5 ms·

> 1. Rushing is stupid, all RTS seemly suffer from allowing it even when devs attempt to curb that down, I remember in AOE for example people training on how to

> 1. Rushing is stupid, all RTS seemly suffer from allowing it even when devs attempt to curb that down, I remember in AOE for example people training on how to build towers on the enemy base in 2 minutes or how to win with villager rush. (also knew a guy that relentlessly tested ways to rise to the second age faster) I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a more optimal way that prepares you to attack sooner." If you call it "rushing," what you're really saying is that you need other players to deliberately play worse to give you extra time to prepare. All of these strategies have counterplay and usually lead into long games. Using a vil rush or tower rush is not a way to end the game, it's a way to begin it. > 3. Multiplayer is a matter of how fast you click and how good you are with pattern matching and some other training-related things, intelligence for example isn't that important, rote learning, time to practice, etc... that is. Again, you could only say this if you had not made it to a competitive level. Intelligence is pattern-matching. And of course playing anything at a competitive level involves "training-related things," that's a kind of meaningless statement if I'm being honest. And I can't speak for StarCraft, but in AoE2 APM is not essential. To prove the point, the top-rated player has beaten other top 200 players without using his keyboard. It's about decision-making. Even at my level, I can beat other players rated a couple hundred points beneath me without using keyboard shortcuts just because my decision-making is better.

neckardt 6y ago
> I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a more optimal way that prepares you to attack sooner." If you call it "rushing," what you're really saying is that you need other players to deliberately play worse to give you extra time to prepare. All of these strategies have counterplay and usually lead into long games. Using a vil rush or tower rush is not a way to end the game, it's a way to begin it. For less experienced players, rushes like these tend to end the game early rather than begin it in an interesting way. Either the defender knows how to hold the strategy and shuts it down, or hasn't seen it before and gets destroyed. While these strategies are certainly part of the game and make high level competitive games far more interesting, it is often a frustrating experience for low/mid level players. Many of those players are looking for an experience where they build their army for a while and attack once they're satisfied with what they've built. Certainly not strategically optimal, but that's often what they find fun.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  I totally understand that. It's how I played from 1999-2015. I'm just saying that rushing isn't a flaw or a problem, rather it's a matter of perspective. Players who want to build up for a while nearly always want to do that because they haven't learned any other way to play. And they're not under any obligation to do so, either-- but it's not fair to say the game is flawed on that basis.

neckardt 6y ago

> I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a more optimal way that prepares you to attack sooner." If you call it "rushing," what you're really saying is that you need other players to deliberately play worse to give you extra time to prepare. All of these strategies have counterplay and usually lead into long games. Using a vil rush or tower rush is not a way to end the game, it's a way to begin it. For less experienced players, rushes like these tend to end the game early rather than begin it in an interesting way. Either the defender knows how to hold the strategy and shuts it down, or hasn't seen it before and gets destroyed. While these strategies are certainly part of the game and make high level competitive games far more interesting, it is often a frustrating experience for low/mid level players. Many of those players are looking for an experience where they build their army for a while and attack once they're satisfied with what they've built. Certainly not strategically optimal, but that's often what they find fun.

aerovistae 6y ago
I totally understand that. It's how I played from 1999-2015. I'm just saying that rushing isn't a flaw or a problem, rather it's a matter of perspective. Players who want to build up for a while nearly always want to do that because they haven't learned any other way to play. And they're not under any obligation to do so, either-- but it's not fair to say the game is flawed on that basis.