happen once in a blue moon, but they're hardly unwinnable in team games. Trust me I've played against enough to know. >Smurfs
The only time I've ever seen actual smurfs is when people complaining about it are in the sub 900 elo category and post a recording where it's pretty obvious.
>Those insane matches happen once in a blue moon
Depends how lucky you're. I sometimes were continuously matched with pros. It went so bad that I started intentionally losing my games like 10 times in a row, so I can get easier opponents.
hey Ganker - come play BAR
plenty of lobbies with 8v8 clownfests where its just good fun
and yes, I am shamelessly shilling for it, I am in love with the game
I've never been much into SupCom style of gameplay, what could I do to get used to it? BAR looks fun but I don't want to ruin matches trying to learn it.
They didn't die. There are more people playing games and more genres to choose these days, so in relative terms the playerbase looks smaller, but people still play them in plentiful numbers.
You also have more specialised genres now. More RTT games for people who just wanted to micro an attacking force. Citybuilders for people who liked building up cool stuff. MOBA for people that want to micro a single unit, etc etc. In the past, you only really had RTS as a choice. There are more specialised choices now, so the playerbase looks more spread.
Also, I think people getting upset about build orders are off base. Deciding on and adapting your build order is literally strategy. A lot of the complaints I see sound like you're more interested in the tactics portion; the micromanagement of your army and so on. There are games that focus on that instead of your war economy.
RTS games simply require too much effort for the enjoyment compared to MOBAs and other genres. With a MOBA, all you need to do at most is to learn how to use said character decently which is simply learning when to use said skill hotbars correctly at worst, and considering how MOBAs are multiplayer, you can be pretty garbage at it and still do well cause of others.
In something like an RTS, there is alot more stuff to be focused on and its typically done in 1v1 settings so unless one is willing to put in the time to invest in getting good (which most people don't) then why bother if you'll just get auto-stomped by someone who does know what they're doing. RTS was just never a casual/noob-friendly genre and thats why it died out.
MOBA games simply require too much effort for the enjoyment compared to RTS and other genres. With an RTS, all you need to do at most is to learn how to build dudes which is simply learning how to spend resources at worst, and considering how RTSs are multiplayer, you can be pretty garbage at it and still do well cause of others.
In something like a MOBA, there is alot more stuff to be focused on and its typically done in 5v5 settings so unless one is willing to put in the time to invest in getting good (which most people don't) then why bother if you'll just get auto-stomped by someone who does know what they're doing, and then your team rages on you. MOBA was just never a casual/noob-friendly genre and thats why it died out.
>How newbie friendly is AoE2 if I've never touched an RTS ever?
It's one of the most popular RTS games, the other one is Starcraft 2. Both are very noob friendly because of abundance of learning material, and since playerbases are big, there are lots of noobs and casuals to play against. >Is there a lot of singleplayer stuff to do in it too?
Yes, over 100 hours of campaigns.
Based, might check it out then. Lot of singleplayer stuff interests me so I could learn.
If moronic kid me could handle it I'm sure you can too.
>How newbie friendly is AoE2 if I've never touched an RTS ever?
It's one of the most popular RTS games, the other one is Starcraft 2. Both are very noob friendly because of abundance of learning material, and since playerbases are big, there are lots of noobs and casuals to play against. >Is there a lot of singleplayer stuff to do in it too?
Yes, over 100 hours of campaigns.
There's a solid amount of singleplayer content and to beat the hardest AI on some maps requires you to be good enough to break 1k elo in multiplayer, at least skillwise.
Biggest reason for the decline of RTS: game development costs drastically increased and PC-only genres that require a lot of content suffered a decline in general because making a big budget PC-only title became a much more risky investment. That doesn't say the genre can't work anymore even just on PC, but big studios became discouraged from trying it.
the other main reason for the decline is that the genre never had much stability. Too many series had too many drastically different sequels. Devs are still not sure about the appeal of the genre and many assume that you can just do things like throw out a major feature (like base building) in a sequel. Disappointing sequels were very common in the genre and this alienated a lot of people.
>mobas killed rts
Mobas are action games with very light rpg elements with mainly just the camera being similar to RTS. They never competed with the appeal of RTS games.
>game development costs drastically increased
This is the biggest fricking lie. Marketing costs increased. Game dev costs have only gone down. All the money all goes to shit other than the game itself.
>Marketing costs increased. Game dev costs have only gone down
that's objectively fasle and the reason you think it's true is likely your biased coping headcanon
it shouldn't take too much research to find out how many more devs and development time modern games require compared to old ones, but even if you don't want to look into any of that it shouldn't take you a lot of time to realize that a game with let's say SC2's graphical fidelity and launch featuers requires a lot more details to develop than let's say a game with AoM's fidelity and launch features
It's objectively correct. It takes a simple glance to see the majority of budget goes first to marketing(upwards of 70% in some cases), then to VA work. And then finally to the cost of actually making a game with whatever pittance is left.
don't know where the frick did you pull those numbers up or why do you think VA work of all things gets a bigger budget than game development in general. There is no static number for how much games spend on marketing, a game like Fifa can spend more time on marketing than on actual development, but the average game spends it's budget on 4:1-2 ratio of development:marketing cost, meaning they spend 2 to 4 times more on development.
new games objectively take multiple times more time to develop and teams require multiple times more developers, with games objectively requiring much more details that actually need to be developed (even to give the same playtime)
but even regardless of all these things, please try to comprehend that even an increased marketing budget doesn't mean that game development budget somehow can't drastically increase
>but the average game spends it's budget on 4:1-2 ratio of development:marketing cost, meaning they spend 2 to 4 times more on development.
You are on crack. No big ticket games spends anywhere close to amount they use to market on development. They haven't since around FF7. It's been that way longer than you have been alive.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>No big ticket games spends anywhere close to amount they use to market on development.
For Cyberscum 2077, CD Projekt spent 170 mil on development and 142 mil on marketing.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>trying to use a game with notoriously big marketing as the "average"
not even FF7 went over 50% when it comes to development/marketing budget and not even a single other FF game came anywhere close to that ratio
the shit you are saying is neither the average (even for big games) nor would it contradict what I said about increased development costs even if it wasn't bullshit
>Mobas are action games
So is "real-time strategy", despite the name. You just control more than one unit. Strategy games require you to use your brain, and the Stalker mirror micro trade is the exact opposite of that.
i tried playing SC2 online after watching some matches, a quick guide and doing the campaign when it became free, people would just frick my miners on the first 5 minutes every match then i dropped.
Balanced so heavily around competitive play that they forgot to make it accessible and fun for everyone else.
Playing StarCraft 2 online and losing 15 times in a row to different kinds of cheese tactics until you know how to specifically look out for those, is shit. The thought process in design is "if there is a counter for this tactic, that's good enough" when it should be "this tactics is easy to pull off, it should be just as easy to defend against".
This entire thread reads like people who thought because they beat a few campaigns on the hardest difficulty they would do well in multiplayer only to get shit stomped by players doing the same strat every time and they were too stupid to figure it out.
Regarding Warcraft 3 are there any groups from here that play it i only know mine and well only me and some guy play it sometimes while others arent that active
Because they're impossible to market to normalgays. Its even more niche genre than something like fighting games, at least they had a start in arcades which were social gatherings and a place to have fun, but RTS games are kind of genre where its either stomping or getting stomped. and RTS games generally just gave up on even attempting to have strong SP content so MP is all you have
>ITT : Master Strategists™ who never played a single ladder game explains why there is no Strategy™ on the RealTimeStrategy games.
The usual, never ending cope.
yea but i seen that there are also some coop campaigns
[...]
Are there really no groups that play the game ?
you can go onto battle.net and find a 4v4 game in under a minute
you can go onto w3c and find games in 1v1 or 4v4 in a reasonable time
its still active
https://www.w3champions.com/OverallStatistics
about 1500 4v4 games per day on w3c, about 5000 1v1 games, around 2500 active players. Battle.net might be more or less, I don't know
Because 90% of the time, it's just an excuse. People that have a legitimate interest in strategy games but do not like the macro part would just gravitate towards something like company of heroes, men of war, wargame, shogun 2, maybe supreme commander.
>Anyone keeping an eye on Tempest Rising?
If Genshin was BotW but with "just different enough not to get sued" designs and Unreal engine, no one would play it either.
Same thing with Tribes Ascend (for all of its endless list of faults) compared to Midair's Tribes 1 but in UE4! Or nuDoom vs Unreal Tournament 4, which was just a scaled down UT1... but in UE4!
devs are all zoomers who have no clue how a real rts should actually play like. all the people who originally made rts's are all old farts now who don't have it in them to make a new kick-ass rts. just look at how rts's evolved, look at supreme commander, for example. every time those dumb-ass fricking zoomers make an rts now, they always frick up the zoom levels. the max zoom out is still so low that you can see an ants' butthole in pixel perfect clarity. they don't understand that rts games were starting to move away from those shit zoom levels at the end of the golden era of rts's.
Like people here have said, rts didn't really die, it evolved into mobas. The problem is that's pretty much the only thing rts games evolved into. If you look at the shit being made today it's:
Remakes of TA.
Remakes of COH.
Remakes of Red Alert.
Remakes of Generals.
Remakes of Warcraft.
Remakes, spiritual successors, homages, basically a constant stream of developers thinking we need to go back to the roots of rts when we've barely fricking left them. Rts games are complicated and granular, and, on a nuts and bolts level, most would be flat-out better experiences as mobas. The only mechanical difference between a lot of rts games and mobas is that in a moba you're managing the abilities of one (1) unit, and in an rts you're managing the abilities of multiple units. Unless it's a TA-like, then you're so zoomed out you're watching icons appear and disappear on a map.
Personally, I liked rts games when I was young because I thought big battles were cool, but now I don't really play them because every rts game is either a TA-like builder where you work through flowcharts and watch icons, or a pseudo-moba where you manage each individual unit's heartrate. They're not about big cool battles, or even really strategy, in a way, they're about how well you can manage a hundred shitty little things. Big pro strategy in rts games is basic shit like 'sneak around' or 'flank', the real skill comes from shit like stutter-stepping units, or timing grenade throws, or timing build orders.
Rts games are just kind of stuck in a rut, I think.
Shit got boring
It ends quick if you’re a container full of dead choldren
Mobas
Metamorphosed into MOBAs which fulfilled what people wanted from them
teammates so they have other people to blame for their own failures
no economy/macro so you can focus on EPIC MICRO
MOBA have literally nothing in common with rts other than that the first one was a mod made in an RTS game which had RPG elements.
try Skylords Reborn. The devs made sure to prevent asiaticclick mechanics. Sadly the pvp is dead outside from tournaments, but you can compete even without touching keyboard.
Too much focus on Korean APM flowchart spam instead of the campaigns.
Starcraft was the worst thing that ever happened to RTS despite being one of the best games ever made.
Starcraft 1 and 2 have fantastic campaigns though. Replaying them currently. 10/10 campaigns. Middle of heart of the swarm right now - only real complaint is that Kerrigan made the zero one too easy, even on brutal difficulty.
I think that's his point. Fantastic campaign, but it's legacy are hyperautistic human machines
>Starcraft 1 and 2 have fantastic campaigns though.
I hope in case of 2 you mean fantastic mechanics-wise because after WoL it's absolute garbage story-wise. Abathur, Stukov and Alarak were not enough to salvage those.
yeah, i will never get that criticism. starcraft 2 were three fantastic rts games in one giant awesome package. how the rts fans could get themselves to b***h about that, i'll never know. i am firmly in the camp, where i want more awesome rts campaigns, not less. those fricking morons who don't even play the campaign and just rush straight to the mp portion of the game, can suck my fat fricking taint, the way i see it.
not anime enough
new generation of gamers that are known as impaired to play these games
they are even bad at mobas
You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre. As you might expect such niche games don't generate a lot of money compared to safer options. And so early 2000s-style RTS have evaporated, dumbed down to be MOBAs and shit instead.
/thread
There is something called complexity wall and video games that have that can be prohibitively complex. People are not dumb, they can instantly see if a game is too much for them to handle and that can harm profits so if you're a big publisher that wants big returns for your clients because those ferraris and yachts won't buy themselves, you have to dumb down the video game to slop level.
Complex games are great if you're into them though, see 4x and mmos like eve online. Their level of complexity does a great deal of the heavy lifting of gatekeeping that has to be done in order for a hobby or game genre to continue existing instead of being watered down into a shit paste of meh.
>i get my ass beat by 16 year olds, better call them bugs, the post
These
Plus the programming that is necessary for a good RTS is too much for today's lazy devs. You have to try and code in good pathing, resource management, target prioritizing, artificial stupidity for lower difficulty, unit balance, unit counters, tech research, etc etc, all for a miniscule audience. It's far easier for AAA studios just to release another Open World Survival Crafting RPG Lite game or indie devs to drop another 2d side rolling metroidvania platformer.
because the best was made so anything new had to compete against them
people no longer got games while knowing nothing about them so not much new blood
and rts are fricking hard competitively and generally 1v1 so people didn't like getting trashed in relatively long games while having nobody to blame but themselves
also a bunch of moronic, incompetent devs that didn't know nor care why people liked the good rts games
Two factors:
1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
This dissuaded new players and eventually RTS dried up. The fact is, most people are bad at video games. In MOBAs you can get away with having a literal 20 APM and not knowing how half the mechanics work and get carried by your 4 allies.
Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
>You need to be good at video games to be good at RTS more so than any other genre.
lol nah u just need to take aderall and memorize strategies to muscle memory, that's why korean bugs excel at sc
basically rtses degenerated into something that is palatable to bugmen
that is only palatable*
Kind of like what Yugioh turned into. Chaining together cards and decks that win you the game in-between 1-4 turns with 4x the same cards. Everyone just builds the same decks
>Muh apm
>Muh build order
Is cope of the highest level, I got to the top 0.5% of the ladder with slow apm and not learning a single build order
The game just require game knowledge, just play and learn from your mistakes, but even that is too hard for most people
This, most FAF pros aren't ADHD-riddled bugmen, they just have good game knowledge and can react to strategically disadvantageous situations quickly.
No, the average player just needs high apm. Sure you can climb purely with build order memorization and strategy but being fast allows more mistakes.
>Memorize 6 pool and get insane micro
>Enemy builds a turret/bunker
>Lose
Wow it's almost like you have to scout and adjust your build order and play macro. You're the same kind of moron that complains that fighting games are just memorizing the instant kill combo.
>aderall
Zoomer drug.
Shut the frick up Black person, amphetamine and derivatives have been staple speedhead thing for over ~80 years.
>No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
Pretty much this, I enjoy my 2 hour games in AoE2 where me and my opponent both kinda suck. But the moment I fight a half decent opponent he just rolls my base before I can every wall up. (And even if I manage to wall he will still frick my shit)
Problem is the chances of running into a similar skilled player is WAY too low, and most of my games end up with me getting rushed by some 600APM sweatlord.
I think fighting games and fps both have a higher skill floor than rts. you can be an absolute drooling moron and still manage to build some guys and move them to your opponent's base. being wood league in rts is way more fun than in a fighting game.
that's not really true at all
Smash Bros is the archetypal example
Fighting games actually have a MUCH MUCH lower skill floor than RTS. You're only controlling one entity, you've only got limited mobility and inputs. Most of the combat mechanics come down to split second timing on basic inputs, and just a few esoteric mechanics like wavedashing are rewarded above that. Low skill floor, medium skill cap. Meanwhile in an RTS game, you have to independently control dozens of entities, controlling workers, buildings, units, heroes. Even if you take only the skill floor of the minimum necessary inputs to just play the game at a basic level, you've got to learn what different units do, what buildings you need to make, how to independently switch between and control those workers/buildings/units/heroes. That's a far higher skill floor than button mashing in smash bros. Then when it comes to skill cap, you've got the ability to micromanage each unit independently and heavy rewards for dancing units in combat, while microing and macroing at the same time and flickering around your map to view and interpret new information revealed, and payoffs for complicated build order trickery like human stop-cancel power building- which quickly reaches a point where its simply impossible for humans to control everything optimally at the same time, leaving the upper limit of skill cap at player APM.
If you put a drooling toddler in front of a nintendo and hand them smash bros, they can beat the single player campaign no problem. Just push buttons and attack. If you put that same kid in front of the WC3 campaign and told them to go purge stratholm, they wouldn't have a fricking clue how to build farms to create food and harvest lumber and gold and build barracks and blacksmith and upgrade to tier 2 and research upgrades and so on.
smash bros is a party game. fighting games have high skill floors because if you are a scrub you want to hold forward and mash but that's pretty much the worst thing you can do. you land a hit and think "I got him now" and push more buttons, but it doesn't combo because you don't know the frame data so your opponent who is just mashing dp counter hits you and you have no idea what happened. or your opponent is just sitting in the corner spamming fireball and you have no idea how to get in so you just get lamed to death. basically you actually have to actually learn the game to be offensive, while defense is very easy, but you can win just by defending which frustrates the other player.
in a rts bad players just turtle and have no idea how to actually kill each other so they end up with "epic" games where they max out on one base and one of them manages to finally win.
that's not what skill floor means
a good player is always going to beat a bad player in every game that has any difference in skill floor vs skill cap. If they didn't, then that gap wouldn't exist. A smash pro will beat a smash noob just like an RTS pro will beat an RTS noob. The only games where that aren't true are what, Candyland? Pure luck card games?
The high skill floor of an RTS is that you need to learn how to perform dozens of different mechanical actions to even function, the bare minimum required to know how to beat a normal difficulty campaign let alone matchup against other players. That means learning how to harvest multiple types of resources, make workers, make buildings, what the tech trees are, how to upgrade, how to select and hotkey units and issue orders, etc etc. You cannot simply hold forward and mash attacks in an RTS, there is no means by which you can try to bullshit your way through the game without knowing how it works.
In a fighting game you actually CAN play without having a clue what you're doing, and smash bros is proof of that. The only inputs you need to learn are "how to move left/right", "press jump, press attack". Everything else is just gravy on top of that, the skill cap as you learn to block, dodge, grab, use specials, etc. You can beat the smash bros single player campaign by just picking little mac and running up to everything and spamming punches lmao
Similarly the skill cap on an RTS is far higher than a fighting game because it becomes limited by human APM, you could go up to 1000+ apm and still not be playing optimally. In fighting games its not even possible to go above the 100-200 APM range, because your inputs are buffered and delayed by animations, at some point its simply impossible to exceed
I didn't even think about input buffering but that's a great point. RTSes being completely uncapped means their ceiling is at least tenfold a Fighting Game
Who's talking about fighting games? He said Smash.
>Moving the goalposts because you know you already lost the argument
lol @ FGCshitters
you're missing the point. building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice. you just have to click on the icons. even if you only have 20 apm, you are still doing it, just in slow motion. in a fighting game you need a certain level of skill just to use your character's attacks. if you lose a fight because you only have 5 dudes and your opponent has 20, it's obvious what went wrong, if not how he got that many.
in a fighting game if you don't input your commands correctly your moves literally won't work. you will hit one attack but then you have the wrong link timing so the second attack doesn't come out and you're just confused because you were hitting your opponent but then suddenly he could counter hit you. or you try to walk forward and throw a fireball but it comes out as a dp instead. there is significantly more skill required to learn the controls before you can even worry about learning the game.
you can get out of bronze or whatever without doing any of that
You can't get out of bronze without learning how to make units, buildings, research, harvest resources, select units, issue commands, etc. Even an action as basic as "walk up to a shop, select it, buy a new scroll of town portal" in warcraft III required more inputs than a combo in a fighting game. You have to move your camera, drag select the shop with mouse, click the hotkey
I've seen fighting game players try to play an RTS and fail so hard its disgusting. They cannot even get to the point of training a hero in WC3. Putting 5 peasants on a gold mine? Making an altar? Training more peasants? Harvesting lumber? Making a farm for food? You have to select each individually, issue commands from a tree of actions. Noobs can't even figure out how to play the game in the first place, let alone get good at it.
Its not exaggeration that a literal toddler pressing random buttons on a controller can play a fighting game and beat it on easy mode. As long as they happen to press the attack button once in a while, they can win. You cannot even start a game in an RTS without knowing how to do 20 different actions
>You have to move your camera, drag select the shop with mouse, click the hotkey
my god. the white man has indeed fallen. sad.
>building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice.
And you think pressing and mashing goddamn buttons in a fightan game does?
>bu-but le you can't le win against human opponent
>*wins by literally mashing buttons in literally every fightan game*
Here's the thing. 7 year old me already beat fricking Krizalid on a normal day. 7 year old me couldn't even get past the 4th fricking campaign in Warcraft 3 on fricking easy until I was a teenager and even then barely. It's true that in order to have a competitive edge in fightan game, you need to time your move and execute your special correctly but that is still significantly easier to do than juggling the shit out of your unit and workers.
*4th fricking human campaign level
>building units and making them attack doesn't require any special practice
In broodwar it does. Have you ever tried attack moving with a group of dragoons or some medic/marines? You can't even A-Move in that game or they units will run all over the place like morons and file in one by one, some might even go to a completely different location just because the pathing is so archaic.
>Go to some house party with gf
>Mouth breathers playing smash Bros on switch
>Gf never even plays Vidya but give her a controller anyway
>She doesn't do amazing but is still able to play and have an ok time
>Even gets a few KOs in
>Try to show someone SC2 for the first time
>3 minutes in they still haven't built a military unit because they don't know what the frick they are doing, why can't I build this? Oh I need a green thing? What's the green stuff? I need to make more houses again? I'm being attacked by a giant army what the heck?
In RTS games you are expected to know what to do, ans to do it fast.
Like other anons have said in fighting games you can pick up the controller and as long as you know the move and attack button you can play the game. Yes there's a billion combos and nuances but that's the skill ceiling not the floor.
In an rts you could argue they just need to click attack but if you sat someone down with 0 instructions in Smash bros they could press a few buttons and in seconds know how to move/attack whereas doing the same in SC2 there's a decent chance they won't even find the fricking building option, let alone figure out supply/vespene
>Inb4 accused of larping because i mentioned gf
What you're saying is true, but fighting games these days are also niche as frick. A better example would be a shooter.
I'm replying to a guy specifically talking about fighting game lol.
I mean fps games have an even lower skill floor than fighting games
depends on which shooter
plenty of fighting games where you can literally just press random buttons and get wins against easy opponents, button mashing is an actual thing. Smash they can run off a platform and suicide, but other games have no bounds and automatically face opponents so just hitting the attack key once in a while will get them
shooters you actually have to learn to move around the map, maybe jump, then learn to aim your gun and click it. Its a low skill floor too, but not as low as a fighting game. Pressing random buttons won't do anything but waste ammo, and the whole concept of ammo that FPS games almost always have and fighting games don't, puts another resource management into play. Then maybe you have friendly fire in team games, or moving walls in battle royales, or so on.
Pretty sure the only category of games with a skill floor lower than fighting games is games that play themselves, like card games, candyland, etc
>be a party
>girl tries to pick up halo and play
>winds up falling into ravine and dying multiple times
>...
>we play smash instead
>items are enabled and on high
>she gets a few kos throughout the game by just spamming projectiles and grabbing OP items like pokeballs once in a while
I think a game of starcraft would have lasted all of 20 seconds
You know that you can play RTS games against the computer right?
Yes? Does that make the game suddenly able to be understood within seconds?
computers adjust to your skill level. RTS campaigns on easy are dogshit easy, one of the easiest games to play infact
>it's not intuitive!
Which is exactly why every single campaign is a glorified tutorial. Slowly adding complexity each mission.
It's a high barrier of entry, sure, but if you've played 1 RTS you'll be able to play all RTS.
Things not being intuitive and having a high barrier to entry is basically the definition of a skill floor.
That's literally every RPG system ever. It's fun to slowly level up and unlock more stuff, it's the easiest way to slowdrop dopamine to any player just for playing the game. Every genre follows that rule.
>RTS
>RPG
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
His terminology was kinda jank but his point is correct.
Whether it's some arbitrary player level or number of missions completed, it's simply a way to reward players based on their play time. Every game tries to be a skinner box to some extent.
trying to play Warcraft 3 on a LAN party with a bunch of normies over a decade ago made realize that I fricking hate people. The comments I got from these buttholes of me just trying to explain the absolute very basics just so we can have a fun 4 vs 4 were so insulting that I still seethe today when I just think about it. It was also the last LAN party I've seen since then. The only good thing I can say is that at least they enjoyed UT2004.
>fighting game
>smash
>anything other than gf
you need to go back
The real issue is spergs like you guys go on places like this, crap on about skill floors and act like only the elite can play these games and go "frick that why would I want anything to do with this bullshit". Same with AFPS and Shoot-em-Ups, you keep scaring off new players.
Sperglords don't scare off new players. New players don't hang out where the sperglords do and hear stuff like this. Everyone in this thread already knows how to play RTS games.
New players might try one or two, or just see it in action, and realize how complicated it is compared to their fighting game slop
Its just a fact that RTS is inherently complicated and high skill floor and that's what scares off players and dried up the genre. No amount of autistic screeching could change that for better or worse, it just is
FPS games and Fighting Games have comparable skill ceilings but much much lower floors. Look how many more normies play CoD and Smash than even Starcraft at its cultural zenith
FGCgays are barely one order of magnitude above TCGgays in terms of skill required to function. I know you're both full of shit because my friend group had an AOE2 stint when DE came out. One of my buddies was a top Paul player in Tekken 7 and he could barely even function and dropped the game a week later out of frustration.
Meanwhile another friend of mine was top 100 GM in SC2 for a few years, picked up GGXRD, and became one of the top Kums within 4 months.
>a top Paul player in Tekken 7
>kekken
>fg
lol
lmao even
You become a top kum player by picking that character, no one plays mecha grandpa
It's not so much a skill floor as a macro floor.
they used to, now they got casualized with "supers" and other rebalancing bs.
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
>2. No genre is as absolutely punishing when outmatched in skill as RTS
lmao try fighting games moron
Fighting games:
>Skill floor: 1
>Skill cap: 7
RTS:
>Skill floor: 4
>Skill cap: 10
>Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
This is the only real reason why RTS is dead, the playerbase are subhumans who don't know how to have fun and who's stability of their ego is dependent solely on how good they are at an game.
>Meanwhile in an RTS if you don't know build orders and base layouts you'll get killed by a good player less than 5 minutes into the game
Yeah and that is why they are boring. There's no real strategy involved, it's all just flowcharting.
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
single player RTS games are fricking easy to play, anyone who's used a computer can point and click
>1. No genre implicitly requires a skill floor as high as RTS
this is true but we can go even further and point to the obvious problem-
under the highest level of play, matches are overwhelmingly decided by who has faster macro
the play encouraged by these systems is to turbo sweat as hard as possible until the X minute mark, completely ignoring your opponent, until you are ready to a-move at which point you return to macro
I went from bronze to masters in sc2 without ever paying attention to my opponent by just doing macro. there is an absolutely massive dissonance between playing the game and spectating it
Too complicated and MOBAS became accessible to everyone. Normies flocked into the simpler game and RTS players saw this and moved into this as well because More people=Good. Fast forward a few years and MOBAS makes a shit ton of money now while RTS games got left behind with only a few hardcore players still playing in secret discords and forums, AAA companies are also not interested in making them anymore for the same reason, More People=More Money.
TL;DR: Too complex to exist in today's standards, lost to MOBAS monetization.
You can't win unless your last name is Kai-Sook or Sing-Duong
We must bring it back
those nelf players are moronic
as soon as someone picks PotM you know they are moronic
That lvl 6 AOE is op though.
Until she gets hit by a stun just like that webm.
not even that
PotM can buy antimagic potion to stop 10 seconds of stun. She can still get stopped by raider ensnare, but that's still not the real issue
the real issue is that when you cast starfall the enemy team can just walk away lmao
Starfall deals 33 dps (11.6 to buildings) in 1000 aoe for 45 seconds. Most units have around 270 movespeed, so if they start 500 range from potm they can escape her in about 2 seconds of just walking away. You might deal 100-150 damage total if they just walk away. If a tauren casts shockwave on your army, it deals 200 damage instantly, then 200 damage every 8 seconds after that. T*33 vs 200+T*25. TC isn't stunning himself, he can chase your army and keep spamming shockwaves. Same with carrion swarm, breathe fire, etc.
just spamming lightning shields from ~6+ shamans means you'll blanket their whole ground army to take 20 DPS on most of them. That's not even a hero unit.
starfall is actually a truly underwhelming ultimate. Even kotg's tranquility is far better even without the CD/mana cost disparity that existed for years (changed again recently), because kotg and his army can get the full effect of tranquility by standing BEHIND his army and healing it where they can't disrupt him, whereas potm needs to be in front of the enemy army or they just walk away.
oh and on top of that the real joke is PotM has 2 skills that boost her own right click DPS but she artificially has gimped stats that put her DPS way lower than other heroes, so she's just making up the difference
potm at level 1/5/10 has 15/21/27 dps + her skills
blood mage at level 1/5/10 has 19/30/46 dps
even if you go a 0/3/2 build on a level 5 potm, and you're spending 8 mana per attack, you get 44 dps.
so effectively you've got like +50% over what bloodmage gets for free at that level, and that's your peak
meanwhile the ACTUAL right click menace of the game blademaster has 28/38/49 base dps and then 1.45x from crit and 1.45x from mirror image so at level 10 even without items he's got up to 103+ dps
potm has to spend her skill points to do what a ranged hero should do by default
blood mage is out there spamming flame strikes and sucking your balls dry
nothing has come close to this magic ever since. What the frick happen? You cant blame the players for not being interested in RTS when there simply havent been released as good RTS as this since
>you cant determine who has the upper hand until the fight is nearly over
I could determine who had he upper hand the instant the rest of the UD army tp'd in
the nelves were stupid trying to initiate an even fight with UD on creep from the start anyway
>why couldn't my army of shit tier-one archers, 2 anti air units and 3 giant rocks that can't attack the air beat an army entirely made up of air units?!
>But bro, I had ult!
archers deal 200% to air and take 60% from gryphons / 49% from gargs
air isn't the problem, its the mountain king and tinker massacring the archers with aoe
also the NE not focus firing the air units with archers. You need to make sure they aren't wasting shots on heroes, just shift queue attacks on air units or swap between them with right clicks and they just evaporate
RTS peaked quite early. I would also think the prevalence of consoles during the later 00's didn't help, as well as some of the more well-regarded studios making these games eventually got dissolved or went to fresher pastures.
the player base grew up and the newer generations are too busy playing mobas
Damn
but i thought mobas are dying too?
Because no-one tried to capitalise on the popularity of the genre except Relic and they bungled it with CoH2's dlc commanders and DoW3 not shipping with a skirmish node (but by then it was already over anyway).
they didnt evolve into the supcom role as they should have. Very few people care about autistic things like build order. We want to be able to have fun while seeing huge battles and making strategic decisions. Strategy games should have all taken the phantom mod gameplay path like shooters went for the king of the hill path. Real diplomacy, real strategy can only evolve in a phantom mod and open diplomacy games. Instead RTS games all focus on 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 fixed team sessions. It's boring. I don't play strategy games to forget all strategy and only do battle tactics.
Think about it this way: Fortnite has the same kind of "diplomacy" built in, in a sense at least. Because you can choose to let people live for a while because they attack someone else.
Strategy games need to offer actual strategy gaming. Same reason why MMORPGs died: They are not massive, nor multiplayer nor role playing anymore.
dont know why RTS games didnt embrace battle royale style ffa combat more. Spawn in a random part of a map, have to build differently depending on where you are, make alliances, huge fights due to the number of players involved. Most of all it's not 1v1 so shitters dont get scared off, can always blame your losses on rng or other people.
>make alliances
this mechanic would need to be thought of properly
I wonder how an MMO RTS would look like
Shattered Galaxy
As a spectator FFA games are more interesting to watch than other game modes imo. WC3 has a FFA tournament league thats been around forever, has like 33 seasons or so. Not only would you see players utilize strategies that wouldn't be considered in other modes but players would have to communicate with each other constantly, guessing at each others intentions, resources and form ad hoc alliances that would last until someone would backstab their ally. Occasionally you'd see games were one players base was annihilated early in a game, but would sneak some workers away and slowly rebuild in hiding as the remaining players turned on each other until they were able mount a comeback when the others exhausted themselves. Its more interesting than simple micro/macro gameplay.
Can't Nomad-style maps in AoE II kind of fit this bill? You start with no Town Center while the villagers are scattered and need to build one during a grace period (since DE). In an eight-way multiplayer game without locked teams they essentially become diplomatic affairs.
Ironically, they also added a novelty battle royale game mode with the shrinking land and everything.
AoE2 is based for the sole reason that pro players don't piss their pants over not playing on symmetric, perfectly balanced maps.
I think WorldShift tried to do this, at least they tried to market it as a MMO RTS
Here's my moronic phantom game proposal made up in four seconds.
>One of the players has made a pact with an eldritch god
>There is the initial stage, where the possessed player(s) are indistinguishable from the rest
>Then there is the summoning phase, where the player's units and buildings transform into their eldritch counterparts
>The summoning phase means their units and abilities are stronger, but they can no longer hide
>Each god has different goals you need to achieve in order to reach the summoning phase
Basically the same idea as Parasite or Zerg Infestation, where you gradually incubate your civilisation into its final form.
Might be doable as Warcraft 3 map, but noone will make an entire new game around it.
I think MOBA's will die soon and make way to something that is easier to play
just like zoomers couldn't into RTS, gen alpha won't bother with learning MOBA meta
What are some RTS games that allow you to focus more on the comfy building aspect?
The stronghold series
Single player Sup Com
Rts then: fun single player games with optional multiplayer
Rts now: sweaty tryhard no fun allowed asiaticclick with barebones singleplayer
But the best RTS games did decently at both, anon.
The idea that their map editors might make their next competition like Dota lead them to lock them down and prevent the stream of new content that made them thrive. Starcraft2 was the last not smothered.
No idea, but I played CoH utterely to death online (never got around to playing the single player campaign). Did the same with DoW, until the melee patch fricked the game up entirely.
>Sc2
>Become NEET so I can spend more time grinding the ladder
>Every match is a stressful experience, get anxiety thinking about queing again
>Finally make it to master league
>Feel dopamine for 0,5seconds
>No sense of accomplishment
>Play 3 more games in master league
>Realize my mistake
>Quit and uninstall
I genuinely do not understand why I even got into it
I don't get why anyone bothers with 1v1 ranked
You can't even do fun stuff in 1v1 or have anyone witness it
In 4v4 you can get into absurd lategame scenarios with mass units and pitched battles
1v1 is always so fast and efficient you only get to see the same tired builds every game
yeh, this is why you need to be an autistic freak in order to get to the top in these games. there's just no way to do it, if you're a normie. you HAVE to be a no-lifer, otherwise you won't stand a chance.
Can't blame anyone but yourself when you lose and zoomers can't handle personal responsibility.
AoE2 DE
Beyond all Reason
AOE2 still pulls 4-5 digit viewers on tournaments. I'd say that's far from dead compared to genres like Fighting Games.
I'd been getting nostalgic about Dawn of War (the first one before they removed buildings and made it shit) and been thinking about trying some mods. Must be at least 10 years since i played last and the mods were all jank as frick, there was this tyranid race pack which functionally was good but the unit models uad about 7 frames of animation between them
Because they don't work well on con$ole$.
They're boring as frick and most of the autists who played them when they were 12 killed themselves after becoming neets
Every game played on a controller has a low skill cap and an implicit low skill floor
You can't even play an RTS game on a controller lmao
basic fricking actions in an RTS are things like
>selecting and hotkeying and unselecting and specifying units out of a group and issuing them various commands like move, attack, stop, hold position, patrol, build, repair, board, etc
>select building positions, making units from them, clicking workers on specific resources, buying items from shops,
that's already multiple clicks, drag selecting areas with a mouse, choosing from so many commands that they have alphabet hotkeys, more commands than a controller has buttons
meanwhile what do you do in a fighting game
>a = attack
>b = special
>y = jump
>x = block
In a typical game of WC3 you're probably going to do 30+ different actions with 50+ different units of 10+ different sets of abilities. And you need to switch between what you're selecting and what commands you are issuing rapidly. In a typical fighting game you're going to do 4+ actions with 1 unit with 1 set of abilities
moron
in an rts a beginner has full access to everything his race can do without any practice. you can build your guys, you can move them around and make them attack. maybe there are some micro tricks, but you basically have all of your tools without even having to use hotkeys. getting better at the game is just a matter of doing it faster and more than one thing at the same time. in a fighting game a beginner will not even be able to use some characters correctly without significant practice. a zangief player that can't do 360s is like being protoss and not being able to make dragoons.
that protoss player won't know how to force workers to mine on the axis, pop units over obstacles, trap a probe to group with corsairs, how to block gaps in a wall with zealots or hide them behind minerals or micro back from zerglings to exploit the animation delay, how to kill mines with dragoons without detection or drag them with zealots, or storm drop with shuttles or use them to disjoint projectiles
see
>I went from bronze to masters in sc2 without ever paying attention to my opponent by just doing macro.
>You can't even play an RTS game on a controller lmao
you can literally play it with a mouse with 2 buttons, fricking smoothbrained moron
Yeah and be behind the curve for literally everyone you goddamn smoothbrain moron.
Consoles being a blight on the industry and killing every genre that doesn't specifically pander to morons.
>called "real time strategy games"
>RTS games where you actually use strategy and not just quickly imput hotkeys for building your base, find the opponent's base then start spamming units that are "meta" to just send them all towards the enemy's base so you can win in 10 minutes are rare as frick, especially today
This is one of the most moronic posts I've read in a while.
In that case you should be able to easily refute it.
mobas killed it
Star Wars sales shit reminded me that there was an AoE2 reskin for it. Was that any good on the campaign end?
because you are not playing them
just complaining
could've joined w3arena
damn, i meant w3champions
they dont play well on consoles or phones and they are hard to play.
RTS are being made in abundance every year, but they all suck ass because the devs are talentless hacks and diversity hires. The development costs for a good RTS game are rather high, and it's very difficult to attract investments. Good devs that love the strategy genre are making wargames these days - the audience for such games is miniscule, but very passionate and grateful. Therefore those who want to play RTS games are stuck with the old ones - AoE2, SC2, Brood War.
I am so fricking tired of morons complaining about micro, hotkeys and build orders as if they somehow detract from the strategy part.
No, learning a build order and hotkeys does not mean you don't have to scout, counter your opponent's build, get good engagement and play macro. This is like someone complaining that you shouldn't need to positioning and game awareness in a shooter because "hurr durr it's called a shooter so all I should be doing is shoot".
If you want a genre where timing and macro doesn't matter go play turn based strategy games because you obviously got filtered by RTS.
>to scout, counter your opponent's build, get good engagement and play macro
I know you just put "play macro" there as a mistake but all the other things are significanly countered by just being slower than your opponent, your grand strategy doesn't mean shit if your opponent have the resource to out number you and the micro skills to target your weak points.
A more sensible comparision to a fps is more like you don't know how to aim when playing a high ttk fps game like Apex, or in fighter games, you will get btfo 10/10 times agaisnt someone who is mechanically better than you, time is a very strong resource and being faster beats everything everytime.
>being faster beats everything everytime
Ask me how I know that you've never played an RTS game in multiplayer.
>3:14
so you went 6 pool against an opponent who went hatchery first and won because its just rock paper scissors played blindly.
yeah if opponent greeds out and you go maximum punish, then sure their 330 APM drones can't stop your 123 APM attack-move zerglings
>6 pool
You start with 12 workers since LotV. 12 pool is a thing, but it's a macro build unable to outright kill anyone above silver. The guy went 13-12 speedling flood, which I out-executed.
Now try to analyze pic related.
>sure their 330 APM drones can't stop your 123 APM attack-move zerglings
So you admit that being faster doesn't actually beat everything everytime. What's even the point of your post then?
>morons complaining about micro, hotkeys and build orders as if they somehow detract from the strategy part.
It's unironically redditards. They always demand welfare in games - "quality of life", hand holding, free wins. They also have extremely fragile ego and think that losing in a strategy game means they're dumb (and they are). This is where the "RTS is not strategy cuz yada-yada" mental gymnastics come from.
>"strategy" genre is more about twitch muscle movement and reaction speed
>There's no real strategy involved
>RTS is all about execution, not strategy
>strategy for most RTS games is pretty basic
<...>
(me)
>They also have extremely fragile ego and think that losing in a strategy game means they're dumb (and they are). This is where the "RTS is not strategy cuz yada-yada" mental gymnastics come from.
It's like pottery, isn't it?
>If you don't agree with me y-you... you're REDDIT!
A desperate gasping cope from a flowchart Black person
Who are you quoting?
kys underage c**t troon.
I used to love RTS games. Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Command & Conquer (main series, Red Alert and Generals), Age of Mythology, Dawn of War, Homeworld, Rise of Nations, Company of Heroes, Total Annihilation, Earth 21X0, Myth, Dark Colony, Populous, Kingdom Under Fire, Stronghold, Warlords Battlecry, Empire Earth, Spellforce and probably some more.
The only multiplayer I played was Warcraft 3 and like two games in Starcraft 2.
Myth isn't an RTS, it's an RTT you stupid c**t.
or just learn a single gimmick build order and exploit it for free wins
>starts upgrading necropolis 45 seconds into the game
this is the kino rts expereince I miss dearly
like opponents tears in the rain
happens even at the pro level
>you got out-build-ordered
Invisible men strike again
TIME MARCHES ON
it was artificially held alive by blizzard sinking billions into e-sport homosexualry
protoss, mostly
>morons still think APM is the only defining skill of RTSes
Holy frick, learn just 3 different cheese strats and when to execute them and you can easily get 1400 Elo+ or Platinum or whatever rank equivalent.
>ELOgays
>Metagays
>asiatic clickers balanced around 300apm
>"strategy" genre is more about twitch muscle movement and reaction speed
>Every map/game/encounter needs to be perfectly balanced around a 50% winrate, meaning no interesting variables to consider or strategize around
>Monolithic titles swallow up the playerbase, difficult to eek out a profit in an already niche genre with more experimental titles
>New generation of gamers isn't interested in the streamlined face of the genre anymore and because competitors were squeezed out, nothing else is left
There were hundreds of absolutely amazing, imaginative, genuinely strategic RTS games being made all the time and they flopped or didn't get the airtime they needed to succeed. Even though I grew up loving games like starcraft and age of empires, part of me really resents just how much the genre bent itself around those two titles and refused to experiment. Basically it's what happens when game development caters exclusively to the autistic 0.0001% of top players that have memorized every inch of the game and never drop below 300apm, nobody else wants to play that shit.
Of course people with no fricking idea what they're talking about will say they were replaced by MOBA's but anyone comparing a MOBA to an RTS has the IQ of a fricking gnat.
Yeah frick those nerds who know how to play the game they like. Stupid devs refuse to make games for us casual folks with families and priorities.
That wasn't my point at all anon, and I find it hilarious that any attempt to criticize the inherently non strategic casualized streamlined 300apm game design of RTS immediately gets hit with "C-CASUL!!!".
>inherently non strategic
You clearly have no idea what being "strategic" means.
>300apm
Only top 3% of all players in any RTS game can play this fast doing meaningful actions. The rest either play slowly or just frick around and get beaten:
If you are truly interested in RTS games, you need to get rid of your stupid "my opponents are unbeatable korean aliens" mindset and realize that people who actually play these games are normalhomosexuals just like you, and the difficulty of your matches is directly tied to your MMR. It takes a few losses (you can literally just instaquit a few games) to adjust your MMR, and then you won't encounter any of the "300 apm metagay asiaticclickers" until you become good at the game. And if you do like RTS, even bronze matches will be enjoyable to you.
>You clearly have no idea what being "strategic" means.
RTS is all about execution, not strategy
It's famously said that you can win at low-level Starcraft just by managing your economy properly
>low level
>meaning people incapable of managing simple shit like worker-production
I don't think this is the got'cha you're looking for.
"Low-level" as in the the lower 99%
"People" being moronic does not mean there isn't strategy involved.
It just means the level of strategic genius boils down to "do I remember making workers this game?".
If the vast majority of people playing your game really just have to pay attention to execution and can get by on a strategy they read off a guide, is it really a strategy game?
Yeah?
The users being moronic does not detract from its potential.
Being unskilled at the game doesn't mean you're moronic
If the game is mostly a test of skill and not strategy it doesn't really deserve the title of a strategy game, and it's not like they become very deep once you do become mechanically competent
In the same way a toddler has to learn to crawl before it can walk, so too can you not critique a game for a lack of strategy when your example involves "people" who can't even play in the first place.
What stupidity made you think this was a good angle to begin with?
I don't know why you think the experience of players below a certain skill level doesn't matter
Strategy is about dealing with unknowns, most games involve the most strategic thinking before the meta is figured out and everyone just plays the few dominant strategies that remain
>I don't know why you think the experience of players below a certain skill level doesn't matter
Because if you can't get to tier 3 units before 20 minutes whatever strategy you might have in mind is utterly worthless.
A certain level of competence is required. Same as any other game.
Buying 2 flashbangs and going short A doesn't matter if you can't throw the flashbang in the correct direction.
It doesn't matter that you're camping the omega health if you can't track with +50% accuracy on lightning gun.
You're moronic.
It's the best explanation I got. Why else would you think this line of reasoning is sound?
>A certain level of competence is required
Required for what? Strategy? That's certainly not true, there's games that manage to have strategic depth at every level of play
And this isn't to say RTS games become deep strategy games once you're very good at them, because they don't, they're still mostly about execution
>strategy
>at every level of skill
Sure. It's just going to be pathetic displays, that are, as you stated, beaten by simply having good macro.
But you want to take that statement, and extrapolate it into meaning that there is no strategy to begin with.
So are you now arguing my point or what are we doing here?
>beaten by simply having good macro.
No, it depends on the game, that's what I was complaining about. In Starcraft your ability to execute matters far more than any strategy you might think of, which makes it a shitty strategy game
>Starcraft your ability to execute matters far more than any strategy you might think of
That goes for any and all RTS.
Complex games require that you actually learn the basics.
>That goes for any and all RTS.
And that's why they're bad, Starcraft is the worst offender though and pretty much the trendsetter for that
And you're distorting my point from "execution matters far more than strategy" into "you should be able to be good at the game without even knowing the basics"
>RTS is bad because I can't play them competently
Have you considered RTS just isn't for you?
Who said anything about me? I used to play RTS games competitively
Good for you.
Then why are you making these moronic points?
You haven't actually refuted my "moronic points" and you've just fallen back on trying to insult me
You only think in black and white, so you think me complaining about the lack of strategy in RTS games mean I must be a complete casual who doesn't like RTS games and wants to win without putting in any effort
NTA but what games do you play instead then?
Nothing has really filled the gap that RTS games left behind. I enjoyed DOTA but that's different, so I don't play anything "instead"
>Nothing has really filled the gap that RTS games left behind.
I don't get it. You don't play RTS games because you don't think they're "strategic". Which implies that you want an actual "strategic" game. There's an abundance of such games: real-time tactics, wargames, TBS, etc. Seems like you never actually wanted to play a strategy game in the first place.
Oh yeah I play all sorts of single-player strategy games but that's different, that's not competitive
>single-player
Beating AI is not strategy, it's just play pretend with toy soldiers.
>that's not competitive
There are competitive real-time tactics, wargames and TBS.
I agree with what you said
things like 4x feel a lot more strategic than rts despite their own (arguably worse) problems with snowballing
Your points are moronic.
I've already established this.
Your tried to re-establish your point here
>execution matters far more than strategy
Which isn't what you've been clamoring about. Rather that strategy is non-existent.
Meanwhile, I'm telling you that, obviously, you need a level of competence in order to execute a strategy, because again, if you're too fricking stupid to even manage the basics, you don't have any business trying to do a 2-rax proxy into raven harass.
>Rather that strategy is non-existent.
I never said that. Again, stupid black and white thinking, learn to read
see
>RTS is all about execution, not strategy
t. (you).
well you can read my ten or so other posts where I've said ten times that it doesn't have enough strategy, not that there's no strategy at all, because obviously there's some, just not enough
And (you) can read all my replies to those posts wherein I explain to (you) that people being bad at the game does not detract from the strategic potential.
It's not the game's fault that you're moronic.
>people being bad at the game does not detract from the strategic potential.
that's true, but Starcraft's mechanical focus applies at every level of play
what's a competitive RTT game? Turn-based games are too slow-paced for me
>what's a competitive RTT game?
Wargame Red Dragon is one of the most prominent ones.
Never played that game by my experience with milsim themed games is they're made for roleplayers and don't play particularly well
it's realistic, not milsim
the sequel (warno) is also pretty good
same shit, they're made for people who jerk off over model numbers of military vehicles
>but Starcraft's mechanical focus applies at every level of play
Obviously.
It's the same game.
I'm not sure what you think strategy means or why you're so upset that the games require a certain level of execution. Starting with a basic strategy (build more dudes than the other guy) and branching out from there is just how you learn strategy in general.
>why you're so upset that the games require a certain level of execution
I'm not. You can't have a strategy game without any execution requirements. Strategy requires complexity which requires depth in how you execute things.
Many RTS are way more forgiving on poor execution. Warcraft 3 lets you reliably build towers even when the enemy army is in your base, while in starcraft static d builds too slowly and dies too fast.
The frick you talking about lmao
Fricking human moron thinking everyone got the same mechanics. You try that as undead.
games are inherently limited by their rulesets, and therefore their meta will be inherently limited, but people really like to overblow the lack of variety in strategy at the highest level in these types of games
and at the lower level there's even more variety because you can use less effective strategies successfully because your opponent may be less capable of countering it
considering that in real life most military actions are "by the book" and not some avante strategy no one has ever heard of, I'd say yes
Having more stuff than the other guy is generally a pretty good strategy.
>RTS is all about execution, not strategy
Strategy is what you execute. It doesn't matter how good your execution is if your strategy sucks.
Strategy is your plan that you have in mind before even starting a match, with all possible branches and deviations. Your build order is the skeleton of your strategy, the branches and deviations is the flesh. If you have to improvise during a match ("strategize on the fly", as redditards like you love to say), then you never had a good strategy in the first place. If you encounter something new, you spend time after the match analyzing it and figuring out a proper response - even if you managed to win somehow.
>managing your economy properly
A part of any strategy.
I know what a strategy is, the strategy for most RTS games is pretty basic
>you need to get rid of your stupid "my opponents are unbeatable korean aliens"
The problem isn't losing, it's playing the same 2 matches 50 billion times because everyone just wants to optimize and play meta. You need to understand that the people who play like Koreans don't do it for fun, but to win.
They are called bugmen for a reason.
What are some of those imaginative and genuinely strategic games? Genuinely curious.
Most of this post is word vomit, but there was a point hidden in there. Chasing the success of those two games (starcraft, age of empires) did hurt the genre. They're good games, but everyone trying to be the same two good games didn't leave much room for anything else.
Because companies keep focusing on asiaticclick to get that sweet sweet esport instead of improving the genre like supreme commander: forged alliance did.
To this day there is no better RTS available.
The genre peaked, and then it had nowhere else to grow so it branched out into numerous genres.
Everything RTS did that people liked other games did better.
The same reason that ended arena shooters and fighting games
>very competitive
>lots of hours to get good
>your lack of skill is very evident
The industry got very good at massaging your dopamine generators so no need to risk it for a difficult market
I will be very hated for this answer but it's the hard to swallow truth.
RTSes as a genre have completely peaked. Much like how Star Fox 64 killed off the (non-arcade) rail shooter market because it was the apex of what could be done; AOE2 and Starcraft Brood War were the peak of RTSes and staled the entire genre because there was simply nowhere else to go with it.
And I know SC2 was still a great game but it was an objective downgrade from 1 and only did so well because of the artificial amounts of money Blizzard poured into it to bolster its popularity.
You got it all backwards.
>only did so well because of the artificial amounts of money Blizzard poured into it to bolster its popularity
That's Brood War.
>the peak of RTSes
That's Starcraft 2 and AoE2, which remain the only relevant RTS games..
SC and AoE is not a peak of anything.
It just has a very firm consumer base that won't venture to any other RTS for long or at all.
Back then you would get new blood because internet culture wasn't so homogenized.
Now a potential RTS player will play Fortnight or Amogus because this is what is popular.
i thought sc2 was fantastic, a 9/10 game, the frick you talking about??
Reminding anons about DORF
>https://store.steampowered.com/app/2388620/DORF_RealTime_Strategic_Conflict/
Also apparently the recent Dune one is genuinely good, the devs rebalanced a lot of it and continually add new units and features and modes.
i like to play old RTS against AI with my buddy since there's a lot of mod maps. i dont like playing on the same maps over and over again. i wish more RTS games had a lot of unique maps.
games like starcraft it doesn't even matter because there so little difference between maps
warcraft III has way more map variety due to neutral buildings + creeps/items + destructible trees
starcraft maps have to use clumsy gimmicks like 10 mineral patches or geysers blocking paths just to have any distinctiveness, and then starcraft II formalized that with the moronic piles of rocks blocking paths/expos
Blizzard RTSs were held up by their custom game scenes, which they promptly decided to slaughter after passing on the rights to DotA 2.
because the genre is dated and stuck on shit stuck in the 90s. i think it took like three fricking decades for Relic to bother adding key rebinds in the options menu, let alone have them reflected on your UI after you rebind them. the cameras in the modern ones basically all suck, the FOV is extremely low and zoom level seems to be more focused on hugging on some unit's ass. the 2d ones, that had adjustable resolutions, had better FOVs for some reason.
other issues:
the genre seems hellbent on reducing the fronts you can fight on in exchange for more tactical combat. basically, not a single modern one really utilizes air, sea, and land combat like CnC.
the SP in all of them is basically dogshit. its either zero challenge like Relic's and Blizzard's games or basically a puzzle like CnC.
the combat is mostly shit outside of micromanaging blobs. games like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation had it where elevation and projectiles were physical objects that mattered.
Supreme Commander is the only modern one that actually tried pushing the genre forward. even though aspects of it, the scalable zoom and large unit count, are some of the most popular mods in modern ones. Devs seem fricking hellbent on being morons instead. which seems to be the case with Relic, the last major one.
every single time
>when I ask a question I always get the same answer
>surely that must mean the real answer is somewhere else, not that everyone is ageeing
>why is something not popular
>because everyone agrees it's boring
>there's no way something would be unpopular because everyone agrees it's boring, right?
What is it like, having no brain?
Good RTS are fairly popular. AoE2 is a top 50 game on Steam - and Steam is not the only platform where you can get the game. https://steamcharts.com/app/813780
Have you considered that you find RTS boring because the genre is not for you? Crazy I know...
I play RTS all the time, doesn't prevent me from realizing you're moronic.
Having to put in the time to learn a new genre and all its complexities before it's fun. I think it'd be fun to play/learn RTS, but having to get my ass stomped for hours after I'm done working and having to put more work into it to get better, when I could just instead hop into some shitty FPS and click heads and have fun.
Also, none of my friends want to play RTS
RTS never died and has been making a comeback in recent years.
the only new RTS games are
>AoE4
>Krossfire Legion
>Dune Hispanic Wars
upcoming
>Settlers: New Allies
>Stormgate
>Tempest Rising
>Homeworld3
same reason point and click games did
if you're planning to seethepost in response to this, actually think it through first
P&C got killed by MOBA?
the honest to god reason that very few people seem to want to accept is that most people just got tired of rts
it's not the fault of esports, it's not the fault of "asiaticclick", it's not even the fault of shitty moronic developers that can't make a good game to save their lives
people just got tired of rts and the inflow of new blood largely dried up, relegating the genre to a relatively small niche
anyone who says there is or was some silver bullet that could've kept the genre as popular as it ever was lacks a brain
times change and tastes change, but rts is still alive so what does it matter if it isn't as popular anymore
>People got tired of genre
>Meanwhile people still play the same copy-paste FPS games almost 20 years later.
Nope, the genre failed to keep moving on with design, stagnated, devolved into asiaticclock and died.
which means people didn't get tired of fps moron
people DID get tired of quakelikes though, which is why they're deader than rts
Im sorry your brain is so fricked to the point where you cannot comprehend what others are trying to say, but i can't be bothered to explain it to you.
sorry anon I thought you were being genuine instead of just trolling, that's a pretty common mistake that I make these days
Two games I enjoyed was Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and Company of Heroes(1) one is a RTS the other is a RTT both are good and can I suggest Dawn of War if you want to hear some great voice acting.
You could play them on local area network and mess with the map editor to make your own games, there weren't as many cheaters as there are today, to the Chinese, if they can't cheat they won't play your game because it's unfair to them and that mindset has been spreading to other multiplayer games and other people.
Why practice to become good at something when you can simply cheat?
not enough white kids with too much time on their hands and MOBAs killed it off for good
RTS genre didn't die, AoE 2, Starcraft 1 and 2, Warcraft 3, CoH etc are all evidence that there still is an active playerbase.
The only thing that changed was the RTS genre didn't see the same amount of growth over the years as shooters, RPGs and MMOs did. RTS market share may be small, but a good RTS will absolutely still sell.
morons played MOBAs instead because they found out they have more teammates to blame.
What happened is youre a casual babb who cant name a single RTS despite the genre being perfectly alive, because you only ever knew 5 games in the genre in the first place.
Why hasn't the genre adapted to the audience and simply created coop RTS? People are tired of getting stomped by sweat lords and dropped it completely.
But you can coop in just about any RTS?
You mean 2v2/3v3/4v4 matchmaking, or playing together against AI? SC2 has both of those, and the latter is probably the single most popular RTS game mode being played today by a wide margin.
Against AI. Casuals like me don't like playing against sweat lords.
Try out sc2 co-op then. The first campaign and I think 6 out of 18 total commanders are free to play.
Today I will remind them
There were multiple tower defense games on the warcraft 3 custom maps, some people played those all day every day.
There were "MMOs" within the custom games on wc3 and several other styles of games, most people didn't played competitive play games.
Play AoE2 DE
People cheated on lanhouses way back when the game was new, I'm not touching something people can maphack with the current generation of videogame players.
>People cheated on lanhouses way back when the game was new
What lan houses were around in 2019?
You understand Age of Empires II "Definite Edition" is a remastered version of a game from 1999, don't you?
People played the regular one on lanhouses back then.
It's been 20 years Anon grab it for 10 bucks on sale and try it again.
Some friends that played with me are dead I don't want to remember them, makes me sad.
mobas and a huge fricking focus on esports
>mobas
What? RTS games were far from the most popular genre long before MOBAS became popular. League became mainstream in ~2011. The only AAA RTS release around that time was what - Starcraft 2?
mobas got more popular and were less intimidating to play
Replaced with MOBAs because the average player does not have the mental capacity to command several units at once.
People suck at MOBAs, too, every single match has cheaters on the major ones.
The moderation of those games does nothing because they're busy policing speech, it's the same for every multiplayer game.
You can cheat to rank 1 but you can't call someone a "homosexual".
People used too much meta. RTS was fun, when people just treated it like a game. I think that is the problem with many old genre games, like fighting games have that problem too.
People treated every match like competition. Instead of just having fun. With RTS games I remember people started memorizing every single hotkey for buildings, memorized at what exact minute they had to built this specific building, memorize how quick each and every unit is, memorize ALL the counters in the game etc.
Remember back in the day how we just mocked about or just experimented a lot. Nowadays you have to memorize each and all strategies for every race and just follow that strategy. Until you meet the enemy. If your strategy counters his, you're good. If your strategy gets countered, you immediately switch to one of 3 or 4 different established meta strategies that counter your enemies strategy.
Its just no fun allowed.
>I can only have fun when I have no idea what I'm doing
No, its just about the medium not being relaxing entertainment this way. I don't feel like memorizing all that crap, for one video game. I don't plan to be competitive and join competitions or similar. I also memorize some basic things. But I don't feel like looking at the clock back and forth if I'm behind schedule or not for that one building I have to build.
No you don't. Optimally the system matches you with somebody that has a similar elo/mmr but for that there are too few players.
Meaning some high elo/mmr player will get matched with you. Even if you have a low elo/mmr.
You don't need to learn shit to frick around in bronze, building towers and dudes at your own pace and sending the dudes at your equally clueless and slow opponent. Stop pretending that Korean pros you see on youtube is the norm.
>Optimally the system matches you with somebody that has a similar elo/mmr but for that there are too few players.
AoE2 playerbase is 90% under the 1300 elo mark and all the pros are over 2.6k. You will be matched with someone within your elo range in under 3m depending on your timezone for lower elo. I'm sorry your game is dead.
Pretty much. A game is a puzzle to be solved. Finding out new things is fun, replaying something you already solved isn't.
Why do you act like you're even remotely good enough to play with people like that? You'll be matched based off your casual tier elo/mmr in what respective rts you play and play against other shitters with the same mentality.
They chased competitive gays and forgot to make their games fun.
hard to top established games, whenever a new rts game comes out people just compare them to sc2,wc2 aoe2 cnc etc and they die, which is probably good, compared to another niche genre of games which is fighting games in which no matter what, or how shit games are, a newer generation of fighters would always be more played than older generation of fighters which is not the case in rts, rts players stick to their games for much longer, and competitive gays also get their treat from tourneys too, wc3 still have ton of tourneys, hell no one even mentions wc3 dota 1, but there are ton of dota 1 platforms all of them have more players than an average fighting game,
multiplayer rts is boring and lame and involves similar stratagies or cheese
>muh asiaticclick
>muh ladder anxiety
you are part of the problem and the reason RTS is fricking dead
the instant gratification culture of 2010s and forward killed any sort of brainpower-focused games, nowadays its either full casual braindead or twitchfest for zoomers on ADHD meds.
>brain-focused games
There is work and then there is playing a video game. I don't feel like coming home from work, to work more and analyze the last 10 matches I played. Then try and memorize all the hotkeys like learning a new language.
then maybe some types of games aren't for you
I had fun playing them when people didn't have that extremely autistic way of playing. I occasionally still play the campaigns, which are very nice in some RTS games. But Multiplayer? With these people? Frick no.
But it is the norm. That is why people left RTS because people like you treat it more like work.
No you won't be. I remember playing AoE 2 and sometimes you would get those insane matches with pro players. That is basically unwinnable from the start. Then there are also smurfs that are a massive issue.
Those insane matches happen once in a blue moon, but they're hardly unwinnable in team games. Trust me I've played against enough to know.
>Smurfs
The only time I've ever seen actual smurfs is when people complaining about it are in the sub 900 elo category and post a recording where it's pretty obvious.
>But it is the norm.
Upload your replays on catbox and post them here. I'm curious to see what kind of Korean pros you've encountered on ladder.
Go play something braindead then.
Haven't played rts in years, but the reason I never got into them was that the decisions I made while playing felt inconsequential on a moment to moment basis.
Many people mentioned moba overtaking them and I think they deliver on that way better:
Making a good play in a moba feels really good and it gives you immediate feedback for the most part. Doing the same in an rts doesn't have the same impact.
(also frick the autistic unit micromanaging in many rts games)
Competitive only for autists. Most non autists moved to moba or grand strategy games.
>non autists moved to moba or grand strategy games.
if only you knew...
ASShomosexualS are a bigger audience and thus more profitable. Companies also mistook micro heavy koreans as the core audience of RTS so the few attempts that were made were aimed at them and subsequently flopped.
hey Ganker - come play BAR
plenty of lobbies with 8v8 clownfests where its just good fun
and yes, I am shamelessly shilling for it, I am in love with the game
What is BAR?
>Those insane matches happen once in a blue moon
Depends how lucky you're. I sometimes were continuously matched with pros. It went so bad that I started intentionally losing my games like 10 times in a row, so I can get easier opponents.
>Depends how lucky you're. I sometimes were continuously matched with pros.
What fricking elo were you and what timezone?
Don't remember. I went low as 1k I believe and I still got matched with pros. Germany during the evening I played usually. Around 6pm.
BAR=beyond all reason.
I've never been much into SupCom style of gameplay, what could I do to get used to it? BAR looks fun but I don't want to ruin matches trying to learn it.
gamers are stupid lazy and can't think 2 steps ahead these days
sugar in the food, fluoride in the water. semites control education and entertainment. A combination of guarenteed moronation.
They didn't die. There are more people playing games and more genres to choose these days, so in relative terms the playerbase looks smaller, but people still play them in plentiful numbers.
You also have more specialised genres now. More RTT games for people who just wanted to micro an attacking force. Citybuilders for people who liked building up cool stuff. MOBA for people that want to micro a single unit, etc etc. In the past, you only really had RTS as a choice. There are more specialised choices now, so the playerbase looks more spread.
Also, I think people getting upset about build orders are off base. Deciding on and adapting your build order is literally strategy. A lot of the complaints I see sound like you're more interested in the tactics portion; the micromanagement of your army and so on. There are games that focus on that instead of your war economy.
*guaranteed
I don't say an. I say en. You are one of those tards who lets themselves get brainwashed and is too stupid to notice.
RTS games simply require too much effort for the enjoyment compared to MOBAs and other genres. With a MOBA, all you need to do at most is to learn how to use said character decently which is simply learning when to use said skill hotbars correctly at worst, and considering how MOBAs are multiplayer, you can be pretty garbage at it and still do well cause of others.
In something like an RTS, there is alot more stuff to be focused on and its typically done in 1v1 settings so unless one is willing to put in the time to invest in getting good (which most people don't) then why bother if you'll just get auto-stomped by someone who does know what they're doing. RTS was just never a casual/noob-friendly genre and thats why it died out.
MOBA games simply require too much effort for the enjoyment compared to RTS and other genres. With an RTS, all you need to do at most is to learn how to build dudes which is simply learning how to spend resources at worst, and considering how RTSs are multiplayer, you can be pretty garbage at it and still do well cause of others.
In something like a MOBA, there is alot more stuff to be focused on and its typically done in 5v5 settings so unless one is willing to put in the time to invest in getting good (which most people don't) then why bother if you'll just get auto-stomped by someone who does know what they're doing, and then your team rages on you. MOBA was just never a casual/noob-friendly genre and thats why it died out.
What do you people consider "strategy" in these games?
watching youtube videos on how to counter the situations that fricked you last match.
How newbie friendly is AoE2 if I've never touched an RTS ever? Is there a lot of singleplayer stuff to do in it too?
There's like 35 campaigns with 5-6 missions each.
Based, might check it out then. Lot of singleplayer stuff interests me so I could learn.
You underestimate my moronation
If moronic kid me could handle it I'm sure you can too.
>How newbie friendly is AoE2 if I've never touched an RTS ever?
It's one of the most popular RTS games, the other one is Starcraft 2. Both are very noob friendly because of abundance of learning material, and since playerbases are big, there are lots of noobs and casuals to play against.
>Is there a lot of singleplayer stuff to do in it too?
Yes, over 100 hours of campaigns.
There's a solid amount of singleplayer content and to beat the hardest AI on some maps requires you to be good enough to break 1k elo in multiplayer, at least skillwise.
Biggest reason for the decline of RTS: game development costs drastically increased and PC-only genres that require a lot of content suffered a decline in general because making a big budget PC-only title became a much more risky investment. That doesn't say the genre can't work anymore even just on PC, but big studios became discouraged from trying it.
the other main reason for the decline is that the genre never had much stability. Too many series had too many drastically different sequels. Devs are still not sure about the appeal of the genre and many assume that you can just do things like throw out a major feature (like base building) in a sequel. Disappointing sequels were very common in the genre and this alienated a lot of people.
>mobas killed rts
Mobas are action games with very light rpg elements with mainly just the camera being similar to RTS. They never competed with the appeal of RTS games.
>game development costs drastically increased
This is the biggest fricking lie. Marketing costs increased. Game dev costs have only gone down. All the money all goes to shit other than the game itself.
>Marketing costs increased. Game dev costs have only gone down
that's objectively fasle and the reason you think it's true is likely your biased coping headcanon
it shouldn't take too much research to find out how many more devs and development time modern games require compared to old ones, but even if you don't want to look into any of that it shouldn't take you a lot of time to realize that a game with let's say SC2's graphical fidelity and launch featuers requires a lot more details to develop than let's say a game with AoM's fidelity and launch features
It's objectively correct. It takes a simple glance to see the majority of budget goes first to marketing(upwards of 70% in some cases), then to VA work. And then finally to the cost of actually making a game with whatever pittance is left.
don't know where the frick did you pull those numbers up or why do you think VA work of all things gets a bigger budget than game development in general. There is no static number for how much games spend on marketing, a game like Fifa can spend more time on marketing than on actual development, but the average game spends it's budget on 4:1-2 ratio of development:marketing cost, meaning they spend 2 to 4 times more on development.
new games objectively take multiple times more time to develop and teams require multiple times more developers, with games objectively requiring much more details that actually need to be developed (even to give the same playtime)
but even regardless of all these things, please try to comprehend that even an increased marketing budget doesn't mean that game development budget somehow can't drastically increase
>but the average game spends it's budget on 4:1-2 ratio of development:marketing cost, meaning they spend 2 to 4 times more on development.
You are on crack. No big ticket games spends anywhere close to amount they use to market on development. They haven't since around FF7. It's been that way longer than you have been alive.
>No big ticket games spends anywhere close to amount they use to market on development.
For Cyberscum 2077, CD Projekt spent 170 mil on development and 142 mil on marketing.
>trying to use a game with notoriously big marketing as the "average"
not even FF7 went over 50% when it comes to development/marketing budget and not even a single other FF game came anywhere close to that ratio
the shit you are saying is neither the average (even for big games) nor would it contradict what I said about increased development costs even if it wasn't bullshit
>Mobas are action games
So is "real-time strategy", despite the name. You just control more than one unit. Strategy games require you to use your brain, and the Stalker mirror micro trade is the exact opposite of that.
i tried playing SC2 online after watching some matches, a quick guide and doing the campaign when it became free, people would just frick my miners on the first 5 minutes every match then i dropped.
They should make more single-player RTS. When's Majesty getting a reboot?
Curent devs cant program functioning AI in shooters
Its easier to just blame your teammates on a MOBA than getting good at a RTS.
Balanced so heavily around competitive play that they forgot to make it accessible and fun for everyone else.
Playing StarCraft 2 online and losing 15 times in a row to different kinds of cheese tactics until you know how to specifically look out for those, is shit. The thought process in design is "if there is a counter for this tactic, that's good enough" when it should be "this tactics is easy to pull off, it should be just as easy to defend against".
This entire thread reads like people who thought because they beat a few campaigns on the hardest difficulty they would do well in multiplayer only to get shit stomped by players doing the same strat every time and they were too stupid to figure it out.
MOBAs are more infinitely more chill than 1v1 RTS, that and the monetization/skin systems of mobas are able to obtain a larger audience.
Chill is not the word I would use to describe the autist normalgays that play them.
saving this image to post next time a stupid zoomer claims RTS didn't die after the 2000s
Casuals are not into them
Regarding Warcraft 3 are there any groups from here that play it i only know mine and well only me and some guy play it sometimes while others arent that active
nah, Blizzshart raped it so hard that 95% of the existing playerbase has left. The game is dead and nothing will ever bring it back.
RTS and fighting games are the only games left where you are 100% in charge of the result.
Battle royale got popular cause you control only 28% of it. "Luck", "variables" etc
Because they're impossible to market to normalgays. Its even more niche genre than something like fighting games, at least they had a start in arcades which were social gatherings and a place to have fun, but RTS games are kind of genre where its either stomping or getting stomped. and RTS games generally just gave up on even attempting to have strong SP content so MP is all you have
Also
>Impossible for console gays to enjoy
>ITT : Master Strategists™ who never played a single ladder game explains why there is no Strategy™ on the RealTimeStrategy games.
The usual, never ending cope.
The Warcraft 3 campaigns are fun, but I don't like playing against actual people.
if you aren't playing against humans than there's nobody there to witness you doing anything neat
yea but i seen that there are also some coop campaigns
Are there really no groups that play the game ?
There were until they tried that remaster shit and the fanbase died overnight.
you can go onto battle.net and find a 4v4 game in under a minute
you can go onto w3c and find games in 1v1 or 4v4 in a reasonable time
its still active
https://www.w3champions.com/OverallStatistics
about 1500 4v4 games per day on w3c, about 5000 1v1 games, around 2500 active players. Battle.net might be more or less, I don't know
I know mp is still alive but i would rather play with people from Ganker and other boards
Congrats, you are the majority of the RTS playerbase, which somehow devs never realized.
RTS is hard
Lack of good story Campaign
Lack of good AI
Lack of Co-Op VS AI
I'm amazing people here aren't more into turn based shit with how much they hate APM
Because 90% of the time, it's just an excuse. People that have a legitimate interest in strategy games but do not like the macro part would just gravitate towards something like company of heroes, men of war, wargame, shogun 2, maybe supreme commander.
saying that people dislike APM because they don't like how shallow RTS games are is a strawman
>Shallow
And yet time and time again this board proves it's too stupid to understand any deeper mechanics than what they already struggle with.
Anyone keeping an eye on Tempest Rising?
it's on my list, but I still have no hope.
I want to hope it won't flounder like so many other modern RTS games but who knows
>Anyone keeping an eye on Tempest Rising?
If Genshin was BotW but with "just different enough not to get sued" designs and Unreal engine, no one would play it either.
Same thing with Tribes Ascend (for all of its endless list of faults) compared to Midair's Tribes 1 but in UE4! Or nuDoom vs Unreal Tournament 4, which was just a scaled down UT1... but in UE4!
rts fps hybrids are the future
I loved the mix. Used to play the Empires mod for Half-Life2 and it was nuts. You are probably right on that the future lies in hybrids.
Is it multi player? Where 1 guy has to play RTS as the Commander and the rest can play fps as the unit?
yes its multiplayer as well
Once normalgays realized they will never beat the Koreans and once moba trash genre became popular.
more normies got PCs
devs are all zoomers who have no clue how a real rts should actually play like. all the people who originally made rts's are all old farts now who don't have it in them to make a new kick-ass rts. just look at how rts's evolved, look at supreme commander, for example. every time those dumb-ass fricking zoomers make an rts now, they always frick up the zoom levels. the max zoom out is still so low that you can see an ants' butthole in pixel perfect clarity. they don't understand that rts games were starting to move away from those shit zoom levels at the end of the golden era of rts's.
Like people here have said, rts didn't really die, it evolved into mobas. The problem is that's pretty much the only thing rts games evolved into. If you look at the shit being made today it's:
Remakes of TA.
Remakes of COH.
Remakes of Red Alert.
Remakes of Generals.
Remakes of Warcraft.
Remakes, spiritual successors, homages, basically a constant stream of developers thinking we need to go back to the roots of rts when we've barely fricking left them. Rts games are complicated and granular, and, on a nuts and bolts level, most would be flat-out better experiences as mobas. The only mechanical difference between a lot of rts games and mobas is that in a moba you're managing the abilities of one (1) unit, and in an rts you're managing the abilities of multiple units. Unless it's a TA-like, then you're so zoomed out you're watching icons appear and disappear on a map.
Personally, I liked rts games when I was young because I thought big battles were cool, but now I don't really play them because every rts game is either a TA-like builder where you work through flowcharts and watch icons, or a pseudo-moba where you manage each individual unit's heartrate. They're not about big cool battles, or even really strategy, in a way, they're about how well you can manage a hundred shitty little things. Big pro strategy in rts games is basic shit like 'sneak around' or 'flank', the real skill comes from shit like stutter-stepping units, or timing grenade throws, or timing build orders.
Rts games are just kind of stuck in a rut, I think.