The problem with the RTS genre

[Beastro]

World in Conflict was Cold War too and was released 5 years before the first wargame. Also from what I've seen of wargame, it look like the gameplay is similar to World in Conflict: no base-building, new units get air-dropped on a side of the map and it's based around capture points.

And as for why RTS died, I'd say there's two separate issues: dumbing down in pursuits of the console audience (like SC2 being release on console), which led to shallow gameplay. And a pursuit toward the "pro-gaming" scenes, on a genre that can only support a handful of competitive games at the same time.

Blitzkrieg was doing that even father back, especially Blitzkrieg 2. In them units also had ammo amounts which meant you had to keep them supplied, which was part of the reason to grab capture points.

I somewhat agree with you, but I think it's less of an issue of difficulty or learning curve, and more of an issue of the level of focus and multi-tasking required to play the game well. The base rules of an RTS are quite easy to learn and are pretty standard - collect resources, build units, attack, the formula really hasn't changed much for decades.

I agree with this. Grand Strategy games are more complex in ways, but with the ability to pause, they allow the player to take their time.

Imagine playing a no pause Paradox game and the mental load it would place on the player, especially in MP.

I do wonder if one of the problems of RTSes are the fast pace.

Feels like there's something to be said for a slower-paced RTS, if done right

Grand Strategy pause could help, but I could see that being something players would welcome, but others would bitch about given how it would break up the gameplay while that's a give if you're watching a GS match.

They need to follow the path Paradox has laid out for their MP games.

 

[HeroMarine]

Players watch Starcraft 2 pros and instantly comprehend that they will never, ever sustain 300+ APM for an entire game no matter how much they practice.

Looks p. cozy to me.

 

[adrix89]

The problem with RTS was the competitive multiplayer skirmish format from the start. People remember RTS fondly when they were just fucking around in skirmish or playing against friends.
Matchmaking itself was a mistake since you cannot customize as much and is very rigid in order to properly evaluate your skill.

Once you bring in competitive with build orders, the experimentation and economy aspect is gone. In other words "viable strategies" are much smaller selection than the "potential creative strategies" that makes up the fun of the RTS genre.
Defense is also limited as you do not have enough time or money to make too intricate defenses, compare that to the depth of Tower Defense games.

So to fix it is simple, the format has to change, make it about Procedural Campaigns against the AI that builds on the strength of that potential.

And we have seen some examples of what that could be.
Complex logistics and economy like in Factorio.
In depth unit customization like From The Depths or TerraTech.
Defense setup from Tower Defense and Survival games.
AI Factions, Colonization, Resources, Exploration, Research and Progression from the 4X Genre suitable for a procedural campaign.
Sandbox worlds like in Starsector, X4 Foundation.

As you see there is a ton of strategy and depth to go around and making things Seamless and Real Time has its own advantage like Total Annihilation demonstrated oh so long ago.

 

[Jokzore]

Playing against AI has never come close to being as fun as playing against another human. Without a human opponent you remove the element of surprise, the enemies creativity, mistakes they could make, things they might not notice, them playing really well in the moment, or just a spontaneous humorous interaction. AI simply isn't as satisfying to play against and each new victory feels more shallow.

In the age of internet and matchmaking it's inevitable that a ''meta-game'' will develop and you can't get away with pulling silly strategies that only work against drunk friends at LAN parties. Does it take away from the fun? For sure. But that's simply the way things are and there's no point in resisting it.

The question is how do you convince people that learning something difficult, practice, competition and gradual improvement are more satisfying than the cheap thrill of instant gratification contained in loot boxes, meaningless exp gains and prestige levels.

 

[what am i doing]

People remember RTS fondly when they were just fucking around in skirmish or playing against friends.

Speak for yourself, the most fun I've ever had in RTS is that moment at the end of a long and grueling match when you finally triumph over your opponent, especially if they were winning for most of the game and you had to pull off some sort of clever ruse to turn things around. Challenge is fun. Messing around with AI is not. Playing against friends is fun if they are good at the game.

 

[JarlFrank]

Age of Empires 2, the best RTS ever made, isn't even that stressful in competitive MP. You see pro players making minor mistakes all the time, it's mostly about how you use your civ's strengths, about creative use of tactics and strategy, pressuring the enemy, protecting your own resources, etc.

Even in pro games you'll occasionally have villagers being idle for a few seconds, or farms staying unseeded for a while in the late game while the focus is on battles.

You see creative uses of unusual tactics by some pro players, who try to pull of shit that shouldn't be possible to pull off but it works because it throws the opponent off track.

I've seen a game where a player went scouts in Feudal age, pressuring the enemy villagers, the enemy built spearmen as a counter... and the first guy kept flooding scouts into the enemy base, researched the +HP and +armor for cavalry upgrades to make them more resilient, and just engaged the enemy spearmen and killed them with good kiting. Really fun game to watch.

 

[HeroMarine]

Players watch Starcraft 2 pros and instantly comprehend that they will never, ever sustain 300+ APM for an entire game no matter how much they practice.

Looks p. cozy to me.

He finished the series.

 

[sser]

It's pretty simple to me.

MOBAs iterated on the micro side.

4x games iterated on the macro.


RTS is somewhere in between. Once SC2 failed it seemed like a pretty clear sign the genre was lifeless. Only the revivified corpse of AoE2 is doing much of anything.

 

[Burning Bridges]

RTS are dying, lol. never liked them, just clicking and being faster than your opponent, and no real strategy involved.
if i want to test who has the quicker reflexes I rather play table tennis

 

[HeroMarine]

There's strategy involved in table tennis as much as RTSs, just because you are bad at something doesn't mean should dismiss it.

PS: Are you transitioning?

 

[Burning Bridges]

just because you are bad at something doesn't mean should dismiss it.

just because you are good at something doesn't mean there is strategy in it

 

[HeroMarine]

 

[vota DC]

RTS are dying, lol. never liked them, just clicking and being faster than your opponent, and no real strategy involved.
if i want to test who has the quicker reflexes I rather play table tennis

I am not sure that a Mayan that click 5% faster than a Goth is enough to win.