Death of a subgenre

Why is the RPG genre right now primarily grand-strategy? Don't get me wrong, I love the subgenre, but what about RTS's like Warcraft 3?

>I love the subgenre, but what about RTS's like Warcraft 3?

Killed and replaced by MOBAs.

>Why is the RPG genre right now primarily grand-strategy?

...?

Please, no. God why.

what do rgp's have to do with rts games?

>rts
>subgenre

>primarily grand-strategy
>not dotaclones

Typo, meant to say RTS.

Those aren't rts's, they're mobas.

Well, here's how it went.

>Starcraft: Brood War achieves genuine, actual balance with fluid gameplay and achieves what is likely the pinnacle of competitive RTS gameplay.
>Warcraft 3 happens, it's pretty fun but definitely not as fleshed out, custom games are better and eventually WoW kills any hope of a W4
>Lots of other smaller RTS games come out but they're pretty off-radar since people have been spoiled
>Starcraft 2 announced, the hype is quite literally maximum.
>It fucking sucks
>Heart of the Swarm sucks
>Legacy of the Void sucks
>Everyone gives up hope since not even Starcraft can save the genre, so why bother trying.

And that's where we're at. Until someone steps up and makes another good one, which will be a major financial risk, it's gonna be a dry spell.

im saying that the rts genre has been largely replaced by mobas and not grand strat

Because micro is hard.

I just don't think that's right. You'd think a smaller company or an indie dev would step-up, what with all of the kickstarters and genre-revival projects out there with the creation of steam.

it hurts

Because RTS never were a good genre to begin with. Right now, the industry is riding the esports bandwagon. The problem with RTS is that they never were about actual strategy on a competitive level. They were about patterns, about builds, about sheer execution. Had developers ever came up with a RTS that actually puts an emphasis on outsmarting the opponent through various ways, then maybe the genre wouldnt be dead right now.

Another reason why it is, is because modern competitive gamers arent competitive people. They play WoW, MOBAs, hell even CSGO because they are team games. Those give them the ability to blame other people for losses. Cant do that in a 1v1 based RTS.

It hasn't been dead long enough to warrant that. Starcraft 2+Expansions are still a very recent, bitter taste in people's mouths. Give it a few more years.

Is this the thread where we blame the failure of RTS on mobas rather than the failings on the RTSes that came out?

see

Didn't blame MOBAs at all. The RTS's just sucked after a certain point.

Basically because Paradox is shouldering the burden, and their particular brand of grand strategy is distinctive enough to attract attention.

Classic RTS won't be revived until the curse of esports and the MOBA trap simmers down and balance is restored.

They play WoW, MOBAs, hell even CSGO because they are team games
It sounds like you're trying to imply team games aren't competitive.

> The problem with RTS is that they never were about actual strategy on a competitive level. They were about patterns, about builds, about sheer execution.
Depends on the RTS bud, Maybe starcraft 2 was like that, but a lot of earlier games were not.

Warcraft 4 is coming user

>Starcraft 2+Expansions are still a very recent, bitter taste in people's mouths.
What went wrong with them?

>primarily grand strat
No, primarily MMOs

You managed to cram every retarded Sup Forums meme about RTS games into a single shitpost. Well done.

The same thing that prevents Valve from ever making Half-Life 3.

People expected the best game ever and it was absolutely impossibly for it to live up to its own hype.

I don't believe you. Even if Blizzard said that, I don't believe Blizzard.

I hope not. Blizzard will just go full jew again and pull all the bullshit they did with StarCraft II's editor.

They were completely designed around high level gameplay.

There were, and still are too many easy to use cheese strats that will ruin a new player because they don't have the micro to counter it. It's extremely off putting and honestly too much to ask of new players to have to learn the entire meta game just to play a few matches.

On top of that most people agree the single player was shit, and somehow even got worse with each expansion.

Starcraft 2 is dead, they'll have to make it now

>Sup Forums meme
Enlighten me. Which part of my post is a meme? Do you unironically think that a developer will risk an investment trying to cater to a niche audience that doesnt even want to play an RTS on a competitive level? Why bother when you can just ride the hype train and do what everybody else does? Or are you going to imply that competitive RTS ever required actual thought?

My best guess is that you wont be able to present a single valid point. Otherwise you would already have posted it.

That makes sense.

The extremely high skill curve is likely the biggest reason RTS games aren't very popular. I'm a complete scrub but I tried playing some 1v1 games in WC3 and 90% of them were ~10 min stomps, the other 10% being games where I had a remote chance of winning.

Combinations of a lot of things really.

>RTS
>games typically require a lot of thinking from the users
>insanely easy to fuck everything up and lose a match
>matches aren't typically fast enough for the casual crowd
>market for RTS has been trending towards casuals and they don't want it and nobody else likes it since it's garbage
I honestly think the genre would be dead if it weren't for studios like Creative Assembly to sticking to their niche market.

...

>games typically require a lot of thinking from the users
This has got to be satire.

Git Gud

and god help you if you ever try dota

>There were, and still are too many easy to use cheese strats that will ruin a new player
DESU, this is true of almost every RTS out there.

For instance, TA had the flash rush, which was pretty hard to counter and very easy to execute.

RTS in general is a very newbie unfriendly game. For example, in an FPS you might get 30 seconds of running around before a better player frags you and matches last 5-20 minutes, but in an RTS, it can take anywhere between 5 and all the way to an hour of arduous gameplay before you're completely dead, and all the while you get to watch your efforts to defend yourself be systematically dismantled.

Also the origina SC:BW (basically the pinnacle of RTS eSports) was very newbie friendly with its FASTEST games and comp-stomps and an abundance of UMS maps, which contributed a lot to its popularity.

You can't accuse blizzard of catering to casuals with sc2.
They catered hard to the esport loving faggots who want a micro intensive game with high apm requirements.
The result is a game that's frustrating and no fun at all.

>and god help you if you ever try dota
I played that game for years. It's far easier to get into than WC3 imho. Once you learn to not take unnecessary damage in lane and how to last hit, you can breeze your way to 3-4k MMR with pretty much any hero.

Couple that with the fact that multiplayer and competitive focus sealed the deal and guaranteed that, unless you were there for the multiplayer, you might as well be playing something else.

This despite the fact that everyone has fond memories of Age of Empires and Command and Conquer and even the Crafts and THOSE franchises weren't built from the ground up to be competitive multiplayer, they had fun campaigns and just happened to garner a multiplayer following organically.

>Once you learn to not take unnecessary damage in lane and how to last hit, you can breeze your way to 3-4k MMR with pretty much any hero.
bullshit, too many retarded team mates hold you back

>Dota doesn't have micro

>Westwood Studios just dying a slow painful death
>SC2 sucking donkey dick
>RTS is a solved genre
>RTS aren't multiplatform friendly
There, I answered your question OP

Everyone knows you only played dota back then cause ladder was too hard for you user, you can't flip this meme back on its head.

SC2 has fastest and what not, it's just, nobody plays them because all the casuals migrated to LoL or whatever.

It's not really the game's fault.

I have a theory that emoticons are basically the same as Egyptian hieroglyphics. People got so stupid that they thought the hopelessly stupid things they were doing were just as complicated as their predecessors.

Where a lot of people are playing games where you press a button and instantly win a fight, I'd argue yes that's more thinking than the average user does in current games.

Winning in Starcraft 2, and SC:BW, and really any other RTS is mostly about macro. A lot of people don't get this, but building shit fast is a really, really important part of an RTS. Only once you master macro does micro and other shit start to matter.

Proper Macro gets you 70% of the way there. Once you get to a high enough level, macro alone is not good enough, then you have to get into micro which gets you another 20% of the way there. Only when you get to the final 10% that things like correct execution and proper metagame start to really matter, and you can even start developing your own strategies at this level.

i got equally good at dota and ladder play, and by that I mean I was 14 and probably had a 50% win rate

>it's different from RTS
>so it's simple shit
Yeah ok whatever

Repeating another anons words, players who liked the micro of RTS moved on to MOBAs in which they control a single unit, those who liked strategy moved on to grand strategy.

All thats left is macro APM autism

>too many retarded team mates hold you back
bullshit. You have 4 team mate and 5 enemies, so the odds are always in your favour if some of the people playing are retarded.

Throw me into any 2kMMR game and I'll snowball out of control.

It honestly doesn't, unless you're playing Voker, LD, Meepo, Brood, Warlock, Lycan, Chen, Ench, and maybe a couple others. Even then, it's usually microing 2-5 different unit types, as opposed to a dozen. They're leagues apart, and I say that as a fan of both games.

It's this and the fact that since gaming became mainstream, most casual gamers look at an RTS and cringe, it's just too "nerdy" a genre.

But that's BS. You need exact control on every single hero if you want to be a good player.

Just because it's only one unit does not mean it isn't micro management.

I would too, the problem is once you get to around 3.5k MMR yer fucked

No, you're right.
The problem is that macro takes too much "micro".
Like calling down a mule all the fucking time and using chrono boost.

This is why i liked wc3 better. Managing your economy isn't interesting unless when it involves strategic decisions like when to make less units and tech, or what units you're going for.

>controlling only 1 unit means it cant require micro!
theres a lot more to micro then controlling multiple units.

>Just because it's only one unit does not mean it isn't micro management.
The phrase 'micro' colloquially refers to the micromanagement of multiple units. That's actually what it means.

No. The multiple units shit is something you made up.

When Koreans used a single vulture to kill ten zerglings in BW, what were they doing?

this

You still had to spend all the money you made even in WC3.

Supreme Commander got macro right, mostly, by allowing you to queue up a shitload of stuff, pause and resume, repeat orders, assist, etc.. I would have gone a bit further and added player-made macros for building bases, so for example a player could have a macro made for "Firebase 1" or "Build Order 1" and could just plot it all as a unit.

>the problem is once you get to around 3.5k MMR yer fucked
Yeah that's around when you need to really lift your game to move further up. Losing your lane simply isn't an option, and things like warding, flexible itemisation, teamfighting properly, and hiding in fog all really begin to matter.

We will literally never get another game like WC3

it was made at the right time, by a team that gave a shit about their product

think about the projects Blizz have done since. they all pale in comparison

I'd say about 80% of winning in 3.5k -4k is just hero picks, and boy do people not know how to pick heros

You're complaints against the genre as a whole apply mostly to modern titles like Starcraft 2 (which Blizzard explicitly made as an esport first instead of a game). Its a classic Sup Forums move to attack the RTS genre for being all about "being faster and memorizing" instead of "strategy" - not that any poster ever mentions what they mean by "real strategy". The truth is the even with the fast paced games like Broodwar being fast and memorizing builds was just the basic foundation of being a good player, the high level players often won by innovating on the fly and creating new "builds" and tactics which other players would then copy after the fact. And its also popular to hit MOBAs and Esports cancer with all of the blame for the death of the RTS genre, rather than the fact that many high profile companies were either dying out or getting the activision/EA treatment (Esemble, Westwood, Pandemic, etc). Esports certainly share the blame of influencing how future games would turn out, but MOBAs are more of a symptom than a cause. DOTA and hell even tower defense games rose from the ashes of WC3 because of a map hacking scandal in the normal competitive RTS mode.

Also yes actually developers are catering to more niche non Esports customers, Wargame/Act of Aggression, Kharak, Ashes, Anno, Stellaris (or any paradox game really) . Not to mention the endless stream of HD re-releases of class RTS games on steam or the endless pop-up indie RTS games that try to emulate stuff like Total Annihilation more than Starcraft. Now I'm not saying all of these games were good but they were made and they were not Esports-driven garbage like Starcraft 2.

These same tired arguments have been regurgitated on Sup Forums for fucking years, its like they think RTS games are just dune clones, starcraft clones, and dota clones with no exceptions and that they never required any skill or thought (classic attack of people who are shit at said games, regardless of the genre).

Warcraft 3 feels like one of those games that were a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
That game is cherished by millions of people around the world.

A lot of Starcraft: BW and Warcraft 2 players, particularly the more competitive ones, really didn't like WC3 when it came out, and still don't like it (although Frozen Throne fixed some of the issues).

I bet in 10 years someone of future-Sup Forums will be going:

>We will literally never get another game like SC2

>it was made at the right time, by a team that gave a shit about their product

>think about the projects Blizz have done since. they all pale in comparison

Personally for me, WC3 started the downfall of Blizzard. It was still good, but not as good as before. It also brought some bullshit to the table that later involved into the current Blizzard, like that "orcs are noble savages." You could feel them setting the stage for WoW.

Well warcraft 3 economy is kind of like downsized starcraft.

With only one base you usually only want one production building, two if you are going to be making a lot of that unit, and three is overkill unless you have another base, and having another base isn't strictly necessary because of upkeep
Well in truth it depended on the matchups, some races like undead almost always expanded, and some like humans almost never did

Compare to sc2 where you have your natural expansion that it's a given you're gonna expand to unless you're doing a cheese strat, and after that you're constantly expanding and making more workers and moving on to other bases, and of course you have to constantly keep using your bases' abilities and make a dozen production buildings, it's just not fun to manage all that shit.

Nowhere near an RTS though. Don't even try to imply so.
About 95% less micro.

That's a matter of taste. Some of us find it quite exhilarating. That feel when in the zone, you know?

see
and

They were microing because they still had an entire army, resource collecting, upgrades, etc. going on at the background.
Seriously even trying to imply there's even 10% of the micro BW had in a game like DOTA, get out.

Dota 2 has a higher skill ceiling than SC2, and is more fun to watch and play. This is objective fact.

Does it mean MOBAs are responsible? No, it's literally RTS's fault for not stepping up to plate. Blizzard won't save RTS genre, at least not modern Blizzard because they appeal to the widest audience with their horrendous balance. You're going to have to hope and pray someone else strikes gold if you want the genre back.

Depends on the hero, specially in dota there's a lot of variance.
There's wraith king with literally one fucking button, and there's Chen who's a nigga who uses 4 creeps who may have different abilities and who you need to carefully manage.

I don't think RTS are dying.

I think they have exactly the same user-base as before. The problem is that gaming as a whole is more popular so the percentage of people wanting to play RTSs is smaller.

You have to remember that even the mega-popular RTSs like SC:BW or WC3, the majority of the people rarely played the actual RTS part.

Starcraft and Warcraft 3 were all about the customs, people played Aeon of Strife, Tower Defense, RPG-maps, bounds, DoTA, all that shit. Those that didn't played comp stomps or fastest maps, or had stuff like NR20 or whatever. Very rarely did people venture into the cutthroat world of the 1v1 melee game.

RTS games that didn't offer good custom support never really took off much, although some had outstanding single player that led to some popularity.

So yeah, RTS were never popular, they're a niche genre.

SC2 is an anomaly that got away on marketing and nostalgia. I wonder what percentage of the people who bought it ever made it out of Silver league, or hell, even Bronze. I'm willing to bet its way less than 50%. I bet a large percentage of people never even finished the campaign.

>Dota 2 has a higher skill ceiling than SC2
Wrong.
RTS just will never come back to a main stage because they have the same problem as fighting games. They're too hard for the average schmuck (AKA the DOTA/LOL audience) that just wants a quick game without the need of extensive technical skill.

Yes that's exactly what I'm implying.

In fact Dota has more micromanagement since no time is spent clicking buildings to make units, aka macro.
>b-b-but it's only one unit!
It doesn't matter.

>Dota 2 has a higher skill ceiling than SC2
no
>and is more fun to watch and play
yes

Dota is complicated as fuck and is an extremely popular game.

Death of C&C and the mass release of mediocre/bad RTS games during the 2000s.

More really doesn't equal better.
Although, I've seen Lycans last hit using his wolves and hero at the same time in different parts of the map to maximize efficiency, which is cool.

>complicated
Its skill ceiling is knowledge based. You just need to read a lot.
There's no technical execution barrier like in Fighting games or RTS.
It's way more casual-friendly because of that.

>In fact Dota has more micromanagement since no time is spent clicking buildings to make units, aka macro.
So its micro is braindead because it's the only thing you do and with just one unit? Got it. Glad we came to an agreement.

>download starcraft 2 free version
>download mass recall
>play brood war HD
too easy

Yes, there's a shitload of technical execution barrier, but you don't know that because you clearly don't even play the fucking game.

Just another pathetic asspained shitposter.

DOTA and MOBAs are popular exactly for the same reason soccer is popular worldwide.

Sure, your average schmuck is never going to beat, or even come close, to a professional soccer player, but every single person out there can pick up a soccer ball and play it at some level, maybe even good at.

Exactly the same with DOTA and other MOBAs, they're very easy to pick up and get sorta kinda good at, and everybody loves watching them because everyone can easily know whats going on.

RTS games, on the other hand, are a lot more technical and harder to pick up for the average person, and to have watching them you also need some knowledge of the game.

High level SC:BW is hundreds of times more entertaining to watch than high level DOTA, but you really need to know whats going on, at a higher level than you would for DOTA, that's why they're not as popular.

I'm glad you realise how retarded you are saying a game literally all about micro doesn't have micro.

As a team game, I think Dota is the highest skill cap game out right now.
As a 1v1 game, I think Brood War takes the spot.

>There's no technical execution barrier
Fuck are you talking about? There's a wide variance of hero skill in the competitive scene, in a game where one mistake can cost you everything.
There were teams that banned a hero that was almost never used because one particular player they were fighting against was an insane god on that hero.
Compare Universe playing Faceless Void to most other competitive players and you will see a skill-gap. Compare w33's Invoker to the other Invokers from last year.

I don't think that analogy holds. I don't see why RTS games should be more inaccessible to the average normie.

I think they'd be easier to get started in due to a lesser burden of knowledge.

>I've seen Lycans last hit using his wolves and hero at the same time in different parts of the map to maximize efficiency, which is cool.
That's the thing. Actual solid micro play is so rare outside of the top-tier games that it's a joy to see.

I love playing Brood because of how many options spiderlings give you - whether it's using them as wards, last hitting, sending them to jungle, ganking, harrassing a support and so on.

I do play Dota. Don't get so butthurt.
You don't seem to understand what a "technical execution barrier" is.
Fighting game combos are a technical execution barrier. Inputs requiring frame tight movements in long rapid successions and inhuman 13f reactions.
There's nothing like that in Dota.

A game not having a technical barrier is not a bad thing. It lowers the bar of entrance so more people can enjoy it.

Nothing you said has anything to do with a technical execution barrier.

But there is. Managing multiple units effectively is a barrier. Doing combinations like Slight of Fist into chains is literally a fighting game combo.

you fucked up OP. delete your threat and start again

Am I the only person who's not particularly great at all at RTS games, but its my favorite genre?

Maybe it's because base building is top comfy.

> Doing combinations like Slight of Fist into chains is literally a fighting game combo.
You have never played an actual fighting game in your life have you? How does doing that with ES even compare to a fighting game combo?
Get this into your head. Dota not having a barrier is not a bad thing.
There's is nothing in Dota than can even compare to your average GGXrD BnB in terms of execution. Frame leniency is gigantic, skills are done with a single digital input (no motions required).

it's not a fighting game, so I'm not sure why you'd even bring it up. It has other aspects that contribute to the game.

Although, here's some technical executions: Invoker's reagents, aiming Shadowrazes (When you're in a fucked up spot the skill-gap on this is actually pretty huge), fucking throwing HOOKs as well as cancelling animations to juke opponents (You can throw a fissure out when you're chasing a Lifestealer then cancel it to force him to instinctively waste his Rage) (You can throw a stun at puck, then cancel the animation to force a Phase Shift).

So is your argument that there isn't technical executions, or that they aren't as large as a game of an entirely different genre that for some reason you decided to bring up like a retard?

I don't care whether you think it's a bad thing or not.

Fact of the matter is that Dota has a pretty high mechanical execution requirement, and you changing the definition of this phrase doesn't change anything.

There are several reasons.

In an RTS game, if you fuck up, its your own fault. In a MOBA, if you fuck up, it's the team's fault.

In an RTS game, you have the cushion of a campaign and comp stomps to play against, and don't have to venture into multiplayer at all. In a MOBA, it's all multiplayer all the time.

In a MOBA, you can play with friends on your team and your friends will invite you to play and help you get started. With an RTS, even if a friend invites you and helps you get started, you have to play against him, and if you eventually go to the competitive space, you're still on your own in every match.

In general, MOBAs are a lot more newbie friendly in how they're structured, mainly because it's a team game.

You can observe the same phenomenon in Counter Strike and Quake. Competitive CS is team based and Quake is 1v1, competitive CS is a lot bigger than competitive Quake.

And when it specifically refers to watching e-sports:

To really enjoy watching competitive SC:BW, for example, you need to be at least mediocre at SC:BW. You can enjoy watching DOTA even if you know very little about the game.