3 ms·

So your preferred balance is that both players build and nurture a base until one goes an overwhelms and "curbstomps" the other? That doesn't sound satisfying.

So your preferred balance is that both players build and nurture a base until one goes an overwhelms and "curbstomps" the other? That doesn't sound satisfying. Remember, 50% of the time you need to be the one getting curbstomped. Just imagine that base you nurtured getting rolled over and there's not much you can do; is that fun? It's easy to be too optimistic when balancing a game. It's easy to imagine "oh, this unit will be nearly indestructible, and I can watch it destroy my opponents and their bases". But what really happens is "my opponent destroyed me, I tried everything I could but his unit was nearly indestructible". (This is why we need strong AI for RTS games. First, we get strong AI, then we find ways of dumbing it down in fun ways. In the end we have a creative AI that offers a few surprises, but is content to let the human player win 95% of the time.)

pdntspa 3y ago
Again, that's why you need the one-unit-that-loses-you-the-game-if-it-dies. > there's not much you can do; is that fun? since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly. I don't know what the 'indestructible' unit has to do with any of this, even the most impenetrable fortress has weaknesses. You have to declaw a turtle slowly and methodically, or just straight up overwhelm their defensive lines. A turtling player cannot be everywhere at once, they have weaknesses.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  I assume you're talking about competitive play, since you mentioned it, and lamented that competitive RTS play is ruined. > since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly. This comment explains why this theoretical opponent of yours doesn't exist. You want to play against another human who you can defeat reliably, and who has no fun being defeated. Why would anyone ever want to be your opponent? It's not fun for them, and they have little chance of winning. This is why, as you observed, there's many tactical RTS games that people are playing, but nobody plays games like you imagine.

pdntspa 3y ago

Again, that's why you need the one-unit-that-loses-you-the-game-if-it-dies. > there's not much you can do; is that fun? since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly. I don't know what the 'indestructible' unit has to do with any of this, even the most impenetrable fortress has weaknesses. You have to declaw a turtle slowly and methodically, or just straight up overwhelm their defensive lines. A turtling player cannot be everywhere at once, they have weaknesses.

Buttons840 3y ago
I assume you're talking about competitive play, since you mentioned it, and lamented that competitive RTS play is ruined. > since when is losing supposed to be fun? I don't want to give my opponent chances at a reversal. I want to win, reliably and assuredly. This comment explains why this theoretical opponent of yours doesn't exist. You want to play against another human who you can defeat reliably, and who has no fun being defeated. Why would anyone ever want to be your opponent? It's not fun for them, and they have little chance of winning. This is why, as you observed, there's many tactical RTS games that people are playing, but nobody plays games like you imagine.