A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

This is for discussions about the community, players, forum games, grudge matches, memes and everything else related to ESOC and its members.
User avatar
European Union aaryngend
Howdah
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sep 26, 2015
Location: Germany
Clan: N3O

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by aaryngend »

Riotcoke wrote:
aaryngend wrote:
Riotcoke wrote: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.
But only a tiny bit and after longer fire, in CS, spread is the name of the game.
lemmings121 wrote:
Rohbrot wrote: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? :hmm:
People start with what is popular at their time. If you think about it, even MOBAs are the children of RTS games... without RTS games, I'm pretty sure the MOBA genre wouldn't have existed.
User avatar
Germany Rohbrot
Howdah
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 1789
Joined: Feb 23, 2020
ESO: Rohbrot

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Rohbrot »

lemmings121 wrote:
Rohbrot wrote: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? :hmm:
This means u got used to the game already where ur learning skills were at max, so ur in a good spot ;)
Spain pain train is real
User avatar
United States of America Squamiger
Howdah
Posts: 1756
Joined: Dec 25, 2018
ESO: Squamiger

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Squamiger »

ShinkuroYukinari wrote:Hear me out.
What if we had a full-fledged RTS BATTLE ROYALE!
ive been trying to tell people aoe3 FFA is fun but no one listens. but if you look at SamRev's channel, the FFA tournies are extremely popular with new / noob players. id say in terms of spectating, FFA is much more fun to watch than team games. GUA's FFA showmatch that he casted was extremely entertaining, although im sure it was frustrating for high level players to lose to 2nd lieut gren rushes :lol:
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
User avatar
European Union scarm
Howdah
Posts: 1439
Joined: Dec 7, 2018
ESO: Malebranche

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by scarm »

I think the high maintenance RTS require after getting over the hurdle of getting into the game in the first place also is something very offputting to many people. As in to actually maintain a skilllevel you have to play a lot as well, and picking the game back up is kinda annoying. You can't just not play for two weeks and be as good as before. That is what often keeps me from playing Age 3, because i am like "well i am gonna suck anyways, and do not really have the time to get back in shape".
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

Yeah it seems that for a lot of people RTS are kind of all or nothing because of that. There are relatively few RTS players who actively play other games as well unless they are young and have lots of time
Finland somp
Dragoon
Posts: 233
Joined: Jun 27, 2020

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by somp »

[Armag] diarouga wrote: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.
Agreed
@princeofkabul
France Le Hussard sur le toit
Howdah
Posts: 1149
Joined: Oct 16, 2019
ESO: LeHussardsurletoit

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Le Hussard sur le toit »

[Armag] diarouga wrote:Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
FFA needs to be played in regicide mode, where the winner would not be the last one alive but the one with the most kills at the end.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
User avatar
Finland princeofkabul
Pro Player
NWC LAN Top 8EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 2372
Joined: Feb 28, 2015
ESO: Princeofkabul
Location: In retirement home with Sam and Vic

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by princeofkabul »

somp wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote: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.
Agreed
@princeofkabul
big words for a lagger communist :chinese:
Chairman of Washed Up clan
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by harcha »

[Armag] diarouga wrote:Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
FFA/KOTH are more fun if players treat it at least a little bit seriously. Can't imagine our top players treating a game like that even a bit serious. Perhaps it could be done but only with a prize reward.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Germany Rohbrot
Howdah
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 1789
Joined: Feb 23, 2020
ESO: Rohbrot

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Rohbrot »

harcha wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
FFA/KOTH are more fun if players treat it at least a little bit seriously. Can't imagine our top players treating a game like that even a bit serious. Perhaps it could be done but only with a prize reward.
50$ and i know 5 top players would play in it.
Spain pain train is real
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Don't need a prize pool tbh. Top players will probably take it seriously.
User avatar
Great Britain Donye
Musketeer
Posts: 80
Joined: Oct 16, 2020
ESO: Pink Charr

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Donye »

Ive been playing FFA recently and it's lots of fun. It's interesting seeing different cards and BOs are all over the place haha. Wouldn't mind watching a few pro players Duke it out from time to time either.
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Imperial Noob »

Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
FFA needs to be played in regicide mode, where the winner would not be the last one alive but the one with the most kills at the end.
That would be skewed towards civs that have gendarmes, and against civs that have maces or strelets
France Le Hussard sur le toit
Howdah
Posts: 1149
Joined: Oct 16, 2019
ESO: LeHussardsurletoit

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Le Hussard sur le toit »

Imperial Noob wrote:
Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Make FFA showmatch with only high level players.
FFA needs to be played in regicide mode, where the winner would not be the last one alive but the one with the most kills at the end.
That would be skewed towards civs that have gendarmes, and against civs that have maces or strelets
You misunderstood me. You get a kill when you kill one of the your opponents kings - we are playing in regicide mode.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
User avatar
Germany Rohbrot
Howdah
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 1789
Joined: Feb 23, 2020
ESO: Rohbrot

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Rohbrot »

I like "king of hill" more than regicide mode, cuz its fun to fight for a fort with 5-6-7-8 other players :)
Spain pain train is real
France Le Hussard sur le toit
Howdah
Posts: 1149
Joined: Oct 16, 2019
ESO: LeHussardsurletoit

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Le Hussard sur le toit »

King of the hill serves the same purpose by stopping people from booming alone behind walls.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
User avatar
Germany Rohbrot
Howdah
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 1789
Joined: Feb 23, 2020
ESO: Rohbrot

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Rohbrot »

Regicide mode serves the purpose of people booming behind walls ;)
Spain pain train is real
Great Britain InsectPoison
Lancer
Posts: 970
Joined: Mar 6, 2016

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by InsectPoison »

I might be the outlier but I first started playing this game in 2009 and I was only a 10 year old at this point. Maybe its because I used to play AoE2 in the library computers. When I first started playing I was a complete noob and lost 9/10 games but I still found the game extremely fun. Although back then the only console I had was a PS2 and there weren't games like Fortnite around. One thing I would say is that AoE3 really helped my history knowledge of the colonial era.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
European Union Scroogie
Lancer
Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 5, 2015
ESO: Scroogie
GameRanger ID: 10056919

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Scroogie »

Maybe sth like (team) challenges could be an alternative for people of different skill levels to play together, im thinking of things like the old scenarios, Colloseum, Zombie, Risk, etc. ...
Me being slightly ahead vs H2O: Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

Yeah co-op campaigns can be very fun if done right. Knights and merchants is a really old rts that was remade, and because it was so moddable it was possible for the community to develop their own co-op missions. That was the most fun I had with that game, and it could be easily applied to other RTS.

The step from playing co-op campaigns together to playing MP teamgames together is much smaller than the step from solo campaign to MP 1v1. It might be a bridge between the many people who play campaign only and the MP community
No Flag shaun
Crossbow
Posts: 23
Joined: Oct 8, 2020

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by shaun »

My personal experience is that team games are also easier to play (provided you get a half-decent team) than 1v1 games. I've always wanted to be a good 1v1 player but I've found it very hard. Watching expert players gameplay and discussing strategies with experts has helped a little but that can only take you so far. I wish I had a player buddy with the same (or slightly better skill level) with whom I can play with so that both of our games improve together.

Another issue that affects me personally is that I get very upset about losing a 1v1 game compared to losing a team game. I know it sounds silly, but that fear of upsetness discourages me from playing 1v1 too much. This creates a loop. I don't play enough 1v1s to gain experience to get better and due to lack of experience I end up losing games.
United States of America kevthegooner
Crossbow
Posts: 38
Joined: Sep 16, 2020
ESO: Henry_Knox

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by kevthegooner »

In the board gaming world (even smaller than the RTS world, I'm sure!) co-op team games are the fastest growing part of the market. It would be great if MS or the ESOC community could build a co-op team campaign or something?
User avatar
Great Britain Donye
Musketeer
Posts: 80
Joined: Oct 16, 2020
ESO: Pink Charr

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

Post by Donye »

shaun wrote:My personal experience is that team games are also easier to play (provided you get a half-decent team) than 1v1 games. I've always wanted to be a good 1v1 player but I've found it very hard. Watching expert players gameplay and discussing strategies with experts has helped a little but that can only take you so far. I wish I had a player buddy with the same (or slightly better skill level) with whom I can play with so that both of our games improve together.

Another issue that affects me personally is that I get very upset about losing a 1v1 game compared to losing a team game. I know it sounds silly, but that fear of upsetness discourages me from playing 1v1 too much. This creates a loop. I don't play enough 1v1s to gain experience to get better and due to lack of experience I end up losing games.
Doesn't sound silly at all. I'm not 1v1ing atm for a similar reason. I don't care about winning all the time which is why I tend to play more casually, although I'm partial for a ranked team game from time to time to at least put in an effort
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: A Focus on 1v1 is why RTS struggles

  • Quote

Post by RefluxSemantic »

I think Mitoe needs to put a little more thought in his arguments. I don’t feel like the case he is making is well supported by his arguments, which are anecdotal at best.

Mitoe identifies the problem that RTS games can’t keep up with modern gaming. He hypothesizes that the fact that RTS games focus on 1v1 is the reason why they can’t keep up with modern gaming. He provides the following arguments:

1. In the past it used to be logical for games to focus on 1v1 due to the smaller amount of players
2. Nowadays games are a social experience. Just look at mobas or battle royale games.

I find these arguments to be rather poor. The first argument isn’t a core part of Mitoe’s case, but I do see some problems. We need to consider the effect that an increase in players can be offset by an increase in games. I collected some interesting data: In 2015, 2708 games were released on steam. In 2019 8290 games were released on steam.[1] This is an increase of more than 300%. Meanwhile, the amount of gamers increased by 130% in the same time period.[2] For this time period, one could make the same argument that you made in favor of team based games, but if you look at the amount of games that are being released it might actually be the case that the average amount of players per game is decreasing (we have to take into account though that steam as a platform is growing too). It’s hard to definitively say this is the case, but I think it’s easy to see that your case isn’t as clear as you make it out to be.

Furthermore, I want to point out that you are underestimating the amount of gamers between ’00 and ’10. I couldn’t find raw numbers for these eras, but if we look at the amount of consoles sold we find that 171 million PS3s (released in 2006) and Xbox 360’s (released in 2005) were sold, compared to an estimated 162 million PS4s (released in 2013) and Xbox one’s (released in 2013).[3] It seems like it’s incorrect to simply make the assumptions that you are making. Even looking at anecdotal evidence, it is true that battle royale games and MOBAs are gigantic nowadays, but so were games like runescape and world of warcraft. In 2008 WoW had a whopping 12 million subscriptions.[4] I think that there wasn’t necessarily a need to focus on 1v1 modes due to the lower amount of players. I certainly can’t find accurate numbers that support your argument here.

The most convincing numbers that I could find are the value of the video game industry. This is probably a reasonable projection of the size of the video game industry. If we look at the graph below, you can see that the size of the video game industry minus the mobile games (which are arguably not something worth considering for this argument) did not increase that much (the numbers are also not adjusted for inflation).[5] Based on this I do see a slight increase in PC gamers compared to the amount of console gamers, but I don’t think these numbers really support your case. If the amount of gamers was a limitation for making team based games (like 5v5 games) and thus forced developers to focus on 1v1 games, we would expect that an extreme shift of focus towards team games would be caused by a very large increase in the amount of gamers. We actually don’t see this huge increase. It could be that there was a very large increase in the amount of gamers that had internet access, but I can’t find numbers supporting this. I would be interested in any numbers that might more thoroughly show the development of the gaming community.

Image

I want to move on and focus on your second argument. You make the assumption that nowadays games are a very social experience for most people. I cannot find justification for this assumption. More importantly, even if a large number of people prefer the social aspects of gaming, that does not mean that there isn’t opportunity for 1v1 games or single player games to still do well. You make the assumption that because most people prefer a certain thing, that anything that isn’t that thing can’t compete. We could actually apply your logic to actual sports: Nowadays, for most people sports are a very social experience. Sports like soccer, basketball, baseball and football all focus on team play and playing with your friends. 1v1 sports like tennis can’t keep up with these sports, so they need to focus more on the team elements. The reality is that sports like tennis are doing just fine, because there is plenty of demand for individual sports. Similarly, I would argue that single player and 1v1 games are doing fine, which means that there is plenty of demand for these games.

Let’s also look at some facts and figures. Looking at what games won game of the year in the past decade, we find that from 2010 to 2019 we had 9 single player games win (RDR, Skyrim, the walking dead, GTA5, dragon age inquisition, the witcher 3, Zelda breath of the wild, god of war and sekiro) and 1 multiplayer team based game (overwatch).[6] We could argue that games like these are released more frequently as the lack of multiplayer components reduce their longevity and replayability. I think that is a fair point to make, but I would argue that this still proves that games can do fine without focusing on the social aspects of gaming. The witcher 3 sold 28 million copies, which is very respectable.[7] There are also 1v1 games that are successful. One good example is hearthstone, which is an extremely successful online game that is almost exclusively played as a 1v1. In the recent years auto-battlers have been on the rise, which are rarely played as a team. Sports games like Fifa are also almost exclusively 1v1, and these games are huge.

It is also important to realize that a percentage of players in team-based games is actually solo-queuing (I can’t actually find numbers for this though). We have to wonder to what extend the team aspects of successful team games is actually crucial to their success. More specifically: how important is the social aspect of games to the success of those games? I think that it is very important to a part of the players, but some players might not care as much.

Overall I think it is pretty clear that there is a market for games that do not have the social aspect. This is reinforced by the success of single player games and some 1v1 multiplayer games. Furthermore, while team games are currently successful, it is unclear how important the social aspect of these games is to their success.

I think it’s also important to realize that a game does not need to follow the trend to be successful. Even if there is more demand for team based multiplayer, that does not exclude other games from being successful. The only important thing is that there is enough demand for such a game. When it comes to single player games, there is clearly enough demand for these games to sell well. When it comes to 1v1 games, I think there is also evidence that suggests there is demand for games like this.

I think you incorrectly assume that focusing on the team aspect will make RTS games ‘keep up’. You do not actually provide reasoning for this and I don’t think it is reasonable to simply assume this to be the case. In making RTS games focus more on team games, you move them towards a rather crowded niche. While the demand for games like this might be larger, it can also be the case that the supply of these games is larger. It might very well be that while the demand for 1v1 is lower, there is also less supply. If that is the case, then focusing on 1v1 would actually be a smarter choice. Especially MOBAs are already rather similar to strategy games. Moving towards the MOBA spectrum of gameplay could increase the competition from these games. Why play a team-based RTS when you can play one of the MOBAs, which are basically tailored towards team-based gameplay? Intrinsically speaking, RTS games do not have that many qualities that would make them shine in a team game format. In the current form of RTS, there isn’t actually that much direct cooperation. In MOBAs you need to very carefully synchronize movement and ability usage, which are arguably aspects that really improve the experience of the team games. RTS games don’t intrinsically have these gameplay elements. I am not very confident in their ability to compete with these MOBAs.

Underlying your post is also an assumption that I don’t think is necessarily correct. In stating that RTS games need to focus on team aspects to keep up with modern gaming, you assume that it is necessary for these games to keep up. I don’t actually think this is true. RTS games don’t have to be as successful as league of legends or Dota to be worth playing or making. It’s nice if the online community is healthy so that you can get games rather quickly, but it doesn’t have to have millions of concurrent players for that. It’s nice to see the competitive scene of a game get a ton of support, but it is not necessary for the game to be enjoyable to players. There is essentially no need for the RTS niche to regain its spot as the biggest online gaming genre. From my personal point of view, I would rather see developers focus on what makes RTS games good (which includes a focus on the 1v1 gameplay) and produce a good RTS game, than see developers try to compete with League of Legends by turning their RTS game into a team game. While there are definitely some benefits to ‘RTS games keeping up with modern gaming’, I don’t think it’s necessary for the survival of the genre and I also don’t necessarily think it’s desirable to shift focus away from what made RTS games great in the first place.

Sources:
[1] - https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam/games-released-in-2019
[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/748 ... ers-world/
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... e_consoles
[4] - https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2356984-WoW-s-peak
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry#2010s
[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... ear_awards
[7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_3:_Wild_Hunt

Properly assessing what led to the decline of RTS games, and to what extend the RTS genre has a future, is a complicated task. It is a far more complicated problem than you make it out to be though. I will provide a few considerations I have.

I could see the decline of the RTS genre be related to the technical side of making games. The isometric sprite based view is generally pretty easy to make. In single player games we see a much bigger increase in graphical quality than we see for RTS games (and isometric games in general). One of the qualities of gaming is that it can offer you a unique but immersive experience and this is greatly improved by the increased graphical qualities. From a more technical point of view, I believe that RTS games are more severely limited by the CPU (an area in which relatively little progress is being made) compared to first or third person games which are more limited by the GPU (an area where there is still a ton of progress). Before the rise of RTS games, point and click adventure games and platformers were some of the biggest genres. This could arguably have been because these sort of games are even easier to make and easier to run. This of course cannot explain the rise of MOBAs, but I can see how this contributes to the market shifting away from RTS games.

I also think that there is a larger market for team games. In part this is probably because of the social aspect (although for many this could also be a detriment), but I also think that competitive team games make dealing with losses easier. Losing in 1v1 can really hurt; you can’t easily find excuses and almost have to blame yourself. In team games (or team sports) you can also put the blame on teammates. It’s not all your fault, and for many people that’s easier to process.

I think the difficulty of RTS games is a valid problem too. These games are chaotic and stressful. In a MOBA you are in control of only one character. It’s still hard to learn and hard to master, but it’s not as chaotic. In shooters you ‘simply’ aim and shoot and occasionally use that ability. On a basic levels, these games are simple and let you be in control. RTS games are pure chaos compared to this, and it takes a long time for you to master this chaos and regain control. For me a game like starcraft is very stressful, and I need to take frequent breaks to even bear playing the game. Meanwhile I can easily grind overwatch.

Maybe a related problem is that RTS games don’t necessarily give that instant reward. Games are more about attrition, about slowly outplaying your opponents. Games like overwatch or LoL have these instant rewards, these moments of pure dopamine. That feeling when you start popping off is so amazing. Getting that kill gives so much excitement. I think RTS games struggle to generate this sort of excitement. I really like the strategic and grindy aspects, but these are mostly relevant at a very high level. At a lower level I think RTS games can be very stressful for very little reward.

Should we actually solve these problems? I am inclined to answer no. I think it’s okay for a game to cater towards a specific niche. The RTS market is currently pretty small, and I actually think there is a reasonable amount of demand for RTS games. If you look at how big sc2 still is, and how many people are actually interested in aoe2 and even aoe3 (even my non-gamer friends are aware of aoe4), I think that there is room for new RTS games. The fact that aoe4 is in development and that former Blizzard employees started Frost Giant studios, which raised 4.7 million to produce a new RTS game, implies that companies also believe there is a market for RTS games. I don’t think the RTS genre needs to reinvent itself to continue to exist. It will probably not become the primary gaming genre again, but I think we will be enjoying RTS games for a very long time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV