>>1681600
Is the community still mostly on discord tho ?

>>1681600
>or is it niche because of it's still early development
Zero meaningful promotion besides some shilling, they need to get on fucking steam ASAP or it will never take off.

What are advantages and flaws compare to SupCom FAF?

>>1681690
It's been years since I played SCFA, so I remember it vaguely.

BAR is free and open-source, meaning active development and growing community which participates in it's creation and balancing. Possibly the best control scheme I've seen in an RTS. Unit scaling is also better, meaning you see more of the models and less of the little icons. Terrain greatly influances not only unit movement depending on it's type, but the actually simulated velocity and trajectory of their weapons (given it's not a laser, in which case it's damage changes with distance). There's also terrain deformation, especially with something like a nuke.

As for flaws, it's third faction is still in development. As mentioned, the units are more readable from a distance, but they lost the rule of cool due to their somewhat cartoonish design. The UI, lobby and matchmaking is still rough around the edges. My biggest gripe would be shit pathfinding for something like constructors, which is weird becuase other units, be they land, air or navy handle very well.

I'd say just go visit their site and see for yourself if you like what you see. They present it all very well, whether the command scheme, roster or behind the scenes of the engine.

https://www.beyondallreason.info/

i tried it but everything felt off compared to supcom/ta, build too fast, move too fast, cartoony units, sound was alright but definitely needs improvement. commander death should be deafening through a 200w subwoofer but i didn't even hear it go off

It can go on Steam with a cost and would buy it in a second. It is really fucking good.
I think the only thing that it is holding it back is the devs, and the fact that they can't receive donations at the moment. It just needs Legion and some QoL at the lobby

File: 😈💓 GG_ieKwaEAAxtwE.jpg (591 KB, 1547x2321)

591 KB JPG

>>1681600
I'll play it when it's on Steam. Which is probably still 5 years away if ever.

>>1681600
It's doomed because it's made by and for multiplayer autists and I refuse to join any gay community just to play a game.

>>1681600
>early release
>early
there is probably an entire person's lifespan worth of cumulative development behind BAR, but even only counting BAR specific development that's several years worth of being released in an immediately accessible way (downloadable binaries).

File: 1691830204666134.png (377 KB, 2550x1650)

377 KB PNG

>>1681600
>plasticky cartoony units

>>1682242
came here to post this

>>1682242
>>1682952
>Enter an RTS
>Refuse to play MP (the only logical mode to be played)
>Get mad

I mean nobody will miss you but begs the question of why enter /vst/ at all, in the first place

>>1681600
I liked the cool units in supcom too much, I have no need for a replacement that turns them into plastic toys

>>1683172
>the only logical mode to be played
Yeah, that's like, your opinion, faggot.
And even if it wasn't, you'd still have to join the fucking discord or anything. Give me a proper tutorial and a campaign to learn the mechanics. That's all I'm asking for. Faggot.

>>1681600
I hope you're not one of the people who thinks Stormgate is a bad idea (and rightly so), because I warn you that you don't even know how ironic it is that you're doing the same thing as the defenders of said game.

>>1683217
>Give me a proper tutorial and a campaign to learn the mechanics. That's all I'm asking for. Faggot.
If you weren't such a faggot and actually played videogames, you would noticed already has tutorials, challenges, AI modes, party modes, shitter modes and custom lobbies

But you didn't because you're a secondary and a faggy faggot and wouldn't learn anything anyways

>>1681600
So I tried it after dropping it years ago and the multiplayer is an immediate rush + the menus remain less intuitive than suppcom.
Not sure if I like it or not.

>>1683483
>you would noticed already has tutorials, challenges, AI modes, party modes, shitter modes and custom lobbies
The "tutorial" is laughable (and doesn't teach anything you wouldn't already know if you have ever touched a strategy game before) and nothing you mentioned is even close to a campaign. But you do you, keep on sweating.

>>1681600
i want to spam human infantry with rifles and bazookas with some artillery support. this game has none of it.

Does BAR even have commander upgrades ?
Where the fuck are they in the menus ?

>>1681600
10 minutes between starting up the game and playing the game (after updating, that is)?
Fuck right off

>>1683693
No, commanders do not get upgrades playing "vanilla"
There's an option tho, called Unbalanced Commanders or UnbaCom i think where they level up and do get stupid powerful

Why would I be interested in this when Zero-K exists?

>>1684738
Because ZK sucks lmao

Played a few matches. Seems stable. mechanics are mostly suppcom, but with less races.
Some of the t3 units feel bad to play though. Underwhelming for their price.

It's not bad. It has a living community, it just needs more stuff.

>>1683172
Unfortunately 80% of people who like RTS games disagree with you and ask for the opposite.
The RTS genre died, was revived, and looks to be dying again because of your belief that the opinion of the majority of RTS fans doesn't matter.

>>1685462
(((Citation needed)))

>>1685596
Source was a blizzard employee for StarCraft 2.
Just look at the number of people who got the "play first multiplayer game" success in rts games, people enjoy campaigns and solo more than autistic pvp.

>>1683172
MP doesn't work unless you have a lot players of all skill levels.

File: 1503480785350.jpg (10 KB, 252x240)

10 KB JPG

>>1685889
(((Starcraft 2)))
(((Blizzard)))

You will never get another campaign
You will never get to play
You will never learn
You will never have fun
You will never be a woman
You will never be a man
You will only cope and post on a basket weaving forum about imaginary enemies
You will never accept you wouldn't play anyway
You will never get accepted in a community

>>1686033
It's the same for all RTS on steam, you can check achievements yourself.
Here is a video discussing this topic: https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc&t=236

>>1686033

Get back in your steed multifaggotnigger >>1646263, another round of big singlechad cocks is ready to rail your gaping asshole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPzTdxwf5LY

>>1686239
Don't even try, that retard will go out of his way to demand you to go and find those 2.5 post-humans who still play mp that one old RTS you like if you say that this is the only game you play, he will deny the fact that C&C community to this day still lives solely because of all the mods and fan campaigns, he is the worst kind of subhuman that plays video games, a goymer

>>1686246
>singlechad cocks is ready to rail you
but they don't play multiplayer? all the "singlechads" just masturbate in their own little corner, lol.

>>1687272
>singleplayer chads don't need anyone but themselves to have fun
>multiplayer sissies need to organize vetted circlejerks for the same effect

>>1683217
so if it's not teaching you anything new then perhaps you don't need to learn anything new? It's not like the game's groundbreaking. You're just a whiny little faggot.
>>1685462
>quadrillions of flies must be right about shit
>>1686032
and you not joining is not helping to diversify those skill levels either.

>>1687279
>masturbation is superior to socialization
Yeah, figures, you're a pussy who's convinced himself that he's a lone wolf or something

>>1687291
Make it available on steam with fun campaign, good map editor and full workshop support and i just might.

>>1687302
It's an MP game first and foremost and that's a good thing. Don't pretend otherwise. Don't act as if putting some toys for you will change that.

>>1687312
Then have fun with your 1000 autists for playerbase, if even that.

>>1687319
I'm having fun in MP in a sub-100 community of an RTS older than you and we're still getting newbies. And they still comeback even after getting buttfucked.
Because they know that if somebody can be better, they can be too.
You just suck and want an excuse.

>>1687320
I am way past age of giving enough shit to get better. I play games to have fun, not to compete with retards.

>>1687319
Thing is that BAR is really fun anyways

>>1682242
>>1687312
I wonder if you fags do anything other than clicking through the first menu buttons that appear in game.
This game has insane singleplayer potential, it's just not fleshed out yet because it's a volunteer project and for a really long time the playerbase was really just the devs and a few other guys. When the Steam release happens I'm hoping that the devs advertise more the potential for singleplayer, and with the increased playerbase there will be a lot of interest so it's likely that people will join and will develop better tools for things

>>1687743
not interested in exploiting lobotomized AI, sorry, real men play multiplayer.

>>1687767
You might have actual brain damage if that is what you got from my post

>>1687769
He's an MP fag, please understand.

I am the type of shitter that enjoys fucking around in a 16 man lobby.
If the game is below 4v4 I refuse to play, because it feels like the expectations are higher.

>>1681690
For me the biggest is the optimization.
Supcom has an ancient single threaded engine.
One thing Supcom has for sure over BAR is cooler looking naval units.

>>1687293
>>masturbation is superior to aids-inducing gay orgies
fix'd

I don't play MP in any RTS, so this game has been real fun for me since it has a lot to do by yourself.
My only issue is map space for when things get real fun. Units get stuck on everything and you need a perfectly flat area/map to prevent that. They should add a way at T3 to "upgrade" your factories to auto-build on their own to get rid of endgame clutter. Something like a costly buildpower increase each time you buy it, and you can buy it infinitely for each factory. Also a game option for allied units to phase into each other for pathfinding purposes again at endgame when the screen gets cluttered. They will still try to avoid each other, but once they get stuck they will simply phase into each other and without friendly-fire issues.

Beyond all ass

>>1694275
Honestly I disagree.
Hyper-clean pathfinding is what got us to SC2, where army deathballs move to easily. SC1 clunky pathfinding added to the game.
It makes you actually maneuver your units, compared to attack move.

>>1694500
That's why I said it should be an option in the game settings, I fully understand the game is already near-perfect for competitive shitters. More upgrades in general would be fun though. Like T1 upgrading to becoming faster/more range to help them be somewhat relevant at T3.

I just watched a youtube video and isn't this just the original total annihilation?

>>1695356
Originally its was called Balanced Annihilation Reloaded, and indeed it was a TA remake

The project got big enough and thats why they changed it to Beyond All Reason. Its based on Spring Engine, now called Recoil
>>1695352
Good thing is that you can scrpit with LUA whatever you want into the game, its open. I get that T1 are balanced around being cheap, but a T3 vastly outperforms any T1 stuff head on, yes... on 8v8. It's fine in 5v5 or less. In fact, Tick and Grunt spam on 8v8 is super opressive even though it seems like its a stream of wasted metal, one distraction and that grey goo can fuck you up.

I mean that the cool thing is that you can try whatever you like ingame and suggest it

>play 8v8
>front
>leak some
>*shitty front lmao*
>get dogpiled by 3 players
>the guy who was supposed to help me started asking the front on the other side for help
>they say *not my problem*
>get dogpiled
>*omg NOOB play with bots first*
>we lose
>next game
>playing back line
>front leaks badly multiple times, forced to help them rather than tech up
>eventually our whole side loses
>lmao you guys are noobs
How is such a niche game already filled with tryhards and obnoxious people.

>>1697928
Sounds like the usual dual gap subhumans from FAF jumped to BAR after the constant DDoS issues.
It won't get better unless you become a host yourself and keep a blacklist, those maps attracts the worst of the worst.

>>1697928
remember to pull 500 metal out of your ass for the T2 builder anon :)
these drongobrained backliners are the bane of my existence

>>1697944
I've had good games too. It's not all bad, but without the mute option I am forced to have a sperg not just shittalk all the time, but spam messages on the map at me.
>>1697960
I don't get the fixation on roles at all.
Why is 1 spot the designated air when any corner can do it ?
Why is 1 spot the designated commander seller ?
Why is 1 spot designated sea when 2 spots can do it ?

>>1697928
Happens in all games
I think it's a sign that the game has potential to be awesomely good, when these people start appearing around
I just look for my friends to play against them, it's the ultimate test of an RTS

>>1697973
>Why is 1 spot the designated air when any corner can do it ?
>Why is 1 spot the designated commander seller ?
>Why is 1 spot designated sea when 2 spots can do it ?
Usually there are actual good strategic reasons for that. I guess you're talking about supreme isthmus, and before the meta got too rigid it wouldn't matter which one of the 2 backlines would be air/tech. I'd say it's actually better if the air spot was the tech spot there. I'm not sure what you mean by 1 spot sea when 2 spots can do it, I guess you're talking about short beach and pond? Well, pond doesn't have an economical advantage, so it's retarded to try to sea from there, so the useful sea things pond can do is double sea/help sea or build sea lab for the sea player that will switch with you with his bot lab

just picked this game up, and it seems like it tries really hard to force the idea of building everything out of one production building, but surely it's still better to have two in parallel so you can constantly push out more workers while having another free to build military? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you're supposed to balance economic vs military production in this

>>1698061
>so you can constantly push out more workers
You only need 3 or 4 builders outside the map, everything about buildpower is done by placing Building Turrets

BTs are needed to be spammed in an area. The more the better. They automatically help with anything in their radius, so the workers are mostly needed just to drop the blueprint on the ground, then the BTs take care of the rest

So don't spam builders, just get the minimum necessary

>>1698064
ok that makes sense, it seemed so awkward to chain build buildings but with turrets that should be way easier

>>1697928
Tryhards are always a sign that people consider the game worth giving a fuck about.
The game is not complicated and is very similar mechanically to Total Annihilation. It was ought to happen.
git gud fag

>>1698175
Have you played with the "supreme lobster" people in discord or otherwise before? They are the most obnoxious people i have ever met in a video game. Literally incapable of civilized communication and only convey information (mostly demands) through talking about you in the third person.
> I gave him metal ten minutes ago and he still hasnt given me my con
> He couldve stopped that cloaked comm walking into his base
Its something along those lines

>>1700450
playing only 1 map is the most degenerate thing ever in this game and the fucking 5v5 tourney killed the map rotation lobby :- (

>>1700450
Just dont play on the phallic map, simple as.

>>1698175
Tryhards in a non-competitive game in noob lobbies are obnoxious as fuck.
>you have to buy transport and move to the middle of the map and then attack here

BAR also has no mute option so getting spammed with map markers is unavoidable making it a worse experience than MOBAs

>>1698031
I get it, but sucks the fun out of it for me. Fixed strategies are just not fun and speak kind of badly on the strategic side.

>people complaining ITT about gap/astro when there's a handful of mapgen lobbies at any given time
It is autism or masochism

>>1703379
There's roles because the map is complicated and various things must be accounted for or your team just loses the long game. Having designated spots takes out the hassle of organizing that stuff separately for each match. People like the map because of that tunnel vision rigidity, I personally don't so I play other maps and game modes.

File: image.png (13 KB, 1059x96)

13 KB PNG

lel, nice one, fag

>>1681600
It's just planetary annihilation with less planet-cracking and more autism. That's not to say there's anything to like about it, but that itch has been scratched by plenty of other games.

Anyone here run Cortex? How hard do you have to scale eco to get reliable t2 tank production? Every time I try to do it I stall out and end up with a meager amount of units compared to my lane opponent

>>1707215
Get a fusion reactor and upgrade at least 4 mexes before tryin to mass produce T2 tanks, would be a good rule of thumb imo. In the meantime you can make a couple artillery pieces (quaker), they're way cheaper than tanks and trade very well with enemy T1. Setting up a bunch of static defenses (i.e. pop-up flamethrower turrets) is a good idea if you're wanting to go T2 but aren't confident that you can get production going in a timely manner.

>>1705902
>make a "discord community" game
>allow no discord among the players, only gay accord
I am Warrior of Discording right now over this retarded shit.

>>1683172
I'm a mostly MP player but not having campaigns is a huge miss

>>1707215
Cortex vehicles suck balls. Only their arty is sort of decent.
Armada has those plasma tanks that demolish from 900 range.

Armada seems to have better options overall with the exception of that one ranged bot Cortex has.

>>1707377
Oh okay I was making the mistake of going straight into tigers off of 3 upgraded mexes and winds.

>>1683172
Parashit games run this board. Maybe you're thinking of DOTA.
/v/ is that way

>>1707533
U cray cray
Cortex Veh are pretty good
Quaker and Tiger are awesome, the Tiger being even cheaper than Armada and deadly as fuck

If you want constant pumping you should always go for AFU asap, maybe two, or make 4 regular Fusion Reactors then your first AFU, it's my baseline to make the jump

File: file.png (170 KB, 484x461)

170 KB PNG

>>1707397
It's a free game all about gameplay
I actually don't even get what would a "campaign" would be in this game

There are some challenges with a bit of backstory, and the challenges are interesting if that fills the niche of playing alone against a scenario

I mean people that ask for a campaign mean that you want to get invested in the characters and motivations? I actually don't get it, because its like asking a full fledged story mode in a fighting game, where the gameplay is just fighting 2 out of 3 rounds. It would just be a movie, just like STRIVE did already. IF you want something like Starcraft 1, which was pretty nice, it was built and developed around characters and worldbuilding, but that's a lot of resources and development focus that, done the wrong way, just leaves with a lame ass overbudgeted story (Starcraft 2), and that's not even the meat of the game (developing the game in the first place)

Also these games are pretty basic in backstory but just good enough. Factions hate each other. YOU are the commander. Go find resources and annihilate the other player because you hate it so much. Anything else in that kind of backstory would 90% possible be a detriment of faggy, nu-written kind of characters for nu audiences.

What i'm saying is that, although I do enjoy a great story, there should be a great storyteller behind it, and a story so good that must be told. Otherwise, it's just a waste, and the people that ask for campaigns do not really play RTS or the game for that long. Also it's a free game (in this case)

Maybe a Risk kind of campaign? that would work, with minimal background story. Maybe sprinkle a a challenging faction turf right there. But at that point, you're just playing against AI in skirmishes, which can already be done.

I mean, i'm getting a bit autist here, but would actually want to know what people mean with "no campaign no play" because the game is already there, a "campaign" is just a coat of nothingburger over it

File: Starlight.png (676 KB, 1352x837)

676 KB PNG

>>1708014
Sure but everyone has arty.
Meanwhile they have no answer to this:

>>1681600
this weak game is shilled here at least once in a month. Stop it.

>>1681600
Played. Graphics & animation kinda not optimized, and feels kinda plastic all around (FPS is fine though). Need to fix pathfinding issues, which is crucial for a game of this size. Also hard to distinguish which unit is from which beyond the basic bot, hovercraft, etc.

Besides those early development shit, it plays pretty okay, but not that different from Supreme Commander and feels like generic brand copy (especially the music). Hopeful for future improvements, but not gonna put much time in it now.

>>1681600
it's quite fun, late game does get very chaotic with the mecha units & nukes but i really enjoy early-mid game. 8v8 is where it shines

>>1708149
Yeah there's actually no hard counter for those fags. Banisher is the closest thing to it, but even then it's not an exact copy. Be noted that Starlights are volatile and any shot they receive makes them blow up and even trigger chain reactions.

Still Cortex Vehicles are in a nice spot right now IMO, certainly you're gonna use them much more than Cortex T3 unless its Jugg spam time already

>>1708153
>>1708154
Jelly answers, discarded

>>1708031
the people who say that they want a campaign are actual NPCs less active than the bots in the game. Easy AI turtling for 2 hours into deathball is their best.
The game is better off without them.
Just like fighting games are not for everyone, neither should be RTS.

I took a break for a few days and when I come back I see the highest rated player got banned for smurfing. This shit is hilarious. Now I know why the smurf was playing at a constant state of incomprehensible and genius. As always, mods are fags

>>1709003
>Just like fighting games are not for everyone, neither should be RTS.
So you want the genre to die.

>>1709184
if that's what makes it die, then it's already dead. been so for a very long time.
Stop catering to people who'd never play that to begin with. It's really that simple. Games for everyone are games for no one and even the veterans won't bother.

>>1709184
I want you to die
Or at least git gud enough to concede

>>1709184
Fuck off. Supcomm and total annihilation were never for everyone. It's a specific niche within the RTS genre.

>>1709184
this is why no one talks to you in real life

>>1709433
Yes, you really suck at selling genres like RTS believing that the majority are attracted to Red Alert 2.
It's no surprise that the only hope left is what EA is going to do with C&C.

>>1709188
>>1709392
>>1709419
>>1709433
The salt of not being a CEO of EA is quite high.

>>1709474
C&C was never good
Not a bait, it is the complete truth, they play like shit and are balanced like shit, all flash no substance

Global Conflagration is an indie game that does C&C better than it ever was

>>1709478
Nobody likes you either

>>1709491
>Global Conflagration is an indie game that does C&C better than it ever was
What shitty indie game now?

>>1709491
Typical skill issue of lack of modern combat logic.

>>1709491
More like it was "destroyed" by the most shitty community ever concede, the Americans.

>>1709520
>most shitty community ever concede, the Americans
based, true, approved, confirm

>>1709491
>C&C was never good
>muh balance
Thank god making games wasn't up to you, else we'd be stuck with the most watered down , *balanced* games.

>>1709491
I dunno anon a game is meant to be fun. I was a top 300 player in ra2 days and made it to #12 for ra3. Had loads of fun at higher levels because it is very much chess with better graphics. If ea wasnt the publisher it may have gotten better, who knows?

>>1709835
Retard take

>>1709861
True. Firestorm was pretty good for its time. If we had more development in the same vein who knows.

Thing is that it never happened. It's a shame.

>>1709835
Intelligent take

File: Duke.png (551 KB, 838x558)

551 KB PNG

>>1709886
You are in a thread about BAR, a descendant of Suppcom, which is a descendant of Total Annihilation.
A type of game, where a single nuke or artillery can and will end you from the other side of the map. Where an armed commander teleport will end you within seconds by the time your commander manages to turn around. A type of game where a few bombers will end you.
3 basic missile silo rockets are enough to instagib your commander from outside basic artillery range in suppcom.
And you are complaining about *muh terrible balance*.

You are in the wrong neighborhood, balancefag.

Fuck off.

>>1681600
I don't really like it. I love Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander and Zero-K.
BAR looks great, but the look doesn't translate to how it feels playing it... Units are not fun and their AI is stupid, artillery is boring, it's not fun to build defences. Last, most of the time you can only play those awful 8vs8 games and this is extra retardery.

>>1710025
>single nuke or artillery can and will end you
A nuke is easily countered and it'sa game ender but not easy to land
>Where an armed commander teleport will end you within seconds by the time your commander man
No teleports here
>A type of game where a few bombers will end you.
Bombers are pretty shit or you're a really shit player if you get bombed to death without AA
>3 basic missile silo rockets are enough to instagib your commander from outside basic artillery range in suppcom.
If you get spotted long enough to lose your Comm that way you deserve it, also doesn't mean defeat

I mean I know you haven't played these games, haven't played BAR, haven't done your homework, don't know anything about balance, finesse, women or fun

You fuck off a thread you don't know anything

>>1710282
And posts like this are the real reason why most people still want to play RTS games against the CPU.
2024, and nothing has changed (in fact, it got worse).

>>1710403
lmao just go away shitter
Like jesus christ

>>1710448
Force me.

Oh sorry, you have neither intelligence nor patience for such an action.

>>1710568
Not even mad
Not even seething

>>1710577
And the best thing is that your ironic comment is a fact.
Feeling old yet boomer?

>>1708031
>Nobody answers this

>>1708149
if someone masses Starlights the answer is the same as with Snipers - t1 bot spam

>>1681600
How do you play as Legion in singleplayer? (participating in a match with it as an option didn't unlock it)
How do you fight the bugs that can even be checked on the site unlike the Legion without joining a relevant lobby?
How is the work on the Legion is coming along?

>>1710720
All the discussion about the lack of campaigns is kind of mute since adding them is already part of the goal map for the game coming to Steam.

>>1710870
Nevermind those first 2 questions, I found them.

>>1710822
This, Starlights shit the bed with so many targets they can't decide what's important and get swarmed and die. People either need to think outside the box or just play more games until they realize that T1 spam is an actually op tactic and game ender with enough resources

>>1710403
>And posts like this
what's wrong with it? it gives clear, objective retorts to slightly dumb statements
sure he misunderstands tactical "commanders die easy so time to kill is low in theory, let's rush" with strategical "commanders die easy so protecting mine is important, i'll defend a bit" but ultimately he isn't wrong. There is balance to be had in an unbalanced game with instakill nukes and other cheap tricks. Especially when antinuke silos exist.

>>1711296
>had in an unbalanced game with instakill nukes
The thing is that it isn't unbalanced. A tool that is powerful doesn't mean it's unbalanced. It's a nuke. And it's pretty easy to counter them, and the gameplay around Nukes is the deterrence of having them, and without proper defense it could -posibly- mean death. Even though in high level it's not always defeat or not even used.

As a BAR player and avid RTS player, i read these posts about balance and realize people don't really know what they're talking about or what they want. I actually think these people in RTS threads don't really play anything, and i mean ANYTHING

>>1710822
>>1711137
It's not a legit answer, since only starlight use is rare. I run them with t2 tanks and jammers. Can easily have basic lightnings in front and not have issues with bot spam, other than being forced to select targets for the Starlights..

>>1710282
All of these are examples of kills I have made in FAF.
Those strats having counters does not make invalid, especially with missle silos - you need to just stand still for a few seconds on the frontline for them to get you.
Bombers work in all games.

Honestly it seems like you haven't played enough to not have seen these in FAF or BAR.

File: banisher.png (345 KB, 2395x731)

345 KB PNG

>compare Banisher's stats
Jesus Christ

File: 1323114397848.jpg (83 KB, 480x650)

83 KB JPG

>>1681600
downloaded it yesterday and played a few quick skirmishes, and basically most of the ground units boil down to
>fact but weak
>slow but strong
>slow and weakish, but good range
it's better for planes, except they bunch up like retards, and way worse for ships, which are literallly
>a ship
>a better ship
>a much better ship
there are some good ideas, but there's also a lot of bad ones

>>1711916
Interpreter speaking, ESL friend:

The post you are quoting is answering to a previous post that says the cited strategies are unbalanced and refutes them, stating that they are, in fact, not unbalanced. The post doesn't demerit or states the legitimacy of said techniques or strats as valid or unvalid.

Also take note that BAR and FAF, although similar, they have their own balance and rulesets that only apply to them, and not between each other, and citing an experience on one doesn't translate to the other.

>>1711928
I don't really feel the Banisher is a good counterpart of the Starlight, they are two different tools
Starlight is a big ass fuck you to anything, small or big in focused DPS. The Banisher is AoE, and although it does quite alot of damage, it's not as scary to single armored units. It fucks up clumped units beautifully alright, but it's a swarm counter, not a big unit counter, or at least doesn't feel like it does this the best it could. Also those costs, dayum

I still play Cortex because big explosions are more fun

>>1681600
i watched this on youtube and apparently its just supcom but "new" and with shittier unit design? id rather just play supcom

>>1712084
You're not gonna play neither

>>1712084
it's not soupcom, it's Total Annihilation.
and we both know you're not gonna play either of the three

>>1711966
>a shit
>a better ship
Just wait till you see what subs do to ships.

>>1711996
First he posted like a fag, then he pretended gaming happens in a vaccum, where you get to anticipate everything.
Even antinuke is not a complete guarantee, since suppcom has supernukes and general nuke spam.

>>1681606
Yeah but I think there's a matrix bridge.

File: nuke rushers.png (177 KB, 600x800)

177 KB PNG

"NUKE RUSHERS could be here" he thought, "I've never played in this lobby before. There could be NUKE RUSHERS anywhere." The 4.5 wind strength felt good against his plating. "I HATE NUKE RUSHERS" he thought. Dark Champion by Ryan Krause reverberated his entire base, making it pulsate even as the 65 energy income circulated through his powerful thick circuits and washed away his (merited) fear of nuke rushers after the 12 minute mark. "With an air transport, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.

>>1712771
ya wot m8

>>1712864
kek

>>1712272
>>1712500
I got my supcom fix late last year, but surely I'll return to crab and nuke warfare some time in the future to scratch that itch. BAR just looks really bland and like it offers nothing above what supcom already offers

>>1713076
As an avid SupCom player back in the day, BAR is just straight up better if not different
I mean I should say they're "different" but, being real here, not gonna touch SupCom anymore. It's just too old. It's outdated and FAF isn't enough of QoL. The engine of SupCom doesn't even support multi threaded processors, it runs bad on big matches and its slow, both in performance and ingame.

Now, the Spring engine was made for RTS. The very first thing that people did was to try and port TA to it. First it was called Balance Annihilation Reloaded, then, when the project got big it was renamed as Beyond All Reason. The other fork to this game was Zero K, which is also on Steam. Both are pretty good, but BAR is much more refined now.

As for SupCom and BAR/ZK comparisons, it should be noted that they're two different games, but if i'm gonna keep playing one that is fun, looks great, and runs well it's gonna be anything but SupCom today.

Industrial Annihilation is also coming soon, as well as Sanctuary Shattered Sun which is more of a SupCom successor than any other.

>>1713129
>Industrial Annihilation
This is going to be shit just like PA was if not worse.
>Sanctuary Shattered Sun
I'm cautiously watching this too!

>>1711966
Ships actually have an interesting dynamic to them, corvettes/gunboats (a ship) are the best firepower for your buck. Frigates (a better ship) get great value against them but only if they have space to kite. Destoyers (a much better ship) are a siege and anti-sub weapon that eats shit in a direct engagement.
It's similar for ground units, with most of them having a role to play in the dynamics of unit-to-unit fights, vs. static defenses, as well as the ultimate goal of killing your opponent's eco/commander. From your post I'm genuinely having a hard time understanding what you think the ground units are lacking. Active abilities or other gimmicks?

>>1712864
lmao this is amazing though missed an opportunity to make the price display thing a radar or llt or something

>>1711889
>I actually think these people in RTS threads don't really play anything, and i mean ANYTHING
absolutely, I'm not saying the game is beyond criticism or anything, but this thread has a crazy amount of one-off posters that will seemingly come up with any excuse to not actually play an RTS

>>1713722
>this thread has a crazy amount of one-off posters that will seemingly come up with any excuse to not actually play an RTS
Anxiety is real
Realer than any other genre. At least Fighting Games filter shitters fast. RTS seem to overlap with city builder people and they don't seem to understand that base building is a function, a layer to the strategy, speed and layout, to push and outsmart other player.

They will keep saying they want something like campaigns, but never specify what would they want. Any developer shrugs these people away all the time, as they don't play and most important they don't buy.

File: happy.png (25 KB, 860x697)

25 KB PNG

>started to play frontline in 8v8 games
>it's actually super fun
>as long as you can show early pressure and avoid getting fucked by rushes
>your backline bros tend to help out if you were decent
>reclaiming your and enemy troops is fun
>the only risk is T3 suddenly ramming into your line
>comm cloak and d-gun for rushes
>dog arty or sheldon dance once you get to t2
>rotating lines to defend allies
>first claim on most mexes and reclaim material
This sure beats playing simcity in the backline. The only bane is vehicle bumrushes from the backliners or vehicle arty spam.

>>1716568
Just got a match yesterday and they left me the water spot which i hate, then realized the water gameplay changes are already in and we have new units and balance and it was a fun micro managing fight that i actually won

The Brimstone is a flamethrower boat and it seems pretty good against spam.

Awesome that you're also having fun, I do love BAR and would hope more people realize how good this is so it can be used as example of what to do

>>1683624
Spring engine has the 1944 game or whatever it's called. Is free. I'm not playing it.

>>1716955
Not that anon, but I checked this out because I'm also interested in a non-scifi setting for this engine, but dangit, I can't get it to work... namely I can't download the files from the spring lobby.

>>1683624
bots exist and are close enough to infantry
just remember to t2 fast enough to get your long range arty online

if you play supreme or glitters, fuck you, hahahahh lol lmao lmfao kek

>>1716955
It also has some types of logistics

>>1718428
rec some maps, and they better be good or I'll curse you to a month of playing only on soup battlefield

>>1718428
>>1719117
I love that any map can be played just fine and there's no bias towards any unit being "superior" in all scenarios since it's balanced around needs and utility rather than "spam tanks"

File: 1587279741404.png (224 KB, 372x340)

224 KB PNG

>>1683172
>why enter /vst/ at all, in the first place
You are aware you're on the strategy video games board not the multiplayer video games board, right?

File: supreme commander gentleman.png (465 KB, 800x800)

465 KB PNG

>>1719224
Oh i'm sorry we should open a Videogame Strategy But Not Shitters Allowed Board as well because it gets confusing
You know you want to discuss videogames but some people are shitters and just faux post

I think anything bigger than 5v5 is retarded and that's already pushing it. In a 8v8 you barely have any effect on half of you team, it's like as if they were playing in a different match than you.
While it has it's novelty, I think it doesn't really make good gameplay to get a windfall or setback just because some retard you didn't even interact with in the last 10 mins did something on their half of the map. The only way I could see it work if it's only truly big maps and teams had options to do side objectives on the maps to gain benefits, but that wouldn't be TA/SupCom/BAR/ZK/whatever anymore.

>>1718428
I enjoy them.

I enjoy huge, focused battles with 8v8 players.

I live for big battles. 1v1 is uninteresting to me in suppcom styled games, 2v2 is the minimum.

>>1719310
It takes 1 side to crumble for the whole match to go to shit. But in an 8v8 maybe the second liner can cover for the failure of the front.
In a 4v4 scenario the game is over.

>>1719310
>teams had options to do side objectives on the maps to gain benefits, but that wouldn't be TA/SupCom/BAR/ZK/whatever anymore
They're supporting custom map rule sets and the map editor is on the horizon

Would like secondary objectives as well

>>1719313
>I enjoy huge, focused battles with 8v8 players.
>I live for big battles. 1v1 is uninteresting to me in suppcom styled games
What a weird thing to say. You get the same if not more sweat from a good intense 1v1 duel.

>>1719347
The action is a lot less.

>>1719352
untrue unless you're ADHD zoomer brained and you need 100 big booms per second for it to register as "action"

>>1719310
I think that's kinda the point. 16vs16 in ZeroK are fun but a casual kind of fun, not a competitive "i outsmarted you with a proper scouting that helped me make an informed decision on building units X Y and Z instead of A B and C and that gave me an advantage on the frontline which is currently helping me hold more mexes and expand faster", but more of a "i can build only the shieldbots because my neighbor to the left is building the sniperbots and the neighbor on the right is flying with radar planes, these three units go together well even if I'd never use them in a comp myself. Time to drop the tacnuke silo for them sweet EMPs to break this not-quite-stalemate"
Yes I am an APMlet and an attentionlet, fight me (in a big team match where i only need to do one or two things to make a good contribution to the team effort)

side objectives KotH style would be fun though. I said it before and I'll say it again, C&C Rivals had some good ideas with the control points that fire a big missile at the enemy base if you control them long enough or steal the control at the last second. The MTX and unit leveling are the only bad things about Rivals but they are bad enough to ruin everything fun about the core controllan and fightan and hill-sittin of the games' matches.

>>1719386
Yeah, but do you need 16v16 or 8v8 for that? Wouldn't even just 4v4 or 5v5 be enough? I think at some point it just becomes a senseless grinder where individual actions matters so little most of the time.

>>1719374
>you are a zoomer if you like big battles
Go back to 90 limit warcraft and 200 limit starcraft.

>>1719386
>spoiler
Yes that sounds neat. I could imagine things like a satellite control that you can control for huge vision in an area. Perhaps you could even have a building against it, but it would cost a lot to get and operate, so it's a decision if you want to push for the control or get the building and so on.
Or I'll go further, I WANT dynamic campaign game modes in multiplayer games where each match is a fight to control regions on a big map like DoW singleplayer and you can get effects that persist between matches, and different regions could have modifiers on the matches, like a snow region with decreased movement but faster laser weapon fire rate...

Ah, well, things that will never happen. I'll just consoom my next C&C or SC clone.

>>1719224
sp campaign scenarios are puzzle games, not strategy. so yes, when we're talking about multiplayer, we're discussing strategy, unlike you.

>>1719388
8v8 is still individual enough
An Air or Sea player win can turn the game within a very short period of time.
A nuke rusher, a tech rusher, a frontline support. There is enough individual player influence to be gamebreaking.
Now 16v16 is probably pointless but suppcom styled games have enough in them to make an 8v8 meaningful.

>>1719388
4v4 and less devolves into "you go here i go there and we don't interact ever" because players always optimize the fun out of the game if given the option.
but honestly just play the game and enjoy it however you do, I don't care

>>1718316
it's just not the same, man.

Why would I play this when I could play SupCom?

So, which game has more players, Zero K or BAR?

>>1720787
BAR obviously.. both games have their playeur count public

>>1720672
It's new and shiny and MP doesn't get shutdown by butthurt russians

Why is Legion never coming out, and the Steam release is bound to happen even later

>>1722098
people work when they want to nigga

>>1720672
Because BAR is better :^)

>>1720657
>spoiler
how dare you not spit on me for my personal preferences

>wind farms
>solar panels
>a golden calf trophy for the match results
It's a fun game but why does it have to be so satanic?

>>1682083
why don't you just play it now? it's free, who cares? the game has robust ai to play against, too.
>>1681642
Do the devs even care if it takes off yet? it's a f2p game with no monetization in it. its just running on hopes and dreams rn

>>1683217
I'm not gonna lie i heard about the game thru here, went and downloaded it, tried a couple missions and now i get it. I can / did fight and beat medium AI already. I'm not sure why you fags need like campaign or tutorial to learn. you dont' even need discord. just open the game and figure it out.

>>1723359
congrats on having triple-digit iq, anon, a rare occurrence on /vst/.

File: Pavel.jpg (19 KB, 650x325)

19 KB JPG

>>1723359
>>1723643
I've played a single mission, since I played a lot of TA and Supreme Commander. After that I joined a noob lobby, told the people, hey I'm new, first game, and everyone was super friendly and supportive and I had fun

>>1720672
Because the engine can handle more than 4 players on a big map without slowing to a crawl 15 minutes into the game.

>>1723791
potato pc? there are people that hold 60+ fps while playing 8v8s on a metal map
the game runs surprisingly well for its open source nature and battle scale

>>1723842
He's talking about SupCom you dumbass

>>1681600
Played few matches today with a dude who was always going economy, he was quite good at the role, but also tilted easily, autistically raged when his team resigned and constantly talked about trannies.
You faggots should be locked out from this game.

>>1681600
Can you play 1v1 in this game? All the videos I can find seem to be huge team battles which I'm not that interested in

>>1724198
Yes

>>1723655
>After that I joined a noob lobby, told the people, hey I'm new, first game, and everyone was super friendly and supportive and I had fun

Hol up
You
Play
Videogames?

Like right away?
Didn't you made a thread where you asked what you should think and feel first? did you even looked for validation on the board? you just straight up joined the fun? How?

>>1724402
you are looking for validation on the board right now

>>1724405
O M G
Mind = Ctrl+D (that's self destruct)

>>1724409
>they made it so ctrl-a, ctrl-d resigns you instead of blowing all your units
>why even live

>>1681600
>download game
>try to join 4v4
>get kicked instantly for being new
>try to join 8v8
>spend 10 minutes in the lobby as people keep refusing to ready up
>give up and uninstall game
This is why team games are shit

File: 1694671386224927.png (68 KB, 1140x502)

68 KB PNG

>>1725767
Just switch lobbies nigger, baka...game is populated enough, especially on evenings.

Don't make this out as a game that is noob unfriendly, I haven't played a RTS that is MORE noob friendly. Wherever I'm in, I tell people I'm new, they give tips, share resources, units, paint the fucking map to give me tips without backseating.

Stop being a faggot.

>>1725767
I don't know what you are talking about, it takes me AT MOST ten minutes to start playing and that's rare.

>>1681600
i hate how all the units look like toys, so fucking stupid, it really ruins the game for me. why the fuck would you do this?

>>1727949
Do you think suppcom units look like toys ?
If anything these are much better than the plannetary annihilation ones. Those have a genuine plastic look.

>supreme commander
>planetary annihilation
Please. Those are shit and undeserving to be mentioned in the same thread as original TA. Only Spring carried the torch.

>>1728068
>supreme commander
>shit
no

>Download BAR with zero experience in SupCom or TA, figured I'd give it a go.
>Fight the simple AI, giant flamethrower gunship flies straight to my base and burns the entire thing to the ground as I struggle to find an AA platform that can survive its onslaught
>Try again, this time rush the AI with a horde of cheap bots, eventually manage to drown him in Brutes, but the win feels kind of disappointing
>Read up on the website for each unit, try to piece together how they're supposed to function in a combined arms army
>Try forming mixed squads with AA units, tanks, and artillery, the battlegroup preforms poorly against most things because the frontline gets demolished
>Keep experimenting, try T2 bots this time
>Find the Sumo, nothing can fucking kill them as they waddle towards the enemy
>Find the Mammoth, which is like a fatter, slower version with vast range
>Use them in place of defense turrets because they can crawl their way forward and the enemy can't seem to deal with a small group of them, all the while laying down actual defenses and fortifications behind them to hold the ground I take

What other units are easy to use for someone new? I tried Fiends, they're pretty great because you just smash them in to enemy bases and watch as they torch the entire thing. I'm still mostly winning by spamming nuke silos and deleting entire parts of the map every few minutes.

>>1728649
For any build you should know your cheapest unit, your tanky unit and your long ranged unit.
At T2 radars and jammers are similar across all factions for all builds except water and air.

Vehicle artillery is unfairly longer ranged than bot ranged, but also more expensive.
Hovers are extremely weak and specific in use.
Frontliners are either bots or vehicles.

>>1728649
Observe some multiplayer games then play them.
Don't trust sweaty assholes telling you you have to watch billion videos or follow specific autistic meta.

>>1728765
This applies to every RTS game ever.

>>1729093
and yet almost nobody on this board seems to understand that.

game needs better early game defenses, an economy rework or cheap units nerf
it's too easy to win by rushing with bots and light vehicles
not fun when every game has to be the same or you automatically lose

>>1729163
The game has great balance. If you get fucked by early raids you need to just git gud. Make own raiders, predict where they will raid, take commander to front faster. Or place one light laser tower.

>>1729185
>If you get fucked by early raids you need to just git gud. Make own raiders
thanks for proving my point
>The game has great balance
lol
every "competitive" game so far of BAR has been groups of light infantry and vehicles running around all over the map trying to snipe resources out of the other player

>>1729201
If you allow them to pass through the frontline, perhaps.
News universally seem to hate being raided and overrely on static defenses, so your bitching isn't very surprising to me.
It depends on the map, but generally the first actions in the game are:
1. Estabilish basic economy and one factory
2. Make 2 or 3 raider units to either raid or respond to raid. Some units are very good at countering raiders, like Core vehicle plant's light tank.
3. Move commander in the direction of middle of the map, try to estabilish presence with light laser towers, capture metal spots.

Once this happens if your economy got raided someone fucked up at the frontline.

>>1729217
why can't I start with 3 air units instead? because the opponent goes 3 infantry as usual and destroys my entire base while my units get one shotted by 1 anti air turret
there's no room for alternative playstyles, there's one build order that is stronger than all the others in early game
bad balancing
i'm talking 1v1 btw

>>1729233
because air has a specific support role in this game, iirc you can't really open with air in any of TA derivative games when playing 1v1
the build order is mostly the same because honestly making the most generally optimal one is the best but it deviates based on many variables such as the map, the enemy and your faction, your chosen factory(which mostly depends on the map and you starting position which you choose) etc
however there are still cheese strats which can either work or not
also early game defenses are strong, a light turret rapes most light raiders, and not even mention your comm
the problem starts with tanks or heavier bots but by that time you shouldn't rely on just turrets, you should have you own force capable of responding to attacks which you also scout or just see coming through radar

>>1729233
Air is probably the worst choice for 1vs1. It's for precision strikes, not holding the front. And it makes sense, every unit type has its place in some situation instead of everything being boring slop of stat comparison.
Play some team games, they are funnier and way less sweaty than 1vs1.

>>1729233
If the air lab had a unit that can hold ground as effectively as ground labs units can, it would be hilariously op. All the labs fill a specific role, people tend to start bots because they're cheaper, so most economical to expand with and lets you get map control early. The game doesn't really have "build orders" in the same sense that most other RTS do. Your early game strategic decisions are mostly about balancing expanding and army production. A "build" really only starts forming once you put down your second lab, and when to do it/which lab is something you decide on the spot based on the way the game is going, not before the match. So not really a "build" at all.

If your games tend to end before anyone goes into thugs/rocket bots/med tanks, then you (or your opponent) are having some skill issues. Just build the radar and catch the raids if you're not interested in trying to snipe your opponent's resources. The reclaim being in your base even helps you make up for the map control you're giving up.

any interest in a /vst/ lobby?

>>1729534
What would be the purpose?

>>1729539
playing funny strategy game together

>>1729539
>what would be the purpose of playing multiplayer with... multiple... players... who also aren't 100% randoms, only like 80% ones (an actual difference)

>>1729880
>implying I want to play with people visiting 4chan

>>1729201
You need to play more to have an opinion worth the time
If you get rushed and fucked its always your fault. Always. Everytime. Forever will be your fault.

>>1729944
you're retarded and can't read.
>IF you get rushed
you always get rushed. that's the problem. not the outcome that comes from it. it doesn't matter if i lose or win against it.
the problem is that you always get rushed. every single game. because the balancing is really bad and early game oriented.
I'm talking 1v1, team games are irrelevant.

File: isildur no.gif (440 KB, 220x144)

440 KB GIF

>>1729946
Everytime
Everytime it will be your fault
Every day you lose to it, will consume your every waking thought, every second, on how you got rushed and there was "nothing i could do", literally nothing. You will take this to bed, sleep on it, wake on your cold sweat and realize "maybe i not got gud" and realize it's because early pressure breaks the buck. And you're the buck. Everyone on the street knows it. You'll go on your day to day routine and people will look at you, and you know they're thinking "lmao that guy loses to rushes" and "lol he says there's no other strategies but it's because he's the buck and always gets broken early" and "obviously so" and even Zun Tzu will write another chapter in his diary talking about you, and people like you, that never got good, titled

>People that talks about balancing are the people that didn't read the fucking book

Next to his
>How to Proton Cannon rush in medieval times

So it is written

>>1729959
ok
enjoy your dead on arrival shit balanced game lol

>>1729946
>nooo there's an actual early game in place of rote execution of a memorized build and I don't like it
It's ok to get filtered, as long as you own it instead of coping by blaming it on "bad balancing"

>>1729964
Furious casual hands typed this post

>>1730066
I feel like his problem is the opposite actually. He's coming into the game with preconceived notions about how it should be played. He has a bunch of experience in more traditional RTS games, so when BAR works with a very different logic he has trouble handling the transition. BUT he's a hardcore rts gamer, after all, so it must be the game's fault, not his. So casual isn't quite right, but he's a textbook example of what fighting game players call a "scrub"

>>1730094
>so it must be the game's fault
It is his fault. I was never interested in any other multiplayer RTS, spring engine games are good for me as they require more tactical/strategic thinking and execution than issuing billion clicks per minute.

>>1730113
>issuing billion clicks per minute
that's BAR btw
atleast for now until flanking damage and fast/cheap units get nerfed

>>1730144
In very early game maybe but the longer the game lasts, the less important APM becomes

>>1730144
bro just don't have a flank
hold the line from map edge to other map edge
control the territory, control the resources, control the flow of the battle
and learn hotkeys to save you these extra few precious clicks that you're so worried about

>>1730941
you've never played 1v1

>>1730955
just like the majority of /vst/.
This isn't a board for strategy, just rename it to "puzzle games" already.

File: 1550327438865.jpg (131 KB, 848x865)

131 KB JPG

>>1729534

>>1731366
is the new season good?
does Asuka reappear?

>>1730955
8v8 is simply more fun and also I'm an APMlet who doesn't like 1v1 in any RTS

File: yum.png (37 KB, 186x166)

37 KB PNG

OH N-

>>1681600
>Hold my Beer..
shut the fuck up redditfaggot

>>1684738
Because Zero-K has idiotic devs and admins who ban you if you play off-meta and even dare to win against them with it.
And then they go on, gather their brownnosers and try to have some sort of tribunal with you.
Not sure if I am still banned, but I honestly don't care anymore. What the fuck is this unprofessional retardation?

>>1685462
the RTS genre died because the devs and pubs couldn't find a way to monetise it.
Some tried, but they ended up fucking with the balance horribly so they stopped developing altogether.

>>1732352
Also ZK is ugly as FUCK
Like Cruelty Squad levels

>>1681600
>More fun than AoE
>That econ

>>1732390
It has the best economy I've seen in rts

>>1732390
as a mainly starcraft player the aoe economy completely filters me.

>>1732469
It's easy
Instead of paying upfront, it draws the total cost over time, since they're "printing" units

Its that way to leave you out of spamming clicks on what to build and make them automatically

>>1732545
no he said AoE economy (the 4 different resources) and not TA/SupCom economy (flow lof only two resoures over time)

>>1732469
AoE econ is actually simple. Wood and Stone are primarily used for buildings, sometimes Gold is used on specific buildings. Meat is used for all living units, and wood/gold as well (because they gotta use something to fight). In that way, early on when you're making workers and planning on making 2 age1 buildings, your main concernsa re a lot of food and a bit of tree, and later once you've made all your workers you scale food production down and scale up in gold and stone and trees, to get either towers to defend/attack/control, siege units to break through, or whatever it is AoE players get.
So in essence, Gold is like Vespene and Stone is like vespene for buildings, and then food and trees are like minerals for units and buildings respectively. Takes a bit of time to get used to, and requires planning ahead if you wanna succeed.

>>1733281
>Meat is used for all living units
Archers confirmed not living beings

>>1733385
fuck, knew i'd get something wrong

>>1683172
>(the only logical mode to be played)
I play MP 99% of the time, but the vast majority of RTS players are single-player/co-op/customs players and never touch ladder-type MP. You wouldn't know this because every (failed) RTS to come out since SC2 mistakenly believed multiplayer people were the majority.

>>1733456
>You wouldn't know this because every (failed) RTS to come out since SC2 mistakenly believed multiplayer people were the majority.
Every successful RTS had both and they were good to begin with

Every failed RTS failed because it's shit, regardless of your puzzle mode.

>>1733456
Every successful RTS had good multiplayer.
There was not a single RTS which WAS successful and DIDN'T have multiplayer.
They Are Billions is low-key dead today and although wrongly people don't classify tycoons, city builders and GSGs as RTS. That should clarify everything.

>>1733671
>>1734682
Yeah, I feel you man. Don't worry, I'm sure the companies making RTS games will soon contact you for your sales analytics insights and your consultancy on puzzle modes.

>>1732469
this is good advice
>>1732545
but I'd also like to add that you shouldn't be afraid to actively rework your economy. If you're running out of gold but have 1500 wood stockpiled (many such cases), instead of waiting for your town center to spit out 5-7 villagers, you could just pull existing villagers off of your woodline and send them to work gold instead. Also if you do float too many resources the market is good for letting you immediately turn that stockpile into other resources you need more of while your economy shifts gears.

>>1736739
meant to highlight
>>1733281
instead
I main mayans, brain rot is a common affliction among my kind please understand :(

File: metawhores.jpg (35 KB, 885x118)

35 KB JPG

>the post that killed BAR
easy to figure out where this game is heading towards
already uninstalled

>>1737188
>devs banning people for playing game the wrong way
>and gloating about it
They really do do it for free

>>1737544
>playing the wrong way
yeah the ban definitely didn't have anything to do with him getting reported being racist about niggers, it was because he played wrong.

>>1737188
>noooooo I can't say nigger nigger nigger
>noooooo I can't play in a way to 100% lose front bespite knowing better
Get fuked

>>1737777
>noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo why aren't you playing your designated role on the map???????? now the team is all fucked despite the fact that we can all build the same buildings!!!!! BAN HIM

>>1738206
I despise rigid meta slaves, but you going air + hovers on most frontline position can be considered only as trolling. You knew it and you went with it, depriving your team of chance for victory hence you should get fuked for trolling.

>>1737777
>>noooooo I can't say nigger nigger nigger
lol nigga, let's be real here, you can get banned for saying that someone has cancer or aids
I remember that a guy got banned just because he was memeing andrew tate. I also saw a veteran dude getting insta banned for saying that if you're low OS you're retarded
they take 1 year to fix cancer aids meta like whistlers but if a new thing becomes le bad they'll update the CoC in an instant