Haree78 Haree78

Why I haven't enjoyed multiplayer RTS since Myth: TFL

▼

Why I haven't enjoyed multiplayer RTS since Myth: TFL

from Sins Forums

I'm not the only one who avoids multiplayer RTS gaming, even though I wish I was good at it and enjoy other multiplayer games like FPS, MMOs, all sorts, which I am often extremely good at, RTS only works for me in single player.

I come from the birth of RTS days, I completed Dune 2, many believe C&C invented RTS, C&C copied Dune 2 big time.  Some might claim games like Mega-lo-Mania (which I also played) are more the birth of RTS, but put that game next to RTS of today and there is next to no resemblance.  Compare Dune 2 to games like C&C Red Alert 2, the up and coming Starcraft 2 or even Sins and you can see things really haven't changed a hell of a lot.

In the old days people played vs the PC in RTS, multiplayer was enjoyed by very few PC gamers.  Most RTS campaigns would involve you starting with a tiny force against a well established base so you would need to prepare a good defence before the first wave came along.  A campaign level would mostly consist of turtling, countering waves until you had built up enough tech and units to begin destroying the enemy(s).

Multiplayer RTS really took off because of Battlenet.  I don't care if you can tell me about being able to play multiplayer RTS online before that, I know you could, but the systems of getting a game up and running meant RTS wasn't played online more than by small pockets of the online community.  Another company, around the same time introduced a game and it's own version of Battlenet, that company was Bungie, who created Bungie.net(!), and it's game that was going to be something amazing that is still played today?  Myth: The Fallen Lords.

Starcraft became massive, all of a sudden people started talking about perfect build orders, rushing, micro-management.  All of these terms and styles of play were completely alien to me, I tried the perfect build orders, they improved my game, I tried to change, but it felt like I was just racing, rather than strategising.  I used to enjoy winning by becomming impregnable, I love setting up a defence that was able to repel any force and that just didn't work in muliplayer.

On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game.  There was micromanagement but your forces only consisted of about 30 units at best.  You commanded them as an army, having your archers nowhere near your thralls or soldiers was crazy, each had their role.  The game didn't have build orders, it didn't need shortcut keys to switch to different base buildings, rushing was unlikely.  It was pure strategy and tactical combat, even using the terrain was important, using height for your archers and dwarfs for example.

Ever since these two great, well loved games multiplayer RTS has gone 1 direction only, speed.  Games have got faster, constant attacking and building is required to win.  Where are the games that have advanced what Myth did?  I see tons of games taking the SC formula and making it faster, considering how successful Myth was and how it is still played today (Myth II mostly) what games have followed in it's vein?

I enoy Sins single player as I can play that like I could play RTS years ago, I can tech up and build up just playing defencively until I'm ready to dominate.  I know I would be a million times better player if I was more aggressive, if I didn't use Capital Ships as much because I enjoy seeing them in battle or if I micro'd units a lot more but I can't change.  I've tried and I don't find it fun.  Am I alone in being this way?  Pretty sure I'm not, and I'm sure there are others like me that are waiting for that game to come out that will tap that very style of play I like to enjoy and can enjoy it against others.

200,677 views 62 replies
Reply #51 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting hairlessOrphan, reply 24



Quoting -Ue_Carbon,
reply 20

I dont understand your logic behind your post. Im sorry, I thought I made it clear. Yet, you continue this jihad for a trend that the OP and many of us disliked. Its our opinion btw. All we were saying is why does RTS games have to be so fast paced.
 


The only argument I'm making is that there is a difference between subjective value and objective value.  If you really want to take that differentiation as a "jihad," I suggest you are being unreasonable.

I understand completely that *you* prefer a slower-paced game.  That's not a mystery to me.

I am, however, telling you that *your* *subjective* preference is not an objective truth.  "Slower-paced" is not factually better than "faster-paced."  There are benefits to both, and just because you can't see the value of a faster-paced game does not mean that no other gamers can.  It does not mean that gamers who see the value of a faster-paced game are intellectually inferior.

In lieu of suggesting you conquer the planet and bend the world's gamers to your will, I instead suggest that you recognize that the market moved away from your preferences.  In other words, more RTS gamers disagreed with you and wanted speed-bsaed RTS games.  You may either wait until it swings back towards your preferences (and it will, as soon as one market is over-saturated developers will swing backwards), or mourn.

Also, I'm not impressed with your threats of being more of a jerk.  eThuggery is not intimidating.
Quoting Alfonse, reply 23

All we were saying is why does RTS games have to be so fast paced.


Because if they were slow paced, they wouldn't be RTS games. They'd be, well, Sins of a Solar Empire: a TBS game that happens to not wait for you.


Im looking for one I can enjoy and not worry about if Im building fast enough.


Then what you want is a TBS game.

What makes an RTS an RTS is not merely being in real-time. After all, if you put a 10-minute timer on GC2 turns, it would technically be a real-time game. But is it a different game from the GC2 that didn't have this timer? No: 10 minutes is plenty of time to do everything you need in most turns. This "Real-Time" version of GC2 is the same game as before, so calling it an RTS is simply a misnomer.

Similarly, if you add a 5 minute clock to Chess, you get Speed Chess, which is a very different game from regular Chess. If you add a 10 hour clock to Chess, it's just regular Chess.

What makes something an RTS is time pressure. Having to make decisions quickly. Having 10 things to do right now but only enough time to do 3 of them. So which ones do you do? That's a strategic decision that TBS games don't have.

You can have the most perfect strategy planned out in your mind. But if you can't execute that strategy in an RTS game, it doesn't matter: you will lose. And that's what separates an RTS from a TBS. In a TBS, your strategy is pitted against your enemy's strategy. In an RTS, your strategy and execution is pitted against your enemy's strategy an execution. If the real-time game is so slow that execution doesn't matter, then it's just a TBS game that happens to play out in real-time.


The faster man wins.


The faster man to do what? In any game, the person who first achieves the win conditions wins the game, so I'll assume you don't mean that.

And I've seen numerous professional StarCraft matches where someone goes for a rush build, gets it spotted, and gets their butts kicked. These are people who are as fast at the game as it gets. And rush builds don't work against them most of the time. And even when they do work, it usually doesn't end the game immediately; the best most professional SC players can expect from a rush is to do massive economic damage to the other guy.

Take this match for example. Jaedong, the Zerg player (best Zerg in the world right now) got rushed. This was a full-on 2-Barracks rush; it doesn't get faster than this. Jaedong spots it, slams down on it, and proceeds to win.


You think Ive been 'sneering, holier-than-thou attitude" so far? Ive not yet started.


Do whatever you feel like you have to. You'll only get yourself disciplined for rude behavior. I mean, if you can't handle someone with an argument against your beliefs, then maybe a ban is what you need.

And maybe you need to get your vision checked out. Never once did I say slow paced was better than fast. Once again, IN OUR OPINION. AS IN THE OP AND POSTERS WHO AGREED WITH HIM. WE THINK A SLOWER PACE GAME ALLOW FOR MORE ENJOYMENT. That it. All we were saying. We DONT FEEL NEWER RTS GIVE US THAT SAME FEEL AS OLDER RTS DO. Why? Its turned into a spam fest.

I dont not mind a discussion. But you are trying to make a point that is not the same as I or even the OP is. Your defending something we never said was wrong. I dont not hold that agaisnt you, for that is your opinon. If you like those games go for it. BUT DO NOT TELL US HOW AND WHAT TYPE OF GAME WE SHOULD PLAY JUST B/C WE DONT FIT INTO YOUR MAINSTREAM BULLS#$% SPAM $#%@ FEST. IM AN NOT SAY OUR OPINION WAS FACT, NOT #*$(ING ONCE. YET YOU CONTINUED TO PUSH THIS IDEA THAT WE ARE IN THE WRONG, FOR MAKING A COMMENT ON A TREND IN GAMING AND IN RTS GAMES. MY GOD!!!!

Im am tired of this topic, it has gone from great to bad. Im sorry to everyone if I was the cause of that, I was just defending my opinion on the fact that RTS are not what they use to be and for the 90% of us who dont enjoy the spam/rush trend.

Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Just as they have a right to beat the tar out of us b/c we dont care about our stats

There not alot 'strategic elements' elements in a race.

they dont makes games that rely on thought very much anymore.

Basicaly braggin rights IMHO.

Its turned into a spam fest.

Go be competitive and make your mommy proud.

...and...

I dont not [sic] hold that agaisnt you

...don't really co-exist peacefully. 

I will follow this up with the main point I was trying to make throughout this thread:

"you don't have to like it, but don't disrespect it."

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #53 from Sins Forums Top

Myth was not a RTS (Real Time Strategy). It was a RTT (Real time Tactical). It sounds like you don't like RTS at all, but instead prefer RTT. Not all game developers label their game as RTT, instead mention RTS, but try to mention their game is different from a traditional RTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics

If you are into RTT, you might want to check out World In Conflict. No resource management, just real time units to micro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict

Personally, I don't care too much for the RTT genre. I didn't like Myth, and prefer RTS games like starcraft/warcraft(and of course sins, but thats more like a combo RTS/4x). But to each his own....

Reply #54 from Sins Forums Top

I think some people are being a bit unfair about multiplayer RTS. It's true that multiplayer has a different feel than single player. But I don't think that game developers ruin the single player by trying to make play balancing or abuse fixing multiplayer related tweaks. Nor do I think the game is nothing but a clickfest.

And about some of the rushing vs turtling/teching comments. I think it is too simplistic to say something like "rushing is boring". That kind of reasoning is almost like suggesting tier 1 should have no combat units at all, and you can only attack once you have teched to tier 2 or 3. If you want to tech, you should be able to defend your base from rushes. RTS games allow you to build base defenses and defend yourself from a rush.

Play any kind of competitive PVP and you are going to see cheezy strats. And not all of them happen in the tier 1 stage either. For example, ever play starcraft and have someone drop some tanks on a ledge just off your resourcers? Or have a shuttle drop off a pair of reavers, blow your resourcers to hell, than fly off in the shuttle before you can even respond? Back when I still played Warcraft II, I used to run over to my enemies base and tower the crap out of it. Or build a barracks in his resource flow. Many players would get extremely frustrated at such tactics because they fell outside the boundries of what they considered fun. I got into a long discussion with one such vicitim, explaining some of the tactics of towering and anti-towering. I also explained that this tug of war with tower vs anti-tower had developed into a small game within itself and he was denying himself some of the fun of the game by not opening himself up to this aspect of online play. He later agreed, and started towering himself. Now not everyone will be willing to take this approach and instead prefer to play only within the confines of his personal rules. This is fine too, just don't expect competitive players to conform to your rules. You can either play single player, or try to find like minded players who just want to play a casual game.

Reply #55 from Sins Forums Top

One more thing, I am a bit surprised that people are saying only RTS games have a competitive vs casual gamer problem. Have you guys tried playing in competitive games in other genres? The competition, cheating, and hacks there can be intense.

"Even with the use of anti-cheat software, the FPS games are notorious for having the most cheats, which can sometimes turn people away from that type of game. This may be due in part because both clients and servers are run on private systems instead of on company owned servers. One of the most infamously hacked games is the original Diablo, a role-playing game with an online component. Another game is Aliens versus Predator 2 where hackers change memory variables to alter the game's programming." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer

As I stated earlier, no matter what game genre you are in, you are going to have casual and competive players. I don't diss either group, but sometimes it can be unpleasant for both sides when they mix in the same game. I am still gnashing my teeth from a war3 game where a human player would teleport in, level my base in seconds with siege tanks, then teleport out before I could do any damage. But just because I didn't have a good counter for the strat at the time, doesn't mean I am going to throw my arms in the air and declare "PVP RTS sux. I am going back to single player." It just means I have more to learn.

Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

There's a difference between cheaters and competitive players. Cheaters are jerks who do illegal things with the system, perverting its purpose. Competitive players push the system to achieve greater skill.

Reply #57 from Sins Forums Top

Agreed, I should have left out that bit about cheaters.

Also, I wanted to say I don't appreciate some of the nasty comments about competitive players. I have at times been in both groups, playing casually and competitively. And I don't think posters are being honest why they say things like they have nothing against competitive players, then post: "go be competitive and make your mommy proud". Not only are they being dishonest, they are being rude as well. It's all well and good to make an argument that you feel RTS gaming has been progressively catering more to competitive players at the expense of casual players. But you can do so without the snide comments about competitive players.

Reply #58 from Elemental Forums Top

What the?  I posted an almost identical topic a couple months ago and was practically flamed over it.  Now everyone agrees that RTS is too twitch/reflex based.   What happened in the last two months? 

Anyway, I just figure RTS isn't for me.  The big industry push to get RTS games on Xbox is indicitive of their potential with the console audience.  I switched to PC gaming 100% and never touch consoles anymore, mainly because I don't feel any satisfaction over having great reflexes and hand-eye coordination, which is the basis for most of the console experience.  I really like games that make you think.  All hail to a slow pace and deep concentration!  :D  

Reply #59 from Demigod Forums Top

Just adding my 2c here - Myth, Myth 2 - great games - and if you haven't played Sacrifice - you owe yourself the search for it and treat of playing it - big damn fun!

Reply #60 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting kublikhan, reply 3
Myth was not a RTS (Real Time Strategy). It was a RTT (Real time Tactical). It sounds like you don't like RTS at all, but instead prefer RTT. Not all game developers label their game as RTT, instead mention RTS, but try to mention their game is different from a traditional RTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics

If you are into RTT, you might want to check out World In Conflict. No resource management, just real time units to micro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict

Personally, I don't care too much for the RTT genre. I didn't like Myth, and prefer RTS games like starcraft/warcraft(and of course sins, but thats more like a combo RTS/4x). But to each his own....

I agree with what you're saying Myth is more tactical than strategy, I enjoyed the Mechcommander games and some others in that list.  It's not really the difference between manageing production and resources that I dislike though.

I do like RTS, I've always played single player RTS and even skirmish Vs the AI on them, it is 90% of the time more satisfying than playing online (for people like me) because of the pace you are required to play at against players.  Generally the AI wont rush or deliberately tech to and spam single unit types that cannot be countered unless by a similar faced paced build strategy.  Some people in this thread seem to see that as a criticism, I'm not going to humour it, I don't enjoy playing against that style of play.  Perhaps it is the production/tech side of RTS that makes it not workable for players like me online, as there will always be these ultimate strategies.  I have mildly enjoyed Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth online as that didn't seem so micro heavy and slower paced.

Thanks for pointing out some games I would probably enjoy.

Reply #61 from Demigod Forums Top

Most people have negative views towards playing a competitive game until they actually play the game how it should be and notice the fun in being in an intense battle with another human player instead of a predictable CPU. I was the same way with my first RTS games like AoE2 and CnC Generals. There is a lot of basic RTS knowledge you gotta pick up on that makes moving from RTS to RTS a much easier task. The way I actually got into playing RTS games "right" is I joined a low level fun clan and just messed around and had fun while being bad at the game, then somehow I magically got good at CCG and learned to appreciate playing a game to it's fullest.

Once you get over your fear of losing and find a nice person to show you the ropes of RTS it's all easy from on then. I'm currently playing Brood War after just buying it this summer and playing in a ladder. My record is atrocious something like 12-45 but at the same time I'm slowly improving and meeting South Korean buddies lol

These are games so play what you want to play.

 

Reply #62 from Elemental Forums Top

Hey Alfonse, you're from GameReplays or some other competetive site?    A few competetive gamers in a sea of casuals (Reminds of a quote from the Dawn of War: Soulstorm campaign: "One bright candle in a sea of filth and darkness!") Note though that I don't mean anything against the casual RTS gamers.

 

I'm in the middle of competetive and casual. I'm in the DoW 2 beta but I haven't tried ranked games yet (I care about the stats as strange as that may sound....) but I prefer to play against people I can chat to afterwards. And I hate the elitist, arrogant attitude of some people who say you should play with the sound off (which kills the immersion for me), reduce the graphics to better see something better or something like that.

 

Ontopic though, competing against another human (especially friends and internetfriends) is exciting and fun. Playing TBS games in multiplayer isn't half as exciting for me since they're turnbased which doesn't allow you to do things all the time. I played Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic against one of the best and ofcourse always lost, but when he moved his stack I couldn't do anything if my movement points were used. Feels locked.