A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

[Mitoe]

This is a belief I've held for the last couple of years, and I'm sure it's crossed the minds of many others as well.

Let's face it. 1v1 is the reason why the RTS genre can't keep up with modern gaming.

In the age of RTS from 2000-2010 or 2011ish, gaming was not perceived the same way it is now. There were less players. Not everyone had a computer--let alone a good one. Or a good internet connection. Or friends to play with. It made sense for 1v1 to be the predominant method of gaming and competition, because team games were harder to find, harder on the computer, and telling people you liked to game was not always the cool thing to do.

Fast forward to today, and gaming for most people is a very social experience. Games like League of Legends and other MOBAs, FPS, Battle Royal, etc. all focus on team play and playing with your friends.

I feel it makes sense that RTS would be more successful if it had better support for team games, team matchmaking, etc. There would be more incentive to introduce friends to the game, the game would feel less like a grind, and the community would stick around longer. In a way, this is one of the reasons why Age of Empires has stuck around in the RTS genre for so long. The team experience in AoE is often said to be much better than other RTS games, but the support and infrastructure for these games has been extremely lacking until recently (and hopefully will improve with time).

In the future I hope there is more of a focus on team-play than on 1v1, because I think that's RTS's best shot at a comeback.

Discuss.

[Rohbrot]

Well, even 1vs1 games lagged hard on esoc tours (due to internet or comp) i guess the reason is cuz team games lag more than 1vs1 and if it would not lag on DE i would say that we could (maybe) see a Aoe3 world with more team tours.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I overall agree with you, but I think that there's another issue with RTS for the casual players : it's too hard.
Even Age of Empires III, which is among the easiest RTS games, is too hard for a casual beginner. He needs to learn how to manage an economy and an army, make different units (ie learn the counter system), get upgrades, that's just too much. If you compare that to MOBA, all a beginner has to do there is learn his champion's ability (because he's only going to play one at first), the different upgrades he can buy and that's it, he can play.
In a RTS game, even a mediocre player (like MS which is probably like gold in MOBAs), is going to 1v4 easily beginners, so the game will look more like a 1 vs team than a team game, while in MOBAs, even the noob mate is important.

Thus, I believe that RTS games simply cannot make a comeback. If people want to play casual games with friends, they'll play MOBA (which is a RTS game where you don't need to macro your eco and only need to micro one unit), and if they want to try hard a game, they'll play RTS, whether it's 1v1 or team (and 1v1 is more competitive so the focus should be on 1v1).
The only way for RTS to attract beginners would be to drastically reduce the difficulty of a game without making it slower (because slow games are boring to watch), while focusing on team games, but that's simply not a RTS anymore then.

[deleted_user]

Yes! Please populate the 2v2 and 3v3 team queue.

[vividlyplain]

Pretty sure there are more team players than 1v1 players so making improvements for team play could be an effective way to keep RTS going.

I’ve started considering team and ffa more in my maps as these game modes are more popular amongst casual players and there are plenty of maps designed for 1v1.

[Riotcoke]

RTS fails because it's skill floor is so much higher than other games. It's why Mobas took over, to actually get into them it's far easier than RTS games, to fully enjoy an RTS it takes a while. Overall people like to feel like they can still do well when just starting playing a game.

This is sort of true in FPS as a genre too, look at a game like CSGO, yes the skill ceiling is really high but because you die very quickly a lower level player can still kill a high level player. In a game like Quake, with a higher skill floor, you don't die quickly and it almost always comes down to mechanics and you can't really 'cheese' your way to win like you can in CS.

[Riotcoke]

Also another problem is people tend to very hostile to new genres, RTS is seen as a bit of a old man's game, so much so that because I play aoe3 instead of League i'm seen as a 'Boomer' by the guys i live with.

[deleted_user]

Y'all a bunch of gamer boomers

[gibson]

also quake is shit, but besides that yea. rts has a high barrier to entry and a high skill ceiling. most other games have a lot barrier to entry and a high skill ceiling.

[vividlyplain]

Also another problem is people tend to very hostile to new genres, RTS is seen as a bit of a old man's game, so much so that because I play aoe3 instead of League i'm seen as a 'Boomer' by the guys i live with.

I was going to say something similar about age groups.

[Riotcoke]

also quake is shit, but besides that yea. rts has a high barrier to entry and a high skill ceiling. most other games have a lot barrier to entry and a high skill ceiling.

Quake isn't bad, it's just pure mechanics, whilst a game like CS has a far lower mechanics ceiling because of how the game plays.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Skill ceiling is not an issue at all for beginners. It's actually a good thing because they can watch top players on Twitch and see that the game is very hard. What they don't like is the amount of time it takes to understand the basics of the game.
For a RTS, that would be correctly executing a build order and using hotkeys (micro, adaptation etc comes later), which is too complicated for a 10 year old gamer who wants to play with his friends. For a MOBA it's really not much. You could play your first game without feeling totally clueless about the game (although you'd of course be playing shit).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Also another problem is people tend to very hostile to new genres, RTS is seen as a bit of a old man's game, so much so that because I play aoe3 instead of League i'm seen as a 'Boomer' by the guys i live with.

That's because aoe3 is a 2005 game which isn't advertised though. If you played sc2, people wouldn't say that.

[Riotcoke]

Also another problem is people tend to very hostile to new genres, RTS is seen as a bit of a old man's game, so much so that because I play aoe3 instead of League i'm seen as a 'Boomer' by the guys i live with.

That's because aoe3 is a 2005 game which isn't advertised though. If you played sc2, people wouldn't say that.

Yes they would, RTS as a whole is seen as a boomer game.

[WickedCossack]

Nice post @Mitoe ! I very much agree with your core point that for RTS to suceed, or continue to survive in future, team support needs significant attention given.

It's interesting to look at the people in general that are attracted to types of games. RTS games are known to be hard genre and require a fair amount effort to play, they are often not relaxing to play and can be stressful. (OK yes all games can be to an extent.) The rewards are not instant, there's no quick kills ... in general the people drawn to these games are the more competitive, more masochistic people who put the time in. The genre doesn't synergise as well with team because of that ...

Other games people are drawn to them because their mates are playing (and then maybe want to be good after), for RTS you play them to bash some muppets and feel like you're the best in the world (and then you find the community and make friends after.)

I think for that reason RTS still needs to keep a strong focus on hardcore on 1v1 as that almost defines the people that play the genre and the intial attraction, but the offer of great team support can keep people around so you don't burn yourself out.

[Riotcoke]

Skill ceiling is not an issue at all for beginners. It's actually a good thing because they can watch top players on Twitch and see that the game is very hard. What they don't like is the amount of time it takes to understand the basics of the game.
For a RTS, that would be correctly executing a build order and using hotkeys (micro, adaptation etc comes later), which is too complicated for a 10 year old gamer who wants to play with his friends. For a MOBA it's really not much. You could play your first game without feeling totally clueless about the game (although you'd of course be playing shit).

It's more that you just get fucked in RTS, in a moba you might lose but you won't get completely clapped.

[Riotcoke]

Also RTS really isn't fun to play with friends who are significantly better or worse than you.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye, as I said, if a player from ESOC plays with a real life friend, it's going to be 1 vs 2 because the real life friend will be too bad to make a difference.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

I agree with diarouga here, RTS struggle mainly because they are hard to learn.

Now in the team vs 1v1 debate, I must say that 1v1 matches are often much more interesting to watch, while all team matches look more or less the same.
Part of the problem may be the lack of synergy between civilizations.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I didn't think of that, but team games are indeed not very interesting to watch in RTS games.
It's not as simple as that but it's like a longer 1v1 with players spamming one unit. You can't really see who controls what part of the map like in MOBAs, or an impressive team coordination like in FPS.

[CuCkO0]

I find team is probably easier to play and there's less pressure on any one player. You can afford to make little mistakes in team and be able to recover from it depending at what level you really play at. Where as in 1v1 that's not the case. Those minor mistakes could be major ones in a competitive 1v1 game.

A lot of people say they play for fun, but nobody really likes to lose. Maybe that's why team is generally more popular.

[aaryngend]

A better question to ask would be: Does the focus on 1v1 hinder the team game experience?
I would say no. Both can go hand in hand.

Other games have either team games or custom maps with custom rules as the main game mode for casuals and for those who just want to have fun (Arcade/Co-Op in SC2, custom maps in WarCraft 3).

It's up to the playerbase to choose which game modes they like to play the most.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

I find team is probably easier to play and there's less pressure on any one player. You can afford to make little mistakes in team and be able to recover from it depending at what level you really play at. Where as in 1v1 that's not the case. Those minor mistakes could be major ones in a competitive 1v1 game.

A lot of people say they play for fun, but nobody really likes to lose. Maybe that's why team is generally more popular.

I prefer to play in 1v1 for this reason. In team, I can either get a bad teammate who will make me lose or I get insulted by a "better" mate who think I'm making him lose...

[King_Felipe]

I think it's mostly because of being hard to learn and even harder to improve. Most people don't like to think they will need to spend lot of time playing in order to improve and they know if they don't do that then they will keep being bashed for other players.
Also is true the thing of the teams. I have some friends and cousins that never play on their own but only when I invite them. The game becomes kinda a way to spend time with them and get fun.
And in lower levels playing team is far easier because most of the time you only need to mass 1 unit instead of combos of 2,3 or even 4 diferent units that you need in 1v1.

[Kawapasaka]

Define 'more of a focus', I hope it doesn't mean tournaments because like others have said team is boring af to watch and it has nothing to do with game design.