>>2116590 (OP)
Literally who?

the R in RTS stands for "actually yes, you do need APM"

yes he is, apm is only that relevent in brood war and is a nice scapegoat for shitters aka "gookclick" complainers that tell you their opponent won because they clicked more.
>I swear man that guy only beat me because he kept cycling his guns and sidestepping
but was your aim on point ?
>HE JUST WON BECAUSE HE PRESSED MORE KEYS ON HIS KEYBOARD MAN, FPS IS GOOKCLICK

>>2116590 (OP)
Yes he is right APM only makes a big difference if you are already very good at the game and even then it is game dependent.

>>2116590 (OP)
He is right. But RTS in multiplayer is still very demanding.

don't know who that is or what's in the video but looks like clickbait shit as you do infact need to pan around the map all the time and constantly be moving different control groups around. you can't just build a villager and stop to watch him work

Fight using formations against mangonels, or use mangudai blobs, and tell me APM isn't important

>>2116590 (OP)
Kinda. APM advantages should be wiped mid game. Hot key advantage should be beat by overwhelming and superior strategy. Always. Obviously that doesn't matter to modders and game devs.

Company of Heroes 2 had it so in random 4's a player could afk for the first 5 minutes and still win. So apm was worthless if the afk player came back and just started making counter units and recon. A high apm player who goes artillery usually loses. Also in CoH 2 the AI would capture fuel points and control stars, so it was better than alot of the player base who were so lazy they couldn't be bothered to click the mouse.

I used to play a WC 3 map called Game of Thrones. It was a 12 player map that locked alliances for the first 8 or 12 minutes. So it didn't matter how good a hot key player was they could still be beat by diplomacy or zerging.

Basically, rts is boring as fuck because it forces players to play one style. This happens in modding were they mod the fun or change the fundamentals to favor less fun playstyles. See CoH 2 player updates and Fortnight players who say 1.4ish was the best version. ie I wouldn't go play Warcraft 3 Reforged now because I don't want to play like Grubby and spam my hotkeys. Unless a new player knows to stunlock and focus fire the high level mage or blademaster, it's a bullshit gimmick. With hotkeys the strategy part goes out the window in favor of rock paper scissors via hotkeys and group assignment.

What will make a new player to the franchise or genre stick with it is the main story, which will have them doing what they need to do in multiplayer to win. They will like the world enough to revisit it. Players wanting to get good will watch youtube videos or guides, but they won't do this if the single player world and experience was not good enough to warrant that.

The problem with pvp then is matchmaking, were maybe 1 in 10 games are good and worth coming back to because of a toxic playerbase.

>>2116765
continued...

>at high levels
The noobs won't stick around to get good at gook click or hotkeys. They were smart enough to buy your game, now they dumby dumb dumb noobs when they multiplayer, or they are forced to be the carry if they are good. Both of those forced playstyles get old.

After awhile that juice isn't going to be worth the squeeze, from hacking, to toxic or rambo players. Gambling or in game item stores are used to keep players. After a certain point though it still isn't enough.

Age of Empires looks good, looks fun, even if I never multiplayer. And why would I want to destroy a good experience by letting trolls, tryhards, or cheaters into that good looking world.

>>2116590 (OP)
>You don't NEED APM
>It just so happens that every good player has high APM
What a cohencidence.

>>2116629
No he's not, APM is relevant in most RTS. Do you really think some guy with 10 is going to do well in AoE2?

>>2116765
>I don't want to play like Grubby and spam my hotkeys
In his heyday grubby was notable for his strategies and number calculation, not his APM. While his APM is obviously higher than a random schlub he wasn't a notably high mechanics player among the pros. It's part of the issue he took with SC2 - a tiny micro decision like not reacting to a single widowmine in time could lose you the game instantly.

>>2116590 (OP)
The thumbnail is obvious clickbait and the video is way too long for a sane person to watch

>>2116636
High (effective) apm generally means you're good, because you know what you're doing and make decisions without wasting time thinking

>>2116590 (OP)
He's right for single-player but wrong for multiplayer. RTS needs to be gatekept to avoid being ruined like every other genre that wasn't gatekept.

>>2116812
>RTS needs to be gatekept to avoid being ruined
RTS is a literal dead genre, the top games are still SC2 and AoE2 being kept alive by the old guard
(Don't @ me with total war)

>>2116787
of course everybody not retarded knows the question isn't "can you win with 0.01 apm" but "is the obsession sc2 fags and 'gookclick complainers' have with apm justified ?" and the answer is no, you don't need 250 minimum apm to make it above ELO 10 or get out of rank shitter and it matters even less if you play for fun
better decisions beats pressing more keys
>>2116810
>oh no, a video I could put in the background as I do something else, you must be insane to watch, let alone have the attention span to pay attention to it all
truth is after the 28th minute you don't really need to watch he's explaining the basics of aoe4 pvp to people who've never touched an rts
>>2116726
I'd engage with that but let me guess you'd also start complaining about the length ?
anyway like the other guy only the first
>>2116765
>>2116769
while I think your point about apm is shit and how the games should play seems confused, you do touch on something the video does talk a bit about : yes RTS as a genre has problems with onboarding new players
which is why for some reason the guy decided that making 2/3rd of his video teaching aoe4 pvp was the right answer

>>2116819 (me)
fucked up my post
>>2116819
only the first 28 minutes have the meat of the matter, if you care anyway

>>2116819
It is justified though.

That video essay is the quintessential example of the mdiwit who think he is really smart. But the 85 minutes of lenght should have be a huge give away.

Millenials LOVE a video essay, maybe there's a feeling of having read a book without any of the effort

>>2116590 (OP)
Partially. If you don't have the APM, you have to compensate elsewhere, like by having superior scouting and resource management for instance.
The funny thing is, even though it is a popular thing to complain about, it's actually the easiest thing to improve - all you have to do is train to be faster. And if you're fast, you can execute your strategies earlier, you can multitask better, and you can correct your mistakes quicker.

This video is long because it's not about APM like the thumbnail would suggest but about the new player experience of trying to get into PvP RTS. After all the title is "RTS is incredible and you should play it" and his argument regarding APM is that it's a red herring because there is so much more to get better at than doing things fast.
It's taking things slow to explain the basics thoroughly for those who have no experience with RTS and for those who might want to get their friends into RTS.

Everyone's entitled on an opinion on the topic but I humbly ask anons to never be hostile to effort. Sometimes videos are long because they have to be and something like that is better than the myriad of easily watchable short form videos which are rotting the brain of the new generations.

>>2116838
stop watching tik tok

>>2116839
It's an aging millennial making an overly-long video in the desperate attempt to drum up support for a niche video game genre that everyone moved on from like a decade ago because it never went anywhere and people got bored. He's desperately trying to revive a part of his youth and it's kind of sad to see. Never become that person that refuses to accept that time marches on whether you like it or not.

>>2116787
>No he's not, APM is relevant in most RTS. Do you really think some guy with 10 is going to do well in AoE2?
You clearly didn't watch the video. Stop your hyperbole, and stop replacing his words. He did not say "APM is irrleveant." He is debunking all the complaints of people who claim you can only get into RTS if you have high APM which is flat out wrong. Basically APM is red herring and a common excuse people use for loosing.

High APM is only a necessity for the game if you are at around the very top group of the competitive scene, the rest of us average players can improve by learning other things about the game multitasking, build orders, matchups, unit comps, timing attacks, switching etc. High APM is the last thing that you will need once you have already learned all other things.

>>2116963
>Never become that person that refuses to accept that time marches on whether you like it or not.
Keep saying that until you get replaced by automation.

>>2117013
There's only one thing that could possibly revive RTS as a genre if it's ever gonna happen. Convince developers to stop chasing esports money by focusing on appealing sweatlord multiplayer players who aren't even interested in moving away from the ancient games that already scratch their autism itch. Invest instead in bringing in people who know how to create a fun and interesting campaign mode that makes people feel like they're doing cool shit with their armies. The RTS games that became big multiplayer sensations did so by sheer chance.

>Watching a YouTube video essay for an hour and twenty five minutes
There's no way it takes 85 minutes to explain that RTS games are good, and APM is not that big of a deal for the average player.
Verbose faggots have begun imitating chat bots, just yap yap yap.

>>2116983
I did. It was stupid - half of that IS APM, the other half is strongly correlated with it. It was someone insisting that APM doesn't matter in a subset of RTS where it very much fucking does and rote execution decides the early game more than anything.

>>2116590 (OP)
fuck off, not gonna watch your hour long yt essay slop

>>2117070
I would watch your hour long yt essay slop anon

>>2116590 (OP)
"You don't need APM" is essentially the same as "you don't need to be good."
APM is a metric used to measure skill, but it's a ridiculous metric to maximize for the sake of maximizing it. Trying to max APM makes your APM grow slower and it makes you learn the game slower. You suck if you have low APM and you suck if your goal is to maximize APM.

>>2117052
Honestly, you don't need a campaign. That's another complete idiotic mindset. What's needed is a game that's fun to play.

>>2117094
You definitely need a campaign if you want your RTS, and the genre in general to take off. You're coming at this from the mindset of a sperg, but there aren't enough spergs out there to sustain a genre in today's industry.

>>2117106
I wondered if calling it idiotic was going too far, but apparently it wasn't far enough. You're just a moron that doesn't consider someone might have a point when they think you're being stupid.
A campaign is just one way to make a game engaging. It has never been a checkbox every successful game has checked. Where is the campaign in League of Legends? Who is the sperg again?

>>2116590 (OP)
I don't care because I only play campaign and fun custom games

>>2117115
Every successful RTS game has had a campaign. It's what drew the casual players in, some of which stuck around and became multiplayer sweatlords, but that group was always a relative minority. Developers eventually figured they could pander to this minority and become the next Brood War instead of having things in their game that would appeal to the casual player, which was retarded and has never worked for this genre. An RTS can of course exist without a campaign, but it won't be successful.
>Where is the campaign in League of Legends?
LoL is not an RTS, retard. It's its own genre that branched off.
>Who is the sperg again?
You, since you're incapable of understanding what regular people outside of your small sperg bubble liked about RTS back when the genre was actually relevant.

>>2117234
>LoL is not an RTS, retard. It's its own genre that branched off.
See, you are sperging hard now.
You can't even engage with the idea presented. You're hell bent on the idiotic idea that an RTS game must have a campaign.
I could've picked Worms, I could've picked any genre of game. You just have a very narrow and autistic understanding of how people engage with games.

>your small sperg bubble liked about RTS back when the genre was actually relevant.
You're completely mistakes about where I'm coming from. I'll just have make it absolutely clear so that even someone as retarded as you gets it, then.
>RTS needs esports
>RTS needs a campaign
These are completely idiotic statements, about equally stupid in measure. You think one of them is stupid. Many successful games had NEITHER.

You want to know the REAL elephant in the room? Is RTS for the sake of keeping the genre alive a good thing? A mobile dating sim gacha RTS would absolutely be the where the smart money is.

>>2117258 (me)
I'm done with this debate, but I'll address something some people out there might not understand.
>but Worms had campaign????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The original didn't. You launched the game, watched the short animations, and you had a button labelled "start game" which took you to match setup. That made sense in the time it was made, since it aligned with how people engaged with games. That's the key thing here. Don't be a moron, understand how people engage with games. In the case of RTS, the whole push for esports was just a misunderstanding of how the majority of people engage with games.

When you say the push for esports ruined the way you engage with games, and you turn around and say campaigns are the hot stuff, you're doing the exact same thing. There's a large amount of people who are disgusted by the idea of a campaign. A campaign is there just so that people that want to play alone have some guaranteed way of engaging with the game. That's a good thing to have, but that's not the only way to go about it. There's this idea that single player games are dead when they absolutely aren't.

>>2116590 (OP)
only shitty rts that dont have automated commands that cut down apm and require apm to be really necessary,it becomes a programming rts at that point but unexcited things that require attention then need apm in the moment

>>2116590 (OP)
A Better Strategy can beat APM any time.

But APM with Strategy is king. So APM will always be important.

>>2116590 (OP)
you don't need apm unless you are trying to be top 1%

>>2117258
>LoL is not an RTS
>See, you are sperging

If LoL is RTS, then so is M&B 1 and 2. So RTS needs a story campaign. Even if the story world story line is simple to be open, similar to Magic the Gathering were every player is mage and they are just customizing their spells, it still needs a world and a story. LoL just uses a biography description to accomplish world building and story.

And MOBA came from WC 3 which made Defense of the Ancients, then came League of Legends.

Just list them as non builder RTS, but if the art and the story suck no one will play them. Worms proves that art sells a game. Blizzard confirmed this when they lost their sh*t over losing out on DOTA money to Gabe over at Steam.

I push non builder RTS on here as an alternative to Blizzard slop and the die hards blow me off because losing Starcraft to them is the same as losing an arm. I've come out of my coma. I've accepted they will accept nothing short of Starcraft 3 and moved on.

>>2116590 (OP)
Need I... say more?

>>2117561
No, it can't.

>>2117595
This. APM is essentially asking for scripts and special hardware. Nudging shaking bumping a pinball machine introduced tilt protection. RTS could use RNG or limit the number of commands issued, but at the end of the day 3rd party scripts and hardware become a requirement for serious play. One might as well get some cheat software or use exploits while they are at it. (A pinball machine will give warnings then lock the flippers if a player nudges too much for those who are unfamiliar.)

>>2117590
>unironically posts re**it screenshot about muh toy soldiers
do SP fags really ?
>>2117603
comp scene has been here for a while and those scripts are nowhere at top of play and the hardware is still the same....also why even equate apm with bumping
>>2117589
nta but come on anon, LoL is rts adjacent enough that the lack of a campaign and success was relevant to the discussion for him to point out, you even say yourself how the start of LoL was the rts community and expended beyond that without a campaign that doesn't mean LoL is an rts but it made it relevant in the discussion

>>2117561
If you can literally think faster than the other guy can click, and anticipate all his moves sure. But that's easier said than done and you might as well work on your APMs instead.

>>2117069
No you did not or you are deliberately ignoring it, otherwise you wouldn't be talking vague made up hyperboles, when the video shows concrete examples.
There is literally a video where Harstem playing Starcraft 2 tried to play as low APM as possible and he could beat a 334APM opponent with only 64APM. And that is in SC2 that is most often labelled by needing high APM to win. The example clearly demonstrates that this not true.

A high APM is a result of being skilled in RTS, but not the cause. This is an old debate where both sides of the argument are completely right, but they choose to follow definitions that purposefully miss the point in order to make themselves definitionally right.
You don't need high APM to be successful in RTS (with high APM and success defined in the right way)
You need high APM to be successful in RTS (with high APM and success defined the right way)

Now, if you really understand what it takes to learn to get high APM, you'd realize that the issue is that RTS games are a bitch to learn. They exist in this special place where you need to invest a lot to get out of it, and you're going to realize that the game design isn't perfect way before you learn how to play. I'm not talking about balance, mind you. I'm talking about the broad strokes. The win conditions in a StarCraft or Warcraft game are kind of stupid, really.

>>2117676
And how often could he repeat that? Was his opponent completely incompetent on the strategic level? Could he do it with 30 or 20?

>>2117676
I'm going to go hard against the grain.
64 APM is making one action each second. It's not an inhumane demand, but that's actually a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9nzjg-ILM
"So wait, how is that a lot?" you will reasonably ask.

Each action consists of multiple key presses. If you've practiced enough to have 300 APM, slowing down is going to be a piece of cake. That's kind of the problem with learning RTS. You have to memorize how to make actions fast enough. That's the issue here. Harstem being able to play well at 64 APM proves way less than you think it does. APM is just a metric we use, but you're putting the cart ahead the horse when you focus on it in either direction. A pro can do the necessary actions as fast as possible.

Have Harstem play with fucked up key bindings and a fucked up periferal that doesn't resemble a real keyboard and you have the real issue come to light. An RTS is largely about mechanical skill. That's the issue people have when they talk about APM.

>>2117766
This got me thinking about the slight incongruence between the gameplay and win conditions in RTS. I got an interesting idea. What if you could win in Starcraft by just mining >50% of the minerals in the map, and killing the other guy just gave you all the remaining minerals in the map?

>>2117589
>If LoL is RTS, then so is M&B 1 and 2. So RTS needs a story campaign
Those two statements don't have any correlation between them

>>2117805
>What if you could win in Starcraft by just mining >50% of the minerals in the map
Make that 66% and it sounds like sudden death win condition in some 4X games.

>>2117815
Sure, other games have similar mechanics but for very different reasons. There's a very good reason I'm thinking it should be 50%.
In a 1v1 game, it's much more akin to a classic board game. Mining 50% of the minerals is pretty ironclad proof you "controlled" 50% of the minerals.

Of course, that way of thinking no longer works in FFA or games with multiple teams. You'd need to adapt it.
The reason I kind of like that idea of mined minerals measuring victory is that the win condition flows naturally into how the game is played strategically. Instead of just being an instrument to kill your opponent, the minerals are the goal, and killing your opponent is the instrumental part.

>>2116629
Not having an attack-move & guard hotkeys was already inexcusable around WC2, no idea why are you trying to defend this bullshit decision that only exists to filter non-bugmen and neurotypicals.

>>2117629
At least someone got it.
"An RTS needs an campaign" has the same vibes as people in the 80s - UNIRONICALLY MIND YOU - saying that nobody is interested in a game nobody can beat. It's a really poisonous mindset. An RTS very much benefits from something to do if you want to play alone. A campaign just fills this need. Problem is, now you need a campaign design team.