I'm not the only one who avoids multiplayer RTS gaming, even though I wish I was good at it and enjoy other multiplayer games like FPS, MMOs, all sorts, which I am often extremely good at, RTS only works for me in single player.
I come from the birth of RTS days, I completed Dune 2, many believe C&C invented RTS, C&C copied Dune 2 big time. Some might claim games like Mega-lo-Mania (which I also played) are more the birth of RTS, but put that game next to RTS of today and there is next to no resemblance. Compare Dune 2 to games like C&C Red Alert 2, the up and coming Starcraft 2 or even Sins and you can see things really haven't changed a hell of a lot.
In the old days people played vs the PC in RTS, multiplayer was enjoyed by very few PC gamers. Most RTS campaigns would involve you starting with a tiny force against a well established base so you would need to prepare a good defence before the first wave came along. A campaign level would mostly consist of turtling, countering waves until you had built up enough tech and units to begin destroying the enemy(s).
Multiplayer RTS really took off because of Battlenet. I don't care if you can tell me about being able to play multiplayer RTS online before that, I know you could, but the systems of getting a game up and running meant RTS wasn't played online more than by small pockets of the online community. Another company, around the same time introduced a game and it's own version of Battlenet, that company was Bungie, who created Bungie.net(!), and it's game that was going to be something amazing that is still played today? Myth: The Fallen Lords.
Starcraft became massive, all of a sudden people started talking about perfect build orders, rushing, micro-management. All of these terms and styles of play were completely alien to me, I tried the perfect build orders, they improved my game, I tried to change, but it felt like I was just racing, rather than strategising. I used to enjoy winning by becomming impregnable, I love setting up a defence that was able to repel any force and that just didn't work in muliplayer.
On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game. There was micromanagement but your forces only consisted of about 30 units at best. You commanded them as an army, having your archers nowhere near your thralls or soldiers was crazy, each had their role. The game didn't have build orders, it didn't need shortcut keys to switch to different base buildings, rushing was unlikely. It was pure strategy and tactical combat, even using the terrain was important, using height for your archers and dwarfs for example.
Ever since these two great, well loved games multiplayer RTS has gone 1 direction only, speed. Games have got faster, constant attacking and building is required to win. Where are the games that have advanced what Myth did? I see tons of games taking the SC formula and making it faster, considering how successful Myth was and how it is still played today (Myth II mostly) what games have followed in it's vein?
I enoy Sins single player as I can play that like I could play RTS years ago, I can tech up and build up just playing defencively until I'm ready to dominate. I know I would be a million times better player if I was more aggressive, if I didn't use Capital Ships as much because I enjoy seeing them in battle or if I micro'd units a lot more but I can't change. I've tried and I don't find it fun. Am I alone in being this way? Pretty sure I'm not, and I'm sure there are others like me that are waiting for that game to come out that will tap that very style of play I like to enjoy and can enjoy it against others.
Since this page is popping up under posts on the Demigod forums, it's worth noting that the poster and some of the commenters of this thread might want to take a look at Demigod ^^
No building or production management. Maximum controllable units right now are in the 20's if you are General and cap out at one very powerful unit if you are an Assassin. You can't turtle or play sim city really, but micro and build/item order are far more manageable, imo, than in some of the other games you've been avoiding.
At the same time, you have alot of tactical depth and some strategic elements, and hopefully the devs will bringing in alot more as the Beta progresses.
Something to think about, anyway
absolutely not. supcom was a lot of fun, to be sure, but the pace was too... rushed. if you stopped for even a second, it seemed like you were doomed to lose.
i am also a big fan of the playing style outlines in the OP, watching titanic battles for the sheer beauty, building the biggest, coolest ships etc. in star wars: empire at war, i would play as the empire, and just play defensively until i could build the executor and the death star. it was great fun to watch your death star travel across the galaxy, leaving planets of rubble in its wake.
the "win at any cost" strategies that many people online use discourage me from playing multiplayer in rts games. the "i dont have fun if i dont win" people really piss me off. i can understand if the fun comes from the competition itself, and yes, winning is a lot of fun, but it shouldnt be that playing is not worth if if i dont win. i am reminded of a quote from cool runnings: "A gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you're not enough without one, you'll never be enough with one."
I don't like the zerg-rush 'strategy' prevalent on RTS games because you miss out on the base building, resource gathering, and defense aspects of the game that I tend to enjoy. I feel that the game fails if I don't get to at least try to build and research all the units and techs.
Also, my observance is that with the introduction of the Zerg in Starcraft, developers of RTS games must balance units so that the attacker gets the advantage. The alternative is that you can turtle your way into invulnerability, which I guess makes for boring multiplayer. But the result of attackers always having an inherent advantage is that games don't really get a chance to develop beyond some tier 1 tech unit rush (in many, perhaps even most cases). Unfortunately that situation is exactly counter to the type of game I want - a well-developed game where I get to explore all units and techs available in the game, where I get to setup combined force set-piece formations, plan out my strategy involving some complex feint and maneuver etc. Instead, 'strategy' ends up being a rush to identify the optimal click-order to spam whatever unit is cheapest in terms of resource units and time to produce.
I'm thinking about how WC3 plays, and I don't think the "rush" strategy and the "build up the tree" strategy are mutually exclusive. Nor do I think the purpose of the extended tree is for both sides to reach the top before bashing each others' faces in. Against really good (like REALLY good) players, what happens is both sides rush each other even as they build up at home. If the two opponents are evenly matched, they fight each other evenly throughout the build process.
So what the length of the tech tree is designed to do is aggregate one opponent's minor advantage(s), so that if he is in fact 3-5% more efficient the cumulative effect shows up eventually, down the tree, when he "laps" his opponent in the tech tree. If the tech trees were too short, a small advantage in ability might not show up before both sides hit the end of the tree.
In other words: if player one climbs a level every three seconds, and player two climbs a level every four seconds:
3s - player one hits "tier two"4s - player two hits "tier two"6s - player one hits "tier three"8s - player two hits "tier three"9s - player one hits "tier four"12s - player one hits "tier five" as player two hits "tier four"
If there were no tier five, player one wouldn't be able to exploit his efficiency.
Haree78, your experience and preference a lot like mine. But you go back farther than I do. I started playing when StarCraft was about patch 1.04. I did play SC online a bit but had much the same reaction. So mostly I got into modding that game and designing maps. Came WarCraft III and TFT, I found online went downhill even faster to the "go out and bash the enemy hero with your hero until one of us gets bored" gameplay which I hated. WarCraft III was really fun when it first came out. You needed your support units. You needed to tech. And there were things like Goblin mines, find those while creeping and make a mad dash for your enemy's town center. Drop mines, get enemy unit to chase you, they all went off at once, town center destroyed, game over. Presently all fun was squeezed out of the game in the interest of "balance."
Again and again I watched RTS games sink into the background noise level because of balancing the game for online PvP and losing the interest of casual players who mostly just wanted a good single player game with some scale and some sizzle. Age of Empires, Age of Kings with the Conquerors expansion and Age of Mythology remain happy exceptions. Oh, and GalCiv of course, not an RTS. And we might note here that Civilization IV has retained its popularity and enthusiastic community based nearly entirely on single player. The decline and fall of RTS always happens when developers change the game to please 5% of the player base, while ignoring the outcries of rage and indignation from the other 95% of their player base.
Now, strangely enough, I am not anti PvP. It just does not seem to me to be what TBS or RTS is good for. I was heavily into PvP on World of WarCraft for a couple years, and still log on to Guild Wars from time to time mostly to play for an hour or so at Fort Aspenwood, or head for Alliance Battles on an active weekend. The difference for me is that I want time spent on PvP to pay off in persistent growth in my character. RTS doesn't have that. I want to see that I have earned new weapons, new skills, new items, more rank. This simply does not fit the RTS format.
Sins has held out better than most so far. But give it enough time and posts whining about one thing or another being "OP" or demanding this that or the other be "nerfed" will eventually squash it flat and drain the life out of it if Stardock is not careful. I've got my eye on the mines at the moment. Let's see if those manage to survive in a form that does any significant damage.
"Lazy" game design? That seems a little arrogant. You can't predict what will happen to your game once it gets out into the wild. You can do all of the testing you want, but that can't compare with potentially millions of players hammering on the game for months on end.
All a game developer can do is put mechanics and rules into the game; they can't control which strategies turn out to be viable and which ones don't.
Well, they can patch the game to re-establish strategic balance. But even the latter can be wrongheaded due to metagame evolution. For example, in the professional StarCraft circuit, Terran vs. Zerg strategies for the Terran used to boil down to basically 2 builds: Marines & Medics, or Marines & Medics with some Siege Tank support.
Then the player by.fantasy came along and said, "screw that." He invented the "Mech build" (invovling Vultures, Goliaths, and Siege Tanks). Terrans have tried various Mech strategies before, but usually as a 1 out of 10 surprise strategy rather than as standard play. Now? A scant 4 months after by.fantasy's Mech build debued, it has now become one of the standard TvZ builds, alongside the M&M build.
Did Blizzard do anything to make that happen? No. That was one player who came along with an idea, took the time to make it work, and upset the balance. That's the metagame evolving.
If Blizzard had unwisely tried to change unit stats to encourage the development of other strategies, then they could easily have wrecked the game's overall balance. It was ultimately better for them to do nothing and let the players decide how the game is to be played.
It is vital as a game developer to know when to patch and when to let the metagame evolve. As another example, Team Fortress 2. The developers, during internal testing, went through several metagame phases. There was the "everybody's a scout" phase. But then, the non-scout classes figured out that scouts don't have many Hp, and balance was reestablished. There was the "everybody's a spy" phase. That lasted until pryos figured out how to use their flamethrowers on everybody; the people who burned were spies, and were now not only burning, but also in range of the flamethrower for more burning. And if they run from you when you approach... they're spies.
At no time did they have to patch the game to fix any of these apparent imbalances. Patching too soon can break a game just as sure as patching too late.
Rushing strategies must always be viable. If you know you're going to be safe for the early game, then you can tech hard. Which means everyone techs hard; it's always a reward and never punishment. You may as well chop off the first 5 mintues of the game, since you know how it's going to work out. Rush strategies make you pay for teching in an unsafe way.
Now, there is something wrong with them in one respect: it is usually much easier to execute one than to defend it. That means that, given two players of low, but equivalent, skill, the one who rushes is much more likely to win. By comparison, two players of high skill, a rush is more-often-than-not, not going to end the game. It may be decisive down the line, but very few are the rushes in high-skill play where an enemy is outright killed by the rush. The point of most high-skill rushes is to damage the economy, thus slowing them down more than you slowed yourself down to execute that rush.
But among low-skilled players, rushes can seem neigh-unstoppable.
I don't know what StarCraft you were playing. Because in StarCraft, the defender always has the advantage. The defender's newly produced units have less far to go, and the defender can always pull his workers and use them as combat units/buffer. That's why rush builds only work if you don't know they're coming.
I would also point out that the Zerg aren't even the best at rushing in SC. There's nothing more likely to lead to an early-game GG than a 2-gate proxy Zealot-rush that went unscouted. The only reason why Zerg rushes entered the vernacular is because, before the 1.08 patch, Zergs could literally attack before the other guy could possibly have attack units of their own. The infamous 4-pool rush.
I've never seen high-level StarCraft play devolve to that. For some RTS's, sure. But not ones that are trying to have a competitive online community.
I can't imagine what definition of "fun" you're using that includes losing through a random roll on some internal computer algorithm. If I'm going to lose, let it be because my opponent was just better than me or I screwed up, not because he got lucky.
Note that you won't see football or any other sport include a random, "you lose points because of a coin toss" event. At least penalty kicks involve the skill of players on the field.
I don't understand. If you don't want online play, why do you care what happens to the online portion of the game? Is online play balancing affecting the single-player portion of the game?
Yes. In an RTS game, you don't have a persistent character. You have yourself. You are the one who's supposed to be developing your skills, not a character. You decide whether you win or lose, based on how good you are at the game.
Alfonse, while you bring vaild and wonderful points to the conversation. I feel that you miss the whole theme behind this topic.
NONE of us here are TRUE RTS Competivite players. While you argue for and justify the current RTS competitive world, none of us want to be involved in high ranked competitive play. The main point/theme presented and supported by us is due to over competitive gameplay by those who play to win period. It has brought a trickle down effect that we believe is damaging online gaming. While if you good enought to hang with the big dogs, I commend you! I feel its safe to say though we dont want that.
-Ue_Carbon hits on all cylinders in that rebuttal. Alfonse, it's crystal-clear you know what you're talking about. I will never be involved in the professional Starcraft circuit. In fact, I didn't know it existed. So bear with me when I reply to your statement, "Rushing strategies must always be viable" with a big fat raspberry!
Your statement might be more accurate as, "Rush strategies must always be viable for hard-core online players who's gaming focus and enjoyment comes from pure player vs player competition."
But what if a player gets enjoyment from a TBS or RTS through more creative channels, like building the most perfectest/awesomenest turtle base with laser towers and moats of destruction? Or researching the pinnacle of some tree (or in my completionist way, all trees)?
My focal point for enjoyment doesn't have much to do with competition. Hopefully that doesn't put me outside what the devs see as their target audience.
If past experience is any indication, perhaps I'll just end up modding the heck out the game. Which is okay, too. But sometimes I like to just play.
With 500k plus units sold, how many online games are going on at one time? I think the dev's have noted that the vast majority of Sins players play solo, so I'm not too worried they'll over cater to multiplayer.
The thing I find interesting is that my tastes continue to change as I age. I played Starcraft like a maniac there for a while. Somewhere in the multiple 1000s of games on Bnet, and could hold my own just fine. Now, that competitive itch has been scratched, and I mostly turtle these days in solo play. Go figure.
Then stop playing with competitive players. Find people who want to play by whatever rules you're interested in playing by.
As much as you want to blame the problem on the game or developers focusing on others, the problem is that you're playing with people who's desires clash with yours. Most people who play PvP games online are being competitive. PvE style games are for people who want cooperative game experiences. Maybe you need the RTS-version of Left 4 Dead, but so long as the main multiplayer mode is 1v1, most of the people you play in online random matches will be competitive. Well, that or jerks, but not much can be done about the latter.
I think if you subtract a little roar from his post, Alfonse is basically saying, "you don't have to like it, but don't disrespect it." And he's right; it's not "lazy game design" or whatever. What's there serves a purpose, even if it's not immediately evident. And it certainly isn't hurting the gaming market. SC2 is getting a LOT of attention.
Ultimately, these games provide us with what we all want - a game we can really sink our teeth into. Now, maybe it's not the flavor we were hoping for, but it's got someone else's jimmy all a-tingle, so don't diss the developers. They did exactly what they hoped to do.
I remember, also, when I was young and spry and would do competitive gaming (what's this "over-competitive" business? That's just a low blow). Everyone would deride competitive FPS as "twitch" gaming, which did nothing except demonstrate a lack of understanding of what actually went into those matches. I think RTS zerg-rushing gets a similarly bad rep.
And we are thankful for that. SINS is the odd man out when it comes to these type of games.
Your right we should stop play with those competitive players. But should that also effect our gaming enjoyment from any specific game? Just as they have a right to beat the tar out of us b/c we dont care about our stats or to learn the perfect moves, we have a right to enjoy a game beyond the competitive nature. If by asking us not to play in a competitve game your asking us to play a different game. Then you good sir can bite my shiny metal ass! As, I thought I made clear, we are not per se bashing the competitive players. Not at all. I understand my part in that grind machine. Though I and I think many other of the poster are will agree with is the trend of RTS games are taking. They ARE favoring the fast and furious style.
I dont believe we are bashing any one deveoloper or another. Like I said above it a trend. Thats all this topic is about, they dont makes games that rely on thought very much anymore. Its a trend of better graphics and more intense gameplay. I for one love this tread to an extent. But I dont feel I should scarafice the need/ability to play these games at a slower pace. Or even be degraded for my want too.
One of things I love about SINS is that I have the choice to do whatever I want. PEROID. Now if I ever dive into competitve play, I personaly know I am scaraficing this for what? Basicaly braggin rights IMHO. But to some thats what 'fun' is. Being #1.
So, to all you poster who decide to jump out of the woodworks again. Let me make this clear. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH COMPETITVE PLAY,GAMES, AND/OR PLAYERS. NOTHING WRONG AT ALL. WHAT IS EVIDENT IS THE TREND. THE TREND TO FAST LESS FORGIVING, LESS FREEDOM OF CHOICE, LESS ENJOYABLE FOR CASUAL PLAYER GAMES.
Im sorry if you cant understand what this topic is about. I amire you for taking what I guess I would call the other side. Like I said before, Good for you if you can play with the big dogs. We dont want too. NOR do we want to sarcfice your gaming experience b/c we dont.
It's nice to see I'm not alone
@Sternes, absolutely, that's just ike me. @-Ue_Carbon you seem to share the exact same feelings I have. I have nothing against people that enjoy these perfect build order, click crazy games I just wish there were games being made that were a bit more like Myth.
After trying DoW II that certainly is still one of them games, even if it has simplified the base building elements of the game. It requires you to constantly be commanding on multiple fronts, and there is absolutely no respite in the action. It feels to me that it's less about tactics as it is more about reactions and keeping up with the pace of the game by being great at micro management.
As CoH was made by DoW and DoW II developers I just assumed it was in the same vein. This control point objective play normally requires tons of micro. I fell in love with the Homeworld games but I wasn't that impressed with the multiplayer because I felt it didn't work that well. I'll have to try and grab a demo of World in Conflict some times, sounds interesting.
It might be fun some time to arrange some vs AI battles with like minded people that won't mind if I don't immediately spam assailants and rush the CPU to win.
At the moment I'm debating spending a large part of my own time developing a game in the same vein as Myth that I have already designed to some extent, I would need to recruit some people for artwork and possibly level design.
Why not? Are you saying that every player should enjoy every game? If that's the case, why should we need more than 1 game?
Some people like Chess. Some people don't. For those who don't, there's Checkers, Go, Diplomacy, and any number of other board games that might suit their fancy.
So, you're not bashing anyone, but you believe that competitive games/players don't require thought.
You can still do whatever you want. You will simply lose if "whatever you want" doesn't happen to be a functioning strategy. Not every choice you make is viable; this is true in any game.
And I would point out, if Sins's AI was actually competent, it would provide appropriate pressure against you, so that you would have to find good strategies or lose anyway.
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're looking for from a game. Do you just want something like Civilization except without an opponent that can beat you? Do you just want to manage resources and so forth at your own pace, and then at a place and time of your own choosing, attack a docile opponent as you see fit? Do you want an opponent so unskilled and stupid that any strategy, no matter how inefficient and hair-brained, will work against them?
If so, then I would say that you don't want an opponent at all; you want a strawman. Someone who's not going to fight back. Someone who's not going to press you, who's going to sit there and let you do whatever it is you want. Someone that is designed for the expressed purpose of allowing you to win eventually. It's an opponent who exists because the game needs you to have an opponent; otherwise, you win automatically and there is no game.
There are games for that. Single-player games. These are AI's that are designed to put up a good fight, but ultimately they exist for a player to beat them.
No. You don't get to win a priori in the competitive arena. You don't get bragging rights by walking in. What you get by walking in is challenge. If you overcome that challenge, you can have your bragging rights. But for actual competitive players, that's secondary; the primary reason is to find a real challenge.
If you do not want to be challenged, then do not walk into the competitive arena.
I just wish all of you would stop saying, "nothing against competitive players" out of one end of your mouth while dissing us repeatedly out of the other. Let's get some HONEST discourse first, right? Seriously, if you're saying things like competitve gaming doesn't require thinking, or it's just a mindless clickfest, or that we only care about stats and nothing else, or that it's basically ego-stroking IYHO, you are not allowed to then claim that you're not dissing us.
That's number one.
Number two: there are games that cater to a specific audience, and absolutely I will say that if you are not part of that audience, you might not like the game. RTS as a genre is (has been) moving towards competition because those developers want to attract the competitive gamers. If that is not you, yes, it might be a good idea to play a different game. You don't ask people to "bite your shiny metal ass" if they tell you Barbie Horse Farm isn't going to have an economy slider or waypoints.
Number three: what is this claim that competitive gaming "hurts online play?" Wut? No. Maybe it hurts it FOR YOU, but that's not nearly the same thing. As a market, competitive gaming is HUGE. For every customer like you that developers lose, they might gain 2 or 3 customers that WANT competition. It only "hurts online play" if this trend loses more players than it gains.
EDIT: notice that in this post I did not condescend towards non-competitive gamers for being non-competitive. I may have condescended to some of you for being disingenuous. I feel like if you guys could just manage to hold back your sneering, holier-than-thou attitude regarding competitive players, at least in this thread, the world would be a warmer, kinder place.
To be honest most new RTS have lost the stratagy bit. Take CnC3 for Example. For the short time i played it online after beating the campain every game comsisted of spamming tanks untill your finger fell off. The 2 RTs game i enjoy are Company Of Heroes (best RTS i ever played) and SoSE witch i tend to play with a friend over LAN witch is fun.
The thing that make me not want to play RTS games online (apart from lag because one of the players has 56k or lives in the land down under) is all the "ultra Pros" who obliterate people like me because thay play the game 12 hours a day.
For now il eather play ofer a LAN with my m8s or play CoD WaW.
madman983 out.
TF2, CS, DoD, BF2, etc. etc. all have highly competitive leagues and clans, but they’re distinctly separate from the pub severs you find in the server-browser list. FPS pub games go much better than RTS pub games, at least in my experience. This has more to do with the number of players in a given game; with 15 vs. 15 (or more), you usually get a nice distribution of skill levels.The other reason FPS online games are so popular (again, I think most people DON'T extensively play RTS games online): they're mostly the same. With RTS games, there's a steep learning curve for each game, especially with regards to effective strategies (build orders, special abilities, you name it). Most people are demoralized after losing against the highly skilled players, especially since the strategies employed in skirmish and/or campaigns don't always translate online. RTS games require lots of concentration, skill, and practice. Most people are unwilling to invest the time learning the ins and outs of a given game just to have a *chance* surviving online. And indeed that's their problem for failing to put the time investment into a given game, but if I have a finite number of game hours/week, I'd rather be doing something fun When I played Empire Earth online, it was extremely frustrating to lose to the guy who could build 50 bombers in under 5 minutes and blow up my base. Congrats, he won, he's the skilled player, I just don't see the fun in that, especially for the guy who won. Why even bother playing online against players who simply can't beat you? It's like a pro boxer going around and punching little kids and having fun while doing it But by all means, play competitively. That's a totally legit thing to do for any game. But devs should make an effort to keep competitive play separate from general online play.That's why I'd only consider playing RTS games online under the following circumstances:1) Skill-based matchmaking2) Against friends3) With >4 players team (WiC has up to 8 players per team)I know FPS =/= RTS by any means. I just think the former is far more accessible to your average gamer than the latter when it comes to general online play.
I haven't played the new C&C, never really got into that series. But as the series goes, I think it's always been really bad about tactical strategy and always completely centered on resource management. I can't remember a C&C game where you were supposed to care about losing a unit. The entire series was always about "who can get their base to churn out units faster."
Alfonse and hairlessOrphan, I think its best we just agree to disagree. And move on, from this topic.
I dont understand your logic behind your post. Im sorry, I thought I made it clear. Yet, you continue this jihad for a trend that the OP and many of us disliked. Its our opinion btw. All we were saying is why does RTS games have to be so fast paced.
As for what type of game Im looking for? Im looking for one I can enjoy and not worry about if Im building fast enough. Lets talke Rome:Total War battles for example. The battles did not progress at a hyperdrive speed. They could if you wanted them too, but you had the OPTION not to. Thats all any of us were saying. RTS now a days are about speed. Period. The faster man wins. We agree that makes for anti-fun game play.
So if you be so kind as to crawl back to that hole you came from before this topic and leave us be to disscuss games that we enjoy and dont enjoy. Go be competitive and make your mommy proud. Ive grown intolerant to yall. You think Ive been 'sneering, holier-than-thou attitude" so far? Ive not yet started.
Carbon, have you tried World in Conflict? I think it's a game you might enjoy.
I think that the 'casual' gamers want more variety and less fast-paced gameplay so they can try more interesting (To them) things. I found C&C3 lacking in the extreme. (Really the culmination of that style of play, in my opinion.)
I absolutely love WiC because I can approach a single problem in one battle from a half-dozen ways, and I can use any of those without sacrificing the rest of the battle. Then I go on to the next problem and approach it from a completely different perspective.
I have and I played WiC for the longest time both online and off. But after my computer took a nose dive it never fully recoved and didnt like to play WiC.
Because if they were slow paced, they wouldn't be RTS games. They'd be, well, Sins of a Solar Empire: a TBS game that happens to not wait for you.
Then what you want is a TBS game.
What makes an RTS an RTS is not merely being in real-time. After all, if you put a 10-minute timer on GC2 turns, it would technically be a real-time game. But is it a different game from the GC2 that didn't have this timer? No: 10 minutes is plenty of time to do everything you need in most turns. This "Real-Time" version of GC2 is the same game as before, so calling it an RTS is simply a misnomer.
Similarly, if you add a 5 minute clock to Chess, you get Speed Chess, which is a very different game from regular Chess. If you add a 10 hour clock to Chess, it's just regular Chess.
What makes something an RTS is time pressure. Having to make decisions quickly. Having 10 things to do right now but only enough time to do 3 of them. So which ones do you do? That's a strategic decision that TBS games don't have.
You can have the most perfect strategy planned out in your mind. But if you can't execute that strategy in an RTS game, it doesn't matter: you will lose. And that's what separates an RTS from a TBS. In a TBS, your strategy is pitted against your enemy's strategy. In an RTS, your strategy and execution is pitted against your enemy's strategy an execution. If the real-time game is so slow that execution doesn't matter, then it's just a TBS game that happens to play out in real-time.
The faster man to do what? In any game, the person who first achieves the win conditions wins the game, so I'll assume you don't mean that.
And I've seen numerous professional StarCraft matches where someone goes for a rush build, gets it spotted, and gets their butts kicked. These are people who are as fast at the game as it gets. And rush builds don't work against them most of the time. And even when they do work, it usually doesn't end the game immediately; the best most professional SC players can expect from a rush is to do massive economic damage to the other guy.
Take this match for example. Jaedong, the Zerg player (best Zerg in the world right now) got rushed. This was a full-on 2-Barracks rush; it doesn't get faster than this. Jaedong spots it, slams down on it, and proceeds to win.
Do whatever you feel like you have to. You'll only get yourself disciplined for rude behavior. I mean, if you can't handle someone with an argument against your beliefs, then maybe a ban is what you need.
The only argument I'm making is that there is a difference between subjective value and objective value. If you really want to take that differentiation as a "jihad," I suggest you are being unreasonable.
I understand completely that *you* prefer a slower-paced game. That's not a mystery to me.
I am, however, telling you that *your* *subjective* preference is not an objective truth. "Slower-paced" is not factually better than "faster-paced." There are benefits to both, and just because you can't see the value of a faster-paced game does not mean that no other gamers can. It does not mean that gamers who see the value of a faster-paced game are intellectually inferior.
In lieu of suggesting you conquer the planet and bend the world's gamers to your will, I instead suggest that you recognize that the market moved away from your preferences. In other words, more RTS gamers disagreed with you and wanted speed-based RTS games. You may either wait until it swings back towards your preferences (and it will, as soon as one market is over-saturated developers will swing the other way), or mourn.
Also, I'm not impressed with your threats of being more of a jerk. eThuggery is not intimidating.
Well not adding anything to the topic but I played Dune 2, Myth. But has anyone ever heard of or played.....
They are RTS but with a twist, you design your units.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
