How do we revive the RTS genre?

How do we revive the RTS genre?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/4saQchkrsM0
youtube.com/watch?v=AT29OGk_Byc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Remove micro since it's not tactics or RPG but RTS.

What franchises hasn't had an RTS yet? Do one of those I guess.

That or make Universe at War 2.

At least one of the winning ingredients is this man.

Tooth & tail

mein neger
Klepacki is a true OST god
youtu.be/4saQchkrsM0

Make an awesome VR rts.

Has an RTS where you can switch views onto the POV of the troops been done before?

Good single player campaign that really makes you understand each factions motivations and values.

Multiplayer that is relatively balanced but doesn't focus on muh e sports.

Creative units that are appealing to use, factions that are interesting and have flavor. Look at grey goo and ashes of the singularity as bad examples of this. I don't remember how a single fucking unit looked exactly or if there was anything really neat or fun about a single unit. Theres no soul to their designs. 4 legged mechs never look good and are the most uncreative kind(my distaste for them is all i remember of the human faction in grey goo); are people too afraid of being sued by mechwarrior/battletech if they make appealing mechs?

True fully fledged out 4x mode with multiplayer support and real time combat for unit stacks.

>4 legged mechs never look good

Universe at War and their "buildings" would like to disagree.

>That or make Universe at War 2.
I've been asking Petroglyph to re-release UaW for years, they fucking re-released Empire at War and brought online servers back and added Workshop.
Why the fuck can't they do the same with UaW?

There's some indie game that is a fps RTS hybrid I think on steam. Looks neat but unpolished

Make it team-based and you must choose from a cast of predfined commanders, each of whom has their own strengths and weaknesses. So basically an RTS overwatch.

like this:
youtube.com/watch?v=AT29OGk_Byc

I don't understand why you would want that. The genre already has plenty of strong games, so "reviving" it would just mean casualizing it.

Make it easy to get into, but hard to master

yes
Men of War assault squad 2 did this
You could even control them in third person and attack.
Also rise and fall, but only with hero units

>Red Alert in the OP

planetary annihilation

stop making shitty starcraft clones and stop ripping "skillshots" and other unit abilities from MOBAs.

Let players automate econ without removing their ability to choose their own builds.

Rogan?

Please don't, I'm tired of casuals ruining otherwise promising games.

Make it about macro instead of micro and focus on having FUN

Stop using modern or sci-fi settings

Man I hope that's going to be good. It looks like it has a ton of my favorite things all put together.

Rock Raiders

don't remove base building.

How would you make them easier to get into? In multiplayer the challenge already depends only on your opponent and the single player campaigns tend to be easy enough.

That's the problem... one huge problem... The obsession with 'biggger armies', 'bigger this', 'bigger that'.

Why? As you said, if you want things bigger, things have to be simplified. And that's the problem! What battle is there? On a smaller scale you get actual battle that you can behold and see the models fighting. Take the first mission from DoW2, where the scouts get rushed by orks as you run in to save them... You saw the shots fired hitting crates, covers, lamp posts, barrels, destroying them, sending debris everywhere, you saw models hiding behind cover, popping out to fire few shots and cover back down, you saw the brutal melee and constant shifting of units to get into better position, to flank and shoot the poor sods.

Now look at this, it's bigger... but there is no battle. The models stand in huge blobs and shoot at each other statically till some little tit decides to politely fall over. Congrats, you made armies huuuge, battles with hundreds of models at a time... While the conflict never before looked so flacid, lifeless and uninspired. Even the Imperial Knight, the colosal unit armed with rotary cannons with caliber size of a grown man... attacks like it merely decided to cast few noxious farts in the general direction of the foes.

Bigger is not better when you need to sacrifice so much to achieve such a small increment on scale. I'm baffled that when Michael Bay stuffs his movies with obnoxious explosions and pointless destruction everyone goes apeshit, but stuff it in an RTS and it's GG all of a sudden?

>dont worry guys, i'll save RTS

>planetary annihilation
>scroll across the map, get dizzy, throw up
>'easy to get into'

Mountain blade

Fun fact
Most mainstream rts games were inspired by a game called 7th Legion
Too bad almost no one ever heard of it

Jesus Christ
RTS threads are the living proof Sup Forums sucks at videogames
This is legitimately nauseous to read

>no minimap
no thanks

Make an RTS that lasts as long as Civ games but is not turn based nor does it have a hex grid. Maps fixed or randomly generated terrain that are big enough to fit 8 players or 3 large empires.

Players are Gods that compete with each politically, spiritually, economically, and militaristically. The stronger your control over your people, the more receptive your population is to your control.

Controls over your population and city are done Dwarf Fortress style. Players can be defeated militaristically, economically or losing majority favor with their starting population. Players that are defeated have their control reduced but retain partial control of their population (surviving populations get assimilated). Players are given the option of cooperating with their conqueror or vying to get back control. Players that cooperate will have some their God traits merge into a new god with traits from both but will not retain everything. Backstabbing can come into play where the Gods split and reemerge in their previous form.

Early game is centered around city building and trying to specialize your city to your terrain as much as possible. Middle game is centered around making political pacts with other players and structuring your economy. Late game is centered around social upheaval and war. The game ends when a player(players if they cooperate) holds the majority of control of the map.

The game mostly plays itself based on your decisions such as, what kind of God traits you hold eg, War, Harvest, Knowledge, Beauty, etc... your populations traits eg, Hardworking, Creative, Militaristic, Pacifist... map generation, economic trade and specialization, research and your political ties to other Gods. Certain God traits coordinate well and others will not, for example a military trait would complement a harvest one.

The idea is to lean on automation since there will be too much going on.
Players have greater control over military units than other types.

>Literally
I doubt that family. It's just making you sound silly

...

I'm not sure what people want from an RTS. There seem to be people that play only play SP for the dollhouse with guns experience and the multiplayer MP crowd that really likes the Economy Manager 9000 aspect. Those that like the MP but don't want to involve with base management and other stuff probably play mobas.

Make it about strategy and tactics not about speed and how fast one can click out a predetermined build order while micromanaging shit.

TA on spring.

>literally just one faction unless you get a mod
>ai is braindead
>first to orbitals wins
Nice """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""game"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Sort of this, though RTS side of it is weak, it's more of a hack and slash/RPG.

>Good single player campaign that really makes you understand each factions motivations and values.
>Multiplayer that is relatively balanced but doesn't focus on muh e-sports.
This.
Also, do away with MUH FAST PACED and rock-paper-scissors balancing. That shit turns every new RTS into wannabe-SC2.

t. "why can't I play every RTS like I play aoe2 with my friends" goy

I like base building, defenses, and artillery

Battlezone 1 and 2.
Also you can play them like a fps with vehicles.

What would a game about strategy and tactics be like?

not exactly what you're asking but in Natural Selection, one marine takes up the role of RTS-view "Commander". I think in NS2 they gave the aliens a commander, too. you can leave the command chair at any time and someone else can get in

bigger brain wins

You could take pov of your units and control them too in Machines, but it wasn't really that good of a game.

Forgot to add. Game setting is Medieval with no magic.

>Age of Empires remaster and AoE4 will be Windows 10 exclusive
I'm reeeing in ways never before experienced.

>Remaster is 10 exclusive
Fucking why? At least there's 2 HD that's windows Not 10 exclusive. Been playing it with my friend who uses wine and it apparently works well

In my prime I had around 200ms response times from playing Quake 3 arena all day and night.
I was shitting on those that you describe by sheer mechanical speed even though I was inferior in strategy and tactics, because the games we played were shallow in strategy and tactics and favored high speed no brain players.
I don't know. A mix of Rome Total war and Warzone 2100 but with some changes, I am not really an ideas guy.

Um Age if Empires II is still releasing content, sweaty

*tips fedora*

CnC: Generals? I agree that teams are the most fun way to play RTS.

I just want Rise of Legends on steam.

It doesn't need reviving. Starcraft (the original) and AoE2 are still going strong.

so why can't you be both fast and smart, and why shouldn't a real time strategy game reward this

Warzone 2100, you can switch to a 3rd person view and control the unit/squad as well as give orders

>you must choose from a cast of predfined commanders, each of whom has their own strengths and weaknesses. So basically an RTS overwatch
Every RTS game has "factions" which work like that though.

How to save the RTS genre.
- more focus on single player
- bots for people who want to play multiplayer maps without having to face pro gaymers
- no tech research
- no active skills for units
- no hero units
- no unit limit
- no profile level system
- RPS balance around units, not factions
- more focus on strategy and tactics and less on APM

Basically fuck Blizzard.

I understand you perfectly user even if your argument is all over the place.
There are many types of RTS fans but I never understood the "more&bigger" mindset.
Apocalypse mod for DoW is one of better examples of lotsa content and big ass units but barely anything making sense.

Call to Arms recently added a FPS mode. But the game is a worse MoWAS2 reskin.

This game was quite bad, but the company that made it went on to make 8-bit Armies, 8-bit Hordes, and 8-bit Invaders, which are really good games.

It's pretty simple to understand. It's the nr15 types.

Did anyone here play Sudden Strike 4? I want to buy it in the next sale, but I am not sure. I loved the first two Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg games, but I am a bit careful because Blitzkrieg 3 turned out to be a huge pile of shit.

If you go over arbitrary APM the game shuts off control.
Sounds strategic enough to you?

Grey Goo OST, story and cutscenes are really good though. Some of the best I've seen.

Using the high tech and bigger units all the time gets boring because you never have to fight for them you get no satisfaction from it.

East Asians are both fast and smart. I am not east Asian.
>why shouldn't a real time strategy game reward this
The focus on speed makes the games trivial in terms of strategy and banalizes any tactics and strategy.

imagine having a big empire and at its outskirts there is an undefended town in a valley on the mouth of river near a big hill. So you start building a defensive base on the hill because you border a hostile empire an the hill is a strategic defensive point.
Bad strategist would build a small base unsuited for defending against a larger invading force, shit strategist would not even care to build any defenses, great strategist would build strong defensive base with some room for a possibility to turn in to an offensive invasion launch point if needs occur.
You cannot find anything like this in most rts games as they just do not have anywhere near the scope for it, and from the lack of scope comes that most battles are just meaningless click fests.

>- no tech research
Why?
>- no unit limit
An advantage that secures map control would snowball way too hard.
>- no profile level system
Who cares when it has no impact on the game?
>- more focus on strategy and tactics and less on APM
I suppose much like every other shitter that suggests this you don't have an idea how this would work either?

>East Asians
>smart
There is a difference between being able to memorize a phone book and understanding the purpose of a phone book's content.

>I don't know what strategy and tactics are
>shitter
Opinion discarded.

eeew
Just stick to Clash of Heroes

>I'm a genius strategist because I would build a strong base instead of a weak one
Just no. Everything is normalized, balanced and information is way more complete than in actual warfare, so strategies are also normalized. Tactics are basically just the micro you keep crying about.

When you need a number from a phone book the guy telling you about philosophy behind the purpose of the phone book is useless and the guy that knows all of the phone book is the one that can help you.

Are Star Craft 2 and Dota 2 the only games you played?

You don't. Just need to make the games I'd like to see, such as a Battle Engine Aquila sequel ala Battlezone.

Goblin Commander

I would like more emphasis on the base building aspects and handling resources.

>i'm a baddie at this genre i pretend to like so much and i have no interest in getting better: the post

Handling resources is the most important aspect of pretty much any rts.

Assessing the level of a threat from the hostile empire based on intelligence about their offensive capabilities and diplomacy, and building the necessary defenses while estimating how big the defense can be and how expensive and worth while it will be in terms of resources,time,etc. is strategy that doesn't exist in most rts games.
That is why I mentioned Rome Total war and Warzone 2100.

If you ask other people for something that you can look up yourself than there is a high chance that you suffer from a severe mental disability.

Listen buddy, it all comes down to this:

If you remove the execution element, the game quickly becomes a solved RPS type thing, and that's the good case where it's balanced. It's absolutely necessary to have execution matter to have any meaningful competition.

I'm thinking more like units needing to haul all the resources to wherever they're needed instead of them just magically teleporting around.
Really what I want is an Anno game with some decent combat that affects your city/base.

If you use "than" instead of "then" then there is a high chance that you suffer from a severe mental disability.

The problem with RTS is the AI is always shit, so difficulty is created by having the computer player break the rules.

Then in multiplayer the game isn't play-tested enough to root out boring cookie-cutter quick-victory strategies. So you don't get that long drawn out sense of battle that you want out of a game that's supposed to be about war.

This kills the RTS.

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War

Can be gotten for free from Ubisoft.

Some games don't focus on ressources management as hard as other

That exists in any RTS, not even in a particularily abstract manner. You have to scout for offensive strategies of your opponent and prepare for them without overinvesting.

Go back to gorgeous 2D instead of shitty 3D that makes every RTS look the same.

English is not my first language you inbred anglo.

b-b-b-but Sup Forums told me goodclickers just follow a script every game!

Play total war games and don't direct your battles.
There you go.

by playing Company of Heroes 1. It perfected the genre.