Live data from Hacker News

In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

waywardstrategy.com

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#151

I feel like there’s been little going on in RTS land. Did I miss any significant releases?

The Total War franchise is still going strong, especially nowadays with Warhammer releases. Mind you, it seems to be mostly PvE and includes a big Civilization-like aspect, and you have to be into the particular style of combat that Total War does.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#152
post #113
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That smells like bullshit. Asymmetric warfare ( or guerilla warfare) has been successful time and again since the Napoleonic wars, regardless of how overwhelming the enemy was. And Napoleon himself won multiple times against the odds ( so much so the Coalition made a deal to only attack when he isn't in command). And there's the usual incompetence, bad luck, or tactical/strategic brilliance. Just in the last century…

This formulas is for battles, not wars/campaigns.

I mean there's been battles for cities in the middle east, which while technically the one side did win against the other in the end, but it was hard fought and slow going.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#153

Supreme Commander's gameplay is nothing but hard counters[1], especially with the reclaim system (you can harvest a dead unit to reclaim 80% of the mass used in creating it). The gameplay is deep and revolves around scouting and predicting what the enemy will do and when they'll do it. It's still very active today, through to a mod called FAF. [1]The exception to this is the Cybran SACU, which I believe has no true c…

I should get back on that one, I loved playing it at the time (against CPU, never a fan of online play), just building layers of defenses and have a constant stream of CPU forces get destroyed against it. The one I'm thinking of had early support for multi-core and multi-screen, with the minimap / overview on the other screen. But it was still constrained; would have loved to test that defense of mine against all 7 o…

Yeah, loved doing that exact same thing too :-) Turtling was incredibly fascinating in SC for some reason. Especially once you built the Tier 4 infinite power generator from one of the races.

And yes, I tried it couple years ago and unfortunately I don't think it's that well optimized for multi-core CPUs, the game was massively slowing down for me, but my i7 was at like 50% usage at most.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's some underground scene for hardcore RTS players, but as a (formerly) casual follower of the Starcraft 2 pro scene, it seems like MOBAs ate their lunch. It's really a shame, since there was nothing quite like the intensity of a 1v1 match between two players controlling an army with a nearly unlimited skill cap... As much as I've tried, I simply cannot make any sense of the on-screen visual overload of MO…

RTSs went off the deep end catering to competitive multiplayer, and that's where I stopped caring. You can just play single-player Starcraft 1 or Age of Empires or Red Alert against the AI or the campaigns, and it's a fun little experience.

Yep, although there are now new games which kinda balk the trend - Iron Harvest has a pretty good SP campaign, Total War series is still going strong with its SP focus as well.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should get back on that one, I loved playing it at the time (against CPU, never a fan of online play), just building layers of defenses and have a constant stream of CPU forces get destroyed against it. The one I'm thinking of had early support for multi-core and multi-screen, with the minimap / overview on the other screen. But it was still constrained; would have loved to test that defense of mine against all 7 o…

Yeah, loved doing that exact same thing too :-) Turtling was incredibly fascinating in SC for some reason. Especially once you built the Tier 4 infinite power generator from one of the races. And yes, I tried it couple years ago and unfortunately I don't think it's that well optimized for multi-core CPUs, the game was massively slowing down for me, but my i7 was at like 50% usage at most.

Just FYI, there is a fairly widespread issue with Nvidia drivers causing a slowdown (no matter how fast your PC). The game was basically unplayable for me until I found the solution.

The fix is to run 'd3d_windowscursor' in the game console.

See https://forum.faforever.com/topic/779/nvidia-driver-performa...

There is also a mod available through FaF that runs this automatically for you at the start of each game.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MOBAs ate them because they have a lower skill floor. If I understand 50% of how to play a MOBA, I can play the game and have fun. I am gorilla. I have 4 moves: punch, slam, eat banana, and my ultimate ability, get mad. They have cooldowns, but it doesn't matter, I just spam all my moves when I see a bad guy. If I don't see a bad guy, I can kill the enemy turrets and little cpu creatures. If I'm having trouble, I can…

MOBAs are far from the first genre of video game that are easier to learn than RTS, so I’m not sure you’ve explained why MOBAs specifically have put competitive pressure on RTS. Is it just because MOBAs look very superficially like RTS games, with a top-down view of fighting units?

MOBAs were invented as RTS mods. For example, DOTA 2 is the successor to a Warcraft 3 mod.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#157
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's some underground scene for hardcore RTS players, but as a (formerly) casual follower of the Starcraft 2 pro scene, it seems like MOBAs ate their lunch. It's really a shame, since there was nothing quite like the intensity of a 1v1 match between two players controlling an army with a nearly unlimited skill cap... As much as I've tried, I simply cannot make any sense of the on-screen visual overload of MO…

MOBAs are almost impossible to get into if you're not starting with friend(s). Half the skill is in communication and coordination, and if you're playing solo with random people you'll almost never experience good teamplay. Toxicity is over the roof compared to 1v1 games like starcraft. I stopped playing Starcraft 2 (or any Blizzard games) because of the Hong Kong controversy but I do miss some good multiplayer RTS.…

Zero-K is a surprisingly good free (open source), community driven RTS. When you look past the dated graphics, it gives you a deep TA style game that tries to also give a few quality of life features to reduce APM count a bit. It's not for everyone, but it can be a lot of fun.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#158
I think the big issue with soft counters is rather that attention and APM is very scarce. Spamming a well rounded unit means you can spend your attention on other stuff.

If each side had a team of people controlling their units then you could imagine one guy could focus on the economy another on producing the right units and a third on combat micro. This could make soft counters become more important.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a MOBA you’re relying on other players. If you lose at Starcraft, you only have yourself to blame, you can watch the replay and see exactly where you went wrong, and steadily improve.

> If you lose at Starcraft, you only have yourself to blame, you can watch the replay and see exactly where you went wrong, and steadily improve. That's not really true. A typical player can watch the replay of their losing match and see the proximate cause of the failure ("my army got blown up"), but looking at the game analytically to find the ultimate cause is/was much more difficult. The art of doing so was a reg…

You can see what your opponent did. If you're new, this will probably be that the opponent did more things and did them faster, also their build order might be new to you or could be something new for you to scout for to counter.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#160
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the SupCom 1 controls uncomfortable in the first 20 minutes of the tutorial, and chose not to continue. Life is too short to finish bad books or punishing games; however for me SupCom 2 was a huge ergonomic improvement and if not for that game I wouldn't be playing the series at all.

What was wrong with them? I found SupCom had some of the best controls in gaming; strategic zoom was a real game-changer (although many games have it now). I guess left- vs right-click for RTS is a big divisive one, but it doesn't take so long to get used to and there's nothing objective about which way is better.

>(although many games have it now).

IME very few games have a strategic view, or let you zoom out at all, what other games are doing this?

Post reply on HN