Why I haven't enjoyed multiplayer RTS since Myth: TFL

By Haree78 on January 30, 2009 7:54:43 AM from

I'm not the only one who avoids multiplayer RTS gaming, even though I wish I was good at it and enjoy other multiplayer games like FPS, MMOs, all sorts, which I am often extremely good at, RTS only works for me in single player.

I come from the birth of RTS days, I completed Dune 2, many believe C&C invented RTS, C&C copied Dune 2 big time. Some might claim games like Mega-lo-Mania (which I also played) are more the birth of RTS, but put that game next to RTS of today and there is next to no resemblance. Compare Dune 2 to games like C&C Red Alert 2, the up and coming Starcraft 2 or even Sins and you can see things really haven't changed a hell of a lot.

In the old days people played vs the PC in RTS, multiplayer was enjoyed by very few PC gamers. Most RTS campaigns would involve you starting with a tiny force against a well established base so you would need to prepare a good defence before the first wave came along. A campaign level would mostly consist of turtling, countering waves until you had built up enough tech and units to begin destroying the enemy(s).

Multiplayer RTS really took off because of Battlenet. I don't care if you can tell me about being able to play multiplayer RTS online before that, I know you could, but the systems of getting a game up and running meant RTS wasn't played online more than by small pockets of the online community. Another company, around the same time introduced a game and it's own version of Battlenet, that company was Bungie, who created Bungie.net(!), and it's game that was going to be something amazing that is still played today? Myth: The Fallen Lords.

Starcraft became massive, all of a sudden people started talking about perfect build orders, rushing, micro-management. All of these terms and styles of play were completely alien to me, I tried the perfect build orders, they improved my game, I tried to change, but it felt like I was just racing, rather than strategising. I used to enjoy winning by becomming impregnable, I love setting up a defence that was able to repel any force and that just didn't work in muliplayer.

On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game. There was micromanagement but your forces only consisted of about 30 units at best. You commanded them as an army, having your archers nowhere near your thralls or soldiers was crazy, each had their role. The game didn't have build orders, it didn't need shortcut keys to switch to different base buildings, rushing was unlikely. It was pure strategy and tactical combat, even using the terrain was important, using height for your archers and dwarfs for example.

Ever since these two great, well loved games multiplayer RTS has gone 1 direction only, speed. Games have got faster, constant attacking and building is required to win. Where are the games that have advanced what Myth did? I see tons of games taking the SC formula and making it faster, considering how successful Myth was and how it is still played today (Myth II mostly) what games have followed in it's vein?

I enoy Sins single player as I can play that like I could play RTS years ago, I can tech up and build up just playing defencively until I'm ready to dominate. I know I would be a million times better player if I was more aggressive, if I didn't use Capital Ships as much because I enjoy seeing them in battle or if I micro'd units a lot more but I can't change. I've tried and I don't find it fun. Am I alone in being this way? Pretty sure I'm not, and I'm sure there are others like me that are waiting for that game to come out that will tap that very style of play I like to enjoy and can enjoy it against others.

+24 Karma | 62 Replies

Am I alone in being this way?

Nope.

Goodness.. there's others like me out there o.0

Hey, here's my type of man! Cheers to you!

Actually you would probably enjoy Company of Heroes there are a few maps which if you can hold off the early rush and defend key points then you can slow the game right down to a tank and artillery battle with sensible numbers of units.

In single player you are free to experiment with different units and tech tree's which alter the gameplay quite a bit.

There was a poll during the beta and people were asked how long they would expect a game on normal speed. I think the winning number was about 2 hours. I also would like a game like sins but where you could build an empire, not just a rush strategy.

I hear Dawn of War 2 is going to be more based around the squad level, so you might like it.

I enjoy Sins Multiplayer a lot...it actually plays a lot slower than Starcraft / Warcraft III. The flipside is games can get kind of longish sometimes. While you do need some speed, it isn't anywhere near as bad as Starcraft.

To the OP: Have you played Supreme Commander? It's definitely an action-packed RTS but it's larger, more strategic scale makes it far less... "twitchy" for me.

For me, one of the absolute best RTS games (that no one ever played) was Sacrifice.

Hey I agree with you 100%. I just sins with xmas money and I am still play my first huge campan. I love how long these games go. You can put 1 hour here and there in your empire and over weeks watch it grow from one planet to may systems.`

PS your not alone.

"For me, one of the absolute best RTS games (that no one ever played) was Sacrifice."

QFT

Quoting Cykur,

reply 6

I hear Dawn of War 2 is going to be more based around the squad level, so you might like it.

I enjoy Sins Multiplayer a lot...it actually plays a lot slower than Starcraft / Warcraft III. The flipside is games can get kind of longish sometimes. While you do need some speed, it isn't anywhere near as bad as Starcraft.

Oh god no...DoW 2 will require you to micro your squads. You need to move them around, retreat them when in trouble, upgrade them, use their abilities...no autocast, no macro level control...Points get captured so fast...if your not an uber micro god...you will lose every round...

Myth is A LOT slower and manageable

The game is also scaled down in size, though. You're controlling a smaller number of units than a typical RTS.

obvious plug.

People are still playing/patching myth2,

http://www.projectmagma.net/what/

Beer for all who enjoy a slower game!!!!!

Quoting Draknahr,

reply 9

"For me, one of the absolute best RTS games (that no one ever played) was Sacrifice."

QFT

This game and some other treasures can be found at Good Old Games website, gog.com. Only $6 I think.

My friend, your RTS preferences place you squarely in the Ancient Order of Turtles, welcome.

On a side note, you might find Defense Grid, the Awakening enjoyable. Its a new tower defense game, often on sale at steam or direct2drive for 14.99 that can be a turtler's dream if you like that sort of thing. For some reason many may disagree with, I also find the last Star Wars RTS, Empire at War + Expansion can have some fun defense/ sieges in the Galactic Conquest Mode.

I recently picked up the Medievel Total War Pack, but can't comment on that yet. I'm personally afraid the empire building part might lose me, but we'll see.

Finally, for an even more deliberate playstyle, have you tried Heroes of Might and Magic 5 (especially the Tribes of the East Standalone) or King's Bounty: The Legend? They seem to scratch a related itch for me.

RTS games that i play are Rome Total War, Star Wars Empire at War, Age of Empire III, Empire Earth II, The Settlers: Rise of an Empire, and C&C The First Decade games. I really only play single player stuff since if i try to play online ppl don't do strategy they just use the quanity really quick in the game and wipe u out. Rather than using quality over the course of the game. I like to take stuff slow see what the enemy is doing then make units to counter them.

On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game.

So... it's not an RTS at all. There's no time-pressure, no "strategic elements" (ie: resource management). Just units shooting at each other.

It's OK for you to like it, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with real RTS's. Without the time pressure of having 5 things to do and the time to do 2 of them, it just isn't an RTS. It's a TBS that happens to not be turn-based.

Or, to put it another way, if the game gives you time to micro everything perfectly, it's not really using the real-time aspect of the game, so it may as well be turn-based.

I completely agree. I miss games where you won because you could think, not because you could click really fast.

At the risk of sounding insulting, I really do think that RTSs get faster and faster because it's easier for your average ADD gamer to develop ungodly "clicks per minute" skills than it is to use their brain and win by outsmarting their opponent, not out-spamming him.

Myth II was one of the best games I've ever played. Closest thing to it I think would be Medieval II: Total War. Great game!

TFLBigBANGtheory is right, people who like slower games might like Company of Heroes. It's much more a thinking man's game, and game mechanics-wise, it's a true masterpiece. Really fantastic. And visceral doesn't even begin to describe it. Rarely is a game so close to perfect.

Dawn of War II? NOOOO! I like it quite a lot, but it's fast with a capital "F"! Very tactical, and small-squad-based, but the pace is brutal! Fun, but brutal. (Been playing it for a week, now.)

I don't think "time pressure" has anything to do with what makes an RTS. Yes, it's a common theme/approach, but it's not necessary for it to be RTS.

Europa Universalis fits the definition of "Real-time Strategy" far more than most RTS games do (most RTS are really real-time tactical), and you have the capability to pause in that game.

So... it's not an RTS at all. There's no time-pressure, no "strategic elements" (ie: resource management). Just units shooting at each other.

It's OK for you to like it, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with real RTS's. Without the time pressure of having 5 things to do and the time to do 2 of them, it just isn't an RTS. It's a TBS that happens to not be turn-based.

Or, to put it another way, if the game gives you time to micro everything perfectly, it's not really using the real-time aspect of the game, so it may as well be turn-based.

I think the point he was trying to makes the that most modern RTS have become a race. He who build 'this and that' fastest wins. There not alot 'strategic elements' elements in a race. Sure you can maybe change what you do slightly but there is no room for error, no room for outside of the box moves. Racing IMHO, is not RTS. It is thought winning the game in most RTS though.

I play FPS games online all the time.

I play MMOs every now and then.

But I rarely play RTS games online. When I do, it's with friends.

The only RTS (more of a RTT) that's come close to online FPS-style accessability is World in Conflict. 8 vs. 8, four different "classes" (air, tank, infantry, support), and relatively short matches. Rage quitters won't ruin the game because you still have 6 other teammates.

When I used to play Empire Earth online, I would always lose because I tried having fun. Ex: I would build an invasion fleet to go D-Day on the enemy's island because that's kinda cool. But it's not the *easiest* way to win. The players who play to win would always build a MASSIVE air armada within 4 minutes and bomb you to the stone age.

I love RTS/RTT games, but in general they suck when it comes to online play, at least for those of us who don't spend hours mastering every winning strategy and keyboard shortcut.

Yea, I hear you Serik. I love RTS games, but RTS games generally consist of my friends and I playing, doing coop against ridiculous amounts of AIs or whatever.

My experience with RTS online play has been for the most part poor. I played a lot of Warcraft 2 (shoutout to the Kali days!), Starcraft, Warcraft3, etc online but I grew tired of the approach taken by the majority of online gamers. I try to win, but winning is kind of secondary to having fun. I'm not interested in 5 minute rush matches that I win because I was able to crank out a marine 0.2 seconds faster than the other guy. I just really hate how everyone gravitates to one build order / unit spam / cheesy tactic because it's the most "effective" way to win. Want to actually have a fun game? Forget about it, it's about winning at all costs (even your own entertainmnet)!

Demigod, though, I feel will be different. The setup of the game is far different where I think this is one game I can have fun with online.

I think the point he was trying to makes the that most modern RTS have become a race. He who build 'this and that' fastest wins. There not alot 'strategic elements' elements in a race.

The point of any game is to beat the other guy before they beat you. It's always a race. What is strategic about it depends on the number of ways you have of getting to the finish line, and the number of ways your opponent has to stopping you, and vice-versa.

In every viable RTS, there is a counter to any strategy. Rush builds can be stopped, but to do it you must scout the rush before it comes. If 6 Zerglings find their way into your base without you having even the slightest clue that they were coming, you've failed strategically and thus deserve to lose. You took a chance on not scouting early with a worker and your opponent called your bluff.

I would also remind you that RTS games typically last 10-30 minutes. And 30 minutes is considered a long game. Good RTS games compress the number of meaningful choices you would make in a game of GalCiv2 into 10-30 minutes.

Want to actually have a fun game? Forget about it, it's about winning at all costs (even your own entertainmnet)!

Unless of course, winning is how you have fun. Shocking though it may be, people have different ideas about what constitutes "fun" than you do.

The people you are playing with are trying to compete. They're trying to really play the game, to use whatever viable strategies and such exist to win the game.

Think of it this way. If you play Chess, are you trying to position your pieces so that they form a nice aesthetic pattern, or are you positioning your pieces so that you checkmate the opponent's King. Neither side is technically correct or incorrect, but one side is much more likely to win. Since that's their goal: perform the move that ends the game with a victory for me.

And about the people who are playing to win. What they want isn't necessarily victory: they want challenge. They want someone like them on the other end of the game; someone who is good, who's going to block their rush and hit them with a counter-rush that they have to block or lose the game. They want someone who's going to go 3-Hatch Muta against their wall-in, and they have to deal with that. They want to play people who are serious about playing the game.

Neither of you is having fun when you two are playing together. Because you're the only two people playing. For you, someone's just doing some "cheap" or "optimal" strategy. For them, they're playing a "n00b" who gets rushed out of the game in 5 minutes; hardly a challenge worthy of their skills.

When you play a team FPS with 24 people, you aren't hurting your team too much if you're not carrying your weight. You know, if you're a TF2 Medic who's more interested in not dying than actually healing teammates and so forth. If you're trying to grind out some achievement, people may grumble, but odds are you're not going to lose the game for you team. The serious people are fighting against the serious people on the other side. Since both sides will have serious players and casual players, neither side is particularly angered by the other.

To the OP - I think we are cut from similar cloth. The problem with me is that I use the forces I have available to strike, and completely forget about the factories back home supposed to be making shit. I am a strategist and tactian, but a poor manager of my economy and production when I have to juggle all three. I tend to get so enrapsured with the current battle, that is all I seem to be able to concenrate on.

I'd play a game and completely kill a guy in K:D ratio and getting the best out of my troops in a game of starcraft, but he'd simply out produce at the same time. You know why? Because it really doesn't matter about tactics! They are just going to outproduce and overwhelm you. What does he care if he loses 100 troops to your 10, if he has 10 barracks producing troops against your 2? If a game has a different mode between economic and battle, then I am fine, when it mixes I'm screwed.

This is one of the few games I've found where the speed is set where I can keep up reasonably well online.

X-Com

Myth & Myth TFL

Starcraft - custom maps only where there is a set production of troops that I don't have to worry about making, or one where you have a batch of troops and that's it

Take Command: 2nd Manassas (haven't played online not even sure if it can)

quoting post

This sounds like World in Conflict. No base building, no resource gathering; just ordering your troops/armor/aircraft around, calling in airstrikes, etc. You use the terrain to your advantage like you mentioned. No rushing and so on. I'm not sure how many troops you can control at any one time but I don't think it's much more than 20, if that.

Got really good reviews from the gaming sites.

http://pc.ign.com/objects/821/821566.html

Quoting Alfonse,

reply 22

Unless of course, winning is how you have fun. Shocking though it may be, people have different ideas about what constitutes "fun" than you do.

What was the point of the sarcasm? Of course people have different definitions of fun, I never said otherwise. The "hey here is the optimal build order / unit spam that wins 90% of games so this is what I'm going to going to encounter nearly every game I play ad nauseum" just doesn't do it for me - which is the reason why I said I don't typically play online. I don't expect people to want to play the way I like to play, as a matter of fact most don't, so I don't play online anymore. I personally get bored to tears countering the same stock 1-2 "strategies" (and do I ever use that term lightly) 90%+ of every game I play. Unfortunately, that's been my experience in most online RTS games, especially the higher up in ladders you go.

Honestly, I don't put any fault in players' laps, I put the fault on game design. Any game where 1-2 strats (oftentimes early games ones at that) are "optimal" and pretty much crush most anything else is just lazy game design.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Why I haven't enjoyed multiplayer RTS since Myth: TFL