What is your favourite incoming mechanism in RTS?

What is your favourite incoming mechanism in RTS?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EP9F-AZezCU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Probably a resource that you have to reach with trucks or choppers.

It opens up a lot of tactical options.

Mexes/map control is better as it counters turtling

Why would you want to counter turtling? It should be a valid strategy.

In fact, with games like Supreme Commander you could even build huge artillery cannons to shoot the enemy from across the map with. Which is awesome.

rushing is already a counter to turtling by itself, it doesn't need the map resources to push it aswell

I miss turtling.

I miss being able to build buildings that produced the resources you need.

He's one of those muh starcraft muh APM players

It causes snowballing though. It's not necessarily bad for an RTS, but it takes the fun out of FFA matches on big maps with many players. It also makes it more difficult to strike a balance of power in 1v1 where you'll experience completely one sided stomps 80% of the time, which get boring quickly even if you're winning.

I like the AoE2 method where every resource is required, but food and wood that produce shitty units is far easier to secure than gold and stone, with the market and trading allowing you keep producing units even when map control is lost (albiet at a huge disadvantage in price)

But giant artillery cannons that cost a ton of resources to build are the counter to your small, resource-starved base. You don't understand the very thing you're praising.

Controlling all resources on the map is the counter to turtling.

Except defenses are usually much more efficient than offensive units. Which is where giant artillery cannons that fuck your shields up counter your small, AOE-vulnerable base that are enabled by the map control and the resources you have. Giant fuckoff artillery cannons are not a tool for turtles, they're a tool against turtles. They are awesome, but for the opposite reason of that user.

>can't think outside of the box or comprehend multiple strategies outside of his limited paradigm
This is why video games suck nowadays.

Giant stationary guns are neither, they're tie breakers. They are there to end the standoff between two built up bases, neither with a decisive mobile unit advantage over another. The one that can save up enough resources to start attacking the enemy directly while keeping up the standoff wins.

If somebody's hardcore turtling the most direct answer is to just build tier 3 artillery or a nuke because a shitload of tier 2/tier 3 point defense will eat many multiples of their cost in units. They're never used in an even, skirmishy game that the majority of Forged Alliance matches work out to and are a specific counter to a strategy, ie. turtling.

I mean, it's the equivalent of thinking that fireballs counter zoning instead of enabling it. I don't know what to say to you user.

Battle for Middle Earth 2 was great. They were building that had a zone of control around them. And if these circles overlapped or was blocked by certain terrain like water or mountains then it wouldn't be reduced. So the map had a maximum possible income and your income was determined by how much of the map you controlled

From a multiplayer perspective, WC3 had the best incoming management system ever made. It is a legit masterpiece, even if the graphics and lore were Disney'd.

>I mean, it's the equivalent of thinking that fireballs counter zoning instead of enabling it
Sure if that's your state of mind.

>/f(a)gg(ot)/
And this is why RTS are dead, because APM imbeciles like you that cannot comprehend any semblence of tactics that go outside of your limited fixed view of "muh meta".
Please kill yourself.

>Except defenses are usually much more efficient than offensive units.
In SupCom the exact opposite is true. Maps are HUGE, so unless you're defending a strategic choke or a rally point where you mass your robots, the mobility of mobile units is far more valuable than cost-effectiveness of your stationary defenses. And on top of that, an effective fire base has a pretty steep cost because it needs redundant shields, some arty, some AAA, radar, and enough turrets to fight off an equivalent cost of mobile units, all of which eats into your pop cap as well. A dozen gunships you can send out to counter sorties is far better bang for your mass.

Then there's nukes. After t3 sets in the production cost of a nuke is trivial, so each and every fort you want to keep has to have its own strategic missile defense. An opponent can force you to stall your economy shoring up your defenses just by building a silo and leaving it on idle.

I mean, I'm assuming you're approaching the game from a competitive, playing-to-win standpoint, in which case it's really not about state of mind, it's about what works and what the mechanics of the game enable and are designed around.

>buzzwords, deflection, random garbage
I don't think you even play RTS games, user.

If turtling was a viable strategy the only winning move would be not to attack you fucking retards.

I said efficient, as in 500 metal of defense will eat 2000 metal of attacking unit, not effective as in will win you games.

Turtling obviously does not work at all in Forged Alliance, it was intentionally nerfed out of the game with the decreased efficiency of mass generators. Map control is the name of the game, and if you try and turtle giant artillery is just one of the many ways you lose the game because you're so far behind economically.

Universe At War eco

The reason it's like that is because of idiots like you that pressure devs to change the meta of the game to be like this to begin with, it's explicitly evident with Company of Heroes and Age of Empires where devs completely cave in to pressure from APM autists that can't comprehend anything outside of their muscle memory trained singular approach and the result is a no-fun-allowed game and why RTS died.
RTS didn't use to be like this, the few that are still player to this day through unofficial means such as older CnC games or Battle for Middle Earth are good examples of games where variety of tactics, including fun and zany ones, simply work when the player adapts well.
This is not possible in your trash shitpiles like SC where it's mathematically impossible because every single method except one viable one has been ensured to be impossible.
Kill yourself.
Enough buzzwords for you, shill?
Have one more, get cancer and die for killing my beloved genre.

>Wanting to turtle in a RTS
>Calls others that wanted more action APM jerkers

Just go play city builders.

>Why can't I just sit in my base right from the start and out-produce someone who has 90% of the map?
Because it would be a retarded game where the only winning move is not to attack.
You have to create incentives for conflict - namely fighting over resources.

Why did they have to kill off the best Nod character, second only to Kain?

You're projecting an awful lot onto a total stranger whose tastes and game preferences you don't know anything about, user. Perhaps take a breather and come back to the thread when you've calmed down.

Did you quote the wrong post or something my man?

>every single match is decided in ten minutes by cavalry and pike merry-go-round
>great
If buildings had 10x the hit points and cavalry and monsters couldn't just bulldoze infantry and archers I'd agree with you, but as it is the game is only good for compstomping with glitched custom heroes. Unless you install the community patch, then that becomes shit too.

I've always hated the idea that APM correlates with skill. Because at a certain point it just takes a massive amount of autism. It's only shared with MOBAs

Pretty much this

Best characters always die

Even Kane kinda did

>Did you quote the wrong post or something my man?
Maybe I did, it's always the same in every RTS thread, SimCity-fans come in and complain about APM and you have to repeat the same old talking points. And they're too dense to get it.

meant for

t. brainlet

>WAAAH I WANT MY ESPORTS
lmao

I think it's fine that different games can reward different skillsets. If high APM isn't your thing, don't play Starcraft. If tight execution isn't your thing, don't play fighting games. If platforming isn't your thing, etc. That doesn't invalidate people who do possess those skillsets and excel at the game they play.

>Turtling is a viable strategy - > WW1 Endless and ultimately pointless sluaghterhouse.
You simply have to make sure the resources run out quickly otherwise the gameplay will bog down to "Nothing New on the Western Front" for 2 hours or more.

>Turtling is not a viable strategy -> WW2
Anything goes, really.

You're a complete retard that not only jumped to conclusions but also didn't read the post chain to which you replied.
There is nothing wrong with resources on the map, the fucking imbecile was saying resources shouldn't be on the map and instead map control should triumph resource management and tactics, he also went on to say that turtling should never be viable because he's too fucking stupid to comprehend the concept of using artillery to smoke out his enemy, or using air units and circling around from the back after creating a diversion to lure his forces, or any other strategy you can think of. But nope, it has to be all about perfect math, singular tactic and singular build order and whoever APMs his build order faster, wins. Sure is exciting.
Unless that retard is you in which case I'll repeat what I said earlier.
Get cancer and die for ruining RTS.

You need to know the game inside and out to have high MEANINGFUL APM. Clicking like a retarded monkey is not going to win you any games, starcraft or any other RTS.

You're arguing with two or three different people at this point, none of whom have stated a single thing that you're fuming about. Why are you so mad, is only game(s) user.

People ITT don't get the problem. Yes it's okay to have an "optimal" build order where every second counts and a missed click can matter. It's however not okay when the devs balance games around it.

So now that we have surpassed the apm-whine maybe we can actually begin talking about games.

I recently acquired this and was wondering what people's opinion is of it.
Personally I think the Succubus is a poor replacement for the Mistress, but the overall gameplay seems far more engaging than in Dungeon Keeper 2.

>It's however not okay when the devs balance games around it.
And this is the problem because literally all modern RTS are explicitly built around APM-based build-order focused singular playtype meta, which is why RTS are dead.

What games are balanced around apm?

That's as true as it is irrelevant. You're only going to get that exchange rate if you can somehow force me into attacking your turret, otherwise it's 1 pop and a pile of resources that is not doing anything.

The biggest fucking retard here is you. Every game that has fortifications usually has a siege unit that trivializes them somehow, so having fortifications weak against non-siege units is just shit design. If castles and towers were more resistant to trebuchets AoE2 would be the perfect demonstration of how to do it right.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If there's an optimal way to play, no matter how the game is balanced, if I do it faster than you I have an advantage. You can't not balance around that except by making the game turn-based.

>Frogs
>Turtling example

Starcraft 1 and 2
Company of Heroes 2
Age of Empires 2
You know, only the three biggest RTS games played today.
Retard.

I'm not sure what point you think I was arguing but we don't disagree at all.

>Sup Forums, the armchair RTS game designers.

I swear, this is just as bad as when Sup Forums starts "talking" about fighting games. Substitute dragon punch motions for trivial build orders.

Usually in tower defense games, but ive seen a few rts games do it. The "money" you have builds interest if you don't use it. So the game has this awesome strategy of using everything efficiently and not mass building units or buildings and building useless stuff for the moment so you can maximize you income

I might be having the dumb again. Which one was you?

>There is nothing wrong with resources on the map
And how do you acquire these resources if not through map control?
>instead map control should triumph resource management and tactics
Complete strawman, map control should be encouraged to create incentives for conflict.
>he also went on to say that turtling should never be viable
And he's right. Incentives for conflict.
>using artillery to smoke out his enemy, or using air units and circling around from the back after creating a diversion to lure his forces
You can do that without turtling.
>But nope, it has to be all about perfect math, singular tactic and singular build order and whoever APMs his build order faster
Yes, being better than your opponent should usually result in you winning.
Speed is a skill, and as usual you apm-lets think people with high apm are just mindlessly clicking everywhere. We're getting shit done with our apm, it's called multitasking - something that is fundamental to RTS.
Go play turn-based strategy if you don't like things going fast.

It was a rhetorical question.
>What games are balanced around apm?
And the answer is ALL of them. If it's an RTS then it's balanced around you being able to make shit happen faster than your opponent.

Go play turn-based strategy instead. You're in the wrong thread.

tl;dr guy stated that artillery was a tool of turtles, I stated that artillery actually cracks turtles. That's all.

Your narrow idiotic view of nuMale that clearly never played RTS back before they went to shit because of subhumans like you is why RTS are shit now.
I'm done here, get cancer and die already mother fucker die die die fucking die.

CoH is not APM intensive at all. With infantries you either direct them to cover, advance, or click a button to completely retreat. With vehicles you have to make sure their backs are not exposed and move them with as little turning as possible. CoH units don't respond fast enough that it will benefit from command spamming. In fact it probably makes things worse.

Macro is minimal as there is little base management and it's much more about preserving units than pumping units. It looks like you are just making a blanket statement that competitive RTS are all about APM. Even pros said they can play on 30 APM and still win, unless even that is too much for you.

i can do a DP as fine as i can box a dozen t1 units and a-click them into enemy territory. it's the "getting to the skill level required to have fun in versus matches" thing that Sup Forums has a problem with in both games, mainly "knowing all your moves, what they do and when it's appropriate to use them in footsies" and "knowing all yor units, what each does and when it's approppriate to build them based on what you've scouted" for fightans and RTS respectively

Which RTS wasn't shit back in the day then, kiddo?

People think that execution, either inputting a quarter-circle forward or being able to click 60 times in 15 seconds, is the end-game instead of the bare minimum needed to even start playing the actual game. A common mistake among casuals that don't even play video games.

Is this how you argue everything in life? Low-key feeling bad for you senpai.

AoE2 is a good example of an RTS where while APM is important, overall strategy goes really far. of all played RTS's atm is probably the one that has the most "dumb" strategy's in it, like tower dropping and monk rushes.

About this thread in general I don't know why people think turtling is entirely a bad thing. SupCom does it great and it has many problems but can still win you the game if you play it right. Also turtling =/= no map control, depending on how the games played a few scouting parties can help fight for map viability without taking to much from your economy. RTS with nothing but rush down games are not fun IMO.

>tfw RTS threads have devolved into a cesspool and you can't talk about anything other than apm

It's weird, I just can't find myself respecting people who play RTS games with the super high APM tryhard attitude. Watching people who play like that they spend 99% of the time jumping around the map with hotkeys and the rest of the time playing the game. Might as well be a sidescroller.

Turtling needs to be measured. In the original SupCom, the numbers were so skewed towards resource generators, energy generators, and shield strength that you could just North Korea your way to end-game faster than an opponent could reasonably stop you.

This is incredibly bad gameplay because there's no interaction with your opponent. Forged Alliance, in my opinion, changed the balance too far in the other way to the point that skirmishing, building 15 tier 1 factories, and just rushing the opponent is too optimal of a play.

Neither game is perfect but I think I speak for most when I say that Forged Alliance is a better mistake to make than the vanilla game.

>click 60 times in 15 seconds

That's 240 APM. Pro Gooks average 200 in SC2.
A proper equivalent would be pulling off a mid-screen combo which needs tons of buffer with multiple charges, pretzel motions, juggle, some frame links and at least one 720.

We're talking basic stuff like using hotkeys instead of selecting units and clicking on icons like a cripple with one hand.

How can a RTS game not be ultimately about APM? Isn't that the thing about it being real-time; meaning by constantly trying to optimize you will naturally start to do the most actions in the least amount of time required.

Forged Alliance I feel was blanced with team games in mind. In games with 2v2 or larger you tend to see the higher tiers start poping up more frequently.

>How can a RTS game not be ultimately about APM?
They can't. These "arguments" you're seeing in this thread ultimately comes back to the fundamental in where they can't quantify what constitutes too much apm. They don't understand that in any well-balanced game, apm is what sets players apart.

>Being this fucking bad at rts

There's a reason starcraft will be the king of rts till the end of time, and it had nothing to do with gookclick

depends if your playing competitively
very few single player rts maps require you to go autistic with apm
hell some go out of their way to be the opposite where you spend the entire map controlling like 1 unit
>Cyborg Commando in Tiberium Sun

The problem arises when games like SCII inflate the number of actions required when they could easily be streamlined or even automated (i.e. unit production and resource gathering).

Have an RTS with multiple types of strats that are all viable and with mixed match ups of said strats.

In the end APM is very important, with a well thought out RTS the idea is a player with a better strategy can make up for a lot even if he has less APM.

Well, I was arguing that the main fault of turtling in SupCom was inherent in stationary defenses not being impactful enough even after they got buffed up in FA, not that the economy nerf was relevant. Mexes were always faster, cheaper and safer than rushing t3 and building fabricator farms.

He might be arguing about the chaotic mess that playing CoH is, not apm proper. Between scouting, taking points and directing your fights the sheer number of things you have to do at the same time can be overwhelming.

I'd like a new RTS to play, it's a shame no one seems to be able to get it right other than Blizzard.

>Blizzard
they haven't gotten it right since brood war, SC2 was a shitshow

>it's a shitter got rushed 15 years ago while building his pretty base and is still mad episode

What went wrong with RTS?

What went right with RTT ?

I got it expecting nothing but was pleasantly surprised, too. It's basically Dungeon Keeper 3. Though I haven't found a lot of players online to play against - it's the same few dudes over and over in my timezone.

This.
I hate starcraft for pretty much being the grandfather of "forced actions" despite many previous RTS at the time making movements to make ease of life changes like hot keys unlimited unit selections, patrol paths ect, ect.

The only complaint with apm-inflation would be the Zerg Queen's Larvae Inject, no reason why that can't be auto-cast, but everything else is very much streamlined to the point of breaking game-balance because you no longer have to make decisions about macro or micro.

westwood dying killed RTS

No one else has either. DoW is fun for a week, the recent games barely have base building and "The Goo" or whatever it was called was shit.

ultimately, APM can hit a limit. i think the most recorded is 400 in broodwar by a pro player during a match.
meanwhile, the other half of the game, the strategy, will never hit a limit, since, even now, broodwar evolves.
youtube.com/watch?v=EP9F-AZezCU is a very good video that has points that can be applied to all RTS and, hell, even fighters and all the competitive games Sup Forums hates

blood

>What went wrong with RTS?
Nothing.
RTS was always niche.

>dungeon keeper soul successor
First time I've heard of it desu.
Does it still have an optoin for first person control over you're minions?

Can you still build pop ignoring skeleton armies for shits and giggles?

More accent on macro, more competent AI, automation that is reliable but not perfectly safe, and not artificially inflating execution requirements by giving all units abilities that have to be activated manually if you want them to do their jobs.

People made mods and games that automated all of that.
No one played them.

Even fucking Divekick is mad fun and a good player shits all over newbies. Sort your shit out, people.

I'd love to see RTS become more about long terms strategy aka macro instead of the autistic split second decisions. I"d like something more in line with Chess or Baduk

>Does it still have an optoin for first person control over you're minions?
It does, although I find it a bit lackluster as it's difficult to know if you're actually attacking since there's no animation.

>spoiler
I don't actually think there's a pop-limit to begin with. I haven't reached it yet. But there's a maximum count to how many units your hand can hold (10) so having loads of units can be a problem when you're trying to dump them all.

Ah, I don't watch SC2. I'm a Brood War and a Zerg fan at that so 300+ is the absolute norm. Thanks for the perspective friend.

Anno isn't about APM tho

>Inb4 N-Not an RTS

Ever considered that RTS (REAL time strategy) is not what you're looking for then?

I agree! Turtling sucks, too much in fact in my opinion, in Forged Alliance. However, our friendo was making a very newbie mistake about what tools are good for what situation is all I really wanted to comment on and then this thread happened.

Anno is also a game more akin to SimCity, it also happens to be a snoozefest.

I picked it up during the sale and I've been enjoying it. I never played the original Dungeon Keeper, but I've played stuff like Evil Genius and Dungeons, so it's been fun so far.

>What went wrong with RTS?
Competitive multiplayer. RTS was something you bought for the single player campaign, then maybe later played on LAN against your equally clueless friends. The moment it became focused on competitive multiplayer turbo-autists started dictating the pace, and everyone else had the choice of following that pace, playing with shitters in the kiddy pool, or not playing at all. Also, playing with people you know meant something, you were having fun with friends. Playing against strangers on the internet is meaningless.
>What went right with RTT ?
Nothing, it's the little part of RTS that weathered the change.

RTS is just TBS with millions of short turns per second

I played a lot of Dungeon Keeper 2, and was quite amazed at how closely it resembles it. Although the campaign felt confusing as the narrator seems to imply I should know some things I don't.