What will be the genre of 2018 and why is it RTS?

What will be the genre of 2018 and why is it RTS?

na it will be like aoe 3 but with micro transactions instead of cards

6DOF Shooters

If this is anything like recent RTS releases
>micro-transactions
>less units and factions than previous titles
>p2p matchmaking
>little to no mod support
>casual, dumbed-down gameplay
Half-life fans were lucky, they didn't get to see their favourite games devoured by modern market trends.

there were recent RTS releases?

Nothing wrong with p2p for rts

>winning the game
>hosts boots up customkick.exe
nuthin personnel, kid

you are technically correct. That is certainly a thing that can happen.

It happened all the time in Warcraft 3

RTS as a genre is inherently flawed because a more skilled player will almost always beat a less skilled player. There is no RNG to save you like in card games, or a team like in MOBAs, shooters etc. New players have a very hard time which leads to them quitting. This decimates the playerbase and kills the game.

I'll take your word for it. It never happened to me but I lose half of my matches, even more loses back then. So I 'd be less likely to suffer getting kicked anyway.

halo wars 2 was good

>a more skilled player will almost always beat a less skilled player
You say it like it's a bad thing. If you are objectively better than someone and don't make any mistakes then you should win. That's why you have things like MMR/elo so players who want to play competetively can do so against equally skilled players.

I'd just play single player, possibly with friends. But 90%+ of successful games nowadays seem to thrive on the multiplayer so I guess single player just isn't enough any more.

A shame, since it leads to less focus on the campaigns. Or, you know, just the one poorly made campaign...

>RTS as a genre is inherently flawed because a more skilled player will almost always beat a less skilled player.

You are a fucking retard

I enjoyed the first one but I don't have an XBone. But it's on the list if I ever get one.

Nothing can eclipse AOE2 unfortunately, which is the pinnacle of RTS gaming even today. So many strategies, civs, and subtleties, all of which are lost to the modern era.

AoE3 was playable but not very good. AoE2 is king because of 200-500+ pop matches, lovely artwork, wide variety of units and strategies, etc

True. Gaming needs a strong gambling element to be addictive. They should have loot crates, make it 5v5 random matchmaking, and have a shitton of different civilizations with widely varying playstyles. Neither team would know what civs the other team would pick, so there'd be an element of luck in what the team comps were.

>he thinks AoE4 will be a traditional RTS

both halo wars 1 and 2 are on pc

At leasy in team games and shooters you can hurt better players, especially with backup. In an RTS 80% of players are just speed bumps. Well, they would be if they played multiplayer instead of getting chased off after a few crushing defeats.

>an assfaggots with various historical figures
Please no

I adore AoE2 but the gameplay is pure shite.

Pick between archer rush OR knight rush!
Wall every game!
Fight over centre gold, decide the fate of the game through a couple of very easy micro maneuvers, or just straight up win if your macro is slightly better than your opponent's, regardless of any choices or tactics you choose to employ!

Brood War, Supcom and CoH are the only RTS games you can say actually play differently.

Microsoft want in on that sweet, sweet DOTA/LoL cash flow.

guess I'll try the demo then

Yes, it'll totally be great and not made by the same developers that released an abortion then immediately went on to develop another game instead of fixing their garbage.

>Supcom
really?

>RTS as a genre is inherently flawed because a more skilled player will almost always beat a less skilled player

Who knows, maybe they'll see how well AoE2 HD did and decide it's worth a shot to make a traditional RTS.

r-right guys?

>not going to focus on PvE
>going to have a shitton of PvP features
>no good AI
ded

all good rts games have good coop, thats why they are rts

Yes, there is a lot of potential deviation with macro decisions and a lot of options are viable because not much risks or rewards you with the whole game, just a window to capitalize on and then do it again.

>team that made DoW3
Whats the worst that can happ-
>ONLINE ONLY PAY TO ACCESS OTHER RACES AND UNITS LOCKED MAPS PRE PURCHASE MODS FASTER XP GAIN FOR HEROES AND ELITE UNITS CASH SHOP FOR INGAME HERO ITEMS

...

Really though. If they made a good traditional RTS but made it so I had to buy elites, heroes and factions, I'd do it. I would have done it if they did the same to Command & Conquer Generals 2.

>>relic
>show me DOW3 numbers, protip, it's 566 month average

For a physiological point of view you need to win about 30% of the time in order to remain interested

>nu-relic
Please no.
Just no.

You mean psychological?

There are too many variables to give such a number.
I'm often a cunt that finds themselves justifying their time by having the highest score on both teams, despite losing.
It'd obviously be skewed in an FFA style game as well.

It's based of studies of play in animals that found a sudden drop off in interest in the game if the weaker animal didn't win about 1/3 of the time. To the point where the stronger animal would let the other one win just to keep them interested.

what animals?

>relic

Not him, but rats/mice. I've heard the same number being dropped.

neat. didn't know rats/mice had games

>more skilled player wins
>inherently flawed

I mean, it's cool but
>extrapolating mice behavior to humans
that goes for that mouse utopia experiment too

making one bad game doesn't mean you'll automatically only make bad games from there on
I mean sure it's likely, but circumstances change and can effect development heavily

maybe dow3 tried to do a bunch of shit that didn't work out but ate a lot of time/money so they had to phone it in while still trying to aim for innovation and thus released a shitty assfaggots-like

Fuck pure RTS, I want a good mix of city building and RTS. A combination of Civilization, the old Zeus/Pharaoh/Caesar/Emperor games and Age of Empires would be sweet.

>haven't played AoE2 for years
>watch some AoE2 civ/unit analysis videos over a year because they interest me
>suddenly better against computer players than I ever was
>game isn't comfy any more
>can't play worse and still feel good

minmaxing truly is the bane of vidya
>replay city builders
>look up the most optimal grids and feel like shit if i stray from them because anything else is inefficient
>reinstall oblivion
>lookup 5/5/1 leveling guide and turn it into excel simulator with grinding

Fuck I remember going britons and saying feudal for that comfy thatch, just spamming farms and houses and windmills and having spearmen because they looked like farmers

That sounds nice user. I like the feudal age but I don't like how you can't heal scout cavalry and any other unit can only heal inside buildings which isn't nice at all, so I never stay there.

I only had the AoE2 demo as a kid, you could only play one of the Aztec maps. I used to cheat all the resources, rebuild the conquered cities and stage mock fights where I marched my own armies and killed them with delete

>You men will fight and die for my amusement.
brutal