Is RTS dare i say it... SAVED?!

is RTS dare i say it... SAVED?!

>Tfw no mp

RTS died because of the focus on competitive MP only appealed to a very niche audience
A more relaxed approach like this game could revitalize the genre

don't ruin TAB with your retarded shitposting.

>glorified TD map
RTS is dead, bury it.

>They are Billions
>RTS
Pick one.

>another dime a dozen streamer beat zombie game
>this time it's a RTS game
Yeah, I'd rather RTS games stay dead instead of being butchered and raped like this.

No idea how it gained so much popularity, I guess most people play RTS like a singleplayer tower defense game against AI and nobody had really tried to tap into that before.

Still, needs a lot of work, pic very related.

>no content
>no online
>tower defense
>savior of RTS
just

Ironically, it could have a billion people playing it and it would still be irrelevant because it's single player. Player counts don't matter in these games, it's not like other players add to your experience in any way.

Honestly surprised this didnt take off like dota did. Turtle defense games in warcraft 3 were my jam.
>sheep tag
>kodo tag
>civilization
>jurassic park
>wintermaul

>RTS
????????????????????????????????

>Early Access
Nice try but I don't pay to bug test games.

>games have to be multiplayer to be relevant to the genre

I downloaded it today. It's one of those kinds of timesink games that I end up spending half the day playing despite not really having fun at any point.

It's more that literally the only reason people meme about playercounts is because a multiplayer game with no playerbase is a dead game. Single player games dont have that issue, a good game is a good game even if only 50 people in the world are playing it.

Shitty indie td game. Not worth pirating

I've played over 100 hours, and at this point I'm just another turbo autist trying to beat the last map on 320% with flamers instead of rocketman.... it's addictive as shit tho. hope they continue working on it

gate keepers hate it

Would a coop mode add to/detract from the experience?

Sounds like the new Rimworld then.

>released 3 days ago
>Even if you played 24 hours everyday, it will only be 72 hours, or 96 hours at max
>claimed to play over 100 hours
Thanks for confirming this thread to be a shilling thread.
Mods Please delete this fucking shill thread.

Are you fucking stupid? The game's been out weeks, we're not in December anymore.

Has a physics based RTS been done before? Like not only do you have to compensate for troops, objectives and all that jazz but also how your troops interact physically with the environment (Crushing people from falling flying units etc.)

>pause
>rts
Retard
Triple retard

This.
+40 hours and I still don't feel like it's worth the money.

Any game benefits from being playable with friends.

Battle Realms has those boulders

Holy fucking shit could you shills please get the fuck off Sup Forums once and for all?

It caters to hordes of turtling compstomp scrubs that prefer meticulously overfitting their ecoing tactics to beat a braindead AI instead of fighting a thinking and creative human opponent. It will revive the genre of RTS that draws from mobile games and incrementers where every static challenge is beatable if you minmax it long enough. Actual RTS requiring tactics, spontaneous action and creativity will die.

>>released 3 days ago

anti shills confirmed for mentally deficient

nothing can save rts. not even aoe4

>MUH SHILLS
kek you guys are so fucking pathetic

suck my cock

fuck off, it died because every series turned into shit, and none of them did because of "muh evil competetive MP focus"

Red Alert 3, CnC4, AoE3, Empire Earth 3, Stronghold3, it's like all big RTS companies agreed that they will kill the genre together and make people not wanna play and buy these games anymore

This.
Most people who look to RTS as being "better in the olden times" were retards who never sat foot online and only played against AI or on LAN with equally retarded friends.
The main difference between RTS then and now is that it's expected to be played online and against other players.

>m-muh pvp and skillzzz
kill yourselves

>Can't even read
Dumb shitholer.

except modern RTS focuses so much on learning the meta that a new player has to spend hundreds of hours just to learn the basics before they can even apply any sort of "innovative" tactics. It's decently fun to watch the pros because they have the basics down to a tee but theyre no fun to play.

>I guess most people play RTS like a singleplayer tower defense game against AI
yes, this is how i play rts
i turtle until i survive with static defenses, then build an army to wipe out the enemy bases
i've played multiplayer rts maybe twice over lan

>Actual RTS requiring tactics, spontaneous action and creativity will die.
it's like you're implying most multiplayer RTS games aren't mindlessly following the meta and microing well

Fellas how do we revive the RTS genre? Is there any hope for it?

>RTS focuses so much on learning the meta
No RTS focuses on any of the sort.
Do you think a developer designs an RTS with a meta in mind? Or do you think a meta develops from the players playing it?
You brainlets are so fucking annoying to "discuss" with because you lack a fundamental understanding of what you're complaining about.
A meta develops from the players, not the developers. There is no focus.
What you're talking about is people using the most effective strategies/tactics instead of thinking up their own. And that happens in ANY game.

That's only a problem in RTS that are too heavy on meta, in any decent one learning not to be retarded takes no more than an hour. The real problem is that 90% of RTS "players" want no challenge, to feel safe at all times and not to take risks - so they naturally gravitate towards the gamestyle of turtling first, overrunning the enemy with comically oversized forces later. All this stuff is satisfied by tower defense games and city builders, RTS doesn't need to cater to this shit.

Embarrassing.

There are more RTS than Starcraft out there.

tower defense doesn't have an enemy base to destroy

It applies to every RTS, Starcraft is just the worst offender

Does not matter who developed the meta. The point is that new players has to learn the meta to be decently successful. And the amount of shit a player has to know for modern RTS is ridiculously high compared to how much success they can get without knowing the meta. Every game and every genre has their own meta but modern competitive RTS relies on meta so heavily that the success of the genre is suffering because of it.

And that has nothing to do with RTS in general. It is the nature of multiplayer.

If you pit a newbie against a pro, sure. In a custom newbie game any newbie that gets out of the turtling mindset will wreck another. They just don't do that because it requires a bit of effort.

>Competitive games aren't about who has the most skill
>Competitive games aren't about who utilizes the best strategy
Do you actually think things through before posting?

This is what happens when the developers try to control how the game should be played. They put more and more constraints upon the choices you can make, until all that remains is APM and meta.

Problem is there are people, who will deny every tactic not endorsed by a pro or a streamer. They will defend this meta, that has been fed to them, against every logical argument until the moment their truth changes to a new one embraced again without thought.

He's right, tho. I really liked FPS games as a kid because I saw them kinda like a city sim with a focus on military. When I saw the focus was APM and manipulating the game's shitty UI and pathfinding, it just turned me away from the genre.

>Competitive games aren't about who utilizes the best strategy
did I say that dude
the problem is when the best strategy has already been discovered, and both players use it mindlessly so it only becomes a match of skill

It's literally doing the very same thing MOBAs do.

>muh balance
fuck off and make a fun campaign first

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.
Meta will develop regardless of developer interference.
If you compare Starcraft:Broodwar and Starcraft 2 you'll notice they both have a rigid meta set up. The difference is that Blizzard actively tried to control the meta in Starcraft 2, and left Starcraft:Broodwar more or less untouched. And both games still has meta.
You are after an idea that doesn't exist. You CAN'T get rid of meta, it is the nature of multiplayer.

Supreme Commander physically simulates all projectiles so not only can units avoid slow projectiles and direct fire units can hit hills and mountains instead of their target but it also allows for rare and hilarious collisions between things like strategic missiles, air superiority fighters and transports.

How does a meta develop?

Lots of people playing and noticing what works and what doesn't.

It has been playable for at least a few weeks already you fucking mango

Obviously someone had to discover it first, but most people don't need to do any thinking for themselves

I'm glad we agree.
Now perhaps we can stop this farce about "RTS being too focused on meta". There is no way to avoid this.

So the problem is the free flow of information.

That does sound hilarious.

On topic, I feel that the single player is as important as the multiplayer. Part of the charm of RTS campaigns is that it can offer scenarios that the multiplayer can't do/would not be able to handle. Plus it's fun to see how far the computer can go to cheat (Like in Dawn Of War where the enemy can have tier 3 tech right off the bat)

the problem is games with a shallow strategic depth, you can't control the flow of information

Make it more casual.

Warhammer II is doing fine as well

I'm not talking about getting rid of it, but as you said of controlling it in order to lead o a certain kind of gameplay. Let's say Blizzard would like SC2 to play in a certain way they feel is right for e-sports. Then it is them trying to steer the meta and keep it the way they like it.

I think this kind of attitude is bad for RTS. It reduces your choices and turns the game into the most rudimentary tactics and unit control.

Not RTS.

Right, I agree, games are too shallow - too little content - too little freedom for the player.
But this was not the complaint initially, stating that "the focus is on meta" is retarded.
But if you look at games like Supreme Commander it is the exact same story, people have little interest in it regardless of it being incredibly versatile in terms of strategic depth - A resourceful player can make a lot of things happen.
No, the problem is obviously that players don't want to be challenged.

players who don't want to be challenged aren't the target audience for multiplayer games anyway, let them have their sandbox toys

>I'm not talking about getting rid of it
It doesn't matter what Blizzard wanted.
Starcraft:Broodwar had very little developer interference and it still developed a rigid meta that you so detest.

What you are arguing about is lazy people looking up tactics.

dota killed it, tower defense killed it.

I think you overestimate the goodwill of developers. Surely they want money for their work.

I think Total Annihilation was better in this aspect, where units not classified as anti-air could still target and fire at air targets with varying degrees of success.

Also, I've never seen two air units colliding with each other in SupCom

Maybe you are right and I am just annoyed by lazy people who can't think for themselvs.

>Also, I've never seen two air units colliding with each other in SupCom
Well now you're just arguing about degrees of physical simulation.
Are you going to bring up the lack of wind affecting artillery-shells too?

>shallow strategic depth
You don't understand even 0.00001% of Brood War/Sc2/Wc3 meta or even the meta of baby games like LoL or Dota. You're just bad at the game, both micro and macro, so you lost. Git gud or fuck off to your tower defense turtling simulator, retarded nigger.

still havent figured out why people love this game so much. it looks boring as shit. Like Command and conquer but worse

Don't put the blame entirely on ASSFAGGOTS and Tower Defense games. It also involved developers becoming lazy/stupider alienating both compstompers and multiplayer fans in RTS games over the course it's dying breath.

>You don't understand even 0.00001% of Brood War/Sc2/Wc3 meta or even the meta of baby games like LoL or Dota
how do you know? why do retards assume if you criticize something you must be bad at it and jealous?

>It's one of those kinds of timesink games that I end up spending half the day playing despite not really having fun at any point.

Why are you playing this game if you DONT have fun?

>No idea how it gained so much popularity
It was shilled on here and on Twitch for a few weeks.

Because then you wouldn't spout asinine shit like "the best strategy is already discovered"

Stop putting so much focus on autistic micromanagement. Nobody likes it.

t.starshit player sub 2k in dota
>every RTS needs to be e-sport but mobas don't requiere skill reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Because it's obvious to people who actually play these things.
It's not as "simple" as just looking up a scrap-book on how to do things.
You still need game-sense, you still need apm, you still need macro/micro capabilities and the understanding to prioritize it.
Sure some strategies are easier to execute than others, but unless you're up against a drooling retard you will need to possess a modicum of skill yourself.
Furthermore "meta" is always developing as counter-strategies are discovered, which trumps this notion that you HAVE to know the meta.

It's some kind of mental trick. I'm not having fun yet I feel compelled to fulfil these tiny and immediate tasks. Something like just one more action before I save and quit repeated infinitely until four hours have gone by and I am disgusted with myself.
I had the same experience with Stardey Valley.

Reducing an argument down to an inaccurate, black-and-white statement is what's really asinine

Metagames will always exist. You don't watch a f1 race and wonder why all the cars have the same spoilers and aerodynamic profile, even the clunker you drive around only exists because of ruthless optimization for efficiency in a bunch of different metrics. Optimization of anything and everything is inevitable, it's practically codified into the way the universe works.

>You still need game-sense, you still need apm, you still need macro/micro capabilities and the understanding to prioritize it.
no shit, that's skill not strategy (although game sense is both I guess)

>game is good but has no e-sport
>lul shit game no e-sport = dead
>game is good but has e-sport
>lul e-sport is shit killed all good sp games

can somebody explain this board inb4 different people meme

E-sport needs to be mechanically engaging to be fun to watch. MOBAs are dull and require no mechanical skill. Watching someone play Starcraft or Warcraft 3 is fun. Watching someone farm lane for 40 minutes and then engage in retarded ganks for another 2 hours isn't

>MOBAs are dull and require no mechanical skill
wrong

Personally, it depends on how much the E-sport aspect encroaches on the rest of the game.

>separating skill and strategy
Stop posting any time

I forgot to type my thoughts.

What I'm saying is that there will always develop optimized strategies in any genre (meta) - it exists in fighting games, fps, rts - tbs etc.
Back in the day we just didn't have the internet to accelerate this process. Back in the day you' had your little group of friends who played for the fun of it. Sometimes one of them would come up with some new approach to things and the strategy would be adopted because it worked.
Same happens now, it's just on a global scale due to the internet being far more accessible.

they already changed the meta towards you retarded shitters so can watch fights every second.

yes, they're two completely different things and you can be good at one and terrible at another