>good singleplayer is what's important
>just focus on making a good campaign, and the game will sell great
>people dislike esports RTS games
>multiplayer sweats comprise 5% of the RTS playerbase
>esports chasing caused the downfall of the genre
>most RTS fans are singleplayer only

SPtards keep embarrassing themselves by refusing to purchase and play games that cater to them.

>>2051531 (OP)
For comparison, here's the Steam numbers for Age of Empires IV, which is going strong more than 3 years since the release despite being free on gamepass and having to compete against AoE2 (an arguably better game with an extremely loyal audience).

>>2051531 (OP)
Yeah the plan
>sp is whats important
kinda falls through when your singleplayer fucking sucks.

>>2051536
>peak of 73k
>drops to 11k 24 hour peak after a few months of dust settling
15% of peak

While tempest rising is 9.3k down to 1.3k, it will probably drop further than this but thats 14% of peak. That's perfectly fine.
And this is with 1% of the marketing and exposure that AoEIV had. It's done fairly alright all things considered.
Unfortunately its shit, so its not going to build up off of word of mouth unless the devs do a major overhaul of the game and hope people come back, then tell all their friends.

>>2051540
>>drops to 11k 24 hour peak after a few months of dust settling
sorry, mean to say 11k monthly peak.

>a-actually it's cuz the game isn't that fun, not because I refuse to buy and play RTS games singleplayer or not

>>2051536
What a fair comparison: a literally who game vs the flagship product of a major publisher, probably the most important RTS release of the decade.

Zoomie doesn't understand why people don't instantly buy product that has features regardless of quality?
What is wrong with your generation?

>>2051560
>a literally who game vs the flagship product of a major publisher
Concord failure alone has proven that being a flagship game of a major publisher means nothing unless your game is actually good.
And how come AoEIV, being a large release as it was, focused mostly on multiplayer? Are Microsoft stupid? Don't they know that you need to cater exclusively to the singleplayer audience and avoid wasting resources on multiplayer to succeed? I mean, that was the main talking point in /vst/ for years. Was that actually false? Were SPtards wrong? Do you actually need both a decent introductory campaign AND deep, balanced and engaging competitive MP to succeed, as MPfags have been saying all along?

>make a SP game that's not compelling
>game doesn't sell well
>"hurr that proves that muh MP is everything because SPfags don't buy slop"
Congrats on what might be the most retarded post of the year, OP. Actually impressed at the logical leaps you've managed to achieve. May I recommend a noose for your next purchase?

>>2051604
Show me a singleplayer-first RTS game that has numbers anywhere near AoEIV then.

>>2051531 (OP)
>Game nobody even heard about fails to attract players
Big surprise!
I literally just learned this game exists. That's how non-existing was its marketing. But I guess that's the fault it's SP

You dumb fucking moron

>>2051594
>Missing the point this badly
>To fight over a game literally nobody heard about, to prove it sucks
Nigger, you are weird as shit

>>2051617
>I literally just learned this game exists.
There's very few new RTS releases to miss this one if you're even remotely interested in the genre. If that's your first time hearing about this game, you don't care about RTS in the first place, so your opinion is frankly irrelevant. Tempest Rising has had 14 (fourteen) threads on /vst/, one of which is up right now, so you should take your opinion back to /v/.

>>2051594
>Concord
Cherrypicking hard today, eh?
>focused mostly on multiplayer
It was always promoted as this epic, historical, cinematic experience (with gigabytes of literal cinematics, wtf) of building your empire and following in the footsteps of great leaders. Your argument may make sense only if you delude yourself that it's a MP-only game and that 100% of player numbers are from online play alone. And multiplayer support for AoE4 was garbage on launch.

>>2051619
>to prove it sucks

>>2051531 (OP)
>less players than a ra2 mod
HOW

>>2051531 (OP)
>>2051536
>Return to History – The past is prologue as you are immersed in a rich historical setting of 10 diverse civilizations across the world from the English to the Chinese to the Delhi Sultanate in your quest for victory. Build cities, manage resources, and lead your troops to battle on land and at sea in 4 distinct campaigns with 35 missions that span across 500 years of history from the Dark Ages up to the Renaissance.
>An Age for All Players – Age of Empires IV is an inviting experience for new players with a tutorial system that teaches the essence of real-time strategy and a Campaign Story Mode designed for first time players to help achieve easy setup and success, yet is challenging enough for veteran players with new game mechanics, evolved strategies, and combat techniques.
>Choose Your Path to Greatness with Historical Figures – Live the adventures of Joan of Arc in her quest to defeat the English, or command mighty Mongol troops as Genghis Khan in his conquest across Asia. The choice is yours – and every decision you make will determine the outcome of history.
AoE 4 is mostly SP game tho, with coop against AI being its another strong point

>>2051531 (OP)
have played way more sp than mp games, its just convenient to play start wenever you want without qwasting time with other people pausing or dropping or just getting a match, i can also stop playing the second i want and usually save the game.

there are so many pros, its more relaxing too but i agree that ai is not good enough YET, i hope that with ai evolution that will change in the future,

>>2051531 (OP)
also have you considered that the only reason to buy games IS to play multiplayer??? i pirate every sp game i have. only bought games for the muiltiplayer out of necesity so my only recorded steam play time is in multiplayer games . that affect statistics so its a idiotic argument op KILL YOURSELF

>>2051712
>>2051718
So the key takeaways here are:
The main appeal of singleplayer RTS games for SPtards is being able to stop playing them whenever they want.
SPtards also don't buy games whenever possible.

This kinda defeats the whole narrative of "RTS are dead because they focus on MP".

>>2051769
>RTS are dead because they focus on MP
no one ever said that, rts is no longer developed for the mass market because today market favours heavily multiplatform (phones included) and rts is terribly designed towards that

>>2051531 (OP)
tempest rising lost thousands of sales due to their personal data stealing policy

Can't believe that Stormrape thread buckbroke multifagger this much, baby can't even muster enough courage to try shitting up dedicated singlechad thread >>2024771

>>2051536
>gamepass

wtf i love bill gates gaming now?!?!

>>2051781
>no one ever said that
This is just 5 minutes of searching:
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1968593/#2047638
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1347306/#q1351171
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1741013/
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1288115/#q1312754
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1471282/#q1472118
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1480057/#q1483589
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1024156/#q1026061
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1341152/#q1342684
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/455254/#q458285
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1829095/#q1829106
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/1528422/#q1528590
https://arch.b4k.dev/vst/thread/908799/#q908893
I can go on and on and on with posts like these.
>rts is no longer developed for the mass market because today market favours heavily multiplatform
Age of Empires IV is multiplatform, you can compete against consolefags using gamepads in ranked 1v1 and they'd probably beat your ass too.

RTS are dead because you need both good SP and good MP, you can't just do one thing and expect your game to sell well — contrary to retards who claim that you can skip MP and do just fine since no one plays it anyway. And there's very few people in the industry who are capable of nailing both aspects.

>>2051787
>due to their personal data stealing policy
never happens with SP games that sell on GOG or you just pirate it without steam DRM/spyware.

>>2051798
>you can't just do one thing and expect your game to sell well — contrary to retards who claim that you can skip MP

muh sales numbers and steam stats said you're full retarded and always wrong.

>muh sales numbers and steam stats said you're full retarded and always wrong
>no i won't post them you just have to believe me

>>2051623
>There's very few new RTS releases to miss this one
Unless, of course, you have other things to do in your life than checking what's the most recent release and what's the incoming slate for next x months.
My advice: go outside and touch some grass. You badly need it

>I'm too busy living life to spend 5 minutes a month to check for new RTS releases.
>I do have time to post on 4chan though
>t-touch grass

What really matters is the artstyle. Starcraft has a cool setting with creative units and varied factions. TR has that budget look and the units are mostly tanks and rifle guys. The most interesting faction isn't even available to play

>>2051661
Because "a ra2 mod" is 1) heavily shilled; 2) has the 1+ billion of Chinese to draw upon. Considering the potential playerbase that is reasonable to expect, it's actually doing fairly modestly.

>>2051872
why isn't an AA rts game like Tempest doing the same to increase its numbers?

>>2051560
>a literally who game
Didn't stop Palworld, which was worse than a "literally who" game marketing-wise since no-one even expected it to be anything more than a scam trailer.

>>2051531 (OP)
>SPtards keep embarrassing themselves by refusing to purchase and play games that cater to them.
MPtards did the same by refusing to purchase Stormgate tho?

>>2051531 (OP)
I've only seen tempest pitched as a multiplayer game, so I think you're wrong. I have not seen a single post hyping its singleplayer/campaign if it even has one.

>>2051798
Judging by the tone it sounds like you basically quoted yourself.

>>2051901
Palworld was never obscure, tho. The trailer immediately obliterated the internet with its absurdity, making a mockery of one of the biggest gaming IPs - that's as high-profile as it gets. Brilliant marketing effort.

*doprs mic*

>>2051531 (OP)
RTS is a niche market. The singleplayer vs multiplayer arguments is flawed and false. There is simply not enough players to play RTS anymore.

>>2051536
The flagship multiplayer RTS game of the decade barely has more players than a mediocre singleplayer game from 12 years ago. Multiplanons I…

>>2052054
i suspect this poster in question is a troon
from his posting history

I also think the stupid race for multiplayer & eSport killed the RTS genre.
But I'm not surprised they have more players because MP game can't survive without a minimal mass of player, so few survives and get all the players.
Whereas SP games can be appreciated as long as the sales pay the development.

I'd say the fundamental blocker that keep RTS dead is our inability to accept AI/NPC in RTS the way we accept them in FPS.
Just like a lone player don't make a team, a lone commander can't micromanage a bazillion of units.
But if in FPS having bots only make you more important and is not your fault there's a lack of human players, in RTS wanting smart units is treated like an insult, as if your power as a strategist was in your APM count.

Playing against bot is shameful because they are ratarded and need economic win/cheat to have a chance
And because of that developers don't even bother spending money on AI, keeping the bot retarded.

>>2052125
MOBA's killed RTS
its the same niche but a lot nicer to play
1v1 ranked match making was literally only ever sc2 as a popular game

and ironically there is FAR more strategy in a moba than in an rts game, where macro & micro dominate, and you are executing optimized builds

>>2052135
>macro
>optimized builds
This is literally strategy.

>>2051531 (OP)
The market for strategy is oversatured, when will people understand that it looks exactly like the sports genre where a few titles took it a few years ago and besides a few bored players most people will never try anything new and will stick with the dominant games

>>2051531 (OP)
Tempest Rising is so multiplayer-focused it has an anticheat that reads your entire system memory. It's the top Steam review, the main concern with the game and the reason it flopped.

>>2051820
>what's the incoming slate for next x months.
you mean like...1-2 years while it was in development and had demos, early access and game show appearances?
maybe if your life is so busy then don't say
>Game nobody even heard about fails to attract players
>That's how non-existing was its marketing.
you fucking dork

>>2052129
MOBA is the result of the race toward multiplayer and eShit.
Much easier to player, without needing to micro every unit.

>>2052135
>ironically there is FAR more strategy in a moba than in an rts game
That's because each player is basically its own RTS unit and not acting like an expandable resource.
Each character exist for a job and play it themselves.
But as a drawback there's no real strategy unless you play as a team.

>macro
>executing optimized builds
That's what strategy is about
The problem is micro filtering all but the META autists or those able to code actual macro, which is like a cheat code.
It was no longer strategy with units meant for one or another type, it was just breaking the economy first

Total War example here >>2052125 didn't go better than Total War Arena, even if it was a failed F2P product

>>2052296
>The market for strategy is oversatured
it really isn't. What people want is INNOVATION, not yet another starcraft or cnc clone. When will people understand that this is the objective truth?

>>2052651
Actually false. Believing that players actually want new things is a major pitfall in gamedev and entertainment industry as a whole. The average Joe isn't looking for drastically new experiences, his close-minded ass looks for things that closely resemble the things he already liked since childhood, things that are familiar, intuitive, and relevant to his interests.
AoE4 devs knew they couldn't fuck around with experimental shit like AoE3, and simply copied their best game and reused the medieval setting, which is one of the most popular time periods for vidya, because it was guaranteed to sell.

>>2052674
How could you possibly know that when no one has tried anything new?

>>2052854
Anon, please. RTS has quite a history of experimental designs that didn't catch on, and though the evolution of the genre only the fittest survived.

>>2052674
>things were done decent to good before which means even the admittedly not too bright majority wants EXACTLY that
It's ironic that you shit on them so much for being primitive.

>>2051531 (OP)
How many arbitrary strangers need to play at the same time as me to enjoy a single player campaign?

>>2052674
The indy market exploded because people were tired as fuck from AAA-slop and wanted more creative stuff.
It's not because there's still a market of ignoramus who only buy the popular thing or coomer shit, that there is not a market of connoisseur seeking actual innovation.
Stuff like Minecraft blew up everyone's expectation.

The problem with RTS is that it require a lot more work from developers because everything about "strategy game" require both smarts & scales. It's very complicated and developers still don't want to give up cheap eSport-ready formula that are easy or work on NPC smarter than the average player.

>>2053160
The indie industry is highly derivative in its own way. For every innovative trailblazer there are dozens of imitators aiming for a piece of his pie. Anyway, I don't think these bottom feeders are relevant in context of OPs shit tread because he wants one big singleplayer RTS that would outshine the compfag stuff on its own. Otherwise indies as a whole have a massive presence and they're mostly SP-focused.
>The problem with RTS is that it require a lot more work
I think the big issue is that when you're focusing on singleplayer, there are more lucrative options to pursue than the old base-building RTS, such as real time tactics, city builders, colony sims, factory builders, management games, 4X, or assorted roguelite hybrids.

>>2051531 (OP)
>Make a boring CNC clone that's missing 30 years of qol features
>Add gookclick micro on top
>Nobody plays this piss
No shit huh

>>2052054
It's less that competitive mutliplayer itself drives people out, it's that the community burns itself out too quickly due to skill inequality.

In most competitive games, there will always be a bracket of players that loses pretty consistently. It's the bottom rung that serves as a punch bag for anyone better, and as such these players get fed up and quit when they realize they can't win. Once this bottom falls out, a new one takes its place, gets mad at constant losses, and they drop out. This continues until you have only high level players left that can handle each other and have good games.

The problem now is twofold: With no one but veterans left, no new players can enter the ecosystem on a level playing field. They get chewed up by people vastly beyond their skill level and completely crushed. They don't stick around because they see the time and effort investment they'd need to have a chance and decide it's not worth it. Your game ceases to get new blood that's needed to keep it alive.

The other problem is that those remaining veterans are aging out. They're getting older and moving on, and the playerbase is dwindling further and further to point you can't even find a match. Eventually, the game becomes truly dead with no one playing at all.

The only way to keep RTS games alive is to ensure a constant influx of players to create relatively balanced matches against one another. Only the most massive RTSes can accomplish that, everything else will burn out too quickly.

>>2052674
>Actually false. Believing that players actually want new things is a major pitfall in gamedev and entertainment industry as a whole.
Actually false. Every month there are new games that innovate on their genre and get absurd amounts of cash from normies bored with AAA slop.

>>2053534
Name 5 from the last month.

>>2053200
>For every innovative trailblazer there are dozens of imitators
No disagreement on that, but that's still an improvement over having only a few AAA too afraid of making a step outside their cashcow.

What OP want isn't the question (when has that been the times really?)
Neither is the size of the RTS.
The question is whether any studio, big or small, has the know-how and means to make a RTS that finally shake off the bad formula, and I'm not saying "do only SP".

>I think the big issue is that when you're focusing on singleplayer, there are more lucrative options to pursue than the old base-building RTS, such as real time tactics, city builders, colony sims, factory builders, management games, 4X, or assorted roguelite hybrids.
The problem to me is beyond SP vs MP.
The base-building is a problem in RTS because it's a plain race to whoever outproduce the other or click faster. And of course the type of game you list will make it far more interesting.

What we need is AI worth that name.
Old RTS had an excuse when it comes to AI because the technology and know-how simply wasn't there.
But today?
It's about time we have RTS where you chose AI-leaders to command groups of units, give them orders on the strategic level, and actually see them traverse the map on their own and use combined-arms formations and tactics on the micro scale.

Anytime a studio claim to have done that, you realize they just grouped unit TW style and that group of unit is just one big blob you need to micromanage.

>>2054135
>It's about time we have RTS where you chose AI-leaders to command groups of units, give them orders on the strategic level, and actually see them traverse the map on their own and use combined-arms formations and tactics on the micro scale.
You're describing GSG. EU4 already does that.

>>2054175
You didn't understand what I said.

"Anytime a studio claim to have done that, you realize they just grouped unit TW style and that group of unit is just one big blob you need to micromanage."

>>2054263
>Anytime a studio claim to have done that, you realize they just grouped unit TW style and that group of unit is just one big blob you need to micromanage.
EU4 has automated army movements and actions, so no. Micromanagement of fighting stacks will be ideal for experienced players, but you do have the option to leave it in the hands of AI.

>>2051531 (OP)
Tempest Rising still won't even launch on my PC, so how can I play it?

>>2054537
works on my machine
skill issue

>>2054135
we already have attack-move
we already have auto-move with patrol
we already have auto-queue
now you want auto-MICRO?

>>2054516
I've only cursory knowledge of EU4 over why I'm not playing it.
It's like comparing Total War auto-resolve to actual battles.

It lumps the armies as single blob of unit on a physicalized map and the rest is just numbers.
Maybe you are technically right, but GSG are just abstract RTS, for those that are real time.

Starsectors AI don't require to micromanage every ship, the fleet select the most suited ships for a task, and they aren't suicidal lemming unless you gave orders to kill specific enemies at all cost.

>>2054583
>now you want auto-MICRO?
Strategy should be about macro.
If I wanted to control single unit I would play another game.
If I wanted to control a small group of unit there's also distinct genres for that.

>we already have attack-move
Are you implying fighting back or moving to attack enemies shouldn't be standard? That we shouldn't have offensive/defense stance and improve on that?

>auto-move with patrol
Few games let you create looped patrol, few games even need patrol.
Often you just move the radar/scout or sacrifice one to know the enemy position once.
Scout is ALSO something that need macro-mechanics, with your scout going ahead on their own around a battlegroup, avoiding danger on their own.

>auto-queue
Not sure what you meant by this one. Queueing action is micromanagement and I've seen only one or two game with mechanics to have your units wait for a signal, and the lack of AI initiative/adaptation is how we end up with gookclick measuring Action Per Minutes.

>>2054703
>If I wanted to control single unit I would play another game
Then play another game

>>2054703
You're fighting yourself here.
If a game automates micro on the scale you want, it's not going to bother showing the position of every unit in a 3d space. It's instead going to zoom out to handle more of these battles at once in real time, because the player's attention and ability to issue commands is the focus of the game.
If you remove the player's interaction, you get (essentially) a movie.

Also, EU4's battles are interactive. It's not just numbers. Withdrawals, stack reinforcements/interceptions, objective targeting, sieges, stack attachment, transport, detachments, scorched earth, looting stacks, etc. are all controlled directly by the player during war. You can even see the relative positions of units in fights, which do affect their uses.
One of the reasons cav-heavy stacks struggle from techs 10-18 is because a lack of flanking range makes them unable to do anything to a drilled artillery square, while artillery can gun down anything within 2 tiles.

>>2054716
And that's why RTS died

>>2054720
The opposite, you are defending a low effort status quo that killed RTS as a genre.
MACRO management isn't the same as "removing" interaction.
It's freeing players from MICROmanaging resources, units and maximizing APM so they can do actual strategy.
It's a plain matter of User-Interface.
You already know how you want your units to fight. But your units don't have the intellect you'd expect from them.

Beside, haven't you heard movie-game are all the hype?
Seriously, watching your magnificent plan perform, with free time to tweak or save it, is half of the appeal.

>going to zoom out to handle more of these battles at once in real time
I dare say you are the one fighting yourself.
Zooming out is already how you play RTS like Supreme Commander or the "classic RTS" because even if you grouped your units you need to constantly babysit meaning keeping in sight all the babies.

>EU4's battles are interactive
I didn't mean to criticize it.
Those interactions are just essentially abstract.
Anon is entitled to like playing with interactive spreadsheet.
Anon is also entitled to want to watch his cavalry flank the enemy as ordered 5 minutes ago, without having to tell them how to breathe.

>>2055757
>The opposite, you are defending a low effort status quo that killed RTS as a genre.
You're not even describing RTS. You want a GSG that sacrifices GSG gameplay to show you an RTS-themed movie.
>MACRO management isn't the same as "removing" interaction.
It's freeing players from MICROmanaging resources, units and maximizing APM so they can do actual strategy.
Yeah, and then the change in scope necessitates a change in viewpoint. Since generals are handling unit micro, you're handling the generals. Welcome to GSG.
>Seriously, watching your magnificent plan perform, with free time to tweak or save it, is half of the appeal.
Not of RTS it isn't. That's a very particular desire, and you're posting the games that appeal to it. If you want more Total War, just say, but don't pretend it makes for a good RTS or GSG. Total War is just good at being Total War.
>Zooming out is already how you play RTS like Supreme Commander or the "classic RTS" because even if you grouped your units you need to constantly babysit meaning keeping in sight all the babies.
You don't have to keep them all within your vision. Just ensure they're active where you need them.
>Those interactions are just essentially abstract.
All of the interactions are, even in Total War.
And yeah, you can have cavalry stacks flank using shift-queued pathing in EU4. Greater scale and more realistic challenges (RIP if you get intercepted or delayed by reservists or scorched earth), but it's there, like most other tactics.

(pic for later)
>>2056104
First, stop putting words in my mouth.
I made clear it's not about transforming groups of units into lines of text & numbers with no presence.
I made clear it shouldn't be grouping the units then keeping the group just as retarded.
I made clear it's about getting so efficient you might even spare time to see your unit charging.

Giving Supreme Commander and Total War as example.
Those are RTS.
All units in battle exist physically in a 3D space, making them obviously not GSG.
We have plenty of RTS where you attach "leader/unique unit" to groups of units, they aren't GSG either.
And to clarify: I don't care adding any "leader unit", it was just an example, they'll be hotkey 5 anyway.

I can't be hard to imagine because what I describe is closer to reality than how RTS are made right now.
It's a matter of User-Interface, game design ang bringing RTS to the standard we expect todays.

>Just ensure they're active where you need them.
Meaning constantly babysitting them. That. Is. The. Problem.
You cannot have sophisticated strategy game with combined-arms, and use of terrain, elevation, line of sight...etc, because you'd have to micromanage everything they do, from making sure they take a formation where Shield-unit are at the center with anti-air unit inside, to constantly reselecting the group to make them reform every 10 seconds...

If we want to resuscitate RTS we need units with minimal self-preservation, an ability to move as a group without resetting to chaos, while also tracking enemies.

>can have cavalry stacks flank using shift-queued pathing in EU4
Making sure, given what I know of EU4, did you bug and wanted to write TW? Cause that's a TW thing.

As vitriolic as I am with the undead state of RTS, yes TW's UI is already well tailored for large medieval battles.
TW problem remain that they probably consider their AI is smarter than their playerbase (see pic).
Making SP game against NPC boring as fuck

>>2051594
>And how come AoEIV, being a large release as it was, focused mostly on multiplayer? Are Microsoft stupid? Don't they know that you need to cater exclusively to the singleplayer audience and avoid wasting resources on multiplayer to succeed?

>>2056404
Micro, when meaningful, is the means to deliver tactical creativity. Players must be allowed to influence the battle just as much as the economy. Removing micro and expecting strategic brilliance to arise from AI-controlled formations is naive. The challenge is not avoiding micro, but rather refining it to reward insight over twitch.

Wargame has very meaningful micro without it coming down to APM.

>>2056404
>I made clear it's not about transforming groups of units into lines of text & numbers with no presence.
Yeah, because you want unit models.
>I made clear it shouldn't be grouping the units then keeping the group just as retarded.
Yeah, because you want an AI to handle that.
>I made clear it's about getting so efficient you might even spare time to see your unit charging.
Yeah, because you want there to be downtime in a PvP game.
>Giving Supreme Commander and Total War as example.
>All units in battle exist physically in a 3D space, making them obviously not GSG.
GSG doesn't mean the units don't exist in a 3d space. You can have a sort of "Ground level" view with small map features, a la Rise of Nations.
>We have plenty of RTS where you attach "leader/unique unit" to groups of units, they aren't GSG either.
Yeah? Because they don't take control of the other units, or if they do, that's not the majority of the game.
>And to clarify: I don't care adding any "leader unit", it was just an example, they'll be hotkey 5 anyway.
If "Hotkey 5" is an entire army, that's moving towards GSG.
>I can't be hard to imagine because what I describe is closer to reality than how RTS are made right now.
>It's a matter of User-Interface, game design ang bringing RTS to the standard we expect todays.
It's a matter of you not understanding the gameplay implications of your own fantasy.
If gameplay becomes automated, gameplay will also become faster so as not to become a movie. This means they'll give players more of a workload and more things to account for, since they're no longer wiping archers' asses and lining up pikemen manually.

>>2056404
>>2056616
>Meaning constantly babysitting them.
Wrong. That's your own limitation. Games have stances to handle these.
>You cannot have sophisticated strategy game with combined-arms, and use of terrain, elevation, line of sight...etc, because you'd have to micromanage everything they do, from making sure they take a formation where Shield-unit are at the center with anti-air unit inside, to constantly reselecting the group to make them reform every 10 seconds...
That's an issue with old game engines. Nowadays, you can maintain unit formations passively, even in combat, but anyone interested in doing so would rather make the whole thing abstract since it's otherwise a waste of computing power and bad for gameplay integrity.
>If we want to resuscitate RTS we need units with minimal self-preservation, an ability to move as a group without resetting to chaos, while also tracking enemies.
No, you need to accept that you want GSG. What you're describing would make for a terrible RTS.
>Making sure, given what I know of EU4, did you bug and wanted to write TW? Cause that's a TW thing.
No, I mean EU4. One of the most important skills in MP is interception of reinforcement stacks.
>As vitriolic as I am with the undead state of RTS, yes TW's UI is already well tailored for large medieval battles.
Yes, and it's poorly suited to everything else in either a GSG or RTS. As the other anon said, your best hope is a Wargame title, and even then, micro is tighter than in a standard RTS.
>TW problem remain that they probably consider their AI is smarter than their playerbase (see pic).
It likely is. That's how casual games work.

It's a simple problem: You want a game where units have physical positions and animations, but you want the AI to make those positions unimportant, and you don't want the game's scale to move out beyond these, but you still want to automate everything.
That's a shitty game. Go watch a movie.

>>2056104
>You're not even describing RTS.
According to you. You will immediately try to go to "but that's how modern RTS games are" without realising the problem. They weren't meant to be like that. It was a technological limitation. Just like no 3D, or no terrain elevations, or no controllable transports, or horrible pathfinding, or harvesters being even worse at driving somehow (to the point of spawning insider memes), or even not having fucking teams (which later became known as "control groups"). You have what is basically birth trauma because you have started playing RTS when it solidified into this twisted state it wasn't intended to end up in. But since you seem to be enjoying it then by all means. Just stop crying about others not wanting to join you in this masochism.

>>2056647
Don't respond without making at least some attempt at understanding the words on the screen. It's annoying.

>>2056651
I've followed the discussion until that point. If your only recourse is this then you have lost.

I don't even know what the discussion is any longer
RTS without individual unit control?

>>2056663
>I've followed the discussion until that point.
Read further.
>>2056665
He wants a GSG with a small scale and mostly automated micro because he thinks Total War is the inspiration RTS needs.

honestly I don't get the appeal of C&C's singleplayer campaigns either, and i've played and finished some of them. for a time, they were fun, but it can get a bit too stale. maybe i'm just too old to enjoy these stories where some guy tells you to 'go destroy their base' every other mission

>>2056563
>when meaningful
Key words. There's little between meaningless micro & shitty UI or AI.
Strategic brilliance must arise from YOU making more complex plans, knowing your AI can be trusted to do more than stand, pursue or pursue only a little bit.
Any game where troops don't automatically detect and use nearby covers without needing handholding is wasting your time.

>wargame
If you mean GSG, the genre abstract the micro into numbers to simplify AI and ignore AI limitation.
We simply can't have RTS game exploiting complex terrains in as few clic as possible without better UI and AI.
I'm sure several studios tried, but died buried under MOBA or Starcraft clones.

>>2056616
Learn to be concise.
Half of your lines make no sense because you didn't read more than a line at a time.
>you want there to be downtime in a PvP game.
No, that's just you putting words in my mouth to make yourself a strawman to argue against.

Me, I want STRATEGY back along real time
What do consider more interesting?
A) winning because you click faster, fight the UI more than your opponents
B) winning because you outsmarted your opponents with time to spare to watch it

>gameplay will also become faster
>so as not to become a movie
Why would troops walk/move faster just because can more move troop at once?
Your argument is retarded because by improving AI-efficiency you do the same in less time. Not even pausing in SP. No reason either we wouldn't want our games to be so complex and intense they are worth movies.
You keep pretending I want GSG, but you sure are the one who shit on features you don't get from GSG.

>more things to account for
So...like strategy? Maybe you should play MOBA instead.
>more of a workload
>since they're no longer wiping archers' asses and lining up pikemen manually
You don't see the irony, do you?
Instead of that shit, I want to be moving cavalry for a flanking maneuver and scouts to see if enemy is also trying a flank.

(cont >>2057341)
>>2056620
>You want
You have no idea what I want. As said above, you have tunnel vision, probably why you are afraid of "more things to account for" btw.
I would prefer to answer you point by point instead of by line, but I'm forced to show you how disconnected some of your answers are.

>You want a game where units have physical positions and animations, but you want the AI to make those positions unimportant
First, there's no reason the AI needing LESS supervision makes strategic points less important. You still put them into position, knowing what they are, what they can do and why they are here.
Second,
If we followed your logic, Supreme Commander wouldn't exist because you think if you can command zoomed-out, zoom-in have no importance.
Nor would TW because you seem to think grouping units make it pointless to simulate each of them.

You claiming Total War is "casual game" despite how complex it is when played multiplayer, is more reasons you look like a GSG fan trying to convince yourself it's the only way for large scale strategy.
Total War definitely has an AI problem, but they make good games. The devs just think AI is wasted money beyond the minimal that got them horrible feedback.

>stance
Will still get them killed without a babysitter to change their stance every 10s, bring them back after they pursue a bit too far, or stand dumbly when they should be regrouping.
>maintain unit formations passively, even in combat
First, it's a pain to make them in any useful formation
Second, a passive formation is not even enough in slow medieval game like TW. And TW does have formation that adapt a bit.
>waste of computing power
Less than you making that argument. The cost wouldn't even be noticeable nowadays unless you put retarded goalpost in my mouth again.

>>2051623
>Tempest Rising has had 14 (fourteen) threads on /vst/
And none of them said it was an RTS or why I should care about it, it looked like some goofy blizzard shit.

>>2051623
Being well-known on /vst/ means nothing for sales figures since hardly anyone here actually buys games in the first place

>>2057404
It's CnC3
not even pretending to be anything else

>>2057400
Retarded opinion.
The market isn't big because all mechanics are catering to multiplayer, eSport, and never developed mechanics catering to singleplayer.
Like Skirmish AI that are not retarded, or a game balance not tailored for quick match due to multiplayer.

So yes, RTS genre died because of multiplayer.
Because game "MUST" be multiplayer first, they make shitty balance, they ignore work on AI, and they also make sure every faction are "PvP balanced" (meaning fucking mirror of each other).
If games were made for singleplayer first, they would go creative with faction and let players intellect fill the limitation.

>>2057341
>>2057343
>No, that's just you putting words in my mouth to make yourself a strawman to argue against.
No, anon. I spelled out every step of this. You're either too retarded to understand what I told you, or you're far too invested in a bit.
Either get a brain or get some friends.

>>2052125
There are many successful multiplayer games, RTS struggles because it is inherently high IQ, which filters most people

>>2060722
Those "successful" MP games were copypaste, sequel or derivative of Starcraft/AoE and literally the only franchise known at the time.
>high IQ
More like autistic, the vocal MP aficionados ask for needlessly tedious and boring features to pretend they are smart.
RTS needs the same kind of QoL evolution that solo-games and FPS went through.

>>2051531 (OP)
Tempest Rising shot itself in the foot by releasing half assed and with only 2 factions in 2025 you can't do that anymore, if I want to play Command and Conquer I will play it

>>2051623
>You are not a real fan if you didn't hear about the biggest RTS flop of the year
Don't care still playing age of empires

>>2051850
>Check for new rts releases
>All slop
If its good I will hear about it because people will play it and it won't just be sponsored streams

>>2056620
>>2056616
You guys have to play BAR. Setting unit formations is like stroking with your paintbrush. Units will automatically kite back from enemies. You can set big circular areas where a unit will try to repair any other friendly unit in that radius. You can queue production infinitely, and give automatic orders to new units (build 99+ bombers, set them all to attack move to this area and prioritize structures) etc.

>>2056736
Pretty much every rts campaign could be a lot better.
Proof that rts is dead is people thinking the sc2 campaign is good when all it did was give you new shit every mission, let you give yourself overpowered upgrades or mercenary units, and rip off wing commander 3's between mission conversations.

the hyper competitive nature of rts matches killed the genre. you can ruin a 30min game with a single misclick or a 5s delayed action, it punishes the player too much on top of facing an opponent. and to lose a bunch of units to something like mines, banelings etc or defend your worker line against harass is too frustrating

who didnt get ladder fear in sc2? those were the days of standlone mobas emerging. but i wonder why something like dawn of war 2 didnt become a major success, it had the best of both worlds

>>2061807
>>why something like dawn of war 2 didnt become a major success
>be [X]2
>doesn't play at all like [X]1
>not even the same subcategory
>people who liked [X]1 hate you for not being [X]1++
>people who weren't interested in [X]1 won't give a fuck about you either since they assume you are [X]1++

>>2061807
>you can ruin a 30min game with a single misclick or a 5s delayed action, it punishes the player too much
Genuinely: how would *you* even design a game to solve that issue, that doesn't end up making it something other than a RTS?

>>2061766
>give you new shit every mission
As opposed to what? "Gradually unlock content" is game structure 101, and dovetails into many natural ways to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of units.

>let you give yourself overpowered upgrades or mercenary units
It's a single-player game, why the fuck would "overpowered" be a problem? And the variance between playthroughs it creates give an organic reason to do it more than once.

>and rip off wing commander 3's between mission conversations.
Again, as opposed to what? "Somebody did it before" doesn't mean it's not an improvement over WC3.

>>2061833
Make time-to-kill not a blink-and-you-miss-it?

>>2061833
Increase the hp bar of units, make them hard to kill like wc3 or dow2

>>2059053
>never developed mechanics catering to singleplayer.
It's a one-sided issue. I can't think of many SP-only things. And if they're SP-only they usually transform the game into city-builders, colony sims, team RPGs(?) or something of that sort, so basically no longer the RTS where you'd have meaningful separation between SP and MP, mostly because the game would only have the former.
The classic formula of minor economy, base building and army training simply fits PvP. Campaignfags will play their mediocre SP once and fuck off. Compfags will stay and try to climb the ladder. Why would devs think about those who don't care about the live part of the game?
>If games were made for singleplayer first, they would go creative with faction and let players intellect fill the limitation.
The "fuck balance, SP toys first" attitude gives you Original War MP where there is objectively the best faction, one super sweaty one and one that is either a rusher or a support faction in team games because it objectively can't stand a chance against others in midgame and after it.
Battle Realms, WC3 and CoH(1) did asymmetric design well because it was created with possible MP in mind too. It doesn't have to be Rise of Nations or Age of Empires where the only difference is one player's farms being 15% cheaper and others' archers being 10% stronger and you're fighting red vs blue or something.

>>2062214
>Why would devs think about those who don't care about the live part of the game?
I am fairly sure what devs want is the flow of cash from the sales, everything else is trivial, except for constant crying of multifags

>>2062104
you're looking for 'dormgate

>>2062214
>Campaignfags will play their mediocre SP once and fuck off. Compfags will stay and try to climb the ladder. Why would devs think about those who don't care about the live part of the game?
Because they both pay the same for the game, except the campaignfags are several magnitude more numerous so they are the ones who decide if the game is successful or not.

>>2062359
and since campaignfags are much easier to satisfy because they essentially want puzzle games except dressed up as an epic tale of a genius general the focus should be on the people who actually want to play the game for a bit longer.

>>2062459
Multiplayer is a puzzle game where you need to figure out enemy build order to win

>>2062459
>we want the stormgate audience
I'm sure it will work this time.

>>2061807
I disagree on a technicality here.
It's not that fucking up costs you. Everything that can be considered a game has that feature. The problem is what makes you competitive. You have to be on top of cycling through repetitive brainless actions that exist just to draw your attention away from doing meaningful actions. It's like having to juggle while playing chess. I guess that's kind of a cool skill, but I can imagine people being way more into normal chess rather than that nonsense.

>>2062467
Play an MP game once.

>>2062468
I know it's shocking, but turns out that you need to make a good game first. SPbabbies disliked Homeworld 3 too.

>>2062472
>You have to be on top of cycling through repetitive brainless actions that exist just to draw your attention away from doing meaningful actions.
imo what make casuals hate multiplayer RTS is actually the length of a match and the fog of war.

With a fighting game, you get your ass obliterated in 2 minutes and that's it. You know everything the guy did and when, and can immediately get to the training room and try to do the same.
With an RTS, you get your ass obliterated over up to an hour (despite having effectively lost 30 seconds in), and with 90% of what your opponent did to get there hidden to you.

>>2062476
I don't buy that idea at all. It might add to frustrations, but I find it extremely hard to believe it's the root cause.

>>2062474
>it's just because the game catering to competoddlers are never good!
There are a good bunch of SP-only successful RTS.
Please list the MP-only successful RTS.

>>2062473
Ever heard of proxy shrine multifag?

>>2062477
The root cause is the sole nature of 1v1 PvP. You have nobody else to blame for the mistakes and normalfags find it hard to accept that perhaps they're not as good as they thought they are.
CoD/Quake/Battle Royale(s) is fast and is about just getting the highest score, you can play on your own and don't give a fuck, just pwn n00bs. MOBAS and other "team"-based games, well, you have your team to blame in case you lose.
This is exactly the same reason why fighting games are on a similar level of popularity and why they have to rely on very old established franchises with basically nothing new coming out too.
>Why not just play team games?
For the same reason why whatever attempts at making fighting games not 1v1 have failed. This is not what the people who care about this type of gameplay want. It's a great (if not the best) environment for competitive duels and it's just a pity that not enough people want to play this way as well.
Literally everything else is just extra and excuses. You don't need 400 APM and you don't need to have build orders and timings memorised, just like you don't need to flawlessly execute 60% juggles or know attack frames down to a pixel.
Team games in RTS are in most cases just splitting the responsibility and the queues for team games are usually longer in the titles that have established themselves as 1v1s.

>>2062484
It's another thing that surely adds to frustrations, but it still doesn't seem like any kind of root cause.
People play a lot of extremely competitive 1v1 games for fun.

You're making the APM an excuse, but think about it another way. It's boring to be bad at RTS. It's kind of fun to be bad at chess and play against other bad players.

>>2062486
>and play against other bad players.
Which is one thing you pretty much never get as a bad player in RTS MP, unless you are willing to chain 500 defeats in a row until the matchmaking fucking finally decide to put you in the actual beginner group.

>>2062503
There's truth to this. If there was a huge pool of bad RTS players, it would be more fun to be bad.

>>2062476
>imo what make casuals hate multiplayer RTS is actually the length of a match
I mean, in RTS you can forfeit whenever you want. And it should not take more than 10 minutes to have your first interaction with the enemy player and see if it is an even match or you already win/lose.
Compare that to MOBAS. You are forced to be in the game for an average of 30min at least. And you can't left the game without being punished and you depend on the rest of the players if they want to surrender or not

>>2062486
> It's boring to be bad at RTS. It's kind of fun to be bad at chess and play against other bad players
Unless the game has very low pop and most of those players are experienced it is about the same as chess. You start at 1k elo in AoE2. Drop a few hundred and you will literally play agaisnt city builders. That's the nature of the game being popular tho, maybe it's not many rts that have this privilege of a diverse skill pool

you need to have at least 150 apm to consider getting good

>>2062513
Right, I think that's all true, but be real for a moment. That's not the only thing RTS has going against it.

This analogy is my attempt to dispel the whole the "you don't need 5 billion APM" way of thinking.
Failing to juggle isn't inherently fun. It's not insanely difficult, and you don't need insane dexterity for basic juggling. Pros can juggle 12 fucking swords. You have a guy that has fun juggling telling people you don't need to juggle 12 swords. That doesn't really make failing to juggle more interesting. That's missing the whole mark when it comes to people's complaints.

>>2062520
you need to have not only a good grasp of strategy, metagame, game knowledge etc but also fast movements

imagine if fighting games involved 10-30min matches, maybe this is the closest comparison to the burden of playing rts at a competitive level

>>2062214
It's not about making SP-only mechanics,
It's about making mechanics that improve SP or even skirmish against bot, then apply them to multiplayer without caring if autist cannot mathematically win the game with a macro before it even start.
e.g.: add RNG mechanic and mute the retard complaining the RNG tipped the scale, just like you mute the FPS retard complaining he lost because his team had a retard in it.

>Campaignfags will play their mediocre SP once and fuck off
So like every SP game? Is that supposed to be bad? It's a game, not a second job.
One of the reasons developers are so desperate to be make eSpurt game is that it create a self-feeding advertising loop where they don't need to have a good game, just a game that vocal MP fag will keep advertising years after release.
Even todays where digitalized store allows Indy games to BTFO AAAA-slops, it's still a question of saturating the market.

>where there is objectively the best faction
The only way to have "PvP balanced" match is to play mirrored factions on symmetrical maps.

>>2062628
>add RNG mechanic
why make something inherently unfun? Victory should be decided by skill, not luck.

>>2062476
>imo what make casuals hate multiplayer RTS is actually the length of a match and the fog of war.
Can't be that since all MP-focus games, RTS included, are balanced so starting inequality get worse and end the game in 30mn.
They have studies about that.
Plus, if 90% of what the opponent did is hidden to you, you've not been scouting correctly.

Casuals hate MP RTS because those made recently only cater to hypercompetitive fags who quickly learn the winning meta.
Casuals love SP RTS because they can play at their rhythm, appreciate the animation, use all the units, not just the best one, and still be challenged even if the AI is as lacking as the typical FPS.

>>2062484
>For the same reason why whatever attempts at making fighting games not 1v1 have failed
They didn't fail unless you have a stupidly restrictive 2D ARCADE definition of "fighting game".

ARCADE-like fighting game failed, because eventually people got bored with 2D games where you must learn combos as artificial difficulty. Having 6 buttons and a stick is no longer top of technology.

Nowadays, players want fighting games where you maneuver a lot more and can use every technique immediately, so long as they react in time.
That's what led to Super Mario Brawls -like being extremely popular.
With 2D only keeping an edge because lateral view make martial move look more spectacular and let you track everyone at once.

>>2062638
>Victory should be decided by skill, not luck.
Skilled players create their own lucks no matter the odds.
If you are incapable of fighting the environment itself, don't play RTS, play turn-based games with no RNG damage.

>>2062654
that's not how it works

>>2061807
Dawn of War 2 seemed like it did fine.

>>2062642
>Plus, if 90% of what the opponent did is hidden to you, you've not been scouting correctly.
We're talking about casuals. Scouting is honestly difficult. You need a lot of knowledge to know when scouting is actually beneficial, what you're looking for, what to do with the information etc.

>>2062732
The problem with RTS is that scouting require smart unit who know how to avoid traps and when to pull away.
And we don't have to deal with spies or space satellite, just plain military units with range of sight.

>>2062732
Yeah, for scouting to be meaningful you have to know enough about the game, build orders, timings to know what and when to look for and know what the response is.
Well assuming your opponent knows what they are doing, if they are just doing whatever without a plan scouting won't give you useful information anyway.

>>2062803
*scans your base at 3 minutes*

>>2062638
Risk management is 100% a skill, though one that most people (myself included) are extremely bad at.
In principle any effect of "luck" will even out over a enough matches and a players ability of assessing the odds and making good decisions based on them will shine through. The issue is that "enough matches" may be far more than is really enjoyable to play in succession and getting screwed over on an individual one is going to be frustrating for most players, especially if matches have any meaningful length.

>>2062987
any proper build doesn't rely on scouting to hold all'ins

>>2062987
Football but suddenly only blacks can kick the ball.
Chess but suddenly one pawn becomes invincible and can trade for free.
Warcraft 3 but suddenly you have to withdraw because there's a neutral storm striking your units. The enemy's are intact.

Every single one of the above is a possible game-ender scenario.
There's a good reason why chess is more popular than mahjong and it's not because of a cultural/ethnic divide.
There's nothing fun about it. Yes it may seem more entertaining for the viewers but not in the "what in insane display of skill!" way, it's more of the "wow, whacky! the guy's finished!" way.
And losing because of unpredictable random things not caused by any of the players just doesn't feel good, winning in that way feels less fun too. You won because the other guy got unlucky and not because you were better.

>>2051531 (OP)
You forgot the 'good' part though

>>2063000
I feel that's a bit disingenuous, randomness doesn't have to be wacky party game rule changes, nor does it need to be the most significant factor in deciding the outcome of a match. Hell for the opposite extreme any random factor could be averaged out by the number of checks involved, like in a lot of games that have some kind of accuracy system.
The appeal of randomness would be promoting risk management and adaptability. Even something like random terrain could add a lot of strategic depth to both scouting and engaging if implemented well (emphasis on the "if implemented well" part).
I disagree on there being nothing fun about it either, I've had quite a lot of fun with various tabletop strategy games where risk management plays a big part. How suited that is for a real time game rather than a turn based one is another question, but I'd argue there's at least some merit to having to make these kinds of quick decisions on the fly that can allow for a lot of skill expression.
>And losing because of unpredictable random things not caused by any of the players just doesn't feel good, winning in that way feels less fun too. You won because the other guy got unlucky and not because you were better.
I somewhat agree, but again that depends a lot on how much the random things influence the match outcome and how much interaction and counterplay there is involving them. Losing because the dice decided to screw you isn't very enjoyable, losing because you played unnecessarily riskily and got what was coming to you definitely can be.
And to be pedantic "random" doesn't neccesarily mean "unpredictable", if there's a known 60% chance of A and a 40% chance of B then I can hypothetically plan for both scenarios and take appropriate countermeasures, which is different from a case where the potential outcomes themselves are unknown.

>>2063039
If I want to bet, I can go to a casino. The less RNG a game has in the PvP gameplay section the better it is. The most popular sports don't have sudden meteors running down from the sky on the stadium, whether the players are aware of such possibility or not. Winning because of a 1% crit is fun in jRPGs but not when it's done to you and not when it can decide about the whole game and especially not when it's just completely unreliable. "Testing" and "probability" won't mean shit when somebody can roll the perfect dice 5 times in a row unlike you. This happening just once with a 0,0016% probability chance is enough of an argument to be against it.
I can't say that tabletops are a good example because they're fully meant to be short party games most of the time. RTS are neither short nor are they party games and your WC3 customs don't count for obvious reasons. I bet there's some randomized version of chess but I'm pretty certain that it's less popular than the classic version for this exact reason. The fun is in strategizing and adapting but not adapting to things that you just can't influence. AoE-style pseudo-randomized maps are okay but I wouldn't call them groundbreaking. Definitely better than players having all maps memorised and cutting out half of the point of scouting.

>>2063060
>The less RNG a game has in the PvP gameplay section the better it is.
As a high-level sweat spectacle. The entire point is that murdering that keeps the bottom populated so that the playerbases stop burning out from the bottom up leaving only a tiny niche of peak players, as has kept happening in every single e-sports bait title.

Being impossible to avoid is actively the point, because if there was a single clear skill to bypass the rubber-banding then wannabe-sweats would hyperfocus it to resume burning the playerbase out from the bottom up. Because the goal here is not "make a good competition", it is "make a game that will catch on".

>>2051616
Literally starcraft, a game where the campaign was it's entire original selling point and the multiplayer an afterthought that just happened to catch on and never fall off.

>>2063127
And Blizzard actually set up the entire content pipeline for content-milling single-player style material just to abandon it RIGHT after the first mini-campaign. They even had Arcade monetization set up, but instead of scraping off the top of all the pay-to-win assholes violating the EULA they just sit on a tiny whitelist of gamemode unlocks.

>>2063060
>The most popular sports don't have sudden meteors running down from the sky on the stadium
>Winning because of a 1% crit
I literally just adressed this anon RNG doesn't automatically mean small probabilities with huge impacts on the game, are you reading my posts?
>"Testing" and "probability" won't mean shit when somebody can roll the perfect dice 5 times in a row unlike you. This happening just once with a 0,0016% probability chance is enough of an argument to be against it.
Then design a game where rolling the perfect dice 5 times in a row isn't enough to cement the outcome of a match. Have how well players capitalise on scenarios like that and prepare for when the reverse occurs be more important than the dice alone. Getting a 6 five times in a row is unlikely for any given set of rolls but if it means the difference of one lost unit and there's so many rolls over the course of a game that it's almost guaranteed to occur a few times for both sides then it can still be near-meaningless, to again give the opposite extreme.
>I can't say that tabletops are a good example because they're fully meant to be short party games most of the time
I'd argue the exact opposite for the reason above. If anything it's the tabletop games that are more comparable in length to 4x games than rts matches that are the best example of RNG as something beneficial for strategic gameplay, over that kind of length a few bad outcomes and a few good ones are almost guaranteed - it's about how well you capitalise on them.

>>2062638
I bet you blame bad luck when your blob of units do less damage than you hoped they would

>>2063684
no, that's something that you can calculate precisely.
Now if these units had random hit chance, random crit chance or a chance of blowing up for no reason, that would be bad luck.

>>2063000
That's definitely disingenuous.

>suddenly one pawn becomes invincible and can trade for free.
Chess don't have that rule.
Therefore, it would be designed & balanced for a different game.

Like say, a game with hero-type unit that may at critical-health enter heroic last stand mode where they barely move, the mechanic goal is to hold the line while you send more units.
It also encourages to always have hero-type unit in each battle group. Hero might even get different type of last chance mechanic.

>Warcraft 3 but suddenly you have to withdraw because there's a neutral storm striking your units. The enemy's are intact.
Same as above, as a game mechanic you'd have counter or mechanic meant to go with it.
Maybe while the storm is ongoing you send storm-shielded unit (or transport) and destroy the enemy building who didn't plan enough storm-shielded unit to protect them

Total War have weather mechanic, you can use it on purpose during sieges, during battle a fog change the dynamic of the battle.
Weather is a critical aspect of war.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-history/met-office-d-day-weather-forecast

>>2063712
Total War is mostly single-player and you can reroll for a more favorable weather plus it affects everyone, not just you in this very place.
>b-but IRL
It's a game.

>>2063060
>If I want to bet, I can go to a casino.
If your strategy game is so deterministic the match is decided from the META you follow, this is no different from a casino.
You just defend a puzzle where you bet your solution is better than the enemies.
By that logic Fog of War is also a RNG mechanic because you cannot predict what's going to happen.
And if you have "perfect scouting" that make FoW inconsequential, then you brought it back to gambling.

As you mention yourself, ideal scouting involve discovering things on the go. Like a way around a player defense.

The REAL TIME bit in RTS is about facing surprise, adapting and doing your best.
It shouldn't even be about winning, or the matchmaker making sure you always meet your equal with a 50-50 win/loss ratio.
So long as RNG mechanics are built correctly in a non pointlessly punishing/frustrating way, half-random but also followed by constant pattern and associated mechanic, then you can plan around them.

No point arguing against retarded strawman like a secret 50-50 roll at the start that decide the outcome regardless of anything players do.

>>2063729
Weather can only be rerolled if you can afford to wait, and it doesn't affect everyone the same way. If you relied on flaming arrows or movement, rain or fog will impact you more.
>It's a game.
By that low-effort argument, why do you care? No different from FPS adding more sophisticated mechanics based on real life.
>b-but I don't like it!
We don't care unless you make a constructive point.

>>2063753
The difference between the fog of war/scouting is that it's fully meant to be a part of the gameplay. You know that the enemy is doing something and you *should* be anticipating, or better, monitoring their actions, and thus countering it. It's all player action. Unlike any outsider RNG aspect which just disrupts the current flow of action and either suddenly gives one player a major advantage or gives everyone a mandatory moment of pause.
Why do you think blizzard maps are unpopular in CoH2? It's realistic for russian winter to suddenly make soldiers freeze and drastically reduce visibility after all. You should've anticipated the blizzard.
Even casuals didn't like that.

>>2051802
yes. because someone else already posted them above me. duh? MP shills are a minority grp in gamers and should be deported for shitposting and endless whining.

>>2063127
yes and Blizz-tivison went woke AND gacha shit. now everyone hates them and their games are flopping. MPfags never learnt.

>>2051531 (OP)
tempest rising is just shit idgaf who it caters to because it sucks ass

>>2062476
>and can immediately get to the training room and try to do the same
You really don't get it. Perhaps you need to move to fighting games where doing the same very limited number of actions you have copied off of someone else is a good thing by design.

>>2064385
...What do you think a build order is? Or a timing attack?

>>2064629
Cope and excuses made by shitters who'd call armies introducing machine guns "compfag metasheep".

>>2064881
Given these are terms used by the actually-payed-for-it professionals and developers, you are demonstrably wrong.

>>2065034
This isn't about the fact that this term is used by the people who know what it means, it's about the people who don't know what it means but still use it and blame their defeats on.

>>2063778
There's no difference. Anything can be "fully meant to be part of the gameplay" with means of using it better than opponents or countering it with proper planning.
There are innumerable RNG mechanics that are popular and it all come down to execution, just like real time wasn't dropped because it unfairly favors quick action over smart plans.

>blizzard
While lazy dumbass sit on their ass to "wait it out", others learn how to move differently, smartly, then win because the enemy is unprepared and didn't learn.
While ADHD retards rush without caring about shelter, others plan for them and win as the enemy end up isolated and ill prepared.

>CoH2
Just wouldn't be as good without any RNG.
https://gamecloud.net.au/features/opinion/what-makes-rts-games-fun-rng-in-rts
Not saying it always perfect but neither is a predictable game without enough variables to prevent solving it.

If we twisted words like you did, any mechanic would be shit.
>disrupts the current flow of action
As does all mechanics keeping games fun, breaking repetitive monotony.
>suddenly gives one player a major advantage
As does a player discovering a weakness to exploits on the go, that neither him nor his opponent could predict from the game start.
That's the main appeal of RTS.
>gives everyone a mandatory moment of pause
As does all the mechanics enforcing a game pace. Go ahead and make a game where units are produced and move instantaneously, tell us how it goes.

>You should've anticipated
That's what strategy is about.

*ends your discussion*

go back

>>2066133
Just spitballing here, but what if, what if all gamers started as casuals? How do we transform casual into gamers?

>>2051536
4 is superior to 2 in literally every single way not nostalgia niggers can't let it go

>>2066604
Casuals ARE gamers, and no matter what you try most will remain casual indefinitely. A proper mode difference instead of insisting everyone who's "really" into a game become a hyper-autistic nolifer could solve it, like Starcraft 2's co-op mode.

>>2063000
>There's a good reason why chess is more popular than mahjong and it's not because of a cultural/ethnic divide.
It's because of age and prestige. The RNG shill is a troll here, but Mahjong is the better game. It just has to contend with only having been a competitive strategy game for 100 years, as opposed to being mainstream for a millennium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_aH55sE1NQ

>Game developed by the most autistic members of the CnC community
I just had to see this unit to know it was not worth the money, then I read how it worked and saved myself the bucks. They took all the wrong lessons from the most recent CnC games, it would have been better they made a Starcraft clone