>he plays strategy games
>he refuses to play multiplayer
Explain yourselves, /vst/.

>>2024771 (OP)
I don't want to test my friendship with someone by doing a new zealand world conquest for 14 hours

>>2024771 (OP)
I grew up.

Neither of my shadow empire enjoyer friends will play it with me

>>2024771 (OP)
In turn-based game like civ I like weeks long games, not many people have the time for that or are willing to play 12 hours a day, let's not even talk about schedule.
I also don't like waiting for people's turn, AI is quick in comparison.
People can't roleplay for shit, might as well play with a silent AI.
Majority of humans willing to play that type of games online are minmaxing autists, I don't like them.
Finally if my human opponent realize that they are loosing, they will simply leave the game, the AI doesn't quit until I destroy its last unit.

I played many RTS in LAN and online and over time I realized that despite thousand of hours into them I really am kind of a casual player.
I know everything about the game but I like playing relaxed game and the end goal of victory is not really the fun part for me.
Most people have only the victory in mind and will minmax, exploit and tryhard like absolute autist toward it.
Supposedly this is what is fun for them but it's anti-fun for me.
So I just don't.

>>2024771 (OP)
That is because I'd certainly lose :(

the two times I've actually been good at a strategy game my friends quit because I beat them too much and then went back to insisting that we only ever play games I'm shit at/don't like

>>2024822
/Thread
well done anon

>>2024822
>I know everything about the game but I like playing relaxed game and the end goal of victory is not really the fun part for me.
>Most people have only the victory in mind and will minmax, exploit and tryhard like absolute autist toward it.
Many such cases. People using vidya gayms as a substitute for actual achievement are a plague on a lot of multiplayer scenes.

>>2024771 (OP)
i might lose

Don't owe you an explanation dickhead

>>2024830
You should have offered to team up for comp-stomping. Get them to grow by seeing you play better against common opponents until they want to test their skill against you on their own. The compfag mentality is what's killing playing with friends.

>why won't you waste your time being a metafag online with total niggers who do nothing but metafag and do the same build order every game
Just isn't as fun. At least with fandoms or more competitively.

>>2024771 (OP)
real players might destroy my strategy

>>2024771 (OP)
I'm scared

>you must spend 400 hours practicing this build order in order to win a single game
No

Time, time, time. Anything beyond Total War battles are just impossible to put aside the time to do with multiple parties. I'm not talking about scheduling, I'm talking about literally having the time for it. It takes much more time to play multiplayer than single player.
Furthermore if such opportunities arise the time is better spent in live company doing other things.

>>2024771 (OP)
AI is a very good sport.
>will play with you anytime on any map, with any faction, any number of players, any teams, any custom scenario
>lets you pause, save, reload, quit whenever convenient for you
>doesn't care if you're too strong or too weak to play against it
>never gets annoyed with you for not playing seriously, going off-meta, being a bad teammate or for winning every time

>>2024959
I can't wait until we have an advanced AI that can "rubber band" in a way that doesn't FEEL like bullshit so I can stop getting bored of strategy games the instant I overcome the early game difficulty

>>2024822
I like you.
It's about the journey, not the destination.

>>2024771 (OP)
Look at first-person shooters: you can enter a multiplayer game and quickly cum. Multiple times.
You have a short preparation stage of going to your hunting grounds. You have an engaged stage of tracking your victim(s). You have intense shootouts. Sprinkle in some unexpected encounters testing your reaction speed. No matter how bad your K/D ratio is, you still can get a bit of fun.

Now look at mp strategies.
They suck.
You have a long-long preparation stage following a certain pattern.
Then you have a relatively short period of engaging warfare.
And even before the first battle is fought you might already get an idea who's the top dog.
You already see what's coming. You know the outcome long before you finish the game. There's little satisfaction in it.

If I'll ever figure out how you can make a strategy game with hour-long mp sessions with a sense of unexpected skirmishes and unpredictable but not random outcomes — I'll rush to build this game.

>>2024959
>>will play with you anytime on any map, with any faction, any number of players, any teams, any custom scenario
I hate how compfags in every genre insist on locking down the rules so that you're only allowed to play ONE faction/character on ONE map with ONE ruleset in ONE game mode and then insist they're good at the game.
If you truly good you'll be able to consistently win even when everything is set random. Make it best 2/3 or something if you're really that concerned about the possibility of your opponent lucking into the cheapest faction possible.

>>2024976
I remember playing a lan game of CnC generals with my older brother like 15 years ago. He insisted on base factions only, mirror, no super weapons and he picked the map.
He ended up rage quitting because I bullied him with a china nuke cannon. Never wanted to play again either.

Good times.

>I hate how compfags in every genre insist on locking down the rules so that you're only allowed to play ONE faction/character on ONE map with ONE ruleset in ONE game mode and then insist they're good at the game.
If you truly good you'll be able to consistently win even when everything is set random. Make it best 2/3 or something if you're really that concerned about the possibility of your opponent lucking into the cheapest faction possible.

>>2024920
You can just choose not to metafag.

>>2024984
yeah great just lose all the time

>>2024985
I'm pretty sure that every single game you can think of has more than 1 viable strategy.
And if you're still losing then maybe you just aren't as good as you think you are.

>>2024986
ok, correction
*lose against anyone of the same skill level because you pursue a suboptimal strategy to the "meta"

>>2024988
You don't play RTS.

>>2024989
OK here's a simple example
meta for a certain RTS favours defensive long-term play
early aggression is viable, but not as good
if you choose early aggression, you will lose more often

>>2024771 (OP)
I play paradox games with friends sometimes and I'm hoping I do it moreso in the future. The coolest things about multiplayer is it allows you to get over save scumming or restarting over every little setback. The more players you can get the better. The scheduling can be tough tho and not all my friends have computers to even try to get into it.

It also encourages you to play on the normal or even slower settings so everyone has time, instead of max speed and pausing all the time. I end up playing more granularly and micromanaging every little thing. Also again the more players the better. Even a slow paced game like Victoria gets exciting with enough people. Also I recommend playing against the computers with friends til they want to test their skills against you like other anon said.

>>2024983
>didn't even give me a (you)
Coward.

>>2024976
The amount of people that bitch about factions in 4X or RTS games is insane in comp. This isn't the sort of games where there's outright rigged boss characters like Devil Gundam from GBO2.

I mostly play alone because I'm shy

>>2025009
ooooh I get it, SHY like SHY GUY from SUPER MARIO haha what a reference

>>2024822
>>2024972
cultured men on my /vst/??

>>2024771 (OP)
The only multiplayer worth playing are coop and team games, my friends don't really have time to play and when they do they rather play something like monster hunter. So I don't really play multiplayer.

>>2024976
>you're only allowed to play ONE faction/character on ONE map with ONE ruleset in ONE game mode and then insist they're good at the game.
For a lot of compfags, that's because those rules focus more on a specific skillset. I remember when I used to play Smash when I was younger, and we had those kinds of rules because it let you focus more on the depth of the core mechanics rather than gimmick strategies.
Of course, it's stupid to insist that the only way to be good is if you can play under those rules. It's like claiming you're strong because you can deadlift 335 and then struggling to pick up furniture.

>>2024822
Well said.
Cheers.

>>2024771 (OP)
time

>>2024822
This, one of the things I hate most about multiplayer, is that units that aren't in the meta aren't used when part of the fun is having a diverse roster of units and trying to make them all work even if some aren't optimal.

>>2024771 (OP)
>Play singleplayer
>Have fun

>Play multiplayer
>Matched against tryhard
>Tryhard uses youtube's latest highest winrate build order
>???
>Profit!

>>2024771 (OP)
Like with all games,
singleplayer: the real game with story, depth and immersion
multiplayer: engagement farmed slop content for tryhard teenagers
Strategy games are this to a lesser degree but it still applies.

>>2024771 (OP)
Why do you feel that you're owed by me to join your multiplayer games, OP? That's pretty entitled. You do not pay for my games. You do not get to dictate how I play them

>multislop

I would sooner sell my PC before even considering doing multiplayer/co-op

>>2024771 (OP)
A battle of human minds is the only true test of strategy or tactics. The first wargames were PvP only

>>2025460
>The first wargames were PvP only
yeah because THEY DIDN'T HAVE COMPUTERS IN 1812 BROTHER

>>2025489
They had the mechanical turk in 1770. Even back then, people preferred to play against machines (not that it was really a machine, but people thought it was).

>>2025323
This. Multiplayerniggers will accept any old crap so long as it's new content. Just look at the new aoe2 dlc

>>2025581
but I'm buying the new DLC for its campaigns

well with rts its because only 1000 apm sweats still play them online. In other games its because I dont want to have to constantly play the meta and cheese to compete

Streamers inspired me with an idea that might make mp fun: the game should be centered around backseat drivers.
Want to tryhard a bit and enjoy attention? Take the position of a country/faction/army leader. Play in whatever way you think is fun. If the observers like it, they support you, which results in in-game bonuses, so you can RP as a revolutionary leader who amasses an army thanks to popular support and goes to build an empire financed by magnates' donations. You don't strictly need to be entertaining, you can be a pure tryhard autist, but if your game is fun it just gets easier.
Like watching the process of map-painting but not in a mood to actively play? Take the backseat, chat with others, occasionally click some buttons to bump your in-game income/boost influence/gather intel, then use your resources to support the active players you like. You can be as active/passive as you want, that's the point.
Maybe I can turn this idea into a EU4 mod.

>>2025637
brother this doesn't make any sense, people would just watch an actual streamer and there's no way this would be balanced in gameplay

>>2025639
> people would just watch an actual streamer
Those who just want to watch — sure.
But have you ever felt like you want to participate, just don't want to put any effort into it? I certainly have.
> there's no way this would be balanced in gameplay
That's the fun part about focusing on the social aspect: this system can self-balance. If the backseat participants think that their guy has too easy time steamrolling the opponents they can just flip sides for the fun of a challenge.

>>2025647
so then the victor is ultimately determined by whoever receives the most votes
this is just a political simulator

>>2025653
I think you don't like mp as a concept.
In every mp game there's a possibility of people teaming up and destroying the less popular player.

>>2025655
>In every mp game there's a possibility of people teaming up and destroying the less popular player.
this isn't true at all unless it's some free-for-all, MP games do not allow players to willingly unbalance teams in the course of a match unless they quite the game outright

stating "you don't like mp" is just a cop-out reason to refuse engagement

>>2025659
> unless it's some free-for-all
Isn't it the most common way to play strategy games?
I simply didn't know that people would play with fixed teams, the mp I observed and played always included dynamically formed alliances, betrayals, "neutral" guys who join the winning side just to backstab them later and so on.
Even in non-strategy games that I played in a long-gone times of local mp people would often switch teams just because they like it, and it often was fine.

>>2025662
>Isn't it the most common way to play strategy games?
Not in the slightest, if anything it's the least common

>>2025666
Huh, apparently I live in a FFA bubble, GPT-sama confirms your words.
I like FFA though.

>>2024771 (OP)
I like slow autistic games and i dont want to "compete" with minmaxing faggots that nolife all days to know every glitch, exploit etc in the game.
>>2024822
agreed

>>2024822
>Majority of humans willing to play that type of games online are minmaxing autists, I don't like them.

This right here. There's no degrees of skill in these games anymore. Everyone is either a totally brain-dead noob scrub or a tryhard sweatlord with 2000apm that will scream at me within 20 seconds if they notice my build order isn't adhering to the meta. Video games are for relaxing, not to put up with the nonsense of extremely bad and extremely good players.

Besides, sometimes I just want to indulge in my generalissimo fetish and create an impenetrable defensive line in whatever game I'm playing and watch hundreds or thousands of enemy units perish trying to crack it. Multiplayer doesn't accomodate that unless you have a friendgroup of people who like to turtle and comp stomp.

>>2025690
minmaxxing faggots ruin most games
for example people will literally chop forests in civ4 for wood but be one turn away from actually deforesting it just to have it ready

when games aren't designed to combat that minmax fetishism it really sucks

>>2024822
the hero we need but not the one we deserve

>>2024822
Dubs of truth.
>>2024771 (OP)
>Have a brain but don't want to minmax every last detail for day long sessions
>Want to play for fun while also trying to win
>Can't play with the turbo autists
>Can't play with drooling casuals
>Every time I find someone between either end of the spectrum they make like a black father
There's nothing better than spending a weekend on a call with some friends chatting shit while playing vidya, it's been years for me, bros. T_T

>>2024822
I think exactly the same as a Paradox player, Hoi4 mp scene is somewhat alright but eu4 mp is a completely different game to sp

I only want to play with my friends

>>2025697
I just feel like turtling is purposefully nerfing myself now since getting okay at StarCraft 2 but I felt this way before about games.

>>2024771 (OP)
Because I'm an adult, meaning I don't have time to put in 1000 hours of practice before I can start enjoying a game competitively.

im not joining discord. simple as

>>2025683
>StarCraft II Team Games Popularity Low
I played WoL and HotS and the custom games were really popular back then.

>>2024771 (OP)
>City builders
>Logistical puzzles
>Railroad company simulators
None of them require MP features and those are the strategy games I play
But I guess if we pretend RTS is all there is to /vst/, this retarded, stale and moldy bait can finally work out

>>2024822
If this were a 2000s forum, I'd put your comment into my signature.

>>2024822
/thread
Bonus points for being an effort post in a blatantly effortless troll thread

>>2024771 (OP)
I can't play anything without a pause button.

>>2024771 (OP)
why would anyone want to play games with smelly autistics?

>>2026526
Not everyone is (You).

>>2024986
Not him, but instead of playing with very bot-like humans doing largely the same things over and over because it's their not-job, I'd play against computer-controlled players until I can play with people I know at least a little bit over LAN again. LAN was consistently the best RTS MP experience for me for many years.

>>2025655
>>this is just a political simulator
>I think you don't like mp as a concept.
It's like poetry, it rhymes.

>>2024822

I loved AoE2 multiplayer but lost all interest with the new DLC. Haven't played in like 3 weeks now and looking back, it does feel like a waste of time so probably for the best. There's no endgame to multiplayer, you just repeat the same thing over and over like Sisyphus. At least with single player, you can get a conclusion by beating the game. Sure, gaming in general is technically a waste of time but it's a hobby so fine in moderation. If you are going to do it, better to play a variety of games rather than sink 1000 hours into one only to have nothing to show for it. There were worse online multiplayer games to get sucked into than AoE2 at least. CS and DOTA seem to be the worst for trapping people. Ultimately, multiplayer is best as something enjoyed with friends and shouldn't go beyond that unless you can make a living out of it

>>2024822
>Finally if my human opponent realize that they are loosing, they will simply leave the game, the AI doesn't quit until I destroy its last unit.
I never surrender in my games and everyone flames me for sticking around.
Jokes on them, the most pleasant memories I have of RTS were the epic comeback games I had.

>>2028425
Do some of your other epic achievements include being the first man on the moon? Man, shut the fuck up, if you had one good game in your miserable life you wouldn't have to larp about it on an anonymous board.

>>2024771 (OP)
i dont have any friends

>>2024775
>growing up is degenerating your social skills on purpose by cutting yourself off from people entirely to play agains dumbass computor bots

>>2028473
>join a discord and pretend you're a cartoon woman
Yeah, no thanks girlyman.

>>2028473
He is probably alluding to lack of time due to responsibilities.

>>2028473
>not playing against people in a videogame is "cutting yourself off from people entirely"
touch grass

>>2028833
its his only contact with other people beyond /vst/ pls understand

>>2024771 (OP)
>>he plays strategy games
>>he refuses to play multiplaye
I like historical grand strategy games, and I usually try to match my own objectives with something informed by what the leaders of my faction actually wanted. Like reconquering all of Rome's former territories as the Byzantine Empire.

>>2028457
>t. mad about people doing comeback and raping him with rusty rebar backstab

>>2024822
Based effortposter obliterating trollOP

>>2024983
960 blitz tournament

When was the last time you've seen a risk thread?
This is a kind of mp I miss.

>>2024771 (OP)
I have and I achieved a respectable rank, now I want to play other games because playing 20 sweaty competitive matches a day is not fun

>>2028425
Great! Here, is your medal!

I like to rpg larp when I play, I don't play for min maxing i play for the story

>>2031974

>Only time to play is after work/dinner when I'm tired, slow and just want to relax
If I wish to exert myself I go to the gym or read.

>>2032609
This, I'm a neet again right now but I don't see how you can play multiplayer games unless you are a neet shits so complicated and exhausting and changes constantly.

Playing against a behaviour tree doesn't make you a true general.
>waaaaah its all sweats
What do you think ELO was designed for? If it you are truly that bad at a video game, you will match up with the rest of the fools and retards who can't comprehend basic tactical or strategic thought.

>>2024771 (OP)
All multiplayer strategy is ruined by autistic over-competitive meta fags and it sucks all the fun out of the game

I want to play strategy for the experience of leading armies etc not to win against other autists by exploiting the meta and crunching numbers and strats as much as possible so I can prove to myself I'm not a loser(protip - you are a loser)

All strategy games need to divide online into two parts

The Autistic Meta fags

And the Normal Players

Then I might play online

>>2037712
Playing a fucking videogame doesn't make you a true general either you poseur

>200 countries on the world map
>he only plays one of them

Bro's I need that schizo hoi4 one nation co-op multiplayer experience, I want to consantly scream at my generals over discord and make them "heros of italy" if they fuck up or do to well for the full dictator role play.

>>2024999
Bro I have been itching to finally do some multiplayer paradox, sadly none of my friends have the games, and I would rather play with guys of my skill level where we all kinda buble around, think that makes it more fun than just playing a full thing, like canon axis eveyones a moron.

>>2025637
Bro that is so fucking cool, shut up and take my fuckin money. I would love to see a game like that

>>2024771 (OP)
>obsessed meta nerds that can't play without Excel spreadsheets on the second monitor.
>diplomacy is a fucking joke, there is almost zero intrigue with strategy players.
>some opponents are irl friends and will have secret alliances with each other, ruining diplomacy even further.
>grand strategy games cater too much to single players and RP, balance is almost always a secondary issue that metafags exploit.
>most RTS has too much micromanagement to be considered strategy.
>too many rage quitters and griefers, not even substitutes.
Metafag cheesers get the rope. I'm not going to waste another weekend with Jason Adderly's boy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nofcrsk5Hx4

I'll still join multiplayer games, but solely in a lobby with levelheaded friends or game masters that are autistic about rulesets particularly to stop cheesy exploits that break games, but they're usually just YouTubers with an inconsistent schedule.

>>2037879
>dangit bobbeh are you looking up meta strategies for your girly vidya game!?
>No dad honest!
>That boy ain't right I tell ya whut ...

>>2024822
>if my human opponent realize that they are loosing, they will simply leave the game, the AI doesn't quit until I destroy its last unit.
This, I fucking hate quitters but I understand that nobody likes wasting time on a lost game.
AI at least lets me get sadistic over it's ass and ruin every single building and unit in any way I want.

>>2024822
Are you me?? Did I write this a couple weeks ago and forget??

>>2028790
You wouldn't have any time to play single player games, either.

>>2040928
You can only think that if you've always been a NEET or are still underage. Scheduling has been explicitly mentioned before. SP can also be done at any time in portions of any size. MP gives none of those luxuries.

>>2040933
>SP can also be done at any time in portions of any size.
How the hell do you have the mental energy to memorize all your moves in a game of civ days or weeks apart? This is an honest question because you are a monster for being able to do that.

>>2040968
I mean you can always write a note for yourself as a reminder of your plans

>>2040968
I used to have excellent memory, yes.

>>2040994
Now I do this.

wdym I love playing warhammer with my niggas.
>play with nerd friend who is never sober and has more hours
>we never finish because he either spergs out because he blundered up an opener or just continues on drug binge.

>play with friend who has less hours
>he tries to fuck me up even when i do my best to help him (me archaon or malakith, him boris or those wood elves in america)
>punish him by taking his settlements
>proceeds to runaway either to kislev or to old world as woodelves just to fuck me over.

>>2028473
>social skills
In competitive strategy games? What socialising are you doing? It's either "glhf/gg" or shittalking that people would never do irl

>>2024771 (OP)
>play multiplayer
IMO haven't been good since Warcraft 3 custom map games... with GemTD. and even GemTD can be singleplayer too.
and DOTA became its own standalone game.

i never played email Civ games so i can't comment on that.

>>2028473
>social skills
online gaming is antisocial and full of gacha shit these days. ask Langrisser app , sponsored by PEEEEEWDIEPIE.

>>2041703
PBEM is way too slow. It almost inevitably dies to scheduling and time constraints. Ordinary TBS can work in MP but then it depends on the specifics of a situation.

Bet you guys are turtles who hole up in their cuck fortresses and die 5 mins into the game.

>>2040994
>>2041016
Steam Notes also really helps since it was added.

>>2041952
don't hate on cuck turtles

>>2024771 (OP)
I will get stomped by people faster than me =[ i just want to play without getting bmd or made to feel like shit. At least the ai wont laugh at me

>>2024822
>Most people have only the victory in mind and will minmax, exploit and tryhard like absolute autist toward it.

fuck these people I agree. I strictly play with friends

>>2024959
Imagine strategy games with some kinda emergent smart ass reactive ai

>>2024771 (OP)
too stressful. AI provides just the right amount of stress for me.

>>2024822
This guy gets it all.

>play with people
>don't really enjoy it
>play by myself
>enjoy it
Guess I will keep playing single player.

>play with friends
>they don't show up
fuck you guys.

>>2024771 (OP)
I'm an adult

>>2024771 (OP)
my internet fuckin blows and noone plays the same games i do, or seems to stick with gettin on my level for casual games

>>2024822
fourthpbp

>>2024822
yeah, I learned this lesson when i was playing board games
and believe me board games are much more fun to play than any MP computer games its just much harder to get crew to play anything
SP is the only choice for me

>>2024771 (OP)

>>2052057
He's wrong about some things but
>you start being constantly checked for doing the right thing or not and there's barely any freedom
is on point. And it's the nature of competitive playing because having too many possibilities will leave some part of the players crying about balance (before switching to a different part) so it continues narrowing down until something very gamey emerges that is just barely manageable, considering the absolute need of there being lots of micro-management.
More can be said about all that but by now it's obvious the modern version of Internet isn't really worth giving effort to. Slop generators can get their "data" from other sources for all I care.

>>2024771 (OP)
Other people are gay

>>2024771 (OP)
I like playing strategy games. What I don't like is having to commit to one game, chase the meta and tryhard every match to have fun.
>oh, but you don't have to do that
You kinda have to because it's just too niche and outside of a few exceptions the games don't have a sustainable casual population that you can press quickmatch and get a decent game. You can maybe get away with that in AoE, everything else the playerbase is two dozen autists and the skill floor is insane and/or you will have to join the "community" to even get any games at all. See the issue of commitment.
RTS (because other kinds of strategy games are even more niche to not be worth considering) also have the issue that they are probably more unfun to lose than other types of games because making mistakes will send you towards a downward spiral of helplessness and the matches are relatively long adding to the frustration. In FPS unless the match is horribly lopsided you'd probably still feel like you did something looking at the leaderboard.

Comfyniggers ruined gaming. Just like everything in life, if you aren't putting your all, it leads to mediocrity.

All great things are achieved through competitiveness with other humans.

>>2053388
And mediocrity in leisure is bad because?

>>2053396
Because it lowers their quality. Most people who play games "casually" don't even play the games, you can see it by how many dudes buy games on steam and never beat them. No engagement, no feedback.

Games used to be great because they were played by kids (who tend to obsess and can be very competitive) and nerds.

Now kids just watch streamers and adults have jobs, family and shit so no time for games. It's no wonder gachas have become so popular, they'd rather pay than git gud, and the only engagement they have are waifus and gooning, because almost everyone plays games casually.

>>2053425
>Because it lowers their quality
It lowers WHAT'S quality? That's what you're not answering

>>2053440
the quality of games, that's quite apparent nowadays.

>>2053447
How so?

>>2053452
all the best games were made before 2010. The decent ones are just copycats of old games, hardly game changers, that will be remembered for decades.

You don't see Gibson or Taylor catering to
"casual" musicians, because they know their quality is more important, no respectable brand does that. They can have "cheap" products, but their main public will always be people who are really into music.

Quality always comes with feedback, and there is no better feedback than someone who pours their time and soul into something, not someone who plays from time to time because they've better things to do.

>>2053467
Sounds like your unable to substantiate "comfychads ruined gaming"

>>2053470
I've already explained many times why pandering to casuals lowers the quality.

Any other respectable brand in any other industry panders to people who are serious about it, because they know they're the ones who stick with them. Why on earth would you actually care about someone who just comes and goes?

If you're too dumb to understand something so simple, there is no reason to keep replying to you. If you enjoy chill gaming that's fine, but the fact that without people constantly competing and challenging the gameplay, quality stagnates and leads to poor quality. The most important part of a game it's its gameplay, if you care more about stories, watch a movie or read a book.

After all games are made to played for people, to make them challenging for people, not for AIs.

>>2053476
The quality of games is defined by artistic merit, it has nothing to do with competitive gameplay. Gameplay is a tool to tell the story, just like sound effects and environment design. The point of challenge in games is to evoke the sense of progression in the story.

No artistic industry panders to this autistic detail obsession. TV doesn't pander only to nerds who want innovative camera shots, theatre doesn't pander to costume designers, etc.

>watch a movie or read a book
By your logic books are about the ink on the paper and not the story.

>>2053476
>Any other respectable brand in any other industry panders to people who are serious about it, because they know they're the ones who stick with them
So why doesn't gaming do this?

>play MP
>the style you have fun with isn't meta
>get rolled over every game

>play MP
>the style you have fun with is meta
>people whine on Reddit until it's nerfed out of existence

based

>>2024771 (OP)
Singleplayer is good enough for me

>>>2024771 (OP)
>I'm in my mid thirties with a full time job and a fiancee. i work out every week, play sports competitively and I'm a musician.

I think there's always an imposition of values with posts like this - the idea that someone playing a game well necessarily includes ruining the "fun" of something is a singular perspective. To me, and thousands of others, squeezing out that extra unit by optimizing, beating my opponent to an expansion, multi pronged harassing, are all extremely fun. Like in my pursuit of sports and fitness, the pursuit of excellence itself is joyful. I ENJOY failing on my way to being better. It's great to get that extra pullup in a set in the same way its great to hit a timing more sharply.

It's okay for you to play games without the intent to play them well. It's okay to want to build buildings slowly, not use your left hand, and just chill. But know that others playing the game well isn't bad, nor does it ruin the game. The thrill of besting another player is one of the greatest joys in gaming.

Some people are attracted to and drawn to excellence, and others arent. Both things are okay and have their place. Some days I skip the workout and drink a milkshake.

>>2024822
4th post best post?>>2040897
>>2059057
Literally me.
Masters 3 sc2 1v1 and sometimes I still go for a chill coop or custom game

>>2024822
based beyond belief
now die I

>>2024771 (OP)
A lot of people are dishonest to themselves about why they play games. I no longer play multiplayer because I wasn't afraid to confront the idea behind why I play games. I used to play all manner of multiplayer strategy games, but it slowly stopped appealing to me. I wasn't afraid to ask "why"?
The problem is that what I'm getting out of a game and what other people are getting out of it aren't aligned. In game, it's great if you have people with congruent mindsets playing a game. Problem arises when people don't have congruent mindsets.

For some it's an ego trip about being better than others. For some, it's an ego trip about becoming better at something. Some people want to occupy themselves to distract. Some people need the game to feel some sense of ambition that they can't find elsewhere. Some people want the feeling of accomplishment. I LOVED the social experience of having a friendly rival. Whenever I had a rival, I loved playing multiplayer games. That dynamic works really well in a high school setting, but it becomes more and more complicated as life gets more complicated. I just stopped getting what I want out of multiplayer games.

I realized that the most honest way to get what I want out of playing games is to try stuff out for myself. Discover and explore it on my own. It's fairer towards myself and others. Nobody is telling you to remove the social aspect just because you're playing solo. You can always discuss games with other people. Nothing is stopping you from sharing your single-player experiences with other people. In fact, I find it's one of the best ways to share games with other people.

>can pause the game and go grab a beer or your moms ass
>can pause and take a huge shit on your moms chest
>can pause and ponder my magnificent handiwork while listening to the sweet sounds of your mom crying again

>>2061800
>death by an unwashed horde of hairy Germanic women
lucky guy

>>2061838
>Whenever I had a rival, I loved playing multiplayer games. That dynamic works really well in a high school setting
you just brought me a ton of good memories of Worms, Stronghold and Quake, god bless you

>>2046272
>At least the ai wont laugh at me
You've been wrong since the release of Stronghold Crusader at the very least.

>>2024771 (OP)
I lack the competitiveness for that desu...

>>2024771 (OP)
multiplayer just reminds me of how fucking stupid i am. i want single player campaigns that make me feel smart.

>>2041952
I WILL turtle in my base
I WILL spam defensive buildings and artillery units
I WILL kick back and watch waves of units break upon my bastion until it finally falls
why? it's fun and I like to see how long my defenses can last and what I can do better next time.

>>2024771 (OP)
SP shitters are weak sperm. They are meek and submissive.

>2063257
If we are weak, then why again and again, come here and beg us to play with YOU

>>2024771 (OP)
I play video games to avoid interacting with people. I used to play multiplayer games before voice chat became the norm.

so that I can carry myself to a win and not be dragged down by fucking wannabes with main protagonist syndrome such as yourself
fuck you
fuck you very much
you fucking mouth breather

>>2063699
I don't think there is even a single RTS with functional voice chat somehow, let alone crossteam.

>>2063699
Most RTS players don't use voice chat doe and barely interact unless you play in a team and even then you just write

>>2024771 (OP)
I mostly play PDX grand strategy, and for a while I was really big into Victoria 2 MP.
The problem is, MPfags play a fundamentally different game. I was in a decently large community that made MP mods and had a huge ruleset, and everything was set up to make Vic2 more like HOI4. In your average MP mod, the economy doesn't actually matter that much. Every GP has more coal, iron, and sulphur than they know what to do with, and you never need to build civilian factories. You can 100% tax and tariff your country all game and everyone will be happy and get all their life goods. Combine this with a 5 page ruleset and people pausing the game for 10 minutes over a vaguely defined rule dispute, and it fucking sucked. Fighting wars with and against other humans while chatting was fun, but the juice simply ain't worth the squeeze

>>2064052
I don't understand why people try to turn Paradox games into chess. They might even be fun if you had a few like minded people to simulate WWII with but if you need all these rules to argue over and take the flavour out of the game then why even bother? Man sometimes I wish I had friends.

>>2053482
lol you are a retard, anon
You are also less than 22 years of age.

I'm low test therefore I find competition stressful and not gratifying

>>2053476
None of those groundbreaking games were pandering to hardcore players, you fucking moron.

>>2024771 (OP)
I played in a Victoria II DoD game, first time playing multiplayer. I thought it would be neat to be rostered as Mughals in a relatively empty India. Sure, I'll have to cede some land to the europeans, but as long as I keep the Hindustani plain, I should be on track to develop into a very strong mid-late game country. Besides, this country only starts with 20% westernization progress and 0 mil techs: I should be in for 3-6 sessions of singleplayer devving before I really interact with world diplomacy.

A last minute addition to the roster is made. Some guy with 5+ years of MP experience. He's rostered on Bengal, who starts with 50% westernization progress and can build artillery. He's immediately, start-of-the-game, sphered by Dual Monarchy, given 500k in free money and Japan commits troops to helping him attack me even though his artillery wipes my stacks.

The peace deal goes straight for my highest population provinces, producing immense bordergore and making me a non-viable country.

I tough it out and show up for the next session. The two chinas are outright cheating, declaring fake wars on one-another that are insta-resolved in a day and transferring back and forth the same 6 provinces so that they can cheese research points from westernization. They DM me saying they're going to support a Mughal Restoration.

We now have genuinely 400k troops in the field, but we can't get artillery. Japan commits his entire army to defending the Bengal player and we're all stackwiped. I get full annexed and both China players are kicked after Japan whines to the host about them research points exploiting.

Wow! Fun time! So glad I played multiplayer!

>>2024771 (OP)
Discouraged with my DoD Vicky II game, I played in a Stellaris lobby. Pre pop rework.

I like playing very aggressive strategies in Stellaris. Necrophage hive minds. Voidborne Barbaric Despoilers. Builds that fall off really hard if you don't have a good war by year 30-45.

I look at my neighbors. Every single one, to a man: rushes hangar starbases and runs at 0 alloys so they can rush research to cruisers.

I wither, fall behind, and die while my opponents get to sit around for 6 hours to determine who rolls Cruisers first and wins the game.

Wow! So fun! So glad I played multiplayer!

>>2073807
>>2073810
Anon, are you okay?

>>2068289
>why even bother?
Because Vic2MPfags want to fight wars 100% of the time. That IS the fun to them. I mentioned they make it like HOI4 for a reason. I have been in servers where people complain that they hemorrhage money while fully funding their army, navy, and being fully mobilized. They expect GPs to print money even when at max spending and chimp out when they have to make choices. I've asked them why they don't just mod HOI4 instead and the reply is always the "vague sense of superiority" reply even though they're barely playing Vic2 anymore

I'm old now with kids and a job and I have little time for vidya, which I prefer to spend on single player games I can pick up and put down at my leisure.

>>2073934
You could play with you kids and make them ragequit.

>>2073945
>You could play with you kids and make them ragequit.
My dad did that to me when I was a kid, we played Panzer General hotseat and he whupped my Germans with his Poles in the first scenario. My kids are too young, they are blissfully ignorant of computers and vidya and I want to keep it that way for a while.

>>2073891
Any Vic2MP nig going to deny this?

>>2024771 (OP)
Not many people to play with and have a schedule for, also playing multiplayer always force us to play with the meta even if you start roleplaying or having fun.
>4 players private game of CK2 bookmark 769
>We agreed we all start on each corner of the map
>Players are Mali, Jurchen mongol horde, a norse chieftain in one of the isles north of Britain, Im Zunbil
>Game is nice, for the next 200 years we are building and joining each other
>Jurchen horde turned Jewish, conquered the middle east and abuse the kingdom of Israel trick
>Norse chieftain is a Shia Assassin who is now controlling the North Sea
>Mali is a uber Tyrone BBC cult leader and reformed his faith with all the meta and cool shit.
>I formed India, but with all the guys playing with the Meta I reformed the faith into a powerhouse
>Changed culture to Greek so I can castrate and blind vassals, do a North Korea governement
>For the next 400 years, it was a constant battle against the Jewish Jurchen horde who had a bloodline stacked with +500% against religious damage
>Shia dude stole the son of Jewish dude
>Matri married him into his family, now he has all the bloodline
>Oh shit
>Was left alone and when shit started, I called Chinese invasion and declared war against any player who dared to fuck me
>Game was way too sweaty up until the end game
Honestly if its for playing like that I prefer not to.
Turning the game into the meta fight just to survive is super boring.

>>2024822
based... so fvcking zased

>>2024771 (OP)
because if i have to get together with a group of people i'd rather play a tabletop rpg instead, it's not like my computer has a work schedule or chores.

>>2024976
>really that concerned about the possibility of your opponent lucking into the cheapest faction possible.
Moreso the opposite for Civ5. Basically fucked if you end up with iroquois or venice.

>>2052057
Gamers will simultaneously seethe at devs ruining game by "catering to sweaty nolife 1v1 tryhards" and seethe at new games when they "casualize" things

>>2075258
Gamers genuinely have no idea what they want 99% of the time

>>2024822
Based.
Probably one of my favourite parts about civ 4 is that the AI has a personality to role-play as and winning is not necessarily the target for them, so you can role-play better. Also I imagine every multiplayer game would be something like
>I rushed rifling let me check what my enemy is doi..
>>I rushed rifling let me check what my enemy is doing
>...
>>...

>>2075258
I think it sort of depends on what you mean by "casualize". Some devs will make games faster, simpler and depth is lost while I don't think casuals are as afraid of complex systems as people imagine. On the other hand sweats are mad at genuinely improvements in quality of life that lower the barrier to entry because they have convinced themselves that busywork APM tax or wrangling bad pathfinding system is integral part of the experience to not have it feel like a waste of time.

>>2073958
no, people play like pussies because they are bad at the game

if you do shit diplomacy and are bad at managing your army why shouldnt i get free land?

>>2073807
imo grand strategy games are only fun in multiplayer if you're playing with friends.
Give the shit friend the OP nations and the pro friend the weak nations, mess around and have fun with some backstabbing and politicking.
They are never viable competitive games and the few people who pretend they are play on a heavily modified ruleset and have everyone follow strict metas or get kicked for griefing

I will never understand people who play grand strategy games, map painters or 4x games competitively
But also I will never understand people who play skirmishes in games with terrible shitty AI like AoE or CoH when fighting fellow retards online is a million times more fun
I will stumble upon clips of some streamer or another going
>"HAHAHAH LOOK AT THIS RETARD PLAYING FINLAND IN HOI4 HE CLICKED THE WRONG BUTTON IN THE EVENT NOW I ANNEX HIM AHAHA FUCKING LOSER"
Or crying over
>"Japan using kamikaze strikes on the strait of malacca before 1941!"
or some obscure nonsensical ruling like that and wonder why anyone would subject themselves to that nonsense
And then I will see someone posting an "epic" webm of them holed up in their base playing a DoW mod where the timer says 55 minutes and they have 12091275309812735827364 of each resource as they finally press a button to nuke the easy AI that's not even trying to attack and wonder how someone could waste hours of their lives like that, just doing nothing.

Some games are better in multiplayer while others were clearly never meant to be competitive and play like shit if taken too seriously

>>2076312
>I will never understand people who play grand strategy games, map painters or 4x games competitively
And those weirdos do a game like every other night, I've enjoyed some gsg and even participated in a couple MP games but I can't really imagine that being my primary hobby and saw them more as a once in a lifetime experience kind of thing. Like, you don't play the same tabletop adventure with the same group twice, you don't play in that kind of game to just "win". It just feels weird.
The only way it makes sense is that those cliques are their only social outlet and they are too autistic to notice how weird the social norms they built around it are.

>>2025514
The mechanical turk was literally a guy hiding in a box

>>2076675
>(not that it was really a machine, but people thought it was)

>>2025514
>Even back then, people preferred to play against machines
Utter nonsense. Automatic chess scams were novelties and gimmicks nobody "preferred" playing against them.

>>2025460
they were also turn based

>>2028473
Imagine being so far gone that you seriously think rts multiplayer does anything for your "social skills" or are the only means of not "cutting yourself off from people entirely".

>>2069725
Say that to my face not online fucker see what happens

>>2076270
>I don't think casuals are as afraid of complex systems as people imagine
they do, that's why "turning your brain off" became a thing.

Casual see gaming as watching a movie. Unlike other type of media, gaming is inherently competitive.

>>2077570
>sweaty thinks RTS games actually warrant thinking

>>2024771 (OP)
cheating is too easy

>>2024771 (OP)
I have no friends that like strategy games, they'd rather play shit like Valorant

>>2076270
>I don't think casuals are as afraid of complex systems as people imagine.
Oh they are. Thats the entire point why HOI4 was such an auto play game compared to 3.

>>2024822

I'm shy.

>>2073807
Tryhards being tryhards.
Nothing else to say.

>>2063711
Yes. I am main character.
Yes. You are generic npc.

Is there a way to see what people are playing even when they are set to invisible on steam? I swear I have steam set to invis but the second I start up a game 3 people are pinging me wanting to play. (discord is set to invis and not to show games as well)

>>2024771 (OP)
Pirated games don't work online

>>2024771 (OP)
The AI won't rage-quit on me:(

>>2024976
This reminds when i was randomly playing medieval 2 mp 2v2 with my friend we came across one faggot who instantly was adamant about enforcing 4 cav unit limit. I went along with but i by mistake i recruited general plus 4 cav units so he threw massive hissy fit and just left. My friend duked out with his leftover partner 1v1 and beat him squarely but he just called us bad and an heroed his general into wooden pike like faggot. There is no pleasing these types of people.

>>2024991
If there's only one viable play pattern it's a shit game. Good thing most games are not shit.

>>2024822
The truest post /vst/ has ever seen.

>>2076270
>faster, simpler and depth is lost
it usually the opposite
they make games bloated and depth is lost because you now fight menus

>>2051975
>No people to play board games with
Yucata.de is your friend and unlike every other place, actually for free
Tabletop Simulator is usually 10 bucks and offers endless replayability for near-unlimited number of games, too
Covid really helped both to shape up, and people use both in droves, so it's a win-win for everyone.

>>2095342
sorry mate but I mean in person, the real paper and cardboard board games
and I learned my lesson like 30 years ago
honestly probably the games I wish to replay from that time are not even on any modern media

>>2024771 (OP)
>>he refuses to play multiplayer
People (anons) literally dont understand basic vanilla mechanics in PDX games. Why would I bother to play with retards? I can already play against retarded AI, no difference there.

>>2068328
You are brown and autistic.

>>2073810
Why not build anti-fighter ships?

>>2075297
Gamers want to win and feel like they have earned their victory. Winning to easily is boring and getting crushed is annoying and feels like you had no chance of winning.

>>2053482
>The quality of games is defined by artistic merit
Games are judged by how much their players had fun and how much money they made. Different people find different things fun which is why you play slow compstomps while APM spergs play multiplayer. But competitive multiplayer makes way more money so that's what RTS is now. It's simply not for you anymore

>>2024771 (OP)
RTSes all have annoying mechanics that are a pain in the ass to put up with on competitive level.