Some RTS games compress depth into micro and maintenance tasks on small maps. Others distribute it across economy, scale, logistics, and simultaneous fronts. Which design actually produces more meaningful decisions?
I love Rise of Nations.
It's surprising to me how little that people attack each other in SupCom. Sometimes, experimentals are a lot of the first action.Here's what I'm watching:https://youtu.be/0a95W6toI1w.
i have started playing aoe2de with friends on the weekendsi am really bad but it is still good funif aoe2 gets stale we might try BAR or zeroK or something next
>>738686656>>>/vg/>>>/vg/>>>/vg/
>>738658841Yes there is unlimited zoom. Also watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq82O91JBHc it's amazing.
>>738689291forgot to add if anyone has recs for easy to get into RTS for semi-casuals with decent multiplayer please let me know
>>738686656Zero-K perfected the genre. Micro interactions between units influence the available strategies. There aren't any pointless maintenance tasks. While Supreme Commander has a workflow on how to eco with build orders to advance it efficiently, economic decisions in Zero-K are purely decisions. How greedy do you expand, whether to invest in overdrive, and positioning of fusion and singularity reactors and how much to invest in defending it. The unit design and interactions allow for far more diverse and expressive usage of your armies that allow for unique tactics and strategy. Here is a Zero-K battle. Watch and be amazed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHCXLuTix58
>>738688512>Scathis vs. Yolo.
Incredible.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeFfu0CI0Y
>>738688512>click video>skip ahead to 4:50>there's already fighting???
>>738691272>Some Mech Marines.Totally.
>>738691731>umm those units don't count as fighting???I also just left the video running and now there's also fighting at 13:10
If you're not harassing your enemy 3-4 minutes into the match you're not playing an RTS, you're playing a bullshit simcity clone.
>>738691903>don't count as fightingI said how little.
>>738693193You also said experimentals are a lot of the first action, which is just wrong.In any case, the larger the map, the more sparse early game action is going to be, which shouldn't be surprising.
>>738688512What's worse is how *almost nobody* ground fires mex and other wrecks, which are 75% of the mass.
>>738688512It's funny how good map gen games are. The map size is usually 20x20km, if not always? So people make lots of experimentals and game enders.
>rts thread>ok lets see>only psots are supcom/total anihilation clones >At most you get aoe/stracraft tooBRUH
>>738693871>You also said experimentals are a lot of the first action, which is just wrong.I didn't necessarily mean that game, dude.
>>738694247I mean, you're free to post about whatever, but supcom and TA clones are what most people here like.
>>738694354Just the OP
>>738694354why not make the thread directly about that. ther eare probably about a hundred rts no one ever talks about any other
I am fucking addicted to WARNO
>>738687020I just wish they'd release rise of legends, anywhere... I miss my giant steam spider...
>>738694503>Addicted to AI slop DLC platformI'm sorry for your mental disorder.
>>738694589Thanks
>>738694337It's not going to be true in any game that isn't like 200 elo noob vs 200 elo noob. I guess maybe if you're on the largest possible map size.
>>738694675SupCom favors defensive play because of reclaim and travel time.
>>738694783Also, teammates make solo pushes really hard.
Warcraft 3 is fun but nobody plays the game in my region.
>>738694783>travel time.That just goes back to what I said earlier. The larger the map, the more sparse early game action is going to be. Smaller maps with less players become more active much earlier.Even on large maps though you have small skirmishes and people trying to harass expansions, like I pointed out in that video.
>>738695083what does the strategy boils down in total anihilation clones? there are no strategic decisions to make at all
>>738695484If / how much to expand.If / how much to tech up.If / how much to eco.Where and how much to attack.What units to use (close, mobile DPS vs. long range missile units that have counters, for example).
Top RTS>Starcraft Broodwar>Homeworld + Cataclysm>Battle for Middle Earth 1+2>Warcraft 2+3>Myth 2>Star Wars Galactic BattlegroundsThere are probably others that fit, but to be top tier you need great single player.
>>738695484I think you don't know how to play those games.
>>738687020Yeah it's great, I liked how they did economy and resource extraction
>>738694503It's not bad it's just mid how can you be addicted
>>738696356What's wrong with SC2 and SupCom?
>>738689480warcraft 3? it's been out forever but still has plenty of shitters and noobs.
Savage was the bestteam commander got to play an RTS and everyone else got to be the peons impacted by their decisions
>>738698814Playing this with /v/ was fun.
flash vs light in 7 and a half hours. should I watch it live or wait for artosis? I missed the ro8 games were they worth watching?
>>738698223Wings of Liberty was decent, but ruined the characters. Good campaign mechanics.Didn't like Heart of the Swarm nearly as much, big step down in mission structure and brutal was too easy in comparison.Haven't played the protoss one, and now they only sell them bundled together so ill never be able to pick it up cheap to try the campaign.Co-op stuff was good, wish they did a full co-op campaign, or mission packs for the co-op factions.Never played SupCom, I was under the impression it's a multiplayer focused title without a campaign.
>>738699543Leta v Tulbo was fun. Flash v Snow was bad. The rest were what you expected.
commander...
>>738700980bad because snow choked?
>>738700985Cameron..
I never see you fags in /vst/.
>>738701867Because /vst/ is a dead board.
>>738702072>>738701867well this thread is garbage its a circle jerk about the same 5 super mainstream games
>>738700985Babe.
i wish they'd buff handcannoneers
I can enjoy both, but I am somewhat frustrated with a certain type of micro-heavy RTS gameplay especially when it comes to unit control and combat. So many titles seem to stay with the Starcraft era conventions due to hardware/AI of the time that necessitated a fuckload of combat style micro in your Starcraft, AoE, or C&C style title. I think this needs to be outmoded as we have far better tech now. I want to feel like I'm commanding a military operation, not idiotic simple robots that need to be specifically told that the basic infantry shouldn't use their assault rifles against heavy tanks instead of the other infantry right next to them etc. Overall units should have some decent AI so if a mixed group detect similarly mixed enemies they will smartly prioritize which enemy types each unit is more effective against. Likewise, if a unit has multiple attack modes, swapping to the one better served in a given situation makes sense without needing to go to each unit of that time and activate it, then deactivate it later. Units should also make reasonable decisions about engagement, cover, and the like based upon their status (ie defensive where they attack enemies that come into their range, but will not follow them as they retreat right into their reinforcements etc) and the situation. The creation and selection of groups and giving them orders could be smoother too. All that stuff could make it less tedious and more enjoyable. Sure, I get it that some people like APM shit and AI from the 90s but that's not me. Dawn of War 2 does this better than most other games in that each of your units is identified by its officer/hero, the amount of unit abilities you have to mess with is relatively low given you only have a handful and some of these are toggleable or situational. You can direct which way to face/aim, or cover and they'll take places behind it and aim and fire, target enemies etc on their own. . Too few seem to have this arrangement
>>738702289What non-mainstream RTS is good? Every good RTS is mainstream at least in the genre.
Just make BAR lobbies.
>>738702797>What non-mainstream RTS is good? Every good RTS is mainstream at least in the genre.doesnt matter if its good or not its an rts thread. In the same vein people talk about jrpgs or rpgs that are not necessarily mainstream. In these thread its all the same 5 game/franchises
I wish another game picked up where Metal Fatigue left off.
what do we think of armies of exigo (WC/SC mix)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-PPCj_EVFw&list=PLE3XJqpxQCfx-mJ4PIFdg0mAAVIg5dflb
>>738703307I remember playing it but it felt unpolished.
>>738702564if the unit ai is better than the player then the game becomes uninteractive and feels like there isn't enough to do. if the ai is worse than the player than ultimately you still have to do as much micro as before + additional work to override the ai. you might say "but I just want it to be smart enough to know the basics," but consider what that actually means. imagine you have unit A that does 100 damage to unit B and only 5 damage to unit C. your A is in range of a C that only has 2 hp left, but out of range of a B which is attacking A and will kill it in one more hit. should A move forward so it can shoot B but then get killed by C, kill C first and then attack B, or back out of range of C and not attack anyone? depending on countless other variables in the game state any of these options could be the correct choice. if your "smart" ai is programmed to make A always attack B then it might make the wrong move for a particular situation. even if you give it different presets now you have to turn off the stance it's in and give the correct order, when before all you had to do was click on the right target. you mention dawn of war 2, but that playing game was incredibly frustrating because I was constantly having to spam click to make the ai not do what it wanted to do and instead do what I wanted it to do.
>>738705802It's telling that 'game becomes more of a strategy game' equates to being uninteractive and not having enough to do, to you.
>>738703307I found it pretty dull. The underworld layer gimmick is lame, factions are bland, campaign is sort of just there. You can tell the devs didn't have much in mind beyond "we want our own blizz rts".
>>738702564>>738705978you think you understand strategy, but you don't, there's less complexity and dynamism the higher you go, your hypothetical game boils down to making a few decisions regarding composition and overral arrangement of the elements on the battlefield and watching the game play itself.
>>738694503i like it quite a bit, but i wish dragons weren't nerfed. getting outranged by a shitbox with a 50cal fucking sucks.are you a 1v1 or 10v10 or inbetween enjoyer?
'minder that over 90% of RTS players don't EVER touch multiplayer, and less than 10% of multiplayer games are PvP. Don't let /v/ sweatcucks speak for the fanbase just because they're more tryhard at pointless apm spam due to literal autism. THEY HAVE NO SAY IN THIS. They are the smallest niche of an already niche genre.Multiplayer game design is anti-RTS. Developers purposefully avoid cool units, mechanics and campaigns which are the heart and soul of RTS for the sake of le balance. The delusional elitist comptards have been killing RTS for too long.>Blizzard say 80% of players left after finishing the campaign, and the vast majority of the remaining 20% play arcade and co-op>HerA says 99% of AOE2 players don't touch multiplayer>Ashes of Singularity devs literally say only 2% of all players have ever CLICKED on the multiplayer buttonYou may SEETHE, you may COPE, but RTS is a SINGLE PLAYER ONLY genre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghc2-jRkoN4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZschttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKMrTgmivEk
>>738686656>Others distribute it across economy, scale, logistics, and simultaneous frontsNo, you're thinking of grand strategy games like Stellaris or HoI. Those aren't RTS games.
>>738706436No, you're a faggot jerking off clickfast and whining that real strategy is booooooring.
I'm playing Generals Shockwave again
>>738705978does chess become less strategic when you play with a clock?
>>738707128Yes.
>>738705802When someone tells you he doesn't like X, the winning move isn't to double down on telling him he's wrong and actually likes X.
>>738707661I'm calling him a retard who doesn't understand what he's asking for>>738707141retard
>>738709521He understands exactly what he's asking for. You don't like it.
>>738700823Supcom 1 and FA both have campaigns. The presentation isn't Sc2-tier but I can confirm that FA's was very fun to play
>>73870692417% of AOE 2 players beat the first (tutorial) campaign.7% of players beat the second campaign.
>>738707028How does SupCom not have those things?
>>738709834Is the story good?
>>738709748no, he is asking for the impossible. an ai that always knows the best way to micro your units for you doesn't exist.
>>738712671Not what he asked for at all. Also objectively wrong.
I want to play a RTS game that combines elements from my favorite games. The main draw/feature would be customizability:- units are made of platform type, locomotion type, and slots for systems; these can be anything you find in other games like resource gathering, weapon types, radar/jammer/ecm/shield/etc. The type of platform and locomotion dictates the available slot number and their sizes.- buildings are static platforms; their size and cost dictate number and size of slots for systems.- you can customize the build "schema": Do I want to have units (that I design) to build my buildings (TA/SC/AoE style) or do they get "dropped from orbit" (CnC style)? Do I constrain my building style (creep/pylon/C&C adjacency style) or can I build anywhere on the map? Is the building "finished" when placed or does it get built gradually? Etc. Obviously any choice has advantages and drawbacks perhaps limited by a point system so you can't "drop turrets from orbit in enemy base".- customizable AI behaviors for your units (like in Dark Reign but more advanced) could be "packaged" into a module that you can install into a slot for a unit or building. For example you can create a "smart scout" unit that can harass in a limited way on its own.Outside of customizability it would borrow from TA likes the floating economy and unlimited zoom. There's much more to it but I'm interested if anyone would like to play a game like this.>inb4 nightmare to balance in multiplayerI really don't care too much about mp balance. The way I see it, fun singleplayer and experimentation with a ton of options would be the focus. As for mp I think balance would come on it's own in time, especially considering the huge amount of customizability.
>>738710410If I never played and AoE game, which is the best to start with? Of all the RTS "classics" the "Age of" games often looked more like city builders that sometimes lead to fights when compared to other RTS games.
>>738713657Forgot to add a big one for me: customizable UI.and the obvious one, customizable keys.
>>738713668play AoE2 if you want historical and AoM if you want antique fantasy
>>738710431I'll give you economy but everything else would be a massive stretch>scaleBigger units and buildings. That's about it, there is no significant upscale of anything, unless you count "I have 20 units early and 200 units later" as upscaling, but I doubt that's what we're talking about here or every single RTS would count, making the whole "some-others" thing irrelevant>logisticsYou put your little buildings on the little deposits. That's all the logistics you have to deal with, again, that's shit you'd have in every single RTS game.>simultaneous frontsA little nigger sneaking past your frontline to harass your extractors isn't a simultaneous front, anonI can only grant economy, as there is an actual income-expenditure thing going on in supcom so it's at least more than get resource, spend resource. But even that's a stretch compared to grand strategy games that have upkeep and supply lines and such.
>mogs everything on the market and is 100% F2P with no MTXhow?
>>738694247people have finally figured out that TA is the best RTS formula (even if they are almost 30 years late)
>>738694247This is an actual RTS thread, not MOBA or babies first console RTS thread.
>>738695484see >>738689346, >>738689814 and >>738691265.
>>738715569>scaleNot only does it have more and bigger units than other games, units and buildings increase in size and power over the course of a game.>logisticsEverything you build, you have to decide whether to leave it or support it with buildings and units.>simultaneous frontsEven on small maps (5x5km), you fight on multiple spots over the course of expansion and map control. 20x20km is potentially much more, and maps go up to 81x81km (250x bigger).
>>738706436>watching big armies go at it other isn't fun ackshuallyPlease fuck off back to your designated esports containment board.
>>738706924Retard.https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3875973926280115015
>>738716478Look, ma, I posted it again! That means I'm right!
>>738686656>Others distribute it across economy, scale, logistics, and simultaneous frontsname a single RTS that does this
>>738716369Stick to MOBAs and grand strategy games, strategylet. RTS isn't for normalfags like you. They're for superior beings that can handle strategy in real time. You will never RTS.
>>738716626SupCom FA.
>>738716680where are the logistics in that game
>>738716676RTS games have pretty low strategic depth, they're mostly about micro, DOTA has way more strategy than any RTS game
>>738702564>So many titles seem to stay with the Starcraft era conventions due to hardware/AI of the time that necessitated a fuckload of combat style micro in your Starcraft, AoE, or C&C style title. I think this needs to be outmoded as we have far better tech nowNothing about the way these games were designed has anything to do with technical constraints
>>738716723See >>738716203.I forgot to mention controlling land, sea, and air in simultaneous fronts.
>>738716924That's not what logistics means
>>738716879see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeFfu0CI0Y and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHCXLuTix58You will never RTS.
>>738717025No point in linking me to a video of a game I haven't played, if you want to make a case you need to explain what's going on and what decisions are being madeBut I've played a ton of RTS games
>>738716941>getting units where they need to be>reinforcement timing>transport usage>air staging>naval positioningThat’s literally:organization and movement of military resources.
>>738717110Just watch the videos retard. Stop making excuses to avoid the concept of what RTS really means.
>>738717169logistics is managing the flow of supplies and I've never played an RTS game that goes any deeper than "harvester goes to the ore field"TA clones dont even have that they just have a steady flow of two resources
>>738717195I watched one of them
>>738717110Mexes are metal extractors. LLTs are light laser towers (static defense). Radar tower is a radar tower. That should be enough for you to understand.
>>738716879SupCom and all the related games to it are very much not about micro first. Micro is the thing you do to eke out an advantage when you have the time to spare for it and it will almost never carry you through a strategic failure.
>>738717253Watch it fully. And watch the other one too.
>>738716879If strategy is the variety:depth of tactics, you have more going on in a game like SupCom than in DOTA.
>>738717287Are you autistic? You need to know what all the units and buildings are and how they interact to understand what's actually happening when you watch a game
I just want Anno 1800 with good battles.
>>738717253Please forgive him, he has severe autism and no theory of mind whatsoever. He literally can't understand people.
>>738717329I watched one fully, doesn't mean anything if I don't know what's going on
>>738706924Right. And those companies aren't saying those numbers to lure in new players? And what do you think that someone who is already proficient at RTS would spend their time in?Also,>Herasaid that crypt fiends are the worst unit in the game and keeps calling lich a she
It's so sad that these threads have just been usurped by two retards shilling their dogshit games
>>738717224You can transport units in SupCom, and I think radar management would be considered logistics.
>>738717424Which one did you watch?
>>738717471Neither of those are logisticsLogistics is moving around fuel, ammo, food, etc
>>738717195Watching these vids is pointless when you don't know any of the units or flow and it looks like a tech demo.
>>738717358Yes, he is an infamous autist known as Ian the Nutriments Nigger who has plagued /v/ for like 7 years straight.I hate him so much because for once, instead of autistically ranting about nutriments and electrostimulation and real money auction house MMOs being the highest form of gaming, he fixated on Supreme Commander and started arguing something that wasn't batshit retarded (probably because someone else effectively argued it) and I agree with, but he's too dumb to learn from others or construct followup statements that make any sense outside of his head so he weakens my position just by existing.
>>738717503The one with the yellow mapLooks like there's more going on than the average Starcraft match but that's not a high bar to clear
EVERYBODY LISTENLet's combine warcraft 3 and dawn of war 1
>>738717642Isn't this just DoW2?
>>738717659no? do you people even play these games? holy shit
>>738717659DoW2 sucks and has no base building
>>738717535Transporting units is very much transporting economic and military resources.
>>738717697The units are not the resources, the units use resourcesRTS games basically remove all the logistics from war, they require not fuel or ammo they just fight indefinitely
>>738717659Almost. DoW2 doesn't have any base building whatsoever, the campaign doubles down on being a pseudo ARPG mixed with an RTS, and the skirmish hard locks you into a single commander unit. It also was probably designed with the intention of being played with teams because the 1v1 matches aren't as interesting, and the AI if you're playing solo will be retarded and avoid fights to cap points. Even if that means running through a kill zone to get to it.
>>738717560That's not me. I haven't played Zero-K.
>>738717689I haven't played DoW2 in so long that I forgot pretty much everything about it other than the hero part.
>>738717731https://share.google/aimode/lJeGbi4syYktXYIJJ.
>>738717571This one should be simple to understand. That match wasn't really about unit composition but more about expansion path and travel time through terrain. Watch it carefully and turn on the audio. Also watch the other one too. It will be easier to understand the one you're confused about if you watch the first one.
>>738717870Did you just link me to an AI response lmao
>>738717896You need to play a game to understand it you spergI don't know what any of the units are or what they doBut a 10 minute match with the typical RTS pace and unit count is just not strategically deep
>>738717731This seems like a question of how much abstraction you're willing to tolerate before your autism kicks in. Because it seems like you have incredibly strong austism.
>>738718017No I just know what the word "logistics" means
>>738717916Not an argument.
>>738718005You don't need to play the game to understand it. Watch the first video first, it'll give you the context.
>>738718082Neither is your AI hallucination you fucking retardTransporting units I can give you half a pointAttacking resource extractors has nothing to do with logistics, which your AI response said it doesThink for yourself please
>>738718095>You don't need to play the game to understand itYes you doYou need to know the mechanics, you need to know the units, you need to know the buildings
>>738716676>big armies fighting>moba>big armies fighting>paradoxslop numbersStarcraft was original sin that we are still paying for dearly.
>>738718042And so do I. I also know that keeping track of how much ammunition my units have used, will use during an average engagement, in addition to food/fuel needs, travel time of resources from the base to the frontlines, etc. etc. is incredibly boring and would bog down the moment to moment action in favor of some kind of excel spreadsheet simulator and frankly that's not what I find fun. So yes, you have extremely powerful autism that refuses to allow a game to simply abstract the logistical needs of an army with things like population caps, resource gathering, tech research and so on and so forth.
>>738718221Where did I say RTS games should have logistics?
>>738718168You are caring too much about the specifics. The matches I posted were fairly simple due to low escalation and being mirror matches, so you don't need to worry about unit interactions too much. Now watch the first video.
>>738718321What's the point in watching the videos when I have no context and I don't know what's going on? I suppose the other guy is right, you have no theory of mind
>>738718243The part where you were complaining that rts games don't simulate logistics?
>>738718375I wasn't complaining, I just said that they didn'tThere's a good reason they don't which you pointed out
Ironically unless we go all the way back to Herzog Zwei, the one RTS I can think of that had a meaningful if abstract logistical component was actually a TAlike, Spring 1944. You had to load units using dedicated supply units like trucks or supply facilities that all had different sized radiuses around them that resupplied units in them. If you didn't your units couldn't draw from your ammo resource.
>>738718340The first video gives you the context, which you should've watched first anyways. It's not about the specific interactions, it's about his expansion path and plan which makes it easy for him to defend his expansion and also make it hard for the enemy to defend their expansion.
>>738718631For any of that to mean anything you need context and for context you need to play the game
>>738718664Just watch the first video. The reason why I linked those two specifically is because you don't need much context to understand the idea behind them. He explains the reasoning behind his decisions so you can infer the interactions between what he built and how they interact. Have you played Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander or any descendants from them?
>>738718795I'm halfway through the first video and it looks like a bog standard RTS matchI have played TA
>>738712461Not that anon, it's not broodwar tier, but SupCom has a really enjoyable character interaction. Little bit of spoiler but I really liked how you end the campaign by pressing a UI button that activates the super weapon which wins the war. Another nice thing is how all the faction campaigns have parallel story. In Starcraft you have terran story, then zerg, then protoss. In SupCom all 3 campaign happen at the same time.
>>738718867If you played TA then you should have no problem understanding the videos, or you are caring about specifics you think are important but aren't the point of the videos. If you care more about unit interactions, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq82O91JBHc after you're done watching the first video. You can see how they interact.
>>738718145Is it a half press?
>>738719276I watched the video and there was nothing special or interesting about it at all
>>738718145https://supcom.fandom.com/wiki/Logistical_Strike. If something is involved in a logistical strike, the things it affects are logistics.
>>738720589The Supreme Commander wiki is using the term "logistics" incorrectly
Is the new Sudden Strike any good?
>>738720645How so? You're making and destroying mexes to affect the flow of mass.
>>738720793Logistics is the transportation of resourcesIt's an economic strike
>>738720831What about moving engies around for construction, deconstruction, reclaim, and capture?
>>738721086Why do I have to explain the definition of a word to you when you can just look it up?
>>738721116Because "military resources" is vague. I'm just wondering your opinion. You only gave me half a point on ferrying.
>>738721303>"military resources" is vagueNo it's notFuel, ammo, weapons, foodI said half a point because unit reinforcement aren't normally considered logistics but it's basically the same thingyou don't transport anything in TA games except units
>>738721431Yeah, I think military delivery of tanks and such is logistics.Have you played SupCom? Play FAF.
>>738721504>Yeah, I think military delivery of tanks and such is logistics.You're wrong
>>738693879Has the average SupCom player really fallen this far? Even good AI mods like M28AI know to ground fire wrecks if it can't reclaim them.
>>738694247TA and it’s modern clones like BAR capture that grand scale which many RTS fans who still exist love.If you like macro, big armies, and huge battles, the TA formula is peak.
>>738721783Nobody likes zooming out until your units are just a colorful mess of abstract icons
>>738721807If your game isn't worth playing in an abstract format it's not worth playing.
>>738721523https://www.techtarget.com/searcherp/definition/logistics.>orchestrating the movement of military personnel, equipment and goods.
>>738721783Total War series is the only one that captures that, TA in its modern rendition is one step away from being radar simulator like Command MO. Eugen shit and its derivatives have more spectacle on average than TA match.
>>738721974logistics typically doesnt mean active combat units, if you're resupplying a unit with vehicles that's logistics but in RTS games every unit is an active combat unit with infinite supplies so there aren't really "logistics" even though you're trying to perform your best mental gymnastics to pretend there are
I think SupCom is great. I just wish all the designs weren't hideous. They're the Limp Bizkit of sci-fi military design.
What we really need is something like Blood Tournament or Castle Fight but as a whole game
>>738722176That's called Clash Royale.
Thoughts on pic related?
>>738721807Why not? You don't even have to do it. The game has a minimap, and you can put either on another screen.If your argument is that you have to do it, fine, but that suggests more strategic variety:depth.
>>738722413>You can put your minimap on the other screen.Reportedly. I didn't find that in search results.
>>738719938Sounds like you didn't really understand it. Did you watch the third link too?
>>738722994What's there to understand?I've already wasted 20 minutes watching 2 of your videos
>>738723176Watch the third one, then you'll understand.
Third one is a bit different than the others. You might finally understand it.
>>738722165I like them.
>>738723281Understand what?
>>738723386RTS.
>>738723359
>>738723431
>>738723408I've played RTS since before you were born I already understand them
>>738687020I don't, in my experience every battle was a WW1 meat grinder that took forever
>>738723484
>Replaying SC2>Around third mission in Protoss campaign, charging the batteries>Stretch the mission for an hour because i wanted to destroy the zerg and evil protoss base>it doesnt matter, enemy gets infinite reinforcement from off-screen anyway.What an absolute faggotry, even WoL would give you alternate win conditions by destroying the enemy base.
>>738723537
>>738723557>replaying SC2That, good sir, was your first mistake.
>>738723502It doesn't really sound like you do understand them, otherwise you would've never asked questions like >>738717110 and never post >>738716879 in the first place. Have you ever beaten rANDY before? I don't think you did.
>>738723657>If you have an opinion different than mine you must know less than meAre you narcissistic?
>>738723716Look where rANDY is, then look where you are. What have you been doing all this time to end up being a shitter in these threads while rANDY is out here making history?
>>738723627I wouldn't blame him for it. SC2 starts pretty strong with WoL, but keeps trying to one up itself with each expansion that by the time we get to the Protoss there's no where left for it to go but down.
You couldn't even understand the videos rANDY posted, then you gave up and pretended nothing was going on. There is no excuse to not understand what's going on if you did play TA before.
>>738723803What's Randy doing, making videos about a dead RTS game for hundreds of viewers? I think I'm better off
>>738723909I played TA 30 years ago, when it came out, a single game
>>738723910rANDY isn't just a Zero-K player. If you played Total Annihilation then you would've known him from the Total Annihilation days. He's way better than you will ever be at anything. He rapes you in Total Annihilation. He rapes you in every spring engine game including BAR and Zero-K. He's simply better than you because he can actually form strategies and sophisticated tactics while you cry about APM.>>738723947No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't need so much handholding with all the questions you asked.
>>738706924Most “gamers” never beat the first mission of literally any game as per steam achievements. 90% of RTS gamers never touch multiplayer sure, but how many of them even finish the first tutorial mission, let alone play regularly after they beat the campaign if they ever do.
>>738724145I don't remember a single unit or building from TAI actually have a real life, I don't need to be good at video games, although I've been pretty high on RTS ladders beforeRTS games have low strategic depth because they're short, don't have many options and micro has too much of an impact on your successDOTA has way more options and the game goes on much longer
>>738724173I think a good example of your first point is, of all things, Five Nights at Freddy's. This massive multi-million dollar IP with books, movies, games, and less than 1,500 people ever actually played the first game. More people bought the game and then left it untouched than actually bought it. I suspect a lot of people like to say they "play" various games just to say they do, but actually don't really play them at all.
>>738724327>less than 1,500 people ever actually played the first gameThat's not true
if you don't like micro why not just play wargames instead
>>738724497what wargames? you mean tabletop?
>>738724510i mean computer wargames
>>738687020RoN was like the next evolutionary step for Age of Empires. Then Legends happened.
>>738724261>I don't play video gamesSo there's the answer. You don't play. You don't understand what you're talking about. You make assumptions then assume they are reality. Did you watch the third video yet? If you understood what was going on in the first two then you wouldn't have needed the specifics in the first place. Quite simply put, you didn't understand what was going on in the videos. Watch the third one so you can understand unit interactions. I linked short videos because I know you wouldn't watch hour+ long videos while complaining about 20 minutes. The battles can get quite long and sophisticated, and your mind would never be able to comprehend them. DOTA is just feature creep. It doesn't have any emergent phenomena or depth to it. Just because you understand it more doesn't mean it's greater.
>>738724684I play video games, I've played more RTS than you haveI don't understand why you want me to watch videos of this game, if you want to understand the emergent phenomena or depth of a game you have to play it for many hours. You told me to watch videos already and it was just a bog standard 10 minute match with like 3 types of units produced a 3 battles
>>738724814Watch the third one then.
>>738724839Give me a good reason toIt seems like you're new to RTS and this is the only one you've played because you told me to watch a regular game like it was going to open my eyes to something
>>738724952The third one is about the unit interactions, unit composition and not a mirror match. It's 19 minutes long since you were complaining about them being 10 minutes. The first two were meant to open your eyes but it didn't really seem like you understood the implications in the video, so the different approach in the third video should hopefully and finally open your eyes.
>>738725119You need to play a game for dozens of hours to understand its depth
>>738725172Just watch the video.
>>738725326You haven't given me a reason to
>>738725341I did. We could be arguing here for 40 minutes and you have no idea what you're arguing about, or you could just spend 19 minutes watching the video and finally understanding what the implications were in the first two.
>>738725557You need to play a game for dozens of hours to understand its depthYou're either trolling or stupid
>>738694337>I'm surprised by how little fighting there is >Um but I didn't mean those units fighting right there in the video I linked>Uhhnnm and I also didn't mean in reference to the game that *I* chose to link, I was thinking of these other ones that are only inside my head>If you would just read my mind you would know all thisBro you better be a woman because if not your only solution in life is to transition right now and hope you pass. Like wtf is this comment chain
>>738725630Or you could spend 19 minutes watching the video. All the implications will come up and everything comes together. Sure, you could play Zero-K and finally understand RTS, but you could also watch the 19 minute video too.
>>738725723You can't understand a game from watching a 20 minute videoYou don't need to play Zero-K to understand RTS games, from what you've shown me it looks just like every other RTS game
>>738725761The third video is different. It will make you understand the unit interactions, compositions and how it plays. The first two were about strategic depth but they were way above your head. This one is at least easier to understand.
>>738725837Are you capable of changing your mind about anything or listening to another human being or do you just repeat yourself over and over again?
You would've already seen the entire video and had an informed opinion if you already watched it by the way. What have you been doing all this time since I posted the video?
>>738688512What supcom are you playing where you arent being harassed by enemy bombers before 5 minutes has passed.
>>738725881Why would I change my mind when I know far more about the subject than you? It's you that needs to expand your mind by watching the 19 minute video so we can have an actual discussion rather than just repeating things and you saying things with pure assumptions.
It's been around 160 minutes since I posted the 19 minute video. You're clearly not low on time. Just watch the video.
>>738726021I'm talking about RTS games in general, which I know more than you about because you can't be out of your early 20sYou know more about Zero-K than me because I've never played it, I'm not gonna make any assumptions about it, so why don't you tell me how this is any deeper or better than a Starcraft 2 match, because as a casual observer I don't see it
>>738726126Instead of arguing for 160 minutes on why you won't spend 19 minutes watching the video, just spend 19 minutes watching the 19 minute video so you can actually see what happened in it.
>>738726225I skimmed itI'm asking you to make a pointYou said "watch this video" and I watch the video and nothing changes
>>738726264Watch it, not skim it. Watch it all. Of course you won't understand if you skip ahead. You can spend 160 minutes arguing for why you won't spend 19 minutes of your time watching a 19 minute video, so why not spend 19 minutes watching the 19 minute video so something can actually change?
>>738726126You have been posting off and on for somewhere around close to 4 hours about how you don't want to watch a 19 minute video instead of just watching the video btw. Even if you want to be extremely charitable and claim that you weren't just sitting here refreshing or whatever, the raw time spent reading that other anon's posts, compiling your own reply, and submitting it is assuredly more than 19 minutes of time.
>>738726341>why you won't spend 19 minutes of your time watching a 19 minute videoBecause I watched 2 of your other videos and skimmed this one and I've come to conclusionYou could actually respond to what I'm saying but you just say "watch this video"If I watch that one and say it looks like a normal RTS you'd just tell me to watch another videoLike you're allergic to meaningful conversation
>>738726369I already watched two of his videos, I've had a shower, made dinner, eaten it, and done a significant amount of work
>>738726406I have something else that isn't a video if the third one doesn't work. Rather than making assumptions for 160 minutes, just go ahead and watch the 19 minute video.>what ifJust fucking do so it can actually happen or not.
>>738726485>I have something else that isn't a video if the third one doesn't workSkip to that then, say something meaningful instead of telling me to watch a video
>>738717224Wargame-likes do it, units run out of ammo so you need to keep them supplied by supply trucks, it's simplified since there isn't different kinds of resources or ammo types, but it adds some depth.
>>738726452>Even if you want to be extremely charitable and claim that you weren't just sitting here refreshing or whatever, the raw time spent reading that other anon's posts, compiling your own reply, and submitting it is assuredly more than 19 minutes of time.
>>738726564I will only do it if you watch the 19 minute video. It's a last resort for a reason. Lets keep it that way. Watch the 19 minute video.
>>738726596It's not about the time investment, it's about the fact that he says "watch this video" instead of saying anything meaningful
173 minutes since I posted it by the way.
>>738726785ok I watched itnow what
>>738726785average length of time before the mid game phase begins
>>738715626Mogs so hard that every other discussion is about the second place after itI would love a BAR 40k Ed or a medieval like tho
>this thread
>>738726623I watched your 19 minute video bro so tell me what you're going to say
>>738727809First, what did you think of it? Did it change your mind?
>>738727875It looks like an RTS game, I don't know shit about it so I don't have anything positive or negative to say, so no it didn't change my mind on anything
>>738727918Then the final solution is for you to play Zero-K, then you can finally understand. Play the tutorial mission in the campaign, then choose between continuing the campaign, playing in skirmish, or playing in multiplayer. Also read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3875973926280115015, https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011192023190 and https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/518611248440410918 if you want motivation to play the game and finally understand RTS.
>>738728162Lol I knew itAnything but actually communicating with another human being and making a real argument
>>738728189Your argument was the only solution being to spend hours in a game. I gave you the solution.
>>738728278I'm not wasting my time on that, I already wasted enough time watching your fucking videosI'm asking you to say WHY this game is good, but apparently you lack the communication skills to do so
>>738728312Read the links I posted. You'll see why I chose to post them here once you read them.
>>738728312He's a spergbotDon't (you) him
>>738728385I did, it's the most basic-ass design philosophy ever that applies to any RTS gameYou literally outsource your thinking to other people
>>738728504Actually read them. If you played other RTS you would realise it's vastly different.
>>738728594I did read them, all the stuff they're saying applies to every RTS gameI did notice the fact that it has a better UI than most even from the video but that doesn't ultimately change anything
>>738728665Post an RTS game that applies them to as great extent that Zero-K does. I doubt you can.
>>738728729All of them. Have you even played any RTS game that isn't Zero-K? Literally everything you've said or presented can be applied to any RTS game. You think Zero-K invented unit balance? You think it invented offense vs defense? You think it invented eco play?
>>738686656I can never go back to vanilla. I can only modded Starcraft called Cosmonarchyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjUr-cVH4pwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8UA7eQmC8E&list=PLSPeCL-8prtOoB-BixGlEKb4niTfmSN5n
>>738728729BAR mogs it SupCom mogs itPlanetary Annihilation
>>738728928I recognize that sprite on the top right of the pic, its from Outlive.Speaking of which, I'm having a great time with the remaster, an actual good game by brazilians and an rts, very unusual.
>>738728821There are many RTS games that didn't follow the philosophy either correctly or at all. I feel like you skimmed the articles rather than reading them. Read them carefully, word by word. Starcraft completely rejects the idea of not fighting the UI. Starcraft intentionally applies a limit to how many units you can select, and has many tedium tasks where you have to fight the UI instead of the opponent. You claim micro has too much impact on success, because other RTS UI fighting make it harder to approach. It's not about inventing offensive, defensive and eco play. It's about balancing them so you don't get into cheap blind rushes, uninteractive economic victories and passive porc fortresses. Compare Supreme Commander's factions to Zero-K's factories (read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011247278813 if you want to know why I am comparing them like this). In Supreme Commander, the light assault bots all have the same cost, speed, range, and weapon stats. Some have slightly different health which makes them simply better or worse than others. In Zero-K, they have raiders that range from fast short ranged weak raiders, to slower longer ranged raiders that kites, and to fast low dps raiders with high damage that relies on burst damage to kill on contact in advantagious fights. There are raiders that are designed for snowballing despite being cost ineffective otherwise. How many RTS has hundreds of units that are strategically viable, relevant and unique? Many fail to achieve both viability and being interesting. Zero-K is both, viable and interesting. Every single one of them. All set apart from each other massively.
>>738729580I don't need to read them carefully word by word when they're outlining basic RTS design that everyone already knows about. You're like a newly converted religious zealot. None of this is nowhere near as unique as you think it isYes, Starcraft is about fighting the UI, I already pointed out that Zero-K had a good UI. Zero-K is not the only balanced RTS. Far from it. Here you're only comparing it to another TA clone which only makes your perspective look more myopic.Hundreds of unique units sounds interesting, really depends how it works in practice though, one of the reasons I don't like TA-likes is everything feels generic as hell, hundreds of unique units doesn't mean much if they're just stat mix-ups
>>738728928Looks neat but I suspect it's another one of those unfinishable mods that stays in development for 10 years and suddenly gets dropped because of some internal drama in a still awkwardly unfinished state.
>>738686656Is there a way to improve the CoH2 AI?I've finished it on General difficulty and except for 2 instances it was a complete joke.Also, If I manage to run it on high settings, would CoH3 run on the lowest settings (I have a potato PC) with 60FPS?
>>738729918It is pretty much 7+ times finished already because not only does it implement quality of life features like better pathfinding, but it also adds 70+ units for each species and even added a 4th species.It is basically completed already over 7 times now. The creators are Americans with Russian genes in them so they are exceptionally autistic at getting shit done. At the same time they understand that they cannot hold progress down over not having the "right" animations & sprites for everyone so they keep borrowing from other games and modifying existing assets which allows them to be so speedy.Only thing they might not be able to finish "in time" is finally making their own engine and porting everything to the new engine. Reason they're so fast is that they use the existing Starcraft 1 engine.Cosmonarchy is basically the Command&Conquer Mental Omega equivalent. Except Cosmonarchy did balancing so well that Starcraft 2 copied Cosmonarchy's balance with the High Templar's storm.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hFWJE5P9oYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgrVDYiMzeM
>>738729868>make assumption>assume it's realityIf you read the article word by word then you will know that the units will be truly unique, otherwise they would be violating their design philosophy. They are designed to be as far from each other as possible, pushed to all extremes.
>>738730487>They are designed to be as far from each other as possibleThat's not unique design nor is it neccessarily good designUnique design is units having unique mechanics, not just stat differences
Nobody plays that shitass game
>>738730361>Starcraft 2 copied Cosmonarchylmao
>>738730487>make assumption>assume it's realitythat is so fucking funny to read considering that is exactly what your devs did writing that article
AoE2 is the best RTS to watch, it's comfy and easy to understand even if you don't know all the meta.
>>738731050>When the fans understand your game better than the new devshttps://news.blizzard.com/en-us/article/24225313/starcraft-ii-5-0-15-patch-notesPsionic Storm changed from 80 damage over 3 seconds to 140 damage over 6 seconds (26.7 DPS > 23.3 DPS).Psionic Storm radius increased from 1.5 to 2.Psionic Storm range reduced from 9 to 8.
>>738731996It's probably convergent design considering it's a relatively obscure mod
>>738730567>can't design units without giving them a billion special abilities at onceYou are confusing complexity with depth. Stick to MOBAs and adhd ridden games. Games that go for a massive amount of unique abilities to be the main balancing factor tend to be shallow knowledge checks and nothing more. Unit interactions in Zero-K come from emergent phenomena. Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3958168875487633267 and you'll understand. Read it word by word. Don't skim any of them, read them all carefully otherwise your arguments essentially boil down to strawmen. Stat differences in Zero-K lead to emergent phenomena. Stat differences in Zero-K are also a lot different than your typical stat differences. Zero-K has an artillery unit that takes 23 seconds to reload. It's a laser artillery unit. How you use it is vastly different than any other artillery unit. It's called the lance. The lance is for alpha strikes, big burst damage. It's to guarantee that some things will die if they dare enter its range. Losing things in Zero-K hurts a lot more than in other RTS. There's another artillery unit, the impaler. The impaler launches a rocket high into the sky, and hits its targets with a direct vertical strike (though at max range it can't go for direct vertical it has limited fuel). In Zero-K there is terraforming. People can bury their buildings and units in deep trenches. The impaler is there to solve that problem. It takes a really long time for the rocket to hit the target so it's not very good against mobile targets. Another artillery unit, the emissary. More similar to typical artillery, direct strike. It's good against skirmishers and other stuff. At numbers skirmishers can't really exist in emissary's range. The tremor which is a heavy saturation artillery unit that can flatten hills and deal with anything that is in a very high concentration. Badger, an artillery unit that shoots out cloaked mines. Good for screening against cloaked units
>>738731628Consider reading every word in the article, then you will realise just how much you are embarrassing yourself right now.
>>738732175I didn't say anything about abilities, I said mechanicsTake C&C Generals, each faction's main tank has a different mechanicUSA's tanks can have support dronesChina's tanks get a buff when there's over 5GLA's tanks upgrade their gun with scrapNone of these are abilities, they're unique mechanics. Differentiating units purely by stats is very blandYou would be a much more interesting person if you learnt how to talk to other people, take an interest in things outside your sphere, and stop quoting the bible and post your own opinions and thoughts instead (and not sound butthurt while doing it)You're very myopic
>>738686656The east considers league of legends an RTS. Not sure how to feel about that.
>>738689331You're such a dumb faggot you couldn't even link the actual strategy board /vst/
>>738730361Alright, you've convinced me to try it. Does it come with a new campaign or something?
*blocks your path*
>>738731996>(26.7 DPS > 23.3 DPS).And LARD still FUCKED UP.It was supposed to be 15DPS else it's just as overpowered as the preivous one.
>>738725715I was obviously in the process of watching it when I posted that video.
>>738686656>logisticsNever seen an RTS properly simulate this. Players should be forced to establish and defend supply lines, not put their entire army in a big ball and try to catch the enemy deathball with it's pants down.
>>738733145Wargame-likes
>>738732436You play DOTA. It's safe to say what you care about ends up being a shallow game. Lets go through the mechanics you listed.>support dronesDoesn't sound very atomic. Drone support from a unit that already serves its purpose, with repairing too? Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/4202498029349040781>buff when over 5This adds... nothing. Absolutely nothing to the game. It's extra complexity and a unique mechanic to achieve something that doesn't need this. Take Zero-K's blitz for example. It is slightly slow for a raider, but still raider speed, long range, and has a lightning cannon. It is not very cost effective for a raider, but in numbers it scales better than other raiders due to its stats. Its long range allows it to close in the distance against riot units in less time than other raiders. It picks advantagious fights and win attrition to snowball. You don't need to artificially buff it to make it stronger in numbers, it just becomes more effective in larger quantities from emergent phenomena, despite being a cost ineffective unit in a brawl.>GLA tankAnother arbitrary condition to buff your unit, or an alternative interpretation is filling this arbitrary condition to build a more expensive unit by building a cheaper version of it then doing the thing to buff it instead of using the scrap to build the better unit in the first place.
>>738733258Remember when you talked about assuming things? You literally just posted a bunch of complete assumptions about a game you've never played. I assume nothing about your favourite game, but if anyone talks about a game that isn't your favourite game you'll shit on it despite not knowing anything about it. It sounds like this is the only RTS game you've ever played. Your previous post you listed a bunch of units which literally exist in every RTS game like nobody has ever heard of them before. Do you understand RTS or have you only ever played TA clones?
>>738686656>Some RTS games compress depth into micro and maintenance tasks on small maps. Others distribute it across economy, scale, logisticsretarded take>>738689480all the popular classic RTS games have fun multiplayer casuallyage of mythology (aoe but with mythological monsters and god powers)aoe3 and 4warcraft 3SC remasteredSC2dawn of war remastered stronghold crusader DEcossacks BARneed to torrent it and play it in virutal lan:bfme1 bfme2CnC3 KWred alert 2also >company of heroesjust play men of war
>>738733402Every other RTS game I played is shit compared to Zero-K. After all, you made the claim that RTS has no depth to it, but that's because of the games you chose to play. You could talk about assuming but the mere description of the mechanics you posted are actual boring trash, something an ideas guy would come up with. Both the drone and buff mechanics you listed are fairly simple to understand, and they're retarded. It's not possible to misunderstand the buff condition. It sounds like these mechanics you posted are the only differentiating factor for these units, because all the tanks in C&CG appear to have the exact same range across factions. How boring!
>>738733972It doesn't actually seem like you've played any other RTS games because you list every basic RTS feature Zero-K has like no other game has it. You didn't understand the mechanics I outlined because, as we went over before, you haven't played the game. You misunderstood all of them. These mechanics are not the only differentiating factor, of course all of them have a different range and speed and health and damage and so on. You literally take Zero-K's design blogs as the word of God and seem incapable of reasoning outside these constraints. You think atomic unit design is an axomatic good when it's merely a design philosophy. Nobody is ever going to want to be around you when you can't actually think for yourself or look outside your tiny sphere of interest
The savior of RTS is coming out this year guys, just hold on a little longer
>>738716203That's not what scale isThat's not what logistics isThat's not what simultaneous fronts areYou have no idea what videogames are about, play moar and lurk moar
>>738734421I love scarlett so much bros
>>738734421I remember playing the demo for this and it was utterly disappointing
>>738734421another slop starcraft clone that will be dead on arrival
>>738734193>different rangeThey don't. I looked through them. They are all the exact same. They're too scared to design a different unit without copy pasting and changing some stats slightly differently. Changing range would be too scary for them because it has far more consequences than you can think. What you posted was an explicit mechanic to enable a behaviour that happens naturally in Zero-K. Explicit mechanics to enable behaviour instead of behaviour coming from emergent phenomena leads to a shallow game, because explicit mechanics start at their mechanics and end at their mechanics. The common pursuit of idealism, predictability and perfection that leads to a boring game. C&C did not achieve what Zero-K did with their blitz. They only mimicked a shear fraction of the interactions the blitz has. Starcraft doesn't have a unit like the blitz. C&C tried to make a unit like the blitz but it didn't lead to anything interesting because of their explicit mechanics instead of dynamic interactions of emergent phenomena. Zero-K is the only RTS that has the blitz that can do what the blitz does. I do not give a flying fuck about your 5% difference in hp stats, or your arbitrary mechanics that just makes you do arbitrary things to fulfill them. They are boring. No wonder why you think RTS has no depth, because this is what you think RTS is. These shallow mechanics. Mimicing nature with explicit checks instead of dynamic emergent phenomena of chaotic systems. If you want to truly know, play the game, or stay out of RTS threads if all you're going to do is shut your ears then scream and complain about RTS while ignoring the treasure out there.
>>738733805>retarded takeHow so? Those are exactly what SC and SupCom do.
>>738734940You're talking about this like it's an either-or situationYou have explicit mechanics and you have emergent phenomena, having explicit mechanics does not mean the emergent phenomena goes awayYou should also really stop being a child and try to think critically about things instead of "it sucks and I hate it", you have not played the game, you don't know what you're talking aboutThere are units like the blitz in every RTS game
>>738734579>No, u.
>>738735184C&C does not have physically simulated projectiles. They are hitscan. Meanwhile Zero-K has a spider unit that can climb through terrain and shoot curving rockets while hiding behind a hill. The simulated projectiles of Zero-K lead to emergent phenomena. Some units have slow projectiles, which makes them ineffective against small and fast targets since they can dodge them. But this is only a soft weakness. If there are lots of targets, naturally the projectiles are more likely to hit something, as the units are too compressed to dodge effectively. In C&C, unit counters are based on damage multipliers and bonuses. That is shallow. It is something that starts there and ends there, leading to nothing more than rock paper scissors. In Zero-K, unit counters are based on physics. Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3958168875487633267. Damage, fire rate, range, projectile speed, projectile acceleration, rotation speed, turret rotation speed, speed, acceleration, unit size, these all factor into whether a unit beats another. Projectiles can have different trajectories too. The typical plasma projectile is parabolic as expected. Rockets can fly straight, missiles home. A unit can counter another by simply out ranging it while being faster than it, but that unit can get countered by a faster unit that closes in the distance. The kodachi is a fast raider unit, it shoots napalm at the floor which enemy units can walk into. The kodachi isn't good at brawling, but it is great at kiting other raiders. Countering by kiting works quite differently than countering by rock paper scissors. Kiting requires moving back and losing territory while doing so. It's harder to force that counter in because the enemy has to chase you and you have to run away, making it more defensive than offensive. It can still be offensive. The kodachi, if it goes behind your frontline and starts getting at your mexes can be nasty to deal with.
>>738736072You can't chase a kodachi, no matter how many raiders you send at it. The only way to stop it is to successfully surround it so it has nowhere to go.
>>738735184In the end, C&C doesn't have much emergent phenomena because it chased explicit mechanics, idealism and perfection.
>>738736072Why did you start going C&C vs Zero-K? How is this relevant to anything? Half of the stuff you're saying is also wrong, C&C has fire rate, range, damage, projectile speed, turret rotation speed, speed, acceleration, slow projectiles, unit size. So does Starcraft come to think of it. The difference with TA style games is all their projectiles are physically simulated. And damage and armor types don't make things more shallow, it's simply another layer of mechanics ontop of those things.None of this is critical thinking or objective, it's brainless "it sucks and I don't like it", and you apparently haven't even played the games you dislike. It seems your intelligence ends when you aren't able to post articles to do your thinking for you
>>738736310>C&C doesn't have much emergent phenomena because it chased explicit mechanicsExplicit mechanics do not remove emergent phenomenaThe very basis of RTS games is units with different stats, ALL RTS games do this
>>738736493this retard's whole thing is Zero-K versus all the other RTS, where through autistic turbofocus and circular logic the former is the only RTS to ever exist, and the latter are not RTS at all, they're mobas, citybuilders, or whatever elseDo not engage, and I recommend to steer clear of these threads, it's just brain damage, you can't fix this
>>738736991He hasn't even played any other RTS games lmaoHe's completely glossing over the things that make TA clones unique and saying "well do you know Zero-K has artillery and fast units with long range?"Fucking insanity
>>738736493Reading comprehension? I listed those things because that is how things are balanced in Zero-K. In C&C, it's all about rock paper scissors damage multipliers and armour types. They are all hitscan with a delay. They are not physically simulated projectiles. Units in C&C don't counter each other by dodging, kiting or closing in the distance. They counter each other by having the favourable damage multipliers and armour types. That is how C&C is designed. C&C didn't pursue emergent phenomena. There is a massive difference between hitscan with a delay and physically simulated projectiles. It's not that C&C went ahead to remove all emergent phenomena, it's that they didn't add any in the first place. They didn't add anything to allow it to happen, they focused on the explicit mechanics instead. It's an absence, negligence, etc.>>738736523C&C didn't add any mechanics to allow emergent phenomena in the first place. The argument is they chased for idealism, perfection and explicitism. An absence in the pursuit of emergent phenomena for the persuit of explicit mechanics instead.
>>738737063All tanks in C&C have the exact same range.
>>738737159>In C&C, it's all about rock paper scissors damage multipliers and armour typesIt's not>They are all hitscan with a delayThey aren't>Units in C&C don't counter each other by dodging, kiting or closing in the distanceThey do>They are not physically simulated projectiles.This is literally the only correct thing you've saidYou literally have no idea what you've talking about. I don't think you've even played a C&C game. Although this isn't just about C&C, these things apply to nearly all RTS games. Learn to be objective. Learn to seperate "I don't like it" from "it sucks". I don't like TA clones, but there's things that look good about them to me, I think more physical simulation sounds like a cool idea although I'm not sure what affect it has on the actual gameplay. Look at things objectively, or in this case you should probably just not say anything at all because I don't think you've even played any other games
>>738737261You said that because you went on a wiki and looked at 3 units without their upgrades you fucking moron
Go back >>>/vst/Don't mind these threads I just snicker to myself everytime I make this post
>>738737535>RPS>Unit effectiveness against opponents follows the rock-paper-scissors (intransitivity) principle found in most real-time strategy gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer>hitscanIt is hitscan with a delay. Graphics can be convincing but they are not reality. If you want to see simulated projectiles, watch a match of Zero-K. It'll be an eye opener of what simulated projectiles truly entails.>counterThey use damage multipliers and armour types. Counters aren't based on dodge, kite or closing in the distance relations. Why are you bullshitting?
>>738737571Their upgrades don't change their range.
>>738738248>It is hitscan with a delay.Only bullets are "hitscan with a delay". You can dodge tank shells, you can dodge unguided missiles, you can shoot down or outrun guided missilesPlease don't try to argue about a game you haven't played by quoting a wiki, it makes you look like a moron, also I have no interest in debating C&C vs Zero-K, I'm not a zealot like you are
>>738738328They doStop talking about a game you haven't played
>>738738409They don't
Not going to read anything prior to this, but you are a dumb cunt if you are missing out on Imperivm RTC, Ancestors Legacy and Men of War 2
I don't think you've watched the video properly so watch it again, at 1* speed, no skipping ahead.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq82O91JBHc
>>738738463USA has strategy center range upgrade and GLA has scorpion rocketsThe pure fucking narcissism to try and argue about a game you haven't even played
>>738737705he cute
>>738738565>20% range buff for both of themSo basically the same thing.
>>738738973it's a 20% range buff for the USA, scorpion tank has a rocket with a much lower speed and high reload but higher range so plays out completely differently (there's that emergent complexity you were talking about)This is completely stupid, you haven't even played this game, I can be objective and look at things that are good about games that I don't like, you seethe at games you haven't even played like a toddler
>>738739091So U.S.A tank is simply and objectively better than the others at being a tank while the scorpion is simply a worse tank because you are forced to invest in some artillery power rather than pure tank. That's not emergent phenomena, that's simply taking away player agency.
Zero-K rapes C&C when it comes to depth and strategy.
>>738739242NoGLA tank is better for hit and run tactics, China is better for massed tanks, I'd say USA tank is probably the worst
>>738739091I don't know why you keep engaging this retard. His behavior pattern is on a level of a generic RPG mob.
>>738739414Maybe he'll have a breakthrough and realize what an ignorant moron he is
What the fuck does Tier 2 gun tech do? I don't see any new guns.
>>738739456Never gonna happen, he's been at this for years and never budged on anything.
>>738739456You'd have an easier time convincing a door to open by itself, honestly.
>>738671778Yeah
>>738739337You don't even know how to play your own game. I know how to play it better than you. Simply kite the China tanks with the U.S.A tanks.
>>738687020Reminder the remake on Steam has fucked damage calculations so units that are supposed to counter one another are instead weak to one another, etc. Microsoft hires only the best.
We need Riot games to make an RTS inspired on WC3, so people start to claim is the big game changer.and then the gameplay and bussiness model is just meh and is a complete multi million dollar failure.
>>738739547Are you mindbroken now or something?I can't imagine you're any good at the RTS games you love so much given how feeble-minded you appear to beYou're like a guy who mindlessly runs one build and refuses to adapt
>>738739321And C&C rapes Starcraft
>>738739537kys
>>738739642You claim to have played Total Annihilation but you don't even know about rANDY. Zero-K has far more depth than the rock paper scissors game known as C&C. You claim RTS has low depth, but you come in to defend a rock paper scissors game and refuse to open your eyes to the greater RTS games out there.
There is one thing I've always wanted. But I can't imagine it'll ever see any real success as a game because it'd be difficult to set up and play properly. But I want an asymmetrically designed RTS that demands a minimum of 4 players to be played. Two players on opposing teams controls the kingdoms/factions/whatever like a normal RTS. And two players on opposing teams controls singular heroes as if it was some kind of action game Path of Exile or League or whatever the fuck. Like. I really respect something like WC3 that tried to do both. And having both is charming in its own way. I love WC3. It's not as if I am against the idea of having to macro logistics and then micro armies and heroes. But dividing that burden between two players. Giving one player the "typical" RTS experience while giving the other player an action game like experience. And then having the two players attempt to co-operate and communicate to achieve victory. Something about not having control of the other aspect of your team, and having to trust your friend to handle it, just seems appealing to me. Or is that just dumb?
>>738739935Why would I know about some TA player when I played it once 25 years ago? How old are you?>ou claim RTS has low depth, but you come in to defend a rock paper scissors game I used Generals as an example. I'm not defending it in any way, your simpleton mind just assumed that I think Generals is better than Zero-K because I brought it up once. I've put serious hours into dozens of RTS games. All RTS games suffer from the same issues which lead to them being more tactical rather than strategic, which got pretty boring for me. I see no indications that Zero-K is any different. Everything you say about it make it sound like it's literally the first and only RTS game you've ever played. I'm real happy you enjoy it but there's a reason RTS games died 20 years ago
>>738740143>>ouESL.
>>738740170Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for a ham sandwich.
>>738732175I've read it, it's a word salad of half understood concepts taken from wikipedia and explains a lot about (you)>A big one is to fight Lanchester's square lawYou shouldn't try to fight against Lanchester's square law as if it's a bad thing, the meaning of the law is being one of the starting points of Military Science, the first and most important Principle of Warfare is Mass, this is a fact as much as the Gravitational Force is a physical reality and Lanchester's law is essentially a scientific description of that principle, even if you take into consideration the many other factors that affect relative combat power, Mass will always be there.The whole of strategy and tactics are mainly about determining exactly the how and when Mass should be applied and Zero-K does not escape this, it logically can't, the whole debate about mass and dispersion is this principle being applied.>I have been a bit misleading, and it is time to come clean. Zero-K has a damage formulalol so they make up an arbitrary "Physics vs. Formulas" dichotomy that make development of a game impossible and then obviously have to break their own rules instantly lmao>But anti-air is not even capable of firing at ground unitsyikes, so I can't even use AAA against ground units, so much for a simulationist "physics based" approach
>>738740170Have I called you out so thoroughly you can only bring up the fact I misselected your quote
>>738740269Their design articles really have a "sucking my own dick" vibe to them and this guy treats them as gospel
>>738740437I have a suspicion he's related to the devs somehow, either on a team or a friend of theirs.
>>738740143He's well known. He's a great player. You would've known him if you played and participated in tournaments. Generals doesn't replicate what Zero-K does right. Generals seeked idealism and perfection. It doesn't have the units that Zero-K has. Generals is rock paper scissors rubbish. You claim all RTS games suffer from the same issues but you haven't played every RTS game. By not seeing indications do you mean willingly skipping parts of the videos and only skimming the articles instead of reading them?>bacteria is not real, and I will not use the microscope properlyIs that you? When I say Zero-K does something, it really is because it's the only RTS that does said thing properly. Nothing comes close. Not C&C, not BAR, not Starcraft. Nothing.
>>738686656Any good single player RTS or an RTS with a huge modding community?I really liked rise of legends, that game had a lot of soul
>>738740707Probably too obvious, but Warcraft 3, the standalone game is great as is, and it has years worth of player-made content, fullscale campaigns and variety of maps.CnC games, Dawn of War, Starcraft all have good singleplayer and some big overhaul mods.
>>738740269If you have absolutely nothing to fight lanchester's square law, then it will always lead to an unstoppable snowball based on whoever gets the slight advantage first. You need some things to prevent it from getting as simple as that. You need something to discourage you from compressing your army into a tiny deathball. You did not interpret the article correctly. It's not that lanchester's square law must be eliminated. It's that it shouldn't be the only deciding factor in a battle.>damage formulaFor very niche things. If AA could target ground then AA would obviously be extremely effective for all purposes, effectively being high accuracy high dps high range cheap artillery that also kills air. It would counter everything. Every played Total Annihilation before? If you did, you'll know how anti air targetting ground ended up being. Again you are picking on the specifics instead of getting the abstract idea. You do not belong in an RTS thread or any thread about strategy.
>>738740603Why would I know a pro player when the last time I played TA was 25 years ago on my home LAN with my friend before esports even fucking existed? Are you geninuely retarded? Do you completely lack the ability to put yourself in the mind of someone else?>Generals seeked idealism and perfection.No it doesn't, there's nothing idealistic or perfect about it>Generals is rock paper scissors rubbishIt's as rock-paper-scissors as any other game including yours. This is pure "I don't like thing", no intelligence behind it. You haven't even played other RTS games so you can't say other games don't do thing as well as Zero-K>You claim all RTS games suffer from the same issues but you haven't played every RTS game. By not seeing indications do you mean willingly skipping parts of the videos and only skimming the articles instead of reading them?This might blow your mind but none of the articles you link say anything insightful at all. It's basic RTS design the same as it has been for decades. I did more than skim them and I have learnt nothing, because unlike you I've been around the block, I've played a lot of video games and I know a lot about video game design. The issues with RTS games is they're too fast, too small in scope and give you too few options so they become all about tactics and controlling your units rather than making plans. That's exactly what I saw in the videos of Zero-K which you showed me which I watched all the way through
>>738737705honestly, why did they even create /vst/ in the first place? was /v/ overrun with rts discussion at some point?
>>738734421the genericness is really hurting their premise that said, I'm interested in the story branching they're supposedly making
>>738741393If I remember right the original intention of the split boards was to have long-form curated discussion towards particular topics in a similar format to message boards, in other words the traffic is expected to be slow. I think that overall they're decent boards so it works well enough.
>>738694247It's autismAutism where autistic factions fight for dominance in a thread for literal months of spewing the same takes over and over againIt wasn't this bad when /vst/ was created
>>738741385>knowPeople in first world countries had access to the internet back then. Sorry for making that assumption.>generalsIt did. It seeked for explicit mechanics. Things that can easily be described, like the bonus for having 5 chinese tanks. Arbitrary, perfect explicit idealistic mechanics that are there and end there. Command & Conquer uses arnour types and damage multipliers. It is explicitly RPS. Things defined to beat other things, by definition. It is very different to the counters in Zero-K, where counters rely on the change in position and effects the possible changes in positions that are available. Kiting always runs awag. Dodging slows down forwards. Skirmishers dance around each other. And these counters can change with quantity. Dodging becomes less and less of an option the more saturated the fight is. Counters in Zero-K aren't just simply counters, but a language to change the position of armies in the engagement.
>>738739558There's a mod on the workshop that fixes it.
>>738741385Truth is, you simply didn't read them properly. Read them with care, word by word. You might've read one but you should've read all of them. Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3875973926280115015, you forgot to read that one word by word. As you said, you didn't understand what happened in the videos. You couldn't comprehend them.
>>738703139Would wish for a sequel where the CorpoNations secretly reverse-engineered more Hedoth tech to the point of suddenly causing an uprising so big their alien overlords get caught with their pants down.Also Jonus redemption arc.>>738703307A WarCraft-like that is in reality a fantasy StarCraft. Fun game that deserves a sequel.It's criminal it's not GOG and Steam to this day.
>>738741946esports weren't really a thing until the 2010s, that's 10 years after TAI don't know why you keep bringing up Generals, I mentioned it literally once, do you desperately need another game to attack? Zero-K might be the best RTS out there (I wouldn't know because I haven't played) but it still has the fundamental issues that make RTS games a bore for people who played them in their prime like I did
>>738742108I didn't understand the videos because I haven't played the game, just like you don't understand Generals because you haven't played the gameI do however understand the articles perfectly so I don't need to read them again
i feel RTS has taken too much under its umbrella and now people who like them for completely different reasons are at odds with each other on what the genre needs today.
>>738722347Something of a waste of potential.Everything's there, but all they had to do is to make an actual story and have SupCom-tier factions.
are there any RTS esport scences actually thriving in 2026?
>>738741946>Dodging slows down forwards. Skirmishers dance around each other. And these counters can change with quantity. Dodging becomes less and less of an option the more saturated the fight is. Counters in Zero-K aren't just simply counters, but a language to change the position of armies in the engagement.I read this in a classic JRPG villian voice
>>738742301SC Brood War.
>>738742145Esports didn't exist, but competitive players and tournaments existed before you were born.>I wouldn't know because I haven't playedThat's correct.>fundemental issuesYou are too confident in something you do not know. Zero-K successfully bounded the strategic triangle properly so strategy can exist. Strategy exists in Zero-K. The videos I posted were won purely from strategic decisions.>>738742201You think you understand but you really don't.
>>738742301Thriving? Sure, if you speak Korean and are really good at Brood War you can make a decent living. I guess most of it does come from streaming though. That's somewhat of a positive since it means you don't have to be a god but you do have to be entertaining.
>>738741645SupComfag is a mobile user given the >m in the filenames he saves so that's a given
>>738742450Every game has strategy, some have more than othersThe issue with RTS games is they don't have enough, they're focused on tactics, simple economy, 1-2 front skirmishes, short games, that's not a war, it's a battle. That's what I saw in the videos you linked me, that's what I've had enough of
Roger Ebert once said video games can never be art, but I think the unit interactions in Zero-K are an art form itself.
they really fucked up by hyping the rework, but deciding to keep the old engine it even handles worse than the original
>>738741287>For very niche things. If AA could target ground then AA would obviously be extremely effective for all purposes, effectively being high accuracy high dps high range cheap artillery that also kills air. It would counter everything.Why can't you come up with a simulationist "physics based" approach to fix that?If you can't deal with the hard design problems that arise from your design principles, then don't claim to have or follow those design principles in the first place, it's dishonest.
While I like a good strategy game and want more of them, watching the process these old companies had to create these gems makes me believe the buzzword of >We lost the technology
>>738742692Sure, most RTS games don't have enough. Zero-K solved that by bounding the strategic triangle. There are plenty of long battles in Zero-K. You can search for them if you want to find them. Zero-K has strategy, but it's too abstract for you to understand.
it's funny how all of the cross game eceleb shit lately has shown that starcraft, warcraft, and aoe player were never enemies and these threads are revealing it was always the ta players behind all of the shit flinging.
>>738742985You're hilariously delusional if you think Zero-K somehow did something strategically that other RTS games do notAll games have strategy, like I've saidIt's quite narcissistic for you to assume just because I'm not into it I'm not good enough, it's the opposite, I've played it to death, I played these games before you were born
>>738743037Granted it's a very select group of autistic ta-like faggots because I remember that /v/ had decent supreme commander threads or at least posters that weren't this annoying about it before Zero-players and BARless started to aggressively shill their games
>>738743295That's a weird looking duck.
what was the name of that upcoming RTS that wanted to implement more realistic logistics?
>>738743538You mean DORF?
>>738742778All vidya games have ugly hacks hidden in them. Sometimes it's not worth spending 60,000 hours looking for the perfect solution, if there is any. There is a massive difference between units countering each other based on physics compared to damage formulas. Anti air does its damage to air without damage formulas. Anti air has counters air in different ways. There is AA that focuses on burst damage, which is good against the fast planes that come in to bomb then rearm. There is AA that focuses on sustained damage output to deal with the more armoured gunships. There is fast mobile AA that can keep doing damage to retreating air if nothing comes to stop it. You keep focusing on tiny details instead of getting the general idea. If you read all of the article instead of ctrl Fing for keywords or skimming, you would've understood the effect that removing pointless formulas would have. Just read this>Gravity guns and edge cases aside, the goal of Zero-K's physics is to evoke a particular feel. The game world should feel like something that should be engaged with as a physical space, rather than an abstract collection of numbers and circles. Games can end up feeling quite abstract. Put more enemy units in your circles (ranges and spell radii) than your opponent manages to put in theirs, and you win. Formulas can vary the effect and suitability of each circle, but this just mixes up which circles are used, rather than change the fact that everything is circles. Zero-K fundamentally disrupts the circles, deforming them into weird and wacky shapes, the consequences of which are too numerous to cover in one article. But it is sure to come up again and again.
>>738743295Someone who lets their opinion about something be swayed by other people before they actually tried it out are the cream and butter of /v/ discussion and the main catalyst is why so few posters actually play games in this board.
here is an important question. how important is realism to you in an RTS?
>>738743797>There is AA that focuses on burst damage, which is good against the fast planes that come in to bomb then rearm. There is AA that focuses on sustained damage output to deal with the more armoured gunships. There is fast mobile AA that can keep doing damage to retreating air if nothing comes to stop it.Just like every other RTS game...
>>738743135Sometimes, some things are completely different. Zero-K is completely different. Of course it sounds crazy, but crazy exists and is real. Every problem in RTS has been solved.
>>738742730it was just a coat of pain and some balance changes if you expected anything else from modern Microsoft you're a gullible retard
>>738743947>Zero-K is completely different.I've seen nothing to suggest that and the fact that you literally haven't played any other RTS game just paints you as a narcissistic moron rather than someone with an actual pointZero-K doesn't solve the micromanagement problem, it doesn't solve the scale problem
>>738743920You'd be surprised. Just compare BAR AA to Zero-K AA. You'd expect them to be similar, but they're vastly different to each other in how air interactions work.>>738743920
>>738743883Depends of the context and what you actually mean with "realistic"
>>738744063>Guy who has only ever played TA clones
>You now remember when every e-celeb shilled Stormgate
>>738744063Alright dude now tell me what's your opinion in Company of Heroes AA
>>738744059Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011192023190C&C looked like a console RTS, not a real RTS.
>>738743797>All vidya games have ugly hacks hidden in themMy point is precisely that zero k does nothing special and that rambling essay is proof of that, it claims to follow special design principles, but it does not.
>>738744206Can you stop outsourcing your thinking to the developers of your favourite game?It's got a good UI, that doesn't fundamentally change it as an RTS
>>738744201Barely an RTS. More of a RTT game. Looks like milsim garbage.
>>738744279It completely contradicts your claim about the micromanagement problem. Read it and stop making excuses not to. You'll understand why I posted it once you read it.
do you look at concept art of rts gamespic unraleted though
>>738694247TAfags play their games the least giving them time to post
>>738744406No it doesn'tA better UI reduces the micromanagement problem, it doesn't solve itYou are still fighting battles on 1 or at most 2 fronts, because that's all you can control at once, just like Starcraft 2, a game where the UI is designed to be your enemy
>>738744261The design principles are special. By design C&C aims for rock paper scissor engagements. There are edge cases in Zero-K, not that you'd ever see AA firing at ground units anyways. Just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq82O91JBHc and you'll realise just how different combat in Zero-K looks compared to any other RTS.
>>738744582>The design principles are special.Every article you link espouses the same design principles used by every RTS
Filter zero-k posts
>>738744673I like to read what other anons have to say on RTS at least.
>>738744673It's impressive how much better the thread looks like with both Bar and Zero-k posters out of view
>>738744474Read the article. It's completely solved, because now you are fighting the opponent instead of the UI. Read the article. The only limitation is your brain. Read the article. There are plenty of battles where people fight many more fronts, or even to the point where fronts can't really be defined anymore. Read the article.
>>738744838I read the articleAny RTS game you're going to be limited by your micro, a better UI just eases those limitsThe videos you showed me showed the same pattern as any other RTS - fighting with 1-3 main groups of units because micromanagement is essentialThat's the nature of RTS unless you make some serious changes to it
Good work, guys, looks like he's growing unstable. One more push and he might just explode from overload!
/BAR/i/Zero-K/i
>>738744641Wrong. Starcraft focuses on fighting the opponent instead of UI. That is its design principle. APM as a resource. Hiding strategic depth away by putting more focus on mechanical skills. C&C uses damage formulas as its design principle, preventing strategic depth from emerging by not having any emergent phenomena to allow it in the first place. Most RTS games don't even have a freeform camera with unlimited zoom. Can't select more than 12 units in Starcraft. Have to build things in a specific way in Supreme Commander to not have artificially deflated economy.
>>738722347Good musicBad developerAt least the community is giving it the love it was deprived of
>>738745154APM is a resource in every RTS gameDamage formulas do not take away emergent phenomena
>>738744941Read the article. All of it. Don't skim past it. Read every word in it. The videos I showed had strategic reasons behind having limited fronts. If you understood the videos you would've understood why he chose to have a limited amount of fronts. rANDY had a strategic plan which involved using a tactical maneuver to force his opponent to position his units in specific locations so he can create maneuvers that would take his opponent more time to perform.
we need to update rts set in the modern age and future to include drones
>>738744673how
>>738745470I read the article you braindead, bible thumping moron. Think for yourself. Form your own arguments and you own conclusions. Stop outsourcing your thinking to other peopleThe reason you have limited fronts is if because you have limited APM. If you aren't controlling your units in an RTS game they are much, MUCH less effective. See if you can find a game which has sustained fighting on more than 2 fronts at the same time, I'd be surprised if you could
What do I build as T3 Cortex now that Shiva spam is bad?
>>738742249It's even more baffling when the galactic conquest mode has lore droplets and hints of a bigger story with rivaling factions and leaders that weren't implemented and yet they went to the extent of even adding a canonical main character called Invictus that has a theme songhttps://youtu.be/nwgzpe9IVs4Only for all of this to be abandoned and they have the audacity to go work on a carbon copy of PA but factorio and without planets
>>738745237In other RTS games, APM is treated as a resource. In Command and Conquer, the spy is nothing but an apm tax on the opponent. A good UI would attempt to control it then flag it instantly. A good UI that allows you to zoom out would allow you to instantly identify the spy when it pops out of existence from nowhere. It intentionally makes you fight your UI and go through the micro problem you complain about. Damage formulas undermine other systems that cause emergent phenomena because they become more important despite having an absence in emergent phenomena.
>>738745742>In Command and Conquer, the spy is nothing but an apm tax on the opponent.You have never played Command and ConquerYou just read about this unit in an article from the Zero-K developerGod you're so fucking dumb
>>738745547Heart of the Swarm tried that with Swarm Hosts and it literally killed the game.
>enter RTS thread>some gigafaggot hating on C&CNot on my watch
>>738746449Legalize beating Zero-K and BAR fags with a rock
>>738742692Have you played or watched SupCom? It tends to have long games.
>>738746449KANE LIVES
>>738746739No but I've been kind of interested
>>738739935>You claim to have played Total Annihilation but you don't even know about rANDY.MOST TA players don't know who Randy is you stupid fuck. I had no idea who he was until BA because I wasn't plugged into TA's competitive scene.
>>738746880What you weren't watching comp matches back in 1997 on your 56k modem?
>>738746880More proof that rts players prefer going solo or with friends than in competitive spaces
>>738745624Why form a new opinion when the perfect thought already exists and can be used to counter your argument? Read the article. Watch the videos. Limited fronts come from strategic decisions. If you spread to as many fronts as possible without much reason to it then people will concentrate somewhere then kill you. Unit positioning can threaten areas and that naturally leads you to position your units sensibly to try and stop the threat. This is what Zero-K combat looks like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An-25Vby7nY
>>738746710it's always been legal
>>738746991I know you must be gen alpha or something but online multiplayer was pretty difficult in the 90s
>>738745795The spy is nothing more than an APM tax. Its effectiveness comes entirely from your units not shooting at it.
>>738747028It's not the perfect thought. You're just incapable of critically thinking. You read someone else's opinion and you just accept it, you aren't capable of judging. The reason you don't fight on multiple fronts in any RTS game is micro - but if the Zero-K developers don't tell you that you won't understand it will you
>>738747101To counter the spy you build dogs, you don't use "APM"Stop talking about games you haven't played
it's funny that people who complain about apm requirement have such low apm that they aren't even reaching the point where you feel limited by it. like you have 15 apm you're literally only hitting one button every 4 seconds. you aren't even using your left hand. you are basically proving that it's your brain that's limiting you, not your hands, because if your brain was going full speed you would realize there are a ton of things you should be doing that you aren't.
>>738747215Unless you're disabled 100 APM should be very easy.
>>738701382Bad because Flash played poorly, with bad strategic choices that played into Snow's strengths, but won anyway.It wasn't even those games where Flash just wins because his opponent can't beat him, he won despite himself and Snow failed to capitalize on his advantages.
>>738746991I don't mind competitive if the game itself isn't fucking annoying to play, but TA in the 90s isn't exactly the pinnacle of balance.
>>738747146It is the perfect thought. There's no reason to come up with my own answer to your argument when the answers already exist. Same reason why rules and law exist. The reasoning behind not fighting in multiple fronts is because there are strategies that are more viable regardless of micro. Putting pressure in selective and key locations that are disadvantagious for the opponent. Watch the rANDY videos again and you'll understand.
>>738746825The OP about micro, macro, economy, and a scale is about Forged Alliance (Forever, which has lobbies and patches).Maps can be huge, and you can do a lot with transports (com or unit drops, ghetto gunships), artillery, missiles, nukes -- land, sea, and air simultaneously.Watch Gyle casts.
>>738746991TA multiplayer is a broken unbalanced mess anon
>>738747397The Zero-K developers haven't actually said anything about micromanagement and how it relates to multiple fronts - so you just paste the article about micromanagement and invent your own handwavey bullshit to explain why it isn't important (because Zero-K doesn't do it) because the Zero-K developers have not told you what to think about this topicLiterally a braindead golem incapable of critically discussing video gamesStop wasting eveyone's time
>>738747167You are only fighting the UI when dealing with spies. They serve no other purpose. Spies don't provide strategic or tactical benefits to you. If C&C had a competitive scene, the spy would never ever be used because people know how to instantly spot them. The spy is pointless and can only be useful if you intentionally make the UI weak. Sounds like you may enjoy fighting games instead, or MOBAs.
>>738747101Stop regurgitating my words without understanding them you special ed fucking retard, god I wish your short bus ran you over as a kid.The spy IF IMPLEMENTED IN ZERO-K would be an APM tax, because the UI in Zero-K is strong enough to completely counter it but it would present unfun patterns of play where you zoom out and hit the hotkey combo to select everything every 5 seconds to determine which unit in your base isn't yours. You'd have to make the unit disgustingly OP to compensate for that, which is bad for the game. That is why there is no spy unit in Complete Annihilation or Zero-K despite the technical ability to make one.The spy AS IMPLEMENTED IN C&C is not an APM tax, it's an 'are you paying attention in a game with multiple APM taxes or did you build dogs to sniff them out' check, because C&C does not have the UI to instantly counter spies.
>>738747604Why are you inventing shit about a game you haven't played againLiterally everything you said is incorrectDo you have a mental illness?
>>738747298I am disabled though. Fuck you.
>>738747559You complained about micro. The problem is in other games micro is more about fighting the UI rather than the opponent. In Zero-K, micro and tactical decisions are blended together. You micro to nudge the tactical decision in a direction. Micro in Zero-K is strategy. The problem has been solved.
>>738747749That's understandable why you want games that need less APM then.
>>738747801>The problem is in other games micro is more about fighting the UI rather than the opponent.Doesn't exist.
>>738747215No, not really. There is a huge difference between speed of thought and speed of translating that thought into specific clicks. Most RTS UI being liquid dogshit does not help this at all.
>>738747801Zero-K has a better UI than other RTS gamesThat means you can do more with less microMicro is still a limited resource though and you have to choose where you use it, which is why Zero-K follows the same pattern every other RTS game follows where you're skirmishing with a small amount of units in 1-2 locations instead of fighting an actual war
reminder: zero k is dead nobody plays it
>>738747889>Zero-K>small amount of unitsHuh? There's usually a lot, or a low quantity of very powerful units mid to late.
>>738747978The games I saw didn't have many units in play
>>738747658>the spy if implemented in Zero-K would be an APM tax>as implemented in the game with APM taxes it is another tax you have to do with no strategic or tactical decision not to do
>>738748090its not an APM tax at all, you either spot it or you build dogs to spot it automatically
>>738747469That map is Dual Gap, BTW. It has 2 land, 2 air, a navy, and an eco (which usually just tech rushes and makes game enders) slot. Splitting up slots between players can reduce personal scale unless you invest in other slots, but that's also sorta true for all multiplayer games because opponents are so close together, they can help each other. The best play would be to make a premade and coordinate strategies. You would roll most lobbies.
reminder: filter zero k
>>738747884you aren't thinking at 300 apm but only playing at 15 apm because the interface is bad and you can't keep up. you are playing at 15 apm because you are only thinking at 15 apm. if you were standing behind a pro player who was playing at 300apm and he paused the game and asked what does he need to do in the next 5 seconds you would say "uhhhhhhhh select your guys and move them forward," but he would know 40 different things that need to be done even though he is only fast enough to do 25 of them.
>>738747659I understand the game more than you do, despite not playing it. Higher understanding sometimes look like belief since you can't comprehend it.>>738747882>starcraft intentionally limiting unit selection to 12 units>stop and start micro>mineral boostingWell that was easy.>>738747889The difference is Zero-K is not balanced where APM is a resource, or things to intentionally inhibit it. Other games have designs and decisions whose whole purpose is to attack APM.
>>738748313>The difference is Zero-K is not balanced where APM is a resourceIt is
>>738748125>spot itSo an APM tax. There is no reason not to other than having limited APM.
>>738748373Looking at something isnt an action
>>738748361Read https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011192023190 instead of being confidently incorrect.
>>738748447How many times do I have to say "having a better UI reduces the micromanagement requirement but doesn't remove it" before you understand it? Or do you not understand things that aren't said by Zero-K developers?
>>738748430It is, it's just not measured. There's also the additional tax of commanding your units to attack it.
>>738748447When you split a group of units into several different directions, there isn't a UI fighting you there. The only thing preventing you from doing that is the speed of your mouse movement. You can do that in any RTS game made with individual unit control. It's a universal thing.
>>738748513That doesn't contradict the idea where APM isn't considered as a resource for a balancing factor.
>>738748207So let me get this straight, your argument is that a direct brain to action interface wouldn't improve APM because reasons?
>>738748651>APM isn't considered as a resource for a balancing factor.It isImagine you had a car and it goes 50mphThen you get a new car and it goes 100mphYou don't suddenly say "wow travel time is no longer an issue, I no longer have to think about how long it takes to get places" do you
>>738748556You can move your mouse very fast. Control groups reduce the amount of mouse moving. Zooming out reduced mouse movement. It is not difficult to move your mouse to the other side of the screen. People are comfortable doing that. It happens all the time. You don't see it that often in the high level plays I posted because there were strategic and tactical decisions to manipulate the position of the enemy armies. Naturally manipulating is compressive instead of the inverse, since compressive achieves better results.
>>738748808Units like the Onager and Baneling would be useless if it was easy to split your units. It's not though, historically these units have seen a lot of use and it's notable when players can counter these with accuracy and speed through the mouse. One solution is to get rid of it entirely, which does make it more palatable for most people, though it certainly removes a dimension.
>>738748696it would not for low apm players, because their low apm is the result of a slow brain, not slow inputs. you can watch your own replays and see that there are points where you aren't doing anything for several seconds even though there were a bunch of things you were neglecting. that didn't happen because hitting the buttons was too hard, you just forgot what you were supposed to be doing.
>>738749191you dont understand how brains work
>>738748808mouse input is the slowest. your left hand actions are doing way more in any given amount of time than your right hand.
>>738748715It isn't. Clicking 1,000 times faster doesn't mean you automatically win. Those clicks could be useless, pointless and ineffective. Your argument relies purely on the idea that it is one dimensional, and only quantity of apm matters. Might as well remove every unit, every building, everything. Remove all the maps, and just replace it with a game with a button you click. Whoever clicks the button the most in a minute wins. You can't compare RTS to that, can you? Why are you in this thread if you think of RTS this way? You should actually kill yourself for making this comparison. APM does not need to be considered as a resource to balance a unit. It is not considered. You can make a unit counter triangle in a very simple way without apm being considered. A fast, short ranged unit. A slow, strong, medium ranged unit. A medium speed, weak, long ranged unit. The fast short ranged units closes in the distance against the long range units and kills them. The medium ranged strong unit is simply stronger than the fast unit and kills them. The long ranged unit is longer ranged and faster than the medium ranged unit, kiting them indefinitely and killing them. No apm was considered. None was needed.
>>738749191You don't know what you're talking about.
>>738749219wrong. they have literally done studies where they hooked people up to brain imaging machines and had them play rts games. the results showed that pro players are most active in the brain region responsible for memory, while amateur players were most active in the part of the brain responsible for vision. pro players are fast because they know what to do at any point in the game based on vast experience from previous games. amateur players are slow because they are spending all of their brain power just trying to react to what they are seeing on the screen.
Ok, hear me out.Obviously RTS games need new blood, right? How about this: extraction RTS. A mix of extraction shooter features and RTS. Carryover "loot" (could be techs, unlocked units, etc) but also the possibility to lose them permanently. Fight against assymetric AI, with other players helping or fucking you over.Other than that, normal rts features: fog of war, resource extraction, techs, command groups, formations, etc
>>738749315>Your argument relies purely on the idea that it is one dimensional, and only quantity of apm mattersNo it doesn't, that's just your strawman argument you're attacking because you can't refute the actual pointLiterally the only thing you do is quote your bible and make nonsense arguments when actually asked to think about anything. You can't think about things. You need other people to do it for you
>>738749428I don't think you understand why you undermined your own argument.
>>738749586no you are just in denial because you don't want to admit that you are slow because you are bad
>>738749628No I really don't think you understand why. If amateur players are focusing on what they're seeing and it's not producing results, the game is not communicating with them effectively. That's a UI issue.
>>738749134The Onager and Baneling was balanced around the idea that the UI sucks, which is why they suck. In Zero-K spreading out your units is easy. Units that rely on aoe are still strong because they were balanced around the UI being strong and effective. They simply had good stats. Aoe isn't entirely useless because the riot units have longer range than raiders, and retreat while attacking. If you move your raiders directly forwards in one direction, the ones in the center would be picked off first, and the ones further out will be picked out later because they aren't running directly towards the direction of the riot. If you move them directly towards the riot since that's the most efficient path, they converge. That's not micro, that's physics, or geometry. There is nothing you can do to get around that, other than a perfect surround, which you either achieved through tactical genius or your opponent being a retard. In Zero-K you can spread your units into any arbitrary shape and formation you like in a single click. You can do it in less than 100 ms and is easy. You can do it rapidly, quickly on demand.
>>738749495we've already talked about this concept and it really doesn't work if you implement it the same way as tarkov/hunt/marathon doand there was no consensus on progression otherwiseI'd like it for someone to figure it out tho
>>738749254In Zero-K, you can command 100 units to move to 100 specific locations with one mouse drag and click, in 100 ms. How many actions does that take for Starcraft?
>>738750016no you can command 100 units to move to 100 non-specific locations
>>738750039Really now. And how's that.
>>738749504Did you remember that car argument you posted? It could only ever possibly be relevant if apm is the only deciding factor in a game, or that actions are also directly rewards or points in a game. Car speed and distance is more comparable to economy and economy production than APM. Kill yourself.
>>738732940That wasn't obvious, because you didn't say or indicate it, and I can't read your mind.Please do not reply to me any further or I will be forced to rape you, because that is the only way to deal with mouthy women who expect me to intimately know the inner workings of their body.>I'm a guy tho-Not anymore you aren't.
I just want a new rts game that looks coolNot APM
>>738750039In Zero-K you can. You can command them into any shape you like. You can't even command more than 12 units in Starcraft to do anything. Play a real RTS for once.
>>738749749you don't get it at all
>>738750531No, you don't. You're posting about a study done on a very specific game where the strongest correlations to win rate are how much time someone spends on things other than what is directly on screen and APM, then using it to try to argue about RTS in general.
>>738750286dust front will definitely release soon (cope)
>>738750778still wrong. pros in aoe2 and warcraft 3 have also done low apm challenges. they always show that knowing what to do always precedes doing it. if you are slow it's because you don't know what to do.
Zero-K won. Everyone else lost and got raped.
>>738751167
>>738751002>AoE2Much lower APM to play and much more viable low APM playstyles.>WC3Banked APM so he could actually function because it was averaged.>if you are slow it's because you don't know what to do.No it's for reasons that you won't accept for whatever reason. Motor skills are not a 1 for 1 with brain processing speed.
>>738751235>frequently getting 32 player matches in Teams All WelcomeAs you were saying?
>>738751493I also cope by saying that Heroes of the Storm is alive because my quick play queue is 30-50 secondsDoesn't make it true
>>738751605>can play and find a match I likeThat's not dead. Only those in the know know.
>>738752206New thread with a retard filter.
>>738751235KWAB
>>738751445if you can type at 60 wpm that's over 200 actions per minute. if you are playing at sub 60 apm you are literally crippled or your mind is the bottleneck.
