• RTS Games: What do you not like about them?
    73 replies, posted
Pretty much a combo of all answers currently given (pacing, micro, learning curve, brain hard-wired to single-character action games, was never into it in the first place). However, I do enjoy watching people play grand strategy games such as Hearts of Iron.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52583851]Competetive microing RTSs are my least favorite. I tend to lean more towards Men of War as my favorite for that reason.[/QUOTE] Isn't men of war one of the most micro intensive games out there? You have to micro each units load out and ammo, and all that shit [editline]21st August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Darth_Kris;52593347]AI difficulty having only 2 options, "braindead" and "various degrees of cheating"[/QUOTE] This so much. There's so many RTS games out there where the AI is either completely retarded and builds about two buildings throughout the whole game or it'll just spam units enmass within the first 5 minutes of the game and no in between.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52597608]Isn't men of war one of the most micro intensive games out there? You have to micro each units load out and ammo, and all that shit [/QUOTE] They do a lot of it pretty automatically. And the game's pace is relatively slow.
I like rtses..?
What I don't like about most recent RTS games is that they're almost always too fast-paced now. I'm one of the people that like to turtle and take their time with things, but that just isn't possible in the recent RTS games.
I can't believe I went this whole thread not shilling OTC. Ahem... GAMERS! Are you too tired of Action Per Minute-based Real Time-Strategy games? Do you too wish to compete in a completely non-competitive environment? Try something new and different, except based on a 30-year-old Atari game? My name is George McDrury, and I'm just like you. I too have an unquenchable passion for RTS, an utter disgust of micro, and a great commercial voice. And like you, I prefer building bases to fighting. I mean, don't you just hate it when you build an army, and then not micro it, and then it gets smashed to bits by an opponent who microes his? Isn't that kinda unfair? What if I told you there is an RTS game on the market RIGHT NOW where that LITERALLY CAN NOT ever happen to you? Enter [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/271240/Offworld_Trading_Company/]Offworld® Trading™ Company℠ (©2016)[/url], a NEW type of RTS where your bank account is your army, and it's always fighting for you in the background. Build your base up and send your precious dollars to the shared, living and breathing market to SLAUGHTER THE STOCKS of your enemy in a MONETARY MESS. Don't know what a stock is? I didn't either, and now here I am - trading a stock [i]every day[/i]. Thanks to the intuitive OTC (A Mohawk Games Product) Graphical User Interface (℗1963), all the mind-boggling concepts related to making money by not actually being productive are either streamlined to a point where even Ted from accounting could understand them, or outright done in the background without your knowledge or consent, so you can focus on more important tasks, such as admiring pretty base-building animations. That, or you can like, you know, actually attack your enemy's base via black market sabotage. Dynamite, EMPs, corporate spies, that kinda stuff. It won't wipe them off the face of the Mars but at least they'll be less of a nuisance. What really matters though, is that everything matters. OTC is not about making a ton of decisions at once, it's more about making all the right ones, with ample time to think between waiting (and praying) for money to magically appear on your account and having your stuff dynamited, EMP'd, spied on and bought out by someone else. That's not to say there are any dull moments - god no, I would never get paid for saying that - it's more that the game gives less (if any) opportunities for one player to gain a huge advantage over the other in the blink of an eye. Instead you invest in all the right things and then wait for that investment to return in heaps. Simply put, it is an actual strategy game where you try to predict how things are gonna play out in the future and place your bets based on that, rather than a tactics game where you respond to the situation in the present. Purchase now, only on [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/271240/Offworld_Trading_Company/]Steam[/url], except also on [url=https://www.gog.com/game/offworld_trading_company]GOG[/url], so that I can actually get hired by Stardock's PR department. (you may find a lot of reviews are negative, I am happy to report a lot of them [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1570697&p=52450813&viewfull=1#post52450813]are just very confused people making uninformed purchases[/url], watch actual matches (such as the totally unsponsored one below) to see if the game is for you - I mean, to hype yourself up to buy the game and all the usele- vital DLC) [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91SW9jdexsA[/media]
So, I'm actually going to call out something that's not really been a recent problem with RTS games, but something that's been around for a while, which I find personally distasteful in RTS: Symmetrical Maps Now, I used to be part of a Command & Conquer modding community, although aside from some maps for 2nd generation games (Tiberian Sun and Red Alert), I haven't done much. However, after making a few maps, I realized something about most RTS maps, that 2nd Gen C&C's mostly ignored - most maps are boring, symmetrical shapes, that at best have some extra props lying around. Not only such locations don't make much sense in the real world, they also streamlined the gameplay to very specific styles. Even games that have multiple approaches (Ground/Naval/Air) tend to have a more preferred approach that everyone uses. There are no maps that feature one player as a landlocked in a mountainous area, while another is stuck on a small island (or one with a small salient), while the third gets to be in the middle, with a large city of garissonable structures around him. And such a map would be interesting to play in - because, especially if the player doesn't know where they would end up, they would have to CHANGE THEIR STRATEGY to deal with that. So, no longer can one rely on just a single build order - they have to know how to set up proper economy and unit production for the situation you're in. I also want to see highly detailed maps that are interesting, and of course - destructible, much like some maps in World in Conflict. And finally, can we please have more than 8 players for once? WiC had up to 16 players, and although it's an RTT game, I think it was a good effort. Also, I do wish most unit's abilities could be automated - for example, in a game where your units have anti-tank grenades, it would be very useful if they would automatically try to use them when facing Armored units in their face - instead of me having to try to click through multiple squads to do so (more DoW problem than MoW, where it's a good point for units to try NOT to stand up in front of MG fire).
[QUOTE=gufu;52605499]So, I'm actually going to call out something that's not really been a recent problem with RTS games, but something that's been around for a while, which I find personally distasteful in RTS: Symmetrical Maps Now, I used to be part of a Command & Conquer modding community, although aside from some maps for 2nd generation games (Tiberian Sun and Red Alert), I haven't done much. However, after making a few maps, I realized something about most RTS maps, that 2nd Gen C&C's mostly ignored - most maps are boring, symmetrical shapes, that at best have some extra props lying around. Not only such locations don't make much sense in the real world, they also streamlined the gameplay to very specific styles. Even games that have multiple approaches (Ground/Naval/Air) tend to have a more preferred approach that everyone uses. There are no maps that feature one player as a landlocked in a mountainous area, while another is stuck on a small island (or one with a small salient), while the third gets to be in the middle, with a large city of garissonable structures around him. And such a map would be interesting to play in - because, especially if the player doesn't know where they would end up, they would have to CHANGE THEIR STRATEGY to deal with that. So, no longer can one rely on just a single build order - they have to know how to set up proper economy and unit production for the situation you're in. I also want to see highly detailed maps that are interesting, and of course - destructible, much like some maps in World in Conflict. And finally, can we please have more than 8 players for once? WiC had up to 16 players, and although it's an RTT game, I think it was a good effort.[/QUOTE] Symmetrical maps are done for balance, I'm not sure asymmetry would solve the rigid build order problem either. People would just come up with new metas for each map and use the same build orders again. [bonusotcshill]procedural maps+freedom to pick your starting location+randomized game elements on each map solve this problem nicely[/bonusotcshill]
I voted micro-management, because it tends to get very tedious quickly. The game should strive to automate as many things as it can be reasonably expected to, so that the player doesn't have to babysit every unit on 10 fronts while they're also expanding their base and managing resources. Supreme Commander and its expansion have to be my favourite RTS games I've played, and they did so many things right with respect to this. Starting with simple things like units automatically targeting enemies while moving without you having to specifically order them to attack. Putting your factories on repeat so they keep endlessly pumping out the units you ordered them to. Then there's the way you could queue up as many commands as you wanted to and even edit them after the fact. You could do the same with patrol routes. That whole shift-overlay was godlike. Then there's the fact that you didn't need to micromanage units to gather resources for you, just plop down a few buildings and they'll automatically do it for you. The streaming economy was also genius, no need to pay any costs upfront. You could just lay down the whole plan first, then worry about resources later. The game would then automatically slow down the rate of production if the resource income was insufficient. All these little things combined improved the flow of the game so much, and looking back they seem really intuitive and obvious that you'd want this sort of stuff in every RTS. For contrast, I just recently picked up AOE 2 HD, and all I could think of while playing it is "fuuuuuuuuuuck this game is clunky".
[QUOTE=Drury;52605538]Symmetrical maps are done for balance, I'm not sure asymmetry would solve the rigid build order problem either. People would just come up with new metas for each map and use the same build orders again. [bonusotcshill]procedural maps+freedom to pick your starting location+randomized game elements on each map solve this problem nicely[/bonusotcshill][/QUOTE] To be honest, having multiple metas already demands far more thinking than having a single per-faction meta. In addition, I believe that asymmetrical maps (both in landmass appearance and resources available) can be ultimately balanced. I believe it should be up to player to make best of the soft (terrain) and hard (resource) advantages. I feel that the usual "Generic circle and 3 Crystal Fields + Gas Field per start location" is lazy for a video game - yes, chess is a wonderful game and is balanced, but with video games, we should aim to move away from perfect symmetry and embrace a more realistic overview of conflict - this would also demand more ways to make use of the map. Speaking of things I hate in regards to mapping - having 1/2 areas of entry per starting location, and generally maps that are collection of corridors. It limits strategical and tactical movements that would otherwise be interesting and would allow you to turn battles around. Hell, games like AoE2 had fun part where you could cut through a forest to entirely ignore enemy fortifications/walls. And then there were games like Tiberian Sun, where map environment would dictate unit movement: Tiberium patches would slowly kill infantry, but vehicles could easily move through them - and they would grow over time - thus slowly creating a natural anti-infantry defense. On the other hand, Tiberium Veins would grow out and be incredibly dangerous to non-hover/air vehicles - but infantry could easily exploit the area and move through it freely. This also adds one more thing about maps: Being alive and dynamic. Hell, to this day, I hold Tiberian Sun as the ultimate game in regards to being dynamic, with only Earth 2150 somewhat able to follow up: Hostile environment (Tiberium, Veins, Ion Storms), hostile entities (Fiends, Visceroids, Armed Civilians), and in some cases (usually thanks to mods and custom maps), detailed and interesting locations to fight amongst. In summary, go play [URL="http://www.moddb.com/mods/twisted-insurrection"]Twisted Insurrection[/URL], as aside from forcing you to play Tactical Missions through most of the campaign, it's a damn fine refinement of Tiberian Sun and C&C, overall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.