12 replies to this topic

[JarmoNator]

This is all about online gaming and its colourful world... with its grey edges... patient ones, this is for you.

While playing online, many RTS games and gamers fall into their own categories due to peoples' different styles and interests, yet they may cause worse conflicts, arguments, trolling and something else when some controversial opinions come together between gamers. What are they? Mostly the "rude pros vs. friendly beginners" or vice versa. I mean those people and their famous stereotypical "LERN TO PLAY NUB" and "HELP ME PLZZZ" phrases. Everybody hates em, we know it. I used to play several strategy games online, and have come to a bus stop of dissappointment; among the majority mass of the gaming group, there seems to be a single or two "proper" ways to play games to beat everyone else, to be the best and have the "skills" that other people agree you being a smart and great player. If someone uses his own, different ways to play, s/he is proclaimed as a newbie, or something else dull. For example, there is a match between a player, which is a common rusher -type (annihilate the opponents as fast as possible however you can), and a player, who prefers turtling -styled tactic (build up defenses and then attack). The Turtler loses by rusher's quick tank spam inside ten minutes and gives his/her comment about it. The Rusher replies with a classic phrase:

"learn to play, u just suck"

Anyone can think anything about that kind of situation. I, however, am irritated. As a gamer, who rather enjoys the game and its components self than winning, really irritated. The majority I've met online wants to rush. I don't have anything against any tactic, but this one... goes absolutely ridiculous.
I know it, I've tested it and played with that way few times, and dissappointed due to its simple routines and overall dullness. The games' genres say it: "real time STRATEGY games"

...

...where did the strategy go in rushing?! You win and easily, but hey. You know what? In my eyes, and possibly for many else, it's a weak and really unfair show... to see a player who owns another player with his/her routinized attack and uses the similar "tactic" over and over again in any battle. This is a strategy? I don't know is it ejoyable way to play, but I try to have all fun and joy from the games by all ways; try different attacks and ways to break the enemy defense and annihilate its empire piece by piece... I've played some times with rushing style, and noticed that it stumbles into few troubles:

1) Your base becomes a sitting duck if you simply build a pack of tanks and attack.
2) Your base lacks lots of important stuff to prevail in case you fail at your attack.
3) If your charges fail, THEN what? You're weak after an attack, and you have much less to defend with.

So it's mostly all about your first/second/third/X th attack to take care of the foes, but your chances ain't fat if it gets screwed. Simple, eh? No sense. No brains.

What about turtling? Well, it isn't the best one either, if you close yourself inside your base COMPLETELY, and wait your enemies. This leads to slow and painful end of your empire while the enemies are bombarding your walls slowly off, and breach inside.

Call me a turtler, call me a slow player, call be a newbie, I don't care...
...Oh, so how do I play, then, eh? I prefer to build a proper defense, THEN attack when I've gathered a strong and versatile force. Why? Because in that state I know that my opponent HAS some possibilities to survive if he's fast... and knows what to do. THAT shows the real skills: in fair play, you are able to fight and defend more versatile ways and tactics against your enemy. In this situation, even rushes are acceptable, WHEN they're done in later game, when you have a thought that your enemy may have an oppoturnity to take your armada down some way.

Now I ask from you: Do you enjoy fast rushing and quickmatches? If yes, why?

Edited by JarmoNator, 18 June 2007 - 04:43 PM.

[Verrückt]

Many "Stategy games" lack actual strategy, it's all about build orders and some and how well you can spam units, very few games have actual strategy.

And i personally cant stand when people call each other nubs, it gets so rediciolous sometimes.

[Carnotaurus]

XWIS really seems to promote lame brain tactics on their site. You ever go into the forums? its really appauling.

[Athgar]

lol, you guys are just mad because you suck at strategy games and can only beat the easy ai. you just want everyone to play like you do, facist nub...

[Daz]

Rushing IS a strategy.
You've just said yourself that its a risk because you're concentrating on building attack forces and not defense, so if you (as a turtler) concentrate on building defense forces you can defeat their attack force.

Then you can either get your own attack going or just keep bolstering your defence so you can have the long game you want.

I also prefer to get a good game going instead of rolling over the enemy/being rolled over myself inside 7 minutes, I tend to churn out tanks to counter their rush attack and then get some defenses up while they're trying to build a second attack. By that stage you should be in a position to wipe out their next attack and then move in if you want.
If you're against someone who just builds tanks and you get yourself set up to flatten them as they attack then they'll find it very hard to catch up to you.

Sometimes I might want a quick game, in which case rush games are handy.

Your way is no better than theirs, if someone wants to have a fast an exciting game then you sitting on your ass is going to be annoying isn't it?
There's two sides to everything.

Realistically there should be a quick game lobby and a normal lobby so people can play with like minded people instead of whoever you are automatched with.

[JarmoNator]

lol, you guys are just mad because you suck at strategy games and can only beat the easy ai. you just want everyone to play like you do, facist nub...

*shouts in a silence* Found one!

FASCIST? Do you even know what you type? Did you even read my text? I hardly believe. Listen fella, did I mention something about forcing or asking other people to play like me? NO! And if I suck, big deal, I'm having fun! READ THE TEXT!

Rushing IS a strategy.
You've just said yourself that its a risk because you're concentrating on building attack forces and not defense, so if you (as a turtler) concentrate on building defense forces you can defeat their attack force.

Then you can either get your own attack going or just keep bolstering your defence so you can have the long game you want.

I also prefer to get a good game going instead of rolling over the enemy/being rolled over myself inside 7 minutes, I tend to churn out tanks to counter their rush attack and then get some defenses up while they're trying to build a second attack. By that stage you should be in a position to wipe out their next attack and then move in if you want.
If you're against someone who just builds tanks and you get yourself set up to flatten them as they attack then they'll find it very hard to catch up to you.

Sometimes I might want a quick game, in which case rush games are handy.

Your way is no better than theirs, if someone wants to have a fast an exciting game then you sitting on your ass is going to be annoying isn't it?
There's two sides to everything.

Realistically there should be a quick game lobby and a normal lobby so people can play with like minded people instead of whoever you are automatched with.

You're somewhat right. There should be lobbies everywhere for all kinds of players to avoid such conflicts. And my point wasn't to praise my strategy or else, nothing but an opinion. You have good points, and I thank you from them

[olli]

lol, you guys are just mad because you suck at strategy games and can only beat the easy ai. you just want everyone to play like you do, facist nub...

*shouts in a silence* Found one!

FASCIST? Do you even know what you type? Did you even read my text? I hardly believe. Listen fella, did I mention something about forcing or asking other people to play like me? NO! And if I suck, big deal, I'm having fun! READ THE TEXT!

i think he did that on purpose to see what your response would be....

[Ash]

I think he was being sarcastic, Jarmo.


And if I were you I'd dispense with RA2 altogether if not want rushyness. Either play Robot Storm (shameless pluggage ) or buy Dawn of War. I think you can get DoW, plus both expansions, in a bumper pack now for about thirty-forty quid. And believe me, it's money well spent. Best RTS out there atm IMO, bar none.

As for rushing/turtling, I agree that it can feel cheap. Just as camping in FPS games. But I guess it can be argued that it is your job, as the player, to work out some effective way of countering them.

Now, RA2 is imba. An Allied player has a tough hope of beating a Soviet rush...especially true in YR. Yuri might, if he spams Yuri Clones and Initiates early...and Allieds simply can't rush themselves cuz their tanks suck.

Now, if you want a real lesson in imba, play Earth 2160. Wonderful, amazing game and I love it to pieces, but when the Alien fighters can destroy an entire base with a single squadron (around 4) unopposed it does, um...it does beg the question..

Edited by Paradox, 27 June 2007 - 10:44 AM.

[Sûlherokhh]

I think it all depends on the game's balance. If a rushing tactic always beats a turtling tactic, there is no point in building defenses. The reverse is true as well. If both tactics, and any combination thereof, stand a chance of beating each other, then and only then will real strategic and tactical skill be the winning factor.

Edited by Sûlherokhh, 27 June 2007 - 12:04 PM.

[Verrückt]

Rushing is a strat, however their are alot of lammers that play stategy games. Get's annoying after the fourth time getting exploited. I can't stand how some of these ten years who go online take adavantage of every exploit they can, and treat everyone like crap. Seriously wait a few years for your balls to drop.

[Ash]

I agree, there's no reason for people to be wankers about it. But the fact that most rushers are wankers does not mean rushing is any less a legitimate strat.

[ambershee]

Real Time Strategy games at present are all brainless build-a-thons IMO. It all comes down to hammering out structures and units faster than your opponent. I think that probably comes down to a drastic change in the market. They're not aimed at the thinkers, chess players, the strategists anymore, they're aimed at being picked up by people in their early and mid teens, who don't want to have to suffer a frustrating, challenging or otherwise heavily thought out game.

I haven't really seen an RTS that breaks that mould in a very long time, except perhaps Defcon. I wonder if it's the sudden reliance on ever improving 3d engines that's also helped bring this about.

Edited by ambershee, 27 June 2007 - 05:04 PM.

[Elerium]

Rushing is fine, the best defense is a good offense. Nothing hacks me more off than a camper who stays in base, builds the best defenses so you can't attack or if you do your attacks are useless, so then the game goes on for another 4 hours which wasn't intended because superweaponry was turned off so I can't make that oh so nice Nuclear Silo or Weather Control to coax him out. Plus nothing I hate more than lame imbalanced units which unrealistically can't be killed by normal means (or the devs got drunk in this part of the game testing and made those certain 'counter' units worthless).

To defend against rushing, you've got to build units to stop that rush, plus defenses if it is your playing style. I hardly make defenses even ask AG or Omegabolt unless it's an offensive-defensive weapon *cough particle cannon cough* except for those which conceal my position and tactics to the enemy as information plays a big part in my strategies, but this is just my playing style, and every playing style needs to be dynamic, however a player cannot win through defense alone, defense should assist other units to prevent attack yet most of these 'RTS' genres have such imbalanced units so that a player will expend everything he has against another player and lose because he actually stood up to finish the game which was taking too long. I also hate 'spammy' games, what I'm saying is build units to sneakily attack or disable your enemy, but don't make it like Starcraft where the whole game is rush oriented and everyone pumps Zerg at lightning speeds or steroid their brains to become faster than their opponent, plus this whole thing about 'micro' which I'll mention later.

Of course, this is just 'RTS' or as I call 'real time tactics'. Strategy of course is where we think outside of this box. Think of those old strategy games, remember those ages ago set in WW2, or X-Com UFO Defense which had strategical undertones mixed with some turn based team based strategy, or Imperium Galactica which gave us full control over the starmap and colonies, or even a few other games where you fully control over everything, thats an entirely different produce altogether, and I prefer these games over these 'RTT' genre games. Yet on most things I can agree on, there should be no need for silly micromanagement or clickfests, it has no place here, heck it doesn't even have a place in tactics either, it was just something set up by Blizzard then hyped so now everyone deducts 'zomg micro = strategy?!?'. Yuri's Revenge pretty much falls under the same thing, everyone uses the same build orders, rushes with Rhinos, imbalanced Yuri, so yeah the only thing which separates this from Starcraft is the lesser emphasis on micromanagement.

I think RTS and Strategy are completely different games to be honest, although big game companies are turning the old strategy games which I love into this 'RTS' genre which is simply 'real time tactics', which I don't know about you but I much prefer the old 4x games more than anything.

Edited by Elerium, 27 June 2007 - 06:28 PM.