RTS needs a focus on SP content first, and MP second!

>RTS needs a focus on SP content first, and MP second!
Why do shitters keep saying this? At the very least, you could make a good MP experience, then use the pieces from that to make something nice for the vs AI casuals, but don't pretend the people advertising your game and appreciating it as art just don't exist.

Additionally, I'll say, anyone who primarily just faces off against the AI isn't playing the actual game. It's not strategy. You're abusing an if-then sequence that can't keep up with humans without cheating, instead of facing off against people who can actually keep up with and surpass you. Half the time, it's just tower defense ambience. Pure glue-huffer experience.

Attached: 1656098756.jpg (1650x928, 512.31K)

Glue-huffers are the vast majority of the consumer population. It's just good business to cater to them.

Do you really want to waste all of your effort and reputation on them? Do you really want to be a studio that exclusively panders to the lowest possible standard? Can you say you're proud as an RTS developer when there's 0 strategy in your game?

from the last generic copy and pasted rts cope thread on why no one wants to play their shit game

>play some sc with friends
>try ranked as somewhat of a beginner
>1v1
>smurf trash talking me the entire game for being a new player
>okay, maybe I just ran into a bad player
>another 1v1
>some guy who was actually nice in chat
>he starts telling me how he's played the game for 10 years
>oh okay...???
>still admits he's going to go as hard as he can against me, even after I joking say "play nice :p"
>lose in like 5 minutes
>he's sitting there just typing random bullshit telling me not to give up and stick with the game, etc etc like he's some kind of mentor and like I'm going to dedicate all my free time to play just like him
>tell him he's a fucking loser
>delete sc2
What the fuck is with rts gamers? Campaigns and stuff are fun or just playing with friends but who the fuck would actually spend time on this shit when you have these people around beginners of all things?

make a game for singleplayer if you want actually functioning individuals to buy your game. no one wants to get into multiplayer

>ripping an image off fitgirl

lmao

if the base experience is good, then the multiplayer will also be good. take age of empires 2, for example. singleplayer and multiplayer is almost a hundred percent identical. you build bases and recruit dudes in singleplayer, you do the same in multiplayer. the singleplayer mode just has a bit of story to it and other fluff.

When the alternative is bankruptcy and everyone losing their jobs and starving to death, sure, yeah.
The last competitive-focused RTS I can think of was Achron and it's sitting at 61% with 55 reviews on Steam.

>if the base experience is good, then the multiplayer will also be good
Other way around. You can have a game with decent SP, but shit MP. Many games are easily like that.
>take age of empires 2, for example. singleplayer and multiplayer is almost a hundred percent identical. you build bases and recruit dudes in singleplayer, you do the same in multiplayer. the singleplayer mode just has a bit of story to it and other fluff.
You have never played Age of Empires 2, so don't use it as an example.
Did they actually honor the design principles that made the best RTS games successful, and did they advertise their game accordingly?

Multiplayer focused games are always dogshit, Hunt Showdown could have been an amazing single player cowboy cryptid hunter, and most RTS could have had amazing campaigns but these days are put to the sideline and even ruined by retarded devs balancing SP with multiplayer mouthbreathers in mind

Attached: Poker.jpg (725x1080, 99.84K)

>Hunt Showdown could have been an amazing single player cowboy cryptid hunter
That's just it: It would've been amazing by Single-player standards, which are so low that most devs just develop games for them instead. Devs who try for MP games clearly want a passionate following from people who'll respect their work.
>balancing SP with multiplayer mouthbreathers in mind
It takes no effort, skill, or thought to be good at SP games. You actually have to apply yourself when facing a human.

This thread is dishonest and doesn't serve a point when the fact is that everyone who creates a multiplayer-focused RTS has failed catastrophically. Starcraft II, Dawn of War III, the 10,000 indie multiplayer-focused RTS games like Black Goo and other shit, all of it is beyond dead. No, Age of Empires II isn't a multiplayer-focused RTS game. It is factually a singleplayer RTS game that had multiplayer functionality added to it during development.

It is weird that everyone tries to make their point by using singleplayer-focused RTS games with multiplayer functionality instead of all of the dead multiplayer-focused RTS games. Probably because they're all dead and undesirable.

>It is weird that everyone tries to make their point by using singleplayer-focused RTS games with multiplayer functionality
They started as single player, but became MP-focused. They're MP-focused games with decent SP.
>instead of all of the dead multiplayer-focused RTS games.
They're dead because they didn't respect successful design concepts.

wrong, it's the other way around.

95% of players just want to play the campaign and then turtle against the computer in free battle for a while until playing some custom maps.
95% of players play RTS correctly. The remaining 5% are esports gooks and twitch trannies.

Multiplayer should be ignored entirely. This is the objective truth.
>b-b-but
Dilate and cope zoomer faggot.

I would like to see in something like SC2 where you can just "program" in your build order, and just have the computer take care of it with the ability to manually intervene when you have to pivot. Same thing for unit attack order priority. Why should the main commander have to tell a marine to manually target a baneling? It should be doctrine that a marine shoots banelings first, then roaches or whatever second. Stuff like clicking the creation of more workers or clicking attack on a baneling doesn't have anything to do with strategy, yet those are what you need to be able to consistently to be successful at Real Time Strategy games.

Asians with tiny feminine fingers like those games though

>95% of players just want to play the campaign and then turtle against the computer in free battle for a while until playing some custom maps.
>95% of players play RTS correctly.
Choose one.

The biggest problem I find with RTS focused 'online' is that most times, the games are solved very early on.
A great example is rush vs defense
If you didn't scout and rushed and the enemy was building up a heavy defense, you generally 'lost' but it took a lot of time to 'win'
Likewise, if you were successful in the rush, you would 'win' but it would take a long time to take advantage of it

This is why most games are boring. You have a very standard rock-paper-scissors counter system. Trying to alleviate it with hero units like Warlords Battlecry did (which Warcraft 3 stole the idea from) helped somewhat but ultimately it comes down to games either being too much of a stalemate (infinite resources like with Supcom) or else too long to victory (limited resources) like starcraft

>If you didn't scout and rushed and the enemy was building up a heavy defense, you generally 'lost' but it took a lot of time to 'win'
>Likewise, if you were successful in the rush, you would 'win' but it would take a long time to take advantage of it
Okay, now learn about reactive defense, powerspikes, unit comps, and transitions. Your 500-elo mental image of online play is a mere caricature.

All rts games should have map editors as easy to use as aoe 1 and 2. It should be illegal to do otherwise and nothing else matters. Min maxers have ruined literally all pvp games that come out now due to the ease of access to information so pvp is no longer relevant unless you're a teenager who wishes to partake in the min max culture.

What are some good campaigns in RTS games? I quite liked Homeworld and Warcraft 3.

aoe2 has a good scale of bad to good players.

Again, it's been 'solved' for the most part, user.
That's my point
RTS isn't like say, fighting games wherein it's a constant movement.
RTS 'pro' players shit out about 'muh APM' wherein reality, it's not about APM, it's about just having the right knowledge and awareness