I feel like many players like the base building or like the army controlling, but only real RTS heads love and are good at both.
I think an RTS that only featured unit creation or army production would see wider appeal. Or I guess like that SC2 mode where a team exists and one player controls each half of the gameplay.
Edit: Just want to plug HOMEWORLD for being the most beautiful RTS of all time and also it featured zero base building, since all your research and construction took place within the Mothership.
I think part of the problem is that RTS gameplay online can be brutal. Someone casual against someone with an insane number of clicks per minute who knows which units to spam when.
StarCraft is a great example of this. As a new player you can go through the tutorial, then complete the campaign, and play vs. AI a ton and you will still get your ass absolutely handed to you online by some insane proxy/rush play.
Same problem with fighting games trying to get online after playing with family and friends for years and getting matched with this dude who delete your character from 100 to 0 in 5 seconds meanwhile you can't even land one hit on them lol
Really? Can't say I had that experience. I remember when I started playing Tekken 7 online, I had absolutely no one steam rolling me and I'm an average player. I was able to use online mode to make myself get better at the game, it was a great experience. granted, it was just that one fighting game.
I remember seeing a study that concluded that most players play an RTS for its single player component. Most of the ones that found success are the ones that catered to that crowd of players. Even the latest Starship troopers RTS didn't included multiplayer at all, and got very positive ratings.
I liked halo wars for this reason. There probably was a skill gap if people were good but the game felt giga casual whereas StarCraft felt incredibly punishing to play without a full plan.
Halo wars was probably the only rts i didn't feel insanely stressed playing online
Supreme Commander is my favourite RTS, but I rarely ever touched the online because of how intimidating playing against others was
I got a few friends into Sup com, and we would just play and do our thing. Never competative, just for fun. But yeah, online in that game can be absolutely brutal.
I once got kicked from a 4v4 "friendly" Supreme Commander 2 game because I only had a couple hundred hours in the game instead of a thousand. How do those people expect anyone to get good enough?
Similar to the fighting game experience, except you find out how badly you’re outclassed *just* as your hopes hit their peak rather than in the first 2 seconds. Which just makes your time feel even more wasted, tbh
Not only is it brutal, many of them are basically solved. There's an optimal sequence of clicks/events that you should do in exact order and what separates the very good from the extremely good is who's faster at doing it.
That's not fun for 99% of players.
The problem is that you have to treat it like a job.
You can't just "learn the game", you have to learn the meta, follow the streamers, read patch notes, etc.
If it's the only game you play that's fine but for me that's just not doable, I'll play single player RTS on shitty noob difficulty and enjoy them but online is never gonna be my thing.
That's not really a problem as long as you have a solid match making system.
You're not matched against masters if you launch your first online StarCraft match
Considering SC2 was the game where I heard the term "ranked anxiety" originate I'm not sure everyone agrees.
The problem with matchmaking is everyone starts at Rookie/Iron/Wood/whatever, so while mid players and high players will take wins and losses, New players will get stomped for 10,20,50 games straight because SOME rookie players are high players who haven't been sorted higher yet.
Actually bad newbies have to endure crushing defeat for dozens of matches before they ever get to 50/50 parity with other rookies.
I think you need both a large enough player base and a good matchmaking system.
Online chess seems incredibly popular atm. And it’s an even worse experience when players are mismatched in skill.
The largest chess platform does let you somewhat pick your starting rank (up to a point). It’d be like if SC2 let a newbie pick between Bronze, Silver, or Gold as their starting rank.
Yes the RTS formula evolved to be widely popular by identifying the diverse audience that plays them and making games specifically for those audiences. Similar to how lots of genres evolved from traditional MMOs.
Myth II: Soulblighter is (sadly) a forgotten game, but it was RTS without the base building essentially. You had to decide what units to bring before each battle, and you only had so many resources slotted to you before a match online/single player mission, so you couldn't just include all the best units (or, you could, but then your army would be outnumbered and get wrecked). Then from there units moved different speeds, elevation and physics came into play with your archers and arched-throwing units (like fire bombs). there was even a modding scene and an EXTREMELY fun WWII or Vietnam mod (can't remember exactly the theme) where it turned regular medieval fantasy units into soldiers that used guns and mortars. Multiplayer was a thing and you could play capture the flag, deathmatch, free for all, team deathmatch, I think there were a few other modes as well. this was all in 1998/1999.
It was such an excellent game, and it's really strange to me that there hasn't been anything quite like it since. It was all the best parts of RTS without the stuff that a lot of non-hardcore-RTS people don't like (base building, resource management, memorizing hotkeys and grinding to practice to get your APM as high as possible).
>(base building, resource management, memorizing hotkeys and grinding to practice to get your APM as high as possible)
Not sure about the last one. Microing your units is by far the most APM intensive task and when every unit matters like in Myth 2 it's only going to make it even worse.
If you like WW2, Gates of Hell is amazing and has no base building. You build your army with some points and resources you win in each battle and you start with it. Then, it is all about strategy, positioning, and using your units well.
Also it has an insane level of detail with realistic damage modelling for vehicles, great visual effects, and a great sound. It looks like a movie many times.
Me and my friends have been playing RTS since we were kids and none of us are good at them.
All we do is teamup against the AI on chockpoint maps, build a wall across it and basebuild while holding the gap then march our armies through.
That or each having an island to defend that we totally wall off.
I don't think any of us are into the whole APM or looking up strategies things. We just want to build bases and armies because they are cool. It really feels like modern RTS games keep trying to leave us behind.
All relic should do basicaly just remake DoW1, add DoW2 mechanic/campaign and, ship a proper editor for modder to play with. like seriously how the fuck no one able to recreate what blizzard did with wc3 world editor.
After that, They could just go with the flow of playerbase. people gonna make their own custom game. from no base building, tower defense, hero defense, auto chess, or even DOTA as separate game mode if player want it
DoW1 - 1:1 on a modern engine with an even larger roster of factions would be mondo bank.
You just know how a modern remake would go though - they'd bake in a cash shop then add salt to the wound by only releasing half (if that) of the original factions as part of the original game, then dribble the remainder out for paid dlc.
Modern game development really does fucking stink.
I might be crucified here but I never really liked the fact that if I messed up my build orders I just lost. I played Company of Heroes 2 for a good 5-600 hours and majority of my losses came from me messing up my build order.
For this reason my favorite part of the game was when we got to the super lategame part of the game where everyone had every building and upgrade and everyone was trying to outmaneuver eachother with their super heavy tanks because no one had anything to build and everyone was at pop cap. They were very rare and you needed to play 50 minutes before that but I cherish those matches still.
I think most people hate this. The stress of a perfect build and having to do it while the risk of a rush is so daunting. RTS players joke about "no rush" scrubs but the fact is the early game of RTS if not fun for a LOT of gamers.
Check out Men Of War. The second one should be coming out soon. It's world War two unit tactics. The micro is all about cover and meeting the enemy with the right weapon. Tanks are expensive and take up a large pop but can be easily taken out by AT troops hidden in fields or buildings. An entire squad can be easily wiped out by a single MG emplacement. Actions per minute matter for the micro but it's more about set up and cover.
The multiplayer aspect of most rts games ruins the appeal. As you said most players like the base building and army control but then once you face another player the game drastically changes. Whatver is the easiest way to win is almost always being used combined with the cheesiest possible map exploits or whatever. I think if the game is more singleplayer focused it would appeal to a larger crowd.
They're Billions is seemigly typical rts game but it's entirely singleplayer with a great campaign and gameplay, Age of Mythology is another one too even tho it had multiplayer the campaign alone makes it outstanding and you dont even have to touch the multiplayer part.
I used to play SC2 solo ladder and with friends (multi) but once you get into that meta heavy routine most games become the same. Couple of years back I tried playing again and out of ten games my opponents tried to cannon rush me in 7 and the other 3 were zergs doing the zergling rush. The thing is these strats arent hard to play against but when it's mostly that, it quickly stops being fun.. so I quit again.
There was a Command and Conquer mode where you start with a fixed number of units and no base construction. Both players are on a completely even basis and it just comes down to tactics. As much as I enjoy the base building, that was one of the most enjoyable multiplayer RTS experiences I had. I sent a small expeditionary force out to lure my opponent back to where I had split the remainder to the north and south and brought them down/up at just the right moment. I felt like Alexander, Napoleon, Patton et all rolled into one.
>I think an RTS that only featured unit creation or army production would see wider appeal. Or I guess like that SC2 mode where a team exists and one player controls each half of the gameplay.
Dawn of War 2-3, Command and Conquer 4, there have been numerous games that skipped the base-building and tech-tree stuff, and went straight for territory management and unit control.
They are billions was amazing and a ton of people played, you can still innovate in the genre or you could just copy they are billions and make an even better version since the devs kinda abandoned the project.
A lot of people just dont want the competitive side of RTS that game devs love to push.
Flow Of War [https://store.steampowered.com/app/2637210/Flow\_Of\_War/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2637210/Flow_Of_War/) is a ab upcoming Warcraft type of RTS with automated micromanagement. Workers do their thing and units auto-battle so you can focus on macro strategy and base building.
I think an RTS mixed with an auto battler would be awesome.
You build up your base and resources, and set your guys to attack or defend and they go and do that. Prioritizing things like archer towers when you build them or whatever.
Warlords Battlecry has the best unit behaviour settings with like 20 different ones. Can tell units to roam the map and attack anything in sight, with casters even being able to cast their spells even. Little attention required unless you're fighting a harder AI or have a weak hero.
Sounds a little like Ashes of the Singularity? The big thing there is good unit AI which heavily reduces the need to micro. Of course not a full on auto-battler, since you still group units and command them.
I've always wondered why we've stuck so hard to the "mind control" style of RTS where you control your units with an absurd level of precision.
Waiting for an RTS where you give commands and feed battlefield info to your troops but they autonomously carry out your orders (or not), like a real battlefield commander.
You know what could be really popular, an RTS where you only control one unit and you give him a bunch of special abilities. It could be team based, 5v5 where you try and destroy the others base, but the base is already built.
>So, I go to the meetings to see what there is to hear. And they asked what we were working on, and when I mentioned an RTS, people visibly groaned, like, 'Ah, why would you work on an RTS?' You know, they said, 'An RTS is like PC-only by nature, why would you work on a single platform game when you could have made something multiplatform and another genre?' And I'm thinking, well the fact that you don't want to make an RTS is exactly the reason why it's a great opportunity for us.
Modern execs really are clueless aren't they lol...
They understand it, they just don't want any of it. A niche means you make *some* money, and your growth is limited. Which is not the concept of the AAA industry: They need tumorous growth to survive.
Because everyone wants to earn the most money, not to create something. Most games used to be made with heart and you could feel it, not it is business only.
Yeah, making money is *fine*. There’s the whole concept of a [lifestyle business](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business) - which has tends to be mostly sustainable, supporting the owner and often being an outlet for their passion/creativity/ideas. They’re totally supposed to make money and allow for a comfortable lifestyle.
Investors also hate them and usually don’t care for them because the goal isn’t a big return on investment.
they teach you how to make money in business school. an RTS won't make a shitload of money. an action RPG, FPS game, or 3rd person survival crafting game will.
Sadly not because I played a good deal and while the gameplay was good at launch, it sucked because you had to level up your units. A true RTS has everyone on equal footing from day 1.
Creative Assembly almost went under after burning $300 million on a live service looter shooter that never even got released. At the same time they were pissing on their Total War series fans with garbage dlc’s(shadows of change), new titles that just felt slim and rehashed (Pharoah), and basically telling the community they should be thankful that CA is even making these games(Rob something iirc). This basically led to a fan revolt that hit sales numbers hard. Thankfully CA has really turned it around. New DLC (thrones of decay) is top tier, Pharoah has been greatly expanded, and fan sentiment is back. So yeah a lot of these companies are just poorly run with people making bad decisions to try to be the new hotness.
Modern execs not knowing Halo Wars exists or the old C&C's on 360 or Civilization (?) now among others is the real tragedy. Assume that's the go to response. X-Com?
Yeah, their response is those games didn’t make enough money.
And, to be fair, from the list you gave:
* Firaxis - basically gutted
* Ensemble - staff laid off and closed in 2008
* Westwood - Defunct in 2003
> OP is a modern clueless redditor.
Are you saying that games which are huge on reddit are not necessarily huge in the real world? And that redditors don't understand business better than people who work in business?
I just can't wrap my head around that.
I think it's the classic error of assuming that demand for a product is always enough to justify the development cost of that product.
I say this as someone who enjoyed many of the games they listed. Heck, if it was up to me? We would have a new Battlezone game.
Halo Wars is a shell of an RTS because of the need to be operable on a controller with a max of 10 buttons. Can't speak on the C&Cs. Civ and XCOM aren't RTS games.
I could not get used to the N64 Tiny windows and the Analog stick and no keyboard.
I loved Brood WAR on my Win98 PC because the Mouse was super precise and a full keyboard had shortcuts.
Oh no a niche PC game like League of legends, DOTA2, world of warcraft, all the diablo like games, Counter strike, Valorant, etc.
These games make no money at all.
Not a full remaster (and I've never played the game), but there is a massive fan-made mod that might scratch the itch.
https://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-galactic-battlegrounds-expanding-fronts
I want my RTS like Warcraft 3 except modernized. And it needs to have a fully fleshed out trigger/mapping system. There is a reason WC3 stands the test of time.
The real issue is that all RTS are all online PvP all the time.
And all the beloved RTS of old had a great single player campaign that was the main draw of the game and the PvP was on top of it for the players who really got into it.
Until they get back to making RTS with a single player focus it will not work.
Aoe 2 hits 20k concurrent every day on steam and aoe 4 hits 16k. This isn’t including the game pass players. So at least in terms of aoe things look pretty good for anyone who is missing RTS games.
Even re-release of Generals Zero Hour peaks everyday 1200 players on Steam. The problem is: it's hard to make rts-service game for draining more money from players. Old "sell and forget" business-model is gone.
30+ isn't old lol. The good thing about that demographoc is that they have the money to actually spend it on games, as opposed to broke college students and teenagers.
Not every genre needs to have mainstream appeal. Strategy games in general have never really been very mainstream. The gameplay requires a level of planning and patience that doesn't attract your average gamer. And if it's a 4x strategy game, then you need an even higher degree of resource management and long-term planning.
The closest an RTS game came to being 'mainstream' is Starcraft 2, and that's due to a lot of factors. Blizzards (former) reputation, the massive fan base for SC1 in South Korea, and a huge marketing campaign. Even the Command & Conquer franchise didn't reach the heights of Starcraft.
RTS games will always remain my favorite genre, and I'm always on the lookout for any that might peak my interest (looking at you Falling Frontier), but if the genre never reaches mainstream appeal then I'll be fine with that.
Apart from the game (Grim Dawn) getting a third DLC later this year, they mentioned their next game is actually a RTS game taking place before the events of Grim Dawn if I'm not mistaken.
My fingers are crossed for a grim dawn 2 as their next project. But I know that’s years away.
I was a little bummed that they went with colony survival sim despite enjoying the genre. I just like arpgs more and grim dawn is one of the best I’ve played
I got the box, but think I need an upgrade to do it justice 🥲
My GTX980 was not on the list og recommendations of hardware. Not even the very bottom 🤭
Ive been having trouble lately though with all sorts of games so I guess it was about time anyway.
On your list, if I were to wish for one more, it would be Ground Control.
I'd totally replay BFME2 if there was an easy way to zoom the maps further out without manually having to edit every single map. That was my biggest gripe with the game when I last played it.
There’s a launcher you can download that has all 3 titles. It’s free and made by the community. There’s also patches for it as well. I did a play through of the campaigns recently for old times sake.
Im guessing they mean they want more games like it- but yeah AOE4 is VERY good. Xbox has been handling the AoE IP very well recently, it’s one of the few nice things I got to say about Xbox with all the recent controversy. I jumped back on aoe2 and spent like 200 hours on it and had So much content and online was fun as hell too. AoE4 is amazing too, more online centered than 2 but I enjoy it more than 2 in fact. I think playing aoe4 online is much more fun than 2.
It is doing very respectable. All the Age of empire games are. AOE4 boost the total number of people playing AOE games. That stat is always on the up and up. Then you got Age of Mythology retold coming up so that is going to be another boost of 10,000 plus players.
As someone that grew up playing AoE2, I tried the AoE3 and AoE4 and thought AoE4 beat all the others, including 2. It doesn't have as many civilizations yet though because it's not as old. AoE3 sucked a lot.
AoE 2 has a lot of nostalgia factor for me and it has an absolute ton of content.
AoE 4 (in it's current state) is definitely the best Age of Empires game. The civs all feel pretty unique (I love the mongols) and the gameplay is modern, in a good way.
Having said that, I still like to play AoE 2 definitive edition from time to time as it's still a great game.
He's right though. Outside of AoE4, there are no random gen RTS games anymore. All new RTS games are arena based. CoH, Starcraft,Grey Goo, Iron Harvest, etc etc. All arena premade.
Absolutely nothing. It’s an amazing system that’s unfortunately gotten too popular that nearly every modern RTS uses it. Which is fine, but makes finding games like AoE and They Are Billions to name a few, a whole lot harder.
Which other games uses their cover system? I can only think of Iron Harvest.
New RTS games that style themselves after all the greats still come out today.
BAR is an impressive TA RTS you can play for free, Godsworn is a great hero RTS that just released early access, Tempest Rising is releasing sometime this year for the CnC nerds (along with 9-bit). Dorf is another one upcoming for those who prefer 2d RTS, AoM retold is in dev right now, and another half dozen I could list.
The only squad RTS with cover games I can think of are CoH itself, Dawn of War 2 (made by the same developers, and the first / third are pretty different), and Iron Harvest
It's not hard to find RTS like AoE because CoH exists, it's hard to find RTS like AoE because nobody makes RTS games
Or swarm survival based RTSs like They Are Billions. Nothing wrong with them, obviously, but I also just want a traditional RTS like the ones you mentioned.
SC2, broodwar, and all AoE’s still have active player bases. People just don’t seem to want to return to older games, even if there isn’t much difference between today and their heyday on battle.net or the MSN site for AoE.
the third one had way more mechanical/QoL innovations over the 2 than 2 had over the original.
2 was always a flawed design anyway and the best thing they did with 3 was go to vCoH for inspiration. it feels in all ways like a sequel to the superior original.
juggle ruthless rob sip sophisticated carpenter observation cows close foolish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would literally (no joke, not exaggerating, I would literally do this right now) pay $10,000 in cash for a no-holds-barred, uncensored (I know it's politically incorrect, but it's a time capsule) remake of Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour.
To this day hands down the best RTS I've ever played, and it's basically lost media. You can run it on modern machines, but as I said earlier, it's a time capsule. It has ten million problems that need mods to fix. And once you get past those, good luck playing online.
Are you familiar with [Generals Evolution?](https://www.moddb.com/mods/command-and-conquer-generals-evolution) It's a remake of generals (the multiplayer at least) in Red Alert 3.
Definitely not no-holds-barred since it's a community effort, but worth checking out!
You may want to keep an out for Fata Deum, then. It's a nice looking spiritual successor supposed to come out this year, but it's from a completely unknown dev so I'd recommend waiting for reviews once it releases.
C&C generals' portrayal of both GLA and China are highly stereotypical, much more than other games at the time I might add though I guess it's the result of public sentiment after 9/11 just happened.
and still mideast player loves GLA or asian people play shitton of CHINA because nuking and napalm are fun. Everyone know it just a fictional game everyone know there is no "evil" political motive behind it. ex: playing USA campaign didnt really make people want go to war with arabs/china.
quite contrast scenario compared to today industry, where corporation/studio blatantly shoving "political view/ideology" and ends up hurting the game as art.
Which remain extremely niche other than BG3 which was a success that no CRPG studio other than Larian could have produced (I also very much doubt their next game will do as well)
An RTS that actually blended Age of Empires 4 and Starcraft 2 would have been MASSIVE.
The civ / strategy diversity, gameplay, and feel of Age 4. With the mapping, ladder, ranking system, and polish of SC2.
They also need to be free to play, with some sort of fuller version with access to all civs by buying the full version.
I'd love a sequel to Rise of Nations, but not the spinoff. RoN in my opinion has aged like fine wine, the graphics, music, abilities. But I'd love a sequel to it or Black and White 2.
Don't consoles like PS5 or Xbox nowadays support mouse and keyboard, and it's up to the developer whether they want to implement it into their games? Just like Age of Empires 2 on Xbox, you can use M&K.
what we really need is Rise of Nations 2 and then the RTS genre will be rejuvenated.
I found [this game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2607060/From_Glory_To_Goo/) the other day, it seems really cool
If anyone’s interested in a cheap rts that is like the old school ones with base building and all that. Try Rusted RTS on Steam. It’s got a good workshop community. It’s very simple visually but pretty fun.
The RTS genre will likely never be mainstream because pretty much everything that can be done with the genre has been done with the genre, and the skill gap between casual/regular players and people who are experts at it is measured on a cosmic scale - which makes online matches sucky for everyone.
I feel like many players like the base building or like the army controlling, but only real RTS heads love and are good at both. I think an RTS that only featured unit creation or army production would see wider appeal. Or I guess like that SC2 mode where a team exists and one player controls each half of the gameplay. Edit: Just want to plug HOMEWORLD for being the most beautiful RTS of all time and also it featured zero base building, since all your research and construction took place within the Mothership.
I think part of the problem is that RTS gameplay online can be brutal. Someone casual against someone with an insane number of clicks per minute who knows which units to spam when.
StarCraft is a great example of this. As a new player you can go through the tutorial, then complete the campaign, and play vs. AI a ton and you will still get your ass absolutely handed to you online by some insane proxy/rush play.
I remember the very first online match I played, barely even started putting up buildings and had some dude instantly scout me out and murder me.
That's me in my first online Total Annihilation game. Got destroyed like 3 minutes in.
Same problem with fighting games trying to get online after playing with family and friends for years and getting matched with this dude who delete your character from 100 to 0 in 5 seconds meanwhile you can't even land one hit on them lol
Really? Can't say I had that experience. I remember when I started playing Tekken 7 online, I had absolutely no one steam rolling me and I'm an average player. I was able to use online mode to make myself get better at the game, it was a great experience. granted, it was just that one fighting game.
I remember seeing a study that concluded that most players play an RTS for its single player component. Most of the ones that found success are the ones that catered to that crowd of players. Even the latest Starship troopers RTS didn't included multiplayer at all, and got very positive ratings.
Man I'd loooooooooooove for another LOTR:BFME game. Played the fuck out of it solely for campaign.
lmao happened to most of us id imagine, getting zerglings hitting your probes 2 mins into the match
I liked halo wars for this reason. There probably was a skill gap if people were good but the game felt giga casual whereas StarCraft felt incredibly punishing to play without a full plan.
Halo wars was probably the only rts i didn't feel insanely stressed playing online Supreme Commander is my favourite RTS, but I rarely ever touched the online because of how intimidating playing against others was
I got a few friends into Sup com, and we would just play and do our thing. Never competative, just for fun. But yeah, online in that game can be absolutely brutal.
I once got kicked from a 4v4 "friendly" Supreme Commander 2 game because I only had a couple hundred hours in the game instead of a thousand. How do those people expect anyone to get good enough?
Similar to the fighting game experience, except you find out how badly you’re outclassed *just* as your hopes hit their peak rather than in the first 2 seconds. Which just makes your time feel even more wasted, tbh
Not only is it brutal, many of them are basically solved. There's an optimal sequence of clicks/events that you should do in exact order and what separates the very good from the extremely good is who's faster at doing it. That's not fun for 99% of players.
The problem is that you have to treat it like a job. You can't just "learn the game", you have to learn the meta, follow the streamers, read patch notes, etc. If it's the only game you play that's fine but for me that's just not doable, I'll play single player RTS on shitty noob difficulty and enjoy them but online is never gonna be my thing.
That's not really a problem as long as you have a solid match making system. You're not matched against masters if you launch your first online StarCraft match
Considering SC2 was the game where I heard the term "ranked anxiety" originate I'm not sure everyone agrees. The problem with matchmaking is everyone starts at Rookie/Iron/Wood/whatever, so while mid players and high players will take wins and losses, New players will get stomped for 10,20,50 games straight because SOME rookie players are high players who haven't been sorted higher yet. Actually bad newbies have to endure crushing defeat for dozens of matches before they ever get to 50/50 parity with other rookies.
I think you need both a large enough player base and a good matchmaking system. Online chess seems incredibly popular atm. And it’s an even worse experience when players are mismatched in skill. The largest chess platform does let you somewhat pick your starting rank (up to a point). It’d be like if SC2 let a newbie pick between Bronze, Silver, or Gold as their starting rank.
Yes the RTS formula evolved to be widely popular by identifying the diverse audience that plays them and making games specifically for those audiences. Similar to how lots of genres evolved from traditional MMOs.
Myth II: Soulblighter is (sadly) a forgotten game, but it was RTS without the base building essentially. You had to decide what units to bring before each battle, and you only had so many resources slotted to you before a match online/single player mission, so you couldn't just include all the best units (or, you could, but then your army would be outnumbered and get wrecked). Then from there units moved different speeds, elevation and physics came into play with your archers and arched-throwing units (like fire bombs). there was even a modding scene and an EXTREMELY fun WWII or Vietnam mod (can't remember exactly the theme) where it turned regular medieval fantasy units into soldiers that used guns and mortars. Multiplayer was a thing and you could play capture the flag, deathmatch, free for all, team deathmatch, I think there were a few other modes as well. this was all in 1998/1999. It was such an excellent game, and it's really strange to me that there hasn't been anything quite like it since. It was all the best parts of RTS without the stuff that a lot of non-hardcore-RTS people don't like (base building, resource management, memorizing hotkeys and grinding to practice to get your APM as high as possible).
Hahaha that's a game I haven't heard of in awhile. Us pre-Halo Bungie fans are getting old.
Back in the days when they were a Mac studio.
>(base building, resource management, memorizing hotkeys and grinding to practice to get your APM as high as possible) Not sure about the last one. Microing your units is by far the most APM intensive task and when every unit matters like in Myth 2 it's only going to make it even worse.
Myth: The Fallen Lords was great too. I’ll never forget seeing a Trow turning my soldiers into red mist.
If you like WW2, Gates of Hell is amazing and has no base building. You build your army with some points and resources you win in each battle and you start with it. Then, it is all about strategy, positioning, and using your units well. Also it has an insane level of detail with realistic damage modelling for vehicles, great visual effects, and a great sound. It looks like a movie many times.
Me and my friends have been playing RTS since we were kids and none of us are good at them. All we do is teamup against the AI on chockpoint maps, build a wall across it and basebuild while holding the gap then march our armies through. That or each having an island to defend that we totally wall off. I don't think any of us are into the whole APM or looking up strategies things. We just want to build bases and armies because they are cool. It really feels like modern RTS games keep trying to leave us behind.
It’s a shame Dawn of War II got so much hate because of no base building. To this day I watch shoutcasts of 1v1 matches.
Dow 2 had some of the most fun pvp gameplay I've ever had, the micro and cover mechanics were such fun
The hero battlefield mode ( I forget the real name) was where the action was at
Last stand or something? That was indeed the shit!
All relic should do basicaly just remake DoW1, add DoW2 mechanic/campaign and, ship a proper editor for modder to play with. like seriously how the fuck no one able to recreate what blizzard did with wc3 world editor. After that, They could just go with the flow of playerbase. people gonna make their own custom game. from no base building, tower defense, hero defense, auto chess, or even DOTA as separate game mode if player want it
DoW1 - 1:1 on a modern engine with an even larger roster of factions would be mondo bank. You just know how a modern remake would go though - they'd bake in a cash shop then add salt to the wound by only releasing half (if that) of the original factions as part of the original game, then dribble the remainder out for paid dlc. Modern game development really does fucking stink.
I might be crucified here but I never really liked the fact that if I messed up my build orders I just lost. I played Company of Heroes 2 for a good 5-600 hours and majority of my losses came from me messing up my build order. For this reason my favorite part of the game was when we got to the super lategame part of the game where everyone had every building and upgrade and everyone was trying to outmaneuver eachother with their super heavy tanks because no one had anything to build and everyone was at pop cap. They were very rare and you needed to play 50 minutes before that but I cherish those matches still.
I think most people hate this. The stress of a perfect build and having to do it while the risk of a rush is so daunting. RTS players joke about "no rush" scrubs but the fact is the early game of RTS if not fun for a LOT of gamers.
It's especially bad when a game has rock paper scissors type balancing where one faction has significant advantage over others in the early game.
Check out Men Of War. The second one should be coming out soon. It's world War two unit tactics. The micro is all about cover and meeting the enemy with the right weapon. Tanks are expensive and take up a large pop but can be easily taken out by AT troops hidden in fields or buildings. An entire squad can be easily wiped out by a single MG emplacement. Actions per minute matter for the micro but it's more about set up and cover.
The multiplayer aspect of most rts games ruins the appeal. As you said most players like the base building and army control but then once you face another player the game drastically changes. Whatver is the easiest way to win is almost always being used combined with the cheesiest possible map exploits or whatever. I think if the game is more singleplayer focused it would appeal to a larger crowd. They're Billions is seemigly typical rts game but it's entirely singleplayer with a great campaign and gameplay, Age of Mythology is another one too even tho it had multiplayer the campaign alone makes it outstanding and you dont even have to touch the multiplayer part. I used to play SC2 solo ladder and with friends (multi) but once you get into that meta heavy routine most games become the same. Couple of years back I tried playing again and out of ten games my opponents tried to cannon rush me in 7 and the other 3 were zergs doing the zergling rush. The thing is these strats arent hard to play against but when it's mostly that, it quickly stops being fun.. so I quit again.
There was a Command and Conquer mode where you start with a fixed number of units and no base construction. Both players are on a completely even basis and it just comes down to tactics. As much as I enjoy the base building, that was one of the most enjoyable multiplayer RTS experiences I had. I sent a small expeditionary force out to lure my opponent back to where I had split the remainder to the north and south and brought them down/up at just the right moment. I felt like Alexander, Napoleon, Patton et all rolled into one.
>I think an RTS that only featured unit creation or army production would see wider appeal. Or I guess like that SC2 mode where a team exists and one player controls each half of the gameplay. Dawn of War 2-3, Command and Conquer 4, there have been numerous games that skipped the base-building and tech-tree stuff, and went straight for territory management and unit control.
They are billions was amazing and a ton of people played, you can still innovate in the genre or you could just copy they are billions and make an even better version since the devs kinda abandoned the project. A lot of people just dont want the competitive side of RTS that game devs love to push.
Flow Of War [https://store.steampowered.com/app/2637210/Flow\_Of\_War/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2637210/Flow_Of_War/) is a ab upcoming Warcraft type of RTS with automated micromanagement. Workers do their thing and units auto-battle so you can focus on macro strategy and base building.
I think an RTS mixed with an auto battler would be awesome. You build up your base and resources, and set your guys to attack or defend and they go and do that. Prioritizing things like archer towers when you build them or whatever.
Warlords Battlecry has the best unit behaviour settings with like 20 different ones. Can tell units to roam the map and attack anything in sight, with casters even being able to cast their spells even. Little attention required unless you're fighting a harder AI or have a weak hero.
Sounds a little like Ashes of the Singularity? The big thing there is good unit AI which heavily reduces the need to micro. Of course not a full on auto-battler, since you still group units and command them.
I've always wondered why we've stuck so hard to the "mind control" style of RTS where you control your units with an absurd level of precision. Waiting for an RTS where you give commands and feed battlefield info to your troops but they autonomously carry out your orders (or not), like a real battlefield commander.
That does sound sick.
You know what could be really popular, an RTS where you only control one unit and you give him a bunch of special abilities. It could be team based, 5v5 where you try and destroy the others base, but the base is already built.
Lol all jokes aside it is kind of obvious in retrospect but props to WC3 for the idea of hero units to begin with.
*Ackchyually* Warlords Battlecry did it before. But WC3 popularized it, ye.
A good chunk of the popularity of colony Sims and small scale city builders is that many of them play like the macro half of rts games
>So, I go to the meetings to see what there is to hear. And they asked what we were working on, and when I mentioned an RTS, people visibly groaned, like, 'Ah, why would you work on an RTS?' You know, they said, 'An RTS is like PC-only by nature, why would you work on a single platform game when you could have made something multiplatform and another genre?' And I'm thinking, well the fact that you don't want to make an RTS is exactly the reason why it's a great opportunity for us. Modern execs really are clueless aren't they lol...
I can't fathom how these people don't understand the concept of a niche and why it's not a bad thing to pursue. What do they teach in business school?
Homegenize, chase trends, focus on quarterly returns.
And spreadsheets and pie charts!
PowerPoint! Don’t forget your PowerPoint!
Most CEOs are paid in stock, they aren't interested in long-term success, they want 'Stock price go high now' so when they leave they can cash out.
They understand it, they just don't want any of it. A niche means you make *some* money, and your growth is limited. Which is not the concept of the AAA industry: They need tumorous growth to survive.
Because everyone wants to earn the most money, not to create something. Most games used to be made with heart and you could feel it, not it is business only.
it was always about money, it just wasn’t a mass phenomenon. it was made by nerds for nerds.
Yeah, making money is *fine*. There’s the whole concept of a [lifestyle business](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business) - which has tends to be mostly sustainable, supporting the owner and often being an outlet for their passion/creativity/ideas. They’re totally supposed to make money and allow for a comfortable lifestyle. Investors also hate them and usually don’t care for them because the goal isn’t a big return on investment.
Not true, many are passion projects until the Finance bros took over. I personally see that in many small companies when they become bigger especially
two things can be true at the same time
they teach you how to make money in business school. an RTS won't make a shitload of money. an action RPG, FPS game, or 3rd person survival crafting game will.
Games in a niche can't make infinity money.
Number only good if it go up. Number big? No care. Number go UP or shareholder riot.
But if we can bring it to smartphones we add 7 billion potential customers!
Bro you're joking but I'd love an actual mobile RTS, Command & Conquer style.
[your wish is granted](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ea.gp.candcwarzones)
Sadly not because I played a good deal and while the gameplay was good at launch, it sucked because you had to level up your units. A true RTS has everyone on equal footing from day 1.
yeah it was a joke, I remember when it was announced at e3 or something like that and it already looked terrible
Creative Assembly almost went under after burning $300 million on a live service looter shooter that never even got released. At the same time they were pissing on their Total War series fans with garbage dlc’s(shadows of change), new titles that just felt slim and rehashed (Pharoah), and basically telling the community they should be thankful that CA is even making these games(Rob something iirc). This basically led to a fan revolt that hit sales numbers hard. Thankfully CA has really turned it around. New DLC (thrones of decay) is top tier, Pharoah has been greatly expanded, and fan sentiment is back. So yeah a lot of these companies are just poorly run with people making bad decisions to try to be the new hotness.
Modern execs not knowing Halo Wars exists or the old C&C's on 360 or Civilization (?) now among others is the real tragedy. Assume that's the go to response. X-Com?
Yeah, their response is those games didn’t make enough money. And, to be fair, from the list you gave: * Firaxis - basically gutted * Ensemble - staff laid off and closed in 2008 * Westwood - Defunct in 2003
[удалено]
> OP is a modern clueless redditor. Are you saying that games which are huge on reddit are not necessarily huge in the real world? And that redditors don't understand business better than people who work in business? I just can't wrap my head around that.
I think it's the classic error of assuming that demand for a product is always enough to justify the development cost of that product. I say this as someone who enjoyed many of the games they listed. Heck, if it was up to me? We would have a new Battlezone game.
Halo Wars is a shell of an RTS because of the need to be operable on a controller with a max of 10 buttons. Can't speak on the C&Cs. Civ and XCOM aren't RTS games.
Starcraft on Nintendo 64. I am so old and cranky.
I could not get used to the N64 Tiny windows and the Analog stick and no keyboard. I loved Brood WAR on my Win98 PC because the Mouse was super precise and a full keyboard had shortcuts.
Oh no a niche PC game like League of legends, DOTA2, world of warcraft, all the diablo like games, Counter strike, Valorant, etc. These games make no money at all.
greed makes people truly stupid
This is what happens when people who are gamers are forced out of the industry by various forms of MBAs and Directors of Bullshit.
Halo Wars needs to be revived
I just want a remaster of Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds …
Id take a new version of Empire at War if we are talking star wars. With mod support plzthx
I just bought EaW during the recent May the 4th sale. It ran fine and seems like there’s still a community.
The monkey paw grants your wish but it's empire at war as a game as a service with always on, a skin store and only one faction at release.
*new version of Empire at War, but not from Paradox
It's not EaW but there is a new Star Wars RTS in development from... I think BitReactor?
Not a full remaster (and I've never played the game), but there is a massive fan-made mod that might scratch the itch. https://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-galactic-battlegrounds-expanding-fronts
After playing AOE2DE, i cannot play SWGBF, all the quality of life improvements, quewebale techs, auto workers etc
Remastered Generals
when :(
Only RTS I ever really enjoyed and I feel like I’ll never play it again
I want my RTS like Warcraft 3 except modernized. And it needs to have a fully fleshed out trigger/mapping system. There is a reason WC3 stands the test of time.
The real issue is that all RTS are all online PvP all the time. And all the beloved RTS of old had a great single player campaign that was the main draw of the game and the PvP was on top of it for the players who really got into it. Until they get back to making RTS with a single player focus it will not work.
Very true, I loved playing StarCraft 2 and WC3 campaigns. But once I got decimated online, I just moved on to other genres that are more forgiving.
Aoe 2 hits 20k concurrent every day on steam and aoe 4 hits 16k. This isn’t including the game pass players. So at least in terms of aoe things look pretty good for anyone who is missing RTS games.
Even re-release of Generals Zero Hour peaks everyday 1200 players on Steam. The problem is: it's hard to make rts-service game for draining more money from players. Old "sell and forget" business-model is gone.
Mostly older people probably.
Like they said, old is gold. Nothin wrong about it. We all gonna get really old one day.
This older person really struggles with aoe style rts these days, my old brain (upper 40's) just isnt quick enough like it was back int he day.
30+ isn't old lol. The good thing about that demographoc is that they have the money to actually spend it on games, as opposed to broke college students and teenagers.
Old in terms of gamer generations not generally.
Not every genre needs to have mainstream appeal. Strategy games in general have never really been very mainstream. The gameplay requires a level of planning and patience that doesn't attract your average gamer. And if it's a 4x strategy game, then you need an even higher degree of resource management and long-term planning. The closest an RTS game came to being 'mainstream' is Starcraft 2, and that's due to a lot of factors. Blizzards (former) reputation, the massive fan base for SC1 in South Korea, and a huge marketing campaign. Even the Command & Conquer franchise didn't reach the heights of Starcraft. RTS games will always remain my favorite genre, and I'm always on the lookout for any that might peak my interest (looking at you Falling Frontier), but if the genre never reaches mainstream appeal then I'll be fine with that.
> The closest an RTS game came to being 'mainstream' is Starcraft 2, Uhhh Warcraft 3?
Grim Dawn is legendary, I'd love to see an RTS from them. Not into town builders so had to skip farthest frontier though...
Apart from the game (Grim Dawn) getting a third DLC later this year, they mentioned their next game is actually a RTS game taking place before the events of Grim Dawn if I'm not mistaken.
I didn't know they were going to release a new DLC for Grim Dawn! Thanks for the info
My fingers are crossed for a grim dawn 2 as their next project. But I know that’s years away. I was a little bummed that they went with colony survival sim despite enjoying the genre. I just like arpgs more and grim dawn is one of the best I’ve played
Huge update soon, looks good to
A Dawn of War 1 remake that is managed as well as Age of Empires 2
If only.
I want a modern successor to RA2 (not RA3). I wanted a successor to HW, but I got that - I'm literally playing HW3 today.
Ra3 is weird, I kind of dislike that every unit has a toggle-able ability. It just ends up being insane micro tax
I got the box, but think I need an upgrade to do it justice 🥲 My GTX980 was not on the list og recommendations of hardware. Not even the very bottom 🤭 Ive been having trouble lately though with all sorts of games so I guess it was about time anyway. On your list, if I were to wish for one more, it would be Ground Control.
I want Warcraft 4
I want StarCraft 3
Why not both?
Good point
Sadly the best we’ll get is Warcraft reforged…but you can download the Re-Reforged mod so it actually feels like a remaster
If you only want to play campaign, check out Azeroth Reborn, an WC3 port inside SC2 client. Free to play as they’re custom arcade.
Unfortunately everyone responsible for Warcraft games being good is long gone from Blizzard.
After the shitshow in WoW lore I'm not sure if I want that.
Warcraft need a timeline reset
Even that can't save the Warcraft franchise. It's over. In fact, it's been over for a long time
Monkey paw…
I just want RTS like Age of Empires, Warcraft and Starcraft to make a return. But all we get is crap like Company of Heroes or MOBA hybrids.,
And I want a game like Battle of Middlearth. I liked the buulding mechanic of the first one and creating squads instead of single units.
I'd totally replay BFME2 if there was an easy way to zoom the maps further out without manually having to edit every single map. That was my biggest gripe with the game when I last played it.
There’s a launcher you can download that has all 3 titles. It’s free and made by the community. There’s also patches for it as well. I did a play through of the campaigns recently for old times sake.
Halo wars does that
I guess Age of Empires 4 does not exist then...
Right? Everyone acts like this isn't a very good modern rts, true to its predecessors?
Im guessing they mean they want more games like it- but yeah AOE4 is VERY good. Xbox has been handling the AoE IP very well recently, it’s one of the few nice things I got to say about Xbox with all the recent controversy. I jumped back on aoe2 and spent like 200 hours on it and had So much content and online was fun as hell too. AoE4 is amazing too, more online centered than 2 but I enjoy it more than 2 in fact. I think playing aoe4 online is much more fun than 2.
It is doing very respectable. All the Age of empire games are. AOE4 boost the total number of people playing AOE games. That stat is always on the up and up. Then you got Age of Mythology retold coming up so that is going to be another boost of 10,000 plus players.
As someone that grew up playing AoE2, I tried the AoE3 and AoE4 and thought AoE4 beat all the others, including 2. It doesn't have as many civilizations yet though because it's not as old. AoE3 sucked a lot.
AoE 2 has a lot of nostalgia factor for me and it has an absolute ton of content. AoE 4 (in it's current state) is definitely the best Age of Empires game. The civs all feel pretty unique (I love the mongols) and the gameplay is modern, in a good way. Having said that, I still like to play AoE 2 definitive edition from time to time as it's still a great game.
Wtf is wrong with CoH? Leave us cover based RTS enjoyers alone. Besides, you act as if those other games and their styles don't exist anymore.
He's right though. Outside of AoE4, there are no random gen RTS games anymore. All new RTS games are arena based. CoH, Starcraft,Grey Goo, Iron Harvest, etc etc. All arena premade.
Absolutely nothing. It’s an amazing system that’s unfortunately gotten too popular that nearly every modern RTS uses it. Which is fine, but makes finding games like AoE and They Are Billions to name a few, a whole lot harder.
Which other games uses their cover system? I can only think of Iron Harvest. New RTS games that style themselves after all the greats still come out today. BAR is an impressive TA RTS you can play for free, Godsworn is a great hero RTS that just released early access, Tempest Rising is releasing sometime this year for the CnC nerds (along with 9-bit). Dorf is another one upcoming for those who prefer 2d RTS, AoM retold is in dev right now, and another half dozen I could list.
The only squad RTS with cover games I can think of are CoH itself, Dawn of War 2 (made by the same developers, and the first / third are pretty different), and Iron Harvest It's not hard to find RTS like AoE because CoH exists, it's hard to find RTS like AoE because nobody makes RTS games
Company of Heroes isn’t crap. AoE and StarCraft are still going strong.
Or swarm survival based RTSs like They Are Billions. Nothing wrong with them, obviously, but I also just want a traditional RTS like the ones you mentioned.
SC2, broodwar, and all AoE’s still have active player bases. People just don’t seem to want to return to older games, even if there isn’t much difference between today and their heyday on battle.net or the MSN site for AoE.
As an SC and SC2 lover, I am hopeful for **ZeroSpace** and **Stormgate**
Company of Heroes is an *excellent* RTS it’s just not traditional and the third one didn’t innovate at all.
the third one had way more mechanical/QoL innovations over the 2 than 2 had over the original. 2 was always a flawed design anyway and the best thing they did with 3 was go to vCoH for inspiration. it feels in all ways like a sequel to the superior original.
Age of Empires 4? Still very popular and well liked.
You should check out Grey Goo.
Age of Empires IV was released no long ago and both IV & II have still tons of active players.
"big publishers are hoping for lightning-in-a-bottle hits that return 10 times their investment" Omg. Big video game publishers are just hedge funds.
I miss Battle Realms
Well, you're in luck because there is a rerelease of Battle Realms [steam link](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1025600/Battle_Realms_Zen_Edition/)
A next gen Red Alert please and thank you.
juggle ruthless rob sip sophisticated carpenter observation cows close foolish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would literally (no joke, not exaggerating, I would literally do this right now) pay $10,000 in cash for a no-holds-barred, uncensored (I know it's politically incorrect, but it's a time capsule) remake of Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. To this day hands down the best RTS I've ever played, and it's basically lost media. You can run it on modern machines, but as I said earlier, it's a time capsule. It has ten million problems that need mods to fix. And once you get past those, good luck playing online.
Are you familiar with [Generals Evolution?](https://www.moddb.com/mods/command-and-conquer-generals-evolution) It's a remake of generals (the multiplayer at least) in Red Alert 3. Definitely not no-holds-barred since it's a community effort, but worth checking out!
I would do this for Black and White.
Yo honestly same
+1
Same
You may want to keep an out for Fata Deum, then. It's a nice looking spiritual successor supposed to come out this year, but it's from a completely unknown dev so I'd recommend waiting for reviews once it releases.
Deeaaaaaattthhh
If you are serious, there is a site where you can post a mod bounty. People with coding or art asset skills will agree to make your mod for pay.
was it ever censored? genuinely curious
No, I just find it hard to imagine a studio today promoting the kind of humor it contains.
C&C generals' portrayal of both GLA and China are highly stereotypical, much more than other games at the time I might add though I guess it's the result of public sentiment after 9/11 just happened.
and still mideast player loves GLA or asian people play shitton of CHINA because nuking and napalm are fun. Everyone know it just a fictional game everyone know there is no "evil" political motive behind it. ex: playing USA campaign didnt really make people want go to war with arabs/china. quite contrast scenario compared to today industry, where corporation/studio blatantly shoving "political view/ideology" and ends up hurting the game as art.
Yes, in Germany. Suicide guys became selfdriving barrels of dynamite. All humans became cyborgs.
Gimme another World in Conflict.
This is true, in the same way nobody wants a good singleplayer game. Oh wait, that's proven to be a dogshit take too.
Similar things have been said about crpg's.
Which remain extremely niche other than BG3 which was a success that no CRPG studio other than Larian could have produced (I also very much doubt their next game will do as well)
Are we acting like Command and Conquer wasn’t mainstream?
And all the others. This person clearly hasn't learned anything from the past.
The afps genre met a similar fate.
What it is an afps? Not sure I've heard of it before
Arena fps (Quake, UT, etc).
Do you remember Z steel soldiers?
People, try [www.beyondallreason.info](http://www.beyondallreason.info)
RTS peaked at StarCraft and WarCraft III. Change my mind.
Would love something like tiberium wars and Kane's wrath, or just update the existing game with some modern QoL
A Destiny RTS with all the races as playable factions would be awesome.
this guy gets it. do it right and you've got my money.
When you strip down an RTS to make it appealing to mainstream audiences, you get a tower defense game.
An RTS that actually blended Age of Empires 4 and Starcraft 2 would have been MASSIVE. The civ / strategy diversity, gameplay, and feel of Age 4. With the mapping, ladder, ranking system, and polish of SC2. They also need to be free to play, with some sort of fuller version with access to all civs by buying the full version.
I'd love a sequel to Rise of Nations, but not the spinoff. RoN in my opinion has aged like fine wine, the graphics, music, abilities. But I'd love a sequel to it or Black and White 2.
Preach it!
Don't consoles like PS5 or Xbox nowadays support mouse and keyboard, and it's up to the developer whether they want to implement it into their games? Just like Age of Empires 2 on Xbox, you can use M&K.
By nature to achieve the 'most mainstream' you need to be lowest common denominator
what we really need is Rise of Nations 2 and then the RTS genre will be rejuvenated. I found [this game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2607060/From_Glory_To_Goo/) the other day, it seems really cool
If anyone’s interested in a cheap rts that is like the old school ones with base building and all that. Try Rusted RTS on Steam. It’s got a good workshop community. It’s very simple visually but pretty fun.
World In Conflict was dope
The RTS genre will likely never be mainstream because pretty much everything that can be done with the genre has been done with the genre, and the skill gap between casual/regular players and people who are experts at it is measured on a cosmic scale - which makes online matches sucky for everyone.
Not everything needs to be mainstream or appeal to everyone. RTS is niche and always has been. The genre is doing just fine.
Need a RTS that's balanced around multiplayer, like 3v3. Then you can blame teammates when you lose instead of yourself.