A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

[Nemo]

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.

This. Real life example: some time ago i got to meet my girlfriend's brother. He's really smart kid, aged twelve. He also lives in the countryside, not a lot of kids around and no 'urban' activities, so he spends a lot of time in front of his PC, which btw he built himself from scratch just watching youtube videos, so I'd say he really likes computers overall. He was thrilled to see my game collection (rather mediocre, but for him it was huge). The problem was that we started from the ones i like the most, and warcraft 3 managed to keep him entertained for about... 5 minutes . Then it turned out that strategies and card games are like 70% of my collection, which didn't really help. Only things actually fun for him were stuff like fighters, shooters and adventure games. After whole life of playing fortnite and assasin's creed, his mind just couldn't give a shit about a game where you have to do so much stuff at once just to fight with a PC that attacked with army twice as big. And that was even without any hotkeys or build orders

Second example: my brothers all liked RTS's too when we were kids. Now, when they're super busy and we see each other just few times a year, I'm always ready to fire up couple of maps. They played with me for stunning 2 days and I managed to beat them all in 1v3 before they said 'fuck it' and since then they only agree to casual Cuphead runs . And I'm not even that good, I was like 1st lt on EP.

I would say that 1v1 is actually only thing keeping RTS alive. I don't think its other aspects can keep up with gaming industry. A sad truth is that we lost the popularity contest long ago, and most of us don't even realize it. In some thread recently I saw someone shocked that according to Steam data over 70% of AoE 3 DE users are single-player, not believing that there could be so many 'dirty casuals' . But the truth is... people aren't really that competitive. Or rather, it isn't what they look for in a PC game. Competitive people who have hours of time daily to polish they skills and become better would rather start they own businesses or hone their skills in some real-life aspect that can potentially give them a shitton of money to find entertainment elsewhere, not waste away in front of a screen.

I hope that I'm wrong, but so far it seems that we are like dinosaurs, bound to become obsolete, the same way that high culture, classical music or religion, with all their depths and ambitious purposes just don't have that wide and universal appeal for the masses.

[gibson]

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.

And I'm not even that good, I was like 1st lt on EP.

Well to be fair, 1st lt on ep is better than 99 percent of people who play the game.

[Nemo]

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.

And I'm not even that good, I was like 1st lt on EP.

Well to be fair, 1st lt on ep is better than 99 percent of people who play the game.

And that's exactly the problem

[howlingwolfpaw]

I think that is just what RTS is really about. Its like a modern form of Chess, and chess has no team mates (that I am aware of) Team games are cool, but its like a side line to strategy (players focus on civ advantages building less rounded compositions to fulfill each others gaps), 1v1 thought you have to really maintain balance and map awareness.

It is interesting to see new players comment on just how complex this game really is. From getting down economic timings, unit counters, card orders, micro and such, it takes a lot to know, and even more intuitive knowledge to master.

[Nemo]

Also, i think this is a good place to share my impression that even developers and QA folks that are responsible for all the new strategies or their remasters seem to be MOBA or MMORPG players. I see it time and time again - new 4K models that are supposed to be beautiful but are just impractical and unplayable in RTS (coloring, shaping, undistinguishable), poor UI's, poor playability, lack of many QoL aspects. I've yet to see strategy that managed to eliminate all common problems and get everything right, while all the other genres seem to be slowly, but steadily pushing forward.

[SoldieR]

Ya I agree completely. I actually think sometimes how did I get into a game like this, but I think it was because growing up I loved all type of war movies.

[Mitoe]

I disagree that MOBA is easier to learn. MOBAs take an incredible amount of time to learn; so much so that League of Legends forces you to play 100+ unranked games before you can play ranked.

I remember it took me a month to get that done, and I was completely miserable the entire time because I hated playing the game by myself and none of my friends would play with me.

[King_Felipe]

I haven't played LoL ever but I think that happens only cuz the game is far more popular. So both things are binded. The fact that the game is way more popular means that there will be a higher level and people is more interested in actually learn it. And that thing makes the game popular at the same time.

New players are more open to learn how play a game that everyone else plays no matter how hard is it while if I told someone to play a game and he haven't ever heard anyone else talking about it and also results that the game is complex then it's likely he will drop it

I dunno if I expressed correctly since English is not my first language

[Squamiger]

I think I agree that the problem is just a lot deeper than team vs 1v1, it's really that RTS is not ever going to be mainstream genre. It was a popular genre when the majority of gamers were shut-in neurotic nerds who liked to fixate on complicated things. Now that gaming is incredibly mainstream, that's just not the aim of playing games for most people.

I like AoE3 specifically because it's too hard and grueling to actually suck me into playing it for hours and hours on end. I usually have the mental willpower and energy to play 2-3 1v1 games a day, if that. Also, when I play the game I feel like I don't really have "fun", it's more like I experience satisfaction, which is something I have heard other people who play competitively say as well. This is just not how modern, mass appeal gaming works, especially not for young audiences with short attention spans raised on ipads. Yea I really do sound like a boomer. I don't really like most other games, mostly because it just feels like a waste of time, whereas AoE3 somehow tricks my brain into thinking I'm developing an actual skill.

Like I know this sounds snobby, but the games that try to have a cinematic storyline where you follow characters through an artsy world, just seem really mind-numbing to me. FPS games or things like rocket league are alright, at least you're honing a skill. But I think the millions of young "gamers" are mostly kids and younger people who want to be guided through a built environment like a movie, which is just not how RTS can ever work.

I think it's not that bad though. Let it just be how it is and enjoy it while it lasts

[_DB_]

I agree with diarouga's point of the game being hard for a beginner.

I'll limit myself to AoE 3 legacy here.

To be honest, it really takes a lot of interest and curiosity to just understand the basics of this game. Let alone improving at it. Improving curve of this game is very steep. Players take ages to become intermediate. To improve faster, players need to have a little maturity and they have to keep aside the fun things to do in game. (like making Rajputs and flail elephants just because they like them)

Just a month ago, one of my friends started playing AoE 3. As soon as he started playing this, he calls me everyday and tells me how he played today. He doesn't even know what civs he is playing against. He plays Russia because he says it is so easy to make units when playing it.

Our conversations are like these-

"Hey man. Today I played against a guy who made very quick archers with hats and a wooden slanted device. I don't know why, my musketeers died so quickly even though I had equal army."

(I had to explain him that those things were flying crows and chu ko nus.
I had to tell him about "unit counter" system.)

He still doesn't understand unit counter system easily. I gave him lots of links from heaven games and esoc to help him understand. His English is a little weak so he says-

"the language is too tough for me to read strategies on this website. Why the hell everyone on the community uses so many abbreviations. What is civ? What is CM? What is vils? What the fuck is timing they all talk about?

"I can understand what is hit point and attack but what the hell is ranged resist, multipliers? I just can't grasp the unit counter system. Why do my Cossacks die against pikemen but the same pikemen can't kill musketeers?"

He presents interesting questions like a child-

"Why do you say that my Russia musketeers are weak. They look exact same like other nation's musketeers."

"Why can't I easily kill villagers of this nation with blue flag?"
(After trying to kill French CDBs with 40+ strelets)

"Why do all my units just die even after being in large numbers when I play against nation with red flag which makes gunmen whose sounds are like cannons and made unit with both gun and sword."
(After playing against Ottoman Jan Abus)

"I played this nation today. But I don't know hey why, I just lost. I barely made my first 15 units and he started blowing my TC with two cannons at 8 minutes."
(After losing to a guy who smurfed him with Spain FF)

"I played with guy who made lots of houses with attractive roofs on the map. I think this is wrong. They can be sieged by anyone. Should I tell this guy that he shouldn't make houses around the map because it is unsafe?'
(After playing with a Japan guy in team who built shrines all over the map)

"You told me that skirmishers are units with high range. But I played against a nation that made pants which shred through my army. I asked a guy what type of unit it is and he said these are skirmishers with fast swords. Wtf. And why does this nation have a Taj Mahal on New England. That is supposed to be in Agra."
(After playing against a guy who shipped 7 urumis and made Taj Mahal wonder on New England)

"I played against a nation who made nearly zero military but I lost all my units to it while sieging his buildings. I don't know how."
(After trying to siege Portuguese town centres with strelets)

I gave him tons of Hazza and Darwin Giovanny recorded games of Russia. Now he watches 3-4 games per day and has improved a lot. He can now rush with 5 Cossacks and 23 strelets and does fine in many games against sergeants and private level players.

He saw Darwin shipping Polar explorer on Yukon. Now my friend ships it every game lol and says that he likes this card because he gets a cool dog.

Despite the complexities, he loves this game and enjoys it everyday to relax and survive through his hard days.

[SoldieR]

Can we get someone to create an image of rock paper scissors, like in the style of a recycling sign. And groups the icons of each unit in the group they belong. This really should be something in the game, like how old games had charts or booklets in the packaging. But this should be viable and easy to see in the game, early on in opening the game, maybe with the tech tree.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Can we get someone to create an image of rock paper scissors, like in the style of a recycling sign. And groups the icons of each unit in the group they belong. This really should be something in the game, like how old games had charts or booklets in the packaging. But this should be viable and easy to see in the game, early on in opening the game, maybe with the tech tree.

It's more complicated than just rock/paper/scissor though.

[Victor_swe]

Rock paper scissor lizard spock

[Goodspeed]

I disagree that MOBA is easier to learn. MOBAs take an incredible amount of time to learn; so much so that League of Legends forces you to play 100+ unranked games before you can play ranked.

I think an important difference is that MOBA mechanics are easier to learn; You only need to control 1 unit with 4 abilities so you can jump straight into learning the actual game instead of struggling with mechanics for a long time.

I would say MOBAs are easier to learn than RTS, but about as hard to master.

[Donye]

I actually left aoe3 in around 2010 for League of legends. I did this because pop was on a decline and people were quitting/getting ready for sc2 which I had no interest in.

I find that RTS games especially in 1v1 wear me out. There's a lot of multi tasking going on and after a hard day's work I just don't have the mental energy some times.

What I've really enjoyed since coming back is FFA Vs extreme AIs, team games with friends Vs AIs and just talking. I enjoy the competitive side but not as much as I used to. Sc2 have a great game mode where it's Coop Vs AI and you have heroes (Moba esque) that change playstyle and you replay campaign challenges. I think it would be nice for AoE to have something similar.

I also think the genre is very hard to get into and there are vast differences in player skill which can upset the balance of games.

RTS and AoE was my fave genre growing up, I've stayed away from it all these years as I've associated them with stress lol.

[Imperial Noob]

"I played with guy who made lots of houses with attractive roofs on the map. I think this is wrong. They can be sieged by anyone. Should I tell this guy that he shouldn't make houses around the map because it is unsafe?'
(After playing with a Japan guy in team who built shrines all over the map)

brilliant

I play RTS only with friends; never alone. What puts me off in 1v1 is that the sense/type of achievement and the road to it remind me so much of real life, that they make me want to switch the device off and be competitive in things I do in real life instead, else I feel like shooting myself in the foot with efforts sunk into something utterly meaningless, while the goals that are really important and should have my practice, learning, and dedication, are left unattended. Videogames to me should represent a unique value, not a fast-foodey real life substitute. That said, all single player gaming gets on my nerves recently. I would rather work on some projects.

[Rohbrot]

I agree with diarouga's point of the game being hard for a beginner.

I'll limit myself to AoE 3 legacy here.

To be honest, it really takes a lot of interest and curiosity to just understand the basics of this game. Let alone improving at it. Improving curve of this game is very steep. Players take ages to become intermediate. To improve faster, players need to have a little maturity and they have to keep aside the fun things to do in game. (like making Rajputs and flail elephants just because they like them)

Just a month ago, one of my friends started playing AoE 3. As soon as he started playing this, he calls me everyday and tells me how he played today. He doesn't even know what civs he is playing against. He plays Russia because he says it is so easy to make units when playing it.

Our conversations are like these-

"Hey man. Today I played against a guy who made very quick archers with hats and a wooden slanted device. I don't know why, my musketeers died so quickly even though I had equal army."

(I had to explain him that those things were flying crows and chu ko nus.
I had to tell him about "unit counter" system.)

He still doesn't understand unit counter system easily. I gave him lots of links from heaven games and esoc to help him understand. His English is a little weak so he says-

"the language is too tough for me to read strategies on this website. Why the hell everyone on the community uses so many abbreviations. What is civ? What is CM? What is vils? What the fuck is timing they all talk about?

"I can understand what is hit point and attack but what the hell is ranged resist, multipliers? I just can't grasp the unit counter system. Why do my Cossacks die against pikemen but the same pikemen can't kill musketeers?"

He presents interesting questions like a child-

"Why do you say that my Russia musketeers are weak. They look exact same like other nation's musketeers."

"Why can't I easily kill villagers of this nation with blue flag?"
(After trying to kill French CDBs with 40+ strelets)

"Why do all my units just die even after being in large numbers when I play against nation with red flag which makes gunmen whose sounds are like cannons and made unit with both gun and sword."
(After playing against Ottoman Jan Abus)

"I played this nation today. But I don't know hey why, I just lost. I barely made my first 15 units and he started blowing my TC with two cannons at 8 minutes."
(After losing to a guy who smurfed him with Spain FF)

"I played with guy who made lots of houses with attractive roofs on the map. I think this is wrong. They can be sieged by anyone. Should I tell this guy that he shouldn't make houses around the map because it is unsafe?'
(After playing with a Japan guy in team who built shrines all over the map)

"You told me that skirmishers are units with high range. But I played against a nation that made pants which shred through my army. I asked a guy what type of unit it is and he said these are skirmishers with fast swords. Wtf. And why does this nation have a Taj Mahal on New England. That is supposed to be in Agra."
(After playing against a guy who shipped 7 urumis and made Taj Mahal wonder on New England)

"I played against a nation who made nearly zero military but I lost all my units to it while sieging his buildings. I don't know how."
(After trying to siege Portuguese town centres with strelets)

I gave him tons of Hazza and Darwin Giovanny recorded games of Russia. Now he watches 3-4 games per day and has improved a lot. He can now rush with 5 Cossacks and 23 strelets and does fine in many games against sergeants and private level players.

He saw Darwin shipping Polar explorer on Yukon. Now my friend ships it every game lol and says that he likes this card because he gets a cool dog.

Despite the complexities, he loves this game and enjoys it everyday to relax and survive through his hard days.

First of all great post!
This just says us what 70% of Aoe3 players think about the game and its normal, cuz its a game that is more played by older people instead of the best ages of playing (15-25)

[princeofkabul]

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.

that's not true about cs. it's also very mechanical game, I don't know about how it compares to quake though.

[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.

that's not true about cs. it's also very mechanical game, I don't know about how it compares to quake though.

CS is ofc a mechanical game, but it's also stratergy focused because it's a team based game, there's also a surprising amount of randomness. The biggest reason why Quake is more mechanical is that you die far slower, the time to kill is like 10x of CS. In CS it tends to be if you see someone before he sees you you kill him and visa versa which causes stuff like positioning to also be incredibly useful. In Quake yes positioning is really important in getting pickups but when in a 1 on 1 fight you won't die just because the other guy sees you first you can always beat someone just by having better movement/aim.

[aaryngend]

Show hidden quotes

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.

that's not true about cs. it's also very mechanical game, I don't know about how it compares to quake though.

CS is ofc a mechanical game, but it's also stratergy focused because it's a team based game, there's also a surprising amount of randomness. The biggest reason why Quake is more mechanical is that you die far slower, the time to kill is like 10x of CS. In CS it tends to be if you see someone before he sees you you kill him and visa versa which causes stuff like positioning to also be incredibly useful. In Quake yes positioning is really important in getting pickups but when in a 1 on 1 fight you won't die just because the other guy sees you first you can always beat someone just by having better movement/aim.

In Quake, you hop around like a rabbit on speed pretty much all the time, getting those juicy armors and health packs, denying your opponent; in CS, you may find yourself sitting in a corner a lot and holding angles (especially as CT). Even as T the game thrives on slow, carefully picked combat and agression.
In CS, weapon spread is nuts and you have to pay close attention, in Quake, every weapon is instant, that feature is called hitscan.

They are both shooters but so vastly different.

[Riotcoke]

No you're wrong, in quake only 5 weapons are hitscan ( Lightning gun, Machine Gun, Upped Machine Gun, Shotgun, Upped Shotgun) all other weapons are projectile based. In CS every weapon apart from the Zues is hitscan. Hitscan just means the weapon hits instantly, it's weapon spread is rng but it's still hitscan.

[aaryngend]

No you're wrong, in quake only 5 weapons are hitscan ( Lightning gun, Machine Gun, Upped Machine Gun, Shotgun, Upped Shotgun) all other weapons are projectile based. In CS every weapon apart from the Zues is hitscan. Hitscan just means the weapon hits instantly, it's weapon spread is rng but it's still hitscan.

Huh why? A weapon having spread is not hitscan to me.
The rocket launcher, plasma gun and grenade launcher throw projectiles, but apart from them, to my experience, all weapons shoot their bullets (even shotguns), but they hit the same way. No spread, no nothing, just a tiny bit of delay because bullets and rays need to travel.

[ShinkuroYukinari]

Hear me out.
What if we had a full-fledged RTS BATTLE ROYALE!

[Riotcoke]

No you're wrong, in quake only 5 weapons are hitscan ( Lightning gun, Machine Gun, Upped Machine Gun, Shotgun, Upped Shotgun) all other weapons are projectile based. In CS every weapon apart from the Zues is hitscan. Hitscan just means the weapon hits instantly, it's weapon spread is rng but it's still hitscan.

Huh why? A weapon having spread is not hitscan to me.
The rocket launcher, plasma gun and grenade launcher throw projectiles, but apart from them, to my experience, all weapons shoot their bullets (even shotguns), but they hit the same way. No spread, no nothing, just a tiny bit of delay because bullets and rays need to travel.

There's also spread in Quake, machine guns and shotguns both have some level of random spread. Random spread is still hitscan.

[lemmings121]

is more played by older people instead of the best ages of playing (15-25)

What if i started playing with exactly 15, now i'm way above your max age?