Why did Real Time Strategy genre die out?

[Average Manatee]

It is ALWAYS a limiting factor, no matter how good a player is. These games are about prioritizing what you will be doing at any given moment, if two players are similar speed the one with smarter priorities and better choice of strategy wins. Games like SC1 or 2 and can never be played perfectly by any human and to me that's part of the beauty. You need embrace the messiness of it and I'm sure that's really hard for autists hence the butthurt.

If your APM is below lets say 120 (different games calculate APM radically differently anyway), it's not because you are incapable physically of clicking and pushing buttons fast enough, it's because you are mentally incapable of making decisions fast enough.

Also the insane APMs of SC1 is in some ways a red herring because a lot of it is spam. But the trick is that spam IS actually good in SC1, because pathing is shit and the more often you spam the more often units calculate a better path and generally move better. There's also tricks like if you spam return resources on your mining units it will make them ever so slightly more efficient. So you're technically validly taking advantage of 400 APM and literally anyone can do it.

 

[Multidirectional]

If your APM is below lets say 120 (different games calculate APM radically differently anyway), it's not because you are incapable physically of clicking and pushing buttons fast enough, it's because you are mentally incapable of making decisions fast enough.

I'd say it's more like 100 for SC2 and I'm pretty sure majority of people can reach that. It's just about knowing what to actually do so you don't sit there staring at screen like a moron. And that cannot come without practice. Most I reach with non zerg races is about 160-170. Most of the games it's 90-120. Zerg APM gets inflated due to its mechanics so my zerg is usually 200-300 APM. Plus it's my best race by far.
Though there was one german Terran mech player that was famous for having below 100 APM while being a pro and doing pretty well, even closer to 60. His name was "Goody" I think. So it also depends on the style you play. You definitely need high APM to be a good Terran bio player though, to me it looks like the hardest style in the game. I don't even attempt it anymore, in rare occasions when I bother playing Terran I stick to mech. Playing bio makes me start feeling butthurt pretty fast lol.

 

[Lyric Suite]

it's because you are mentally incapable of making decisions fast enough.

Which for me has always been harder than being able to press buttons really fast.

RTS games don't really reward speed with your hands, they reward fast thinking more than anything else.

 

[deama]

They definitely didn't lean on to the complexity as much as they should.

One interesting idea I had was, instead of actually playing an RTS like a normal RTS, it would instead be you configuring an AI (a fairly powerful one) to play the RTS part for you, you could even do tweaks during realtime.

So first you'd get a decent AI in the beginning and then be able to tweak it's playstyle according to yours. Then inside the game you could specify a general routine, then create macros for "attack this enemy in this way", or tell the AI to explore this area ASAP etc...

That would put more emphasis on the actual strategy and planning part instead of APMs and all that nonesense.

I understand that it'd be pretty hard back in the day for this sort of idea, but right now, with stuff like chatgpt, it shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Johannes]

Bullet chess is not real time anything. RTS is half action, half strategy. The only point of comparison would be if moving chess pieces on a board would also involve manual dexterity of some kind.

It does take dexterity and skill to make a chess move as fast as possible, both on- and offline. Just your reaction time to register what move the opponent made, matters a ton.

--

APM as the main measure of mechanical skill is kind of a red herring, though. It may correlate with a persons practical ability to multitask quite well, but does not usually tell how good one is in particular tasks. Just like you have mechanical skill in other games, whether they require speedy button combinations or not - jumping at the correct time in a platformer, aiming in a shooter... Some people will be better at a certain type of micro like shuffling Reavers out of Shuttles in SCBW, or quickwalling with workers in AoE2. Due to either more talent or more practice.

Using the UI as best you can is just part of the tactics of it all - like how you put units in control groups in anticipation of a big fight, so you can optimally command them, is a tactical consideration just as their positioning on the battlefield. Like you're not just trying to maneuver your opponents units into a bad position, you try and get his attention distracted by any means possible (like calling him a fag in chat).


Key to enjoying an RTS is ofc being interested in the process of learning and using all these skills, not just learning them as a chore so you can get to The Strategy eventually. And you don't have to like every single aspect of a game to enjoy it either, everyone can just play and work on the parts of the game they find interesting.
You don't have to be super tryhard to play a multiplayer game, in this genre or any other - like you don't need to learn how to do every special move of a character to play them in a fighting game.

 

[Ol' Willy]

it's because you are mentally incapable of making decisions fast enough.

Which for me has always been harder than being able to press buttons really fast.

RTS games don't really reward speed with your hands, they reward fast thinking more than anything else.

This simply circles back to my original argument

When decision window is so short, you don't actually think over your decisions. Decision making becomes subconscious based on previous experience and accumulated patters - which you do accumulate when you play and learn various strats and tactics

If you start actually thinking over your decisions at 100-200 APM game, you will slog and lose

This is not dissimilar from playing a guitar; let's say you improvise within the given scale - the decisions you make are to select the scale, melodic movement, maybe throw in some licks, but the minutiae are taken care of by muscle memory, ear and experience accumulated through practice

 

[Johannes]

Youre absolutely making concious decisions. It's not some trance state you go to simply due to clicking fast.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

 

[Not.AI]

Kingmakers

Battlezone 1/2 returns in a new dress

Looks like anyway

Hooray

 

[Average Manatee]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

Doubtful, modern games with rebindable hotkeys are already really efficient. Playing SC1 with original hotkeys sucks but grid layout or something similar that modern RTSs have as an option lets you do basically everything as fast as you can think.

Maybe you could use pedals as modifier keys, either extra ones or in place of shift/ctrl/alt.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

Can't wait to watch the all-female Footcraft tournaments

 

[Lyric Suite]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

Serious question to the care bear faggots here who think all actions in an RTS ought to be automated: why not just play turn based strategy games?

I mean this appears to be what you guys actually prefer, i'm just confused why you need RTS games to turn into that, when there's already a whole genre devoted to pure strategy that is devoid of mechanical difficutly.

 

[BrainMuncher]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

I think so, foot buttons would be great for moving the camera around, instead of having to mash the F keys or whatever. Not that I play at that level but the pros could make good use of it, they are constantly moving the camera around to different saved locations.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

I think the rts online-gaming pvp market (pure rts games, not including mobas, city builders, tower defense and the like) is not that large and the majority of the cake is already taken. You'd need to produce a game on-par or rather better than SC/SC2/AoE2/SupCom/CoH/C&C if you want to push into that segment and I don't see any developer capable or willing to do that. And even if you manage to make such a game its still not guaranteed to take-off and become a hit. It looks to me like a high-risk low-reward gamble. Publishers are probably not interested in making games that may end up with a small but dedicated communities that keep the game alive, while underperforming commercially.

Another predicament is finding right balance between accessible gameplay that is suitable for casuals and more dedicated rts gamers. This whole apm debate is a prime example of the dilemma. I guess you could pull in more people by adding cooperative modes and fun maps. But if these are half-assed people will just stick with the matured titles, and doing these features properly would require too much resources to be cost-effective, so I don't think its going to happen. It also looks that designing good rts games that hit the gameplay sweet spot for a commercially viable range of gamers has become a lost art, or perhaps it was always in large part due to serendipity, considering how many rts studios fail(ed) to improve the formulas of their successful titles.

 

[MerchantKing]

RTS died out because the Dwarves in Warcraft 3 replaced the ingenious Gnomes in Warcraft 1+2.

 

[Average Manatee]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

I think so, foot buttons would be great for moving the camera around, instead of having to mash the F keys or whatever. Not that I play at that level but the pros could make good use of it, they are constantly moving the camera around to different saved locations.

Multi building select and auto mine in SC2 means you never need to move your camera back to base except to pull workers, build a building or switch a worker to gas. And this is something that already goes well with extra mouse buttons if you want to use that.

Keep in mind you don't really have the same dexterity or speed with your feet. It can't be something you have to press very quickly or in between two other keys

 

[tritosine2k]

 

[BrainMuncher]

Keep in mind you don't really have the same dexterity or speed with your feet. It can't be something you have to press very quickly or in between two other keys

Tell that to a drummer

 

[Beans00]

Most 1v1 MP games in WC3 ends without any heroes getting to Level 6 unless you playing specifically with Heroes rush and playing singular heroes (Usually Demon Hunter, Warden when playing NE. I don't really think any other faction really target specifically Level 6 heroes).

I did some 1v1's in wc3, but I primarily played 3v3 and 4v4's. In the team games that was the primary strat , and while I didn't play wc3 at an especially high level I was half decent at it. 80% of games consisted of 'creep until level 10'. Which I found super boring.

My response? Similar to how I would only roach rush in sc2. I ONLY blade master rushed in wc3. For every game I lost because of that rush, I had another where I had the enemy team raging out in the chat. Calling me scum of the earth and telling me I was everything wrong with wc3. Beautiful for a 14 year old.

My opinion, the biggest issue with wc3, aside from hero mechanics which I wasn't a fan of. The races were super unbalanced. Undead was absolutely dominant(and super autistic to play). Night elves weren't far behind, orcs were sort of usable and humans were trash. Again this is just from memory, maybe I'm wrong. I felt like the game was an advertisement for WoW rather then a sequel to wc2. Probably a reason why I never bothered with WoW.



Lyric Suite , replying to this post since I don't feel like double posting;

"Serious question to the care bear faggots here who think all actions in an RTS ought to be automated"

That question has a really simply answer. Turn based strategy games are too fucking long. Most rts games, starcraft,aoe, wc2-3,cnc, ect. Your games range from 5-10 minutes to maybe, at the longest an hour. Team based age of empires could occasionaly have 2-3 hour stalemates, sometimes longer but it was very rare. I played thousands of starcraft/warcraft/cnc games and not once did I ever have a game longer then 75 minutes, probably less then 10 games longer then an hour. AOE 2 was the exception like I said but never ridiculous.

Try playing a game of CIV that doesn't run you MINIMUM 2 hours, usually stretching into the 4-5-6 hour mark in bigger games. Turn based is just too long for multiplayer. I love turn based strategy games, but generally speaking unless you want to put aside a whole day it isn't feasible.

 

[Average Manatee]

I did some 1v1's in wc3, but I primarily played 3v3 and 4v4's. In the team games that was the primary strat , and while I didn't play wc3 at an especially high level I was half decent at it. 80% of games consisted of 'creep until level 10'. Which I found super boring.

Have to call bullshit on this. Creeping gives less XP the higher the hero level is, stopping at 5. Past that point only player units give xp

 

[Beans00]

Have to call bullshit on this. Creeping gives less XP the higher the hero level is, stopping at 5. Past that point only player units give xp

IDK , you're probably right. I haven't played wc3 since like... 2008 or maybe 09 at the latest. I might be off on the levels, but I remember creeping for like 25-30 minutes was the meta in almost every game. Unless someone, usually me or occasionally someone else trying to rush.

Also once you got heroes to like... llevel 8-9-10 whatever most of them could evaporate entire armies. I always though heroes made WC3 way worse as an rts, disagree if you want.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Serious question to Lyric Suite and the other autists debating APM for the last 5 pages: do ya'll think RTS (as you see them) would improve if they added foot controls, so you could do more APMs with both hands AND feet?

I had to quote this again since i have to point out i'm not the extremist here for defending skill expression and manual dexterity in what is supposed to be an action or action hybrid genre. We have a guy a few comments above this one who is outright arguing to use AI to automate all manual actions so one could focus purely and exclusively on "strategy", which shows that the problem is all one sided towards the opposite extreme and that me coming to the defence of skill and speed in those games is more than warranted.

Codexers appear to have an innate bias for skill based games and this bias when it comes to the RTS genre has transmuted into a strawman attack on the role of manual dexterity has in those games, much of it appearing to be a result of sour grapes more than anything else. In reality, the argument you are making, that stuff like APM is the ONLY thing that guarantees victory, ignoring all the strategy, tactics and theorycrafting that goes into winning matches in those games, is the exagerated position. They literally think a 13 year old kid with zero knowledge of how the game works and zero strategic sense can win all the battles simply by being super spazzy and pressing keys really fast.

Now, if we want to have a serious conversation about the role of skill expression, and the possibility to downplay that aspect of the games by means of certain QoL features, we can have it. Grubby had an interesting video where he made a few notable points about the nature of skill expression in the RTS genre, showing how there is a degree of arbitrariness in how hard those games can be in terms of manual dexterity:



Probably the very first example of a QoL feature that we now take for granted is the ability to select more than one unit which Dune 2 did not have. Does it mean subsequent RTS games were "decline" merely because they removed this unique form of skill expression from Dune 2, where you had to click on every single unit in order to move your army? I think we can all agree this was a needed change, but then one might ask why not go further, and why not go all the way and remove all forms of skill expression altoghether. The issue of QoL features, the need to artificially limit how many of those features can be implemented into a game before all skill is removed and all actions are automated is an interesting one. Screeching about APM as if that isn't ALWAYS going to be an element in a game that moves in real time is just stupid and also misses the point. It's also very interesting how Codexers are ok with decline and dumbing things down as long as the thing dumbed down is a thing they either hate or aren't particularly good at.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I think we can all agree this was a needed change

I mean, why though? My stance on it is clear: I want the genre to be closer to the ideal of manipulating an organization at will, with the difficulty entirely being a matter of planning and thinking of appropriate responses in time.

You seem to value you skill inherent in clicking a mouse very, very frequently and accurately. In that case, any QoL change is completely arbitrary. Why not go back to individually commanding units, or pathfinding so bad units literally can't move through a choke point at all because it's too narrow for 2 abreast and the AI won't move single file. For that matter, why not add on extra stuff? Add a series of lights at the bottom of the UI you need to constantly click in 'Simon Says' fashion, to earn extra income. Or to prevent your entire base and army from self destructing. Force the camera to be zoomed way in so it has to be moved constantly to even tell what a unit is firing at. Or force it to be zoomed way out so you need to accurately click on ants. Remove hotkeys from the game and force players to use mouse only controls, because clicking on tiny panels in the corner is the true spirit of the RTS.

Think of how high the skill ceiling could be! We could make playing an RTS as difficult as QWOP! Literally none of this is any less ridiculous than the need to tell a building to keep producing units each time it finishes building one without needing to spend the money in advance, a QoL change that has been made before but would no doubt cause endless butthurt from Blizzard fanboys.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I think we can all agree this was a needed change

I mean, why though? My stance on it is clear: I want the genre to be closer to the ideal of manipulating an organization at will, with the difficulty entirely being a matter of planning and thinking of appropriate responses in time.

Your stance implies there is no manipulation of anything. Everything has to be automated in order for the game to be reduced to pure strategy and nothing else. At that point, you might as well play a turn based game. You have an inherent bias against manual dexterity, but since in RTS games that's interwoven with fast thinking and quick decision capability, adding more and more QoL features wouldn't solve the issue for you, because once manual skill has been removed, you'd still be left with the problem of being unable to keep up with fast thinkers, which in itself has nothing to do with "strategy" either. So out with real time decisions as well, meaning all you are left with is a turn based game.

The question is why bother with a genre that wasn't meant to prioritize strategy in an absolute sense in the first place. Instead of simply deciding the genre is not for you, for some reason you expect the genre to bend to YOUR needs ignoring the thousands or even millions of people who liked those games for what they have been up to now.

Given this, the fact there's a level of arbitrariness when it comes to the issue of QoL is immaterial. In Elden Ring, you could make it so the player has to perform complex combos to roll out of enemy attacks. Why reduce it to a simple timed button click? Kinda of arbitraty to simplify that aspect of the combat like that, right? Just make it even MORE difficult and cumbersome. Make it so you need to play the game with two controllers! Even more skill!

An argument like this, based on an absolutist all or nothing attitude that doesn't take into account there's an art in how far action games can go before they become too obstruse to play, and that a combat system has to ride a certain balance between skill expression and fun, means the question itself goes out the window. You could essentially just declare ALL action games are pointlessly cumbersome and serve no purpose.

 

[Johannes]

What is "strategy in an absolute sense" , though?

People will complain about just about anything how it's not REALLY properly strategic. Oh, chess is just memorising and calculation, not strategy. Poker, that's just so luck based, not proper strategy. RTS, that's mainly about clicking fast not strategy. 4x games, that's just tard wrangling retarded AIs, nothing strategic about that... Autistic grognard turnbased multiplayer strategy games, man that's just who can best learn an obtuse ruleset and/or who has most hours to spend micromanaging their PBEM turn.


Really there's a strategy element in everything from boxing to snooker to monopoly, if there's a competition there's strategies to consider, but it's never PURE strategy unless you come up with some weird tailor made definition for the word.