New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]

What a nice board!
It's a conspiracy >>>/hikki/

mage.gif (u)
[Hide] (167.5KB, 271x219)
Back in my time, RTS were huge, one of the most popular genres on PC's, in the 2000's MMORPGS was also extremely popular and a landmark for its time, both but both genres look dead nowadays, Age of Empire 2 remastered helped a little bit to revive RTS, but majority of players are the same old people, in MMMORPGS the players are also people in their 30s playing for nostalgia only.
Why do modern generations of gamers seem to be incapable of liking these genres?
>>63597 (OP) 
Low IQ.
Replies: >>65268
MMOs are dying because nobody's making good MMOs. Of course nobody wants to play them if you only have shit to offer. That said, I don't think they're actually dying, WoW and FFXIV and BDO are pretty popular and even Runescape had a resurgence of sorts.

I think RTS are probably dying for similar reasons. I loved the shit out of Tiberian Sun and Age of Mythology and still replay them occasionally, but the last time I saw an RTS that interested me was 14 year ago with Command & Conquer 3.
Replies: >>63604 >>63610
>>63597 (OP) 
Trend for instant gratification in the case of rts and nobody wants to hang out with diaperfags in the case of mmos.
Well noones making RTSs anymore.
Not including grand strategies.
Exactly. The most recent new games I can recall are Planetary Annihilation and Grey Goo, both about 5 years old, and from what I've heard neither is very good.
Replies: >>63619 >>63640
>>63597 (OP) 
>Interested in Achron since it seemed like a good RTS
>Turns out they do time travel well but the RTS is garbage
At least its the opposite of what I expected.
>>63597 (OP) 
I don't think MMOs are dying. I think they've settled into into their expected place along side social media. The reason MMOs were popular was because it was novel to have so many people to play with. This is basically the case now with every multiplayer online game. There's millions of people playing every single one and "discord communities" to back them up. All you're left with in MMOs without the novelty of social interaction is their game design which frankly is shit in the majority of them. Fortnite and League of Legends are the new MMOs.
>>63597 (OP) 
Because the games are not fun. They are made around to just keep you playing until you subscribe yet for another month. Daily quests,limited time things such as events. FOMO (fear of missing out). Also alot of them are just shit. I tried out ffxiv but it was so fucking boring. Endless fetch quests.
>>63597 (OP) 
The primary reason is greed: RTS games went to shit chasing the esports money, MMO games went to shit chasing the whale money.
Some secondary reasons for RTS games include the fact that people can just go and play older games instead of buying the latest, the enormous challenges posed by optimization and AI requiring long production time with highly competent (and expensive) developers, the split into many different subgenres ranging from city builder to tower defense to 4X, the progressive tryharding of multiplayer communities as everyone and their mum looks up meta strats and builds on youtube...
>inb4 a gazillion faggots going le wrong generation and claiming RTS is just too deep for modern gamers

Haven't tried Grey Goo, tried PA and it's awful.
The core gimmick of playing on tiny round planets is not only nauseating, it also destroys map variety as there's almost no strategically important terrain to be found: you might find a couple easily bypassed chokepoints on an entire map, if you're lucky.
RTS died because it's a gameplay focused genre that you can't just put scripted scenes and quests into, but at the same time people expect better graphics than grand strategy games where you can just have a map with icons on it, so you can't make it on a shoestring budget.
RTS died because they remade the same micro gook-clicker 500 times that all have so little going on besides the build order to pump out the right units on time that a meta is quickly reached. There is no interesting dynamic with resources(although GreyGoo at least tried), there is nothing to be done with buildings aside from maybe block a path, defensive building has been shitcanned because of tourneyfags.
Replies: >>63634
RTS is dead because making a good one is hard and being good at playing them is hard. It needs fun gameplay with interesting strategies but also enough balance to not end up reduced to a few boring fotm setups that beat everything else. The industry simply doesn't have this kind of competence any more.

MMOs have simply evolved into their final form. At their core they are repetitive loot grinders and that's what they've kept while shedding every other aspect. P2W whale farming and daily quests proved themselves as the most profitable business model for the genre, social interaction was removed in favor of matchmaking because it's faster and the gameplay simplified to the minimum needed to keep the zombie in the Skinner box.
Most RTS games had scripted campaign quests and cut scenes.
>that you can't just put scripted scenes and quests into
Nigger you ever played Warcraft 3?
Wannabe movies went out of fashion years ago: for every Snoy "cinematic experience" there's ten ASSFAGGOTs and online shooters.
>inb4 but they're all shit
Never argued otherwise.

>There is no interesting dynamic with resources
Expanding on this, the reason Pradox sells like hotcakes despite their numerous and massive shortcomings is that they at least vaguely try to introduce more complex logistical consideration into the game economy.
Even something as trivial as resource flows is enough to make SupCom stand out from the crowd, that's how little effort is put into economy in the average RTS.
Replies: >>63636 >>63911
>>63597 (OP) 
RTS games died because they all wanted to be the next big MP RTS like Starcraft or to a lesser extent CoH but in practice most players never did MP and the bulk of those who 'did' spent their time in compstomps or houseruled (20min truce or whatever) lan games with friends. Now a lot of the RTS games that wanted to go multiplayer did still have single player content but they never worked on the setting enough that you ever really enjoyed the campaign or got the interesting spectacle when compstomping. A good RTS needs a ton of work put into the look & feel of the setting, unit barks, consistent tone, distinct but not gamebreaking factions and ideally special units and potential strategies that are enjoyable first and balanced second and all of this seems secondary to making a multiplayer-first game.

Trying to chase the handful of compfag RTS players is silly since there's enough to populate maybe 3-4 RTS games total and they don't want to move on from their favourites. Same reason Quake clones have failed time and again.
Paradox sells, in part, because it lets people develop their own history for their faction over time. However instead of this flowing naturally out of a well made, flexible, game it's all about them making hundreds of scripted moments and event chains alongside mana-based abilities to stop you pulling ahead of intended timelines. Paradox games are no longer sandboxes as much as they are being able to pick from a large number of predetermined paths the developers added for you. 

Also much like RTS they've pushed towards MP games (granted with more success) because coding competent AI is hard while simplifying your game down to be finishable in a single session with random players playing at high speed settings is pretty easy. You can see the same trend with Civ V and VI where the AI is 'still' as bad as it's ever been, possibly worse, and they just buffed it even further as of VI max difficulty AI starts out with something silly like 4 free settlers, the same again in builders and free techs and maximum non-modded map size has shrunk once again since they just focus on making a game for competitive multiplayer faggots. Performance is still fairly bad as well and if you mod map sizes larger it can hard crash during global warming because of pajeetcode about scanning tiles or somesuch.

Of course in a game like Civ when you focus on competitive multiplayer you can also power creep the DLC civs so paypiggies have an advantage which is just another part of the business model.
iron-harvest-mechs.jpg (u)
[Hide] (137.1KB, 1200x700)
Iron_Harvest_-_OST_Main_Menu-Ru66o-_WZfg.mp4 (u)
[Hide] (5.9MB, 1280x720, 01:41)
Replies: >>63641 >>63647
Isn't that more a war autism game than an RTS?
Replies: >>63642 >>63643
Replies: >>63650
Thats Scythe
Well that's the only one of few. People just aren't intrested in them as before.
My bad, was thinking of another game. I checked it on steam and you don't sell people on your VIDEOGAME by having 17 different cinematic movie clips with some cringy wannabe-tough story in your gallery.

I love RTS games but that doesn't look interesting to me. Looks too fiddly.
Replies: >>63656
YouTube_faggot.JPG (u)
[Hide] (18.9KB, 267x230)
>[spoiler] [/spoiler]
Replies: >>63658
I know what you mean, from what little gameplay footage I've seen it it closely resembled Company of Heroes, but with base building and diesel-punk mechs.
There's no goddamn FAQ, and even going through a cursory codedive does not help at all.
What the fuck do you want me to do?
lurk 20 years
Replies: >>63668
On that note though, the faq page is in fact 404'ing
Because strategy and MMORPGs have a different market from shootan games. You can dumb down shooters and normalfags will buy it up, but if you dumb down strategy there's no strategy and if you dumb down MMORPGs there's just a skinner box without rewards. 
And you can't even just copy the best sellers because the best sellers have become fucking retarded, so suits copy bullshit, the games sell like shit, and then they bitch and whine that [genre] is dead and consumers don't know what they want. 
There's still strategy games coming out from non-AAA devs and they get players even without the hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing. MMORPGs are more fucked because it's harder for a small studio to keep a server up that supports that many players, and even harder for devs to not be stupid and decide to keep it up when it's not instantly popular after launch.
Replies: >>63954
>genre that you can't just put scripted scenes and quests into
Dear newfaggot, if only you were there when Warcraft 3 had it's heyday, you'd realize that the entire genre of MOBA today owes itself entirely to the scripting prowess of that game.
Replies: >>63673
And that's the real answer to this thread: MOBAs.
9a8168749c542dfa0572113496846fe9-imagepng.png (u)
[Hide] (166.9KB, 424x424)
Lurk until someone fucks up a spoiler fucking nigger
Personally I think Age of Mythology Titans Expansion was the peak of genre and it's all been downhill from there for RTS. With MMOs, the main issues are monetization and player power creep. The gap between new player and old player is too huge in an mmo which leads to stagnation. Assfaggots "fix" this by allowing the sort of gameplay you'd roughly get in a PVP mmo match without any of the grinding.
Also the paypigs who used to pay for MMOs are now just paying for gacha rolls on their phone.

>noones making RTSs anymore
Age of Empires 4 was announced at e3
Replies: >>63776
e658b872c1a775fa50d0a8467637766d23064332edb6c43b30c0f6bafb7d82b5.png (u)
[Hide] (410.5KB, 511x512)
RTS games dies for the same reason Beat 'em ups died. The genre grew stale as every game was essentially a carbon copy of each other. These are the kinds of genres that evolve horizontally instead of vertically. In the case of Beat 'em ups, at least Streets of Rage 4 introduced CUHRAYZEE elements to keep the game fresh, otherwise it would just SOR2/3 with "prettier" graphics and a couple of new characters. Who knows if that new Ninja Turtles game will do something similar.

Bottom line is, they died because their peak of popularity has come and gone. You may see a new game every now and then as there are still tons of people interested in these genres. Just don't expect a 19 year old frilly haired cunt to be one of them.
They "died" because they're all huge time sinks, and not enough long term customers want to abandon their favorite game to pick up something new. Maybe try redefining what you consider as a living genre?
Not to mention, even if you pick up a RTS that has been around for just a few years, you will get stomped by others who use meta strats that make it very unfun. Alot of the times they will torture you a bit to rub salt on the wounds. God forbid if you're in a team, then your teammates will shit talk the entire time while spamming pings. Think the worst communities I've interacted with are from RTS games like CoH and Supreme Commander. You can easily just say "git gud", but most of these fuckers have invested hundreds of hours into the game, and most don't want to invest that much time in a game to NOT get stomped.
Replies: >>63773 >>64264
You raise some good points. While you can always make a pure RTS in this day and age, they, in a way, have reached their peak. 
I guess it's better to make a "hybrid rts", by mixing and matching it with other genres. For example, you could make an RTS RPG, like Baldur's Gate, Dungeon Siege, etc. I would like to see more 4X RTS games like Rise of Nations and Sins of A Solar Empire Rebellion.
You also raise some good points. Fighting games are good comparison. You can't really get good if there aren't enough players around, and the ones around will destroy you in every way possible.
I saw some gameplay footage of AoE 4, and it looks like complete garbage. Apparently it's also going to be very oversimplified with only a few nations.
>You raise some good points. While you can always make a pure RTS in this day and age, they, in a way, have reached their peak. 

Just have a modern RTS do what others did right, with decent AI. Easier said then done, considering AI is a bit of a bitch to work with, but man it would be nice to see some innovation in AI in gaming. Tired of the same "Muh graphics" shit.
Replies: >>63783 >>63831
There's always DorfRTS, which is being aggy-daggy'd by one of our own.
>but man it would be nice to see some innovation in AI in gaming
Three main problems: it's hard as balls so it inflates dev time and budget, it is computationally expensive so it requires more dev time and budget for optimization (and might make players unhappy if they have to dumb the AI down to get good performance), it has a terrible risk to reward ratio as players will notice a poorly working AI while taking anything better than decent as granted.
Replies: >>63912
SupCom, although one of my favorite RTSes, isn't original either. It just rehashes the resource system from Total Annihilation. I do wish there were more RTSes whose gameplay loop doesn't consist of autistically micromanging the actions of a dozen different groups of units at once including worker units, but for some reason this is what people seem to enjoy. A game where your mind is occupied entirely by menial tasks. Funnily enough that sounds a lot like an MMO. TA and SupCom remove the worker unit aspect entirely so that almost all the game is spent trying to control territory, since resource points are spread far more evenly throughout the map. I also liked Dawn of War for this reason, although there were lots of annoying strategies in that game (Eldar). Company of Heroes was similar, but its sequel was shit (much like Dawn of War). These games are all decades old now and nobody feels like doing anything original because it's too risky.
I wish the industry would be more open to sharing this sort of knowledge. I'm sick of seeing a bunch of morons reinvent the fucking wheel for every single game. We're still stuck solving the same issues with AI that we were trying to solve in the 90's. Halo 1, of all games, has better AI than most of the shooters today.
Replies: >>64008
For MMOs, there is also the whole problem of them being used for socialization. Communities formed first, around games that were released first, mostly don't move to anything else. They keep playing the same game, no matter how many others are released. And they only abandon it when the game's servers are shut down. And by that point, the majority don't want to play a similar game ever again.
For MMOs, whatever two or three titles become popular first, win. All other titles lose.

>I guess it's better to make a "hybrid rts"
Brutal: Legends =D
Replies: >>65255 >>65262
MMORPGs are dying because they've been overly optimized for short-term engagement and profits.  When you use a monetization model that's based on things like microtransactions and subscriptions, you are getting what seems like a constant stream of information about how your players feel about your game.  It is only natural that you would try to adjust your development practices to keep these moment-to-moment metrics high, but once you do that you destroy the cohesiveness of your world.  Things are no longer part of an overarching vision but a slapdash combination of whatever makes number go up.  This works in the short term, but eventually nothing about the logic of your world works anymore and you don't have a coherent pitch to sell new people on your game, so the whole thing stagnates and eventually collapses.
The analogy of MMOs as Skinner boxes for players is old, but the more insidious problem is that they're Skinner boxes for devs.
Most of that stuff is extremely game-specific, unfortunately.
Even something as seemingly simple as code to make AI bots aim "naturally" will need massive rewrites if you try to port it from Quake to Arma or the other way around.
>>63597 (OP) 
I guess the RTS formula is just stale. There's not really much you can do to innovate it. Even back in the day I would just cheat to get through Starcraft since I cared more about the story than the dull gameplay.
Replies: >>64012
You can't innovate an RTS in the same way that you can't innovate an MMO. Nobody is capable of even thinking about anything except copying the biggest games, and copying another game is the #1 way to never make anything new.
Replies: >>64038
There's plenty of ways to try and innovate within the RTS genre it's just difficult. There's still plenty of work to be done in the areas of height affecting gameplay, underground/multiple levels of combat, destruction to open up paths and those just affect terrain. However yes nobody does anything but copy existing formulas instead.
Replies: >>64056
>underground/multiple levels of combat
Armies of Exigo did that already. It was okay, but it didn't have much else to stand it out other than the grafeex.
Replies: >>64060 >>64235
>copypaste warcract and add layers
How innovative.
>>63597 (OP) 
I've played MMOs around 10 years ago and grew tired of them. I suspect they were never that fun to begin with but new and fascinating to many when WoW made it a mainstream thing. Not sure about RTS, but I always thought chinks and gooks still love them. You are probably right about AoE 2 though, the only people I know who play it are people with whom I've already played AoE 1/2 as a little boy.
Replies: >>64208
AoE2's revival won't last anyway. Microsoft continues improperly supporting multiplayer in the same way they supported HD. Improper support like questionable performance issues still present since release, insisting on Ranked using only auto matchmaking despite not having enough players for a truly even skill distribution, a lack of customization options for lobby matches, and introducing yet more gimmicky civilizations and balance changes for streamers to make meme videos. Yes, far more people play single player only than multiplayer. But this argument doesn't care to realize it's the multiplayer community advertising and promoting the game to those single player only people.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn AoE2's momentum is already dead, and it's only alive artificially by Microsoft paying professional streamers to shill the game for them with tournament prizes and other favors.
I know a few games have toyed with it, the point is there's plenty more to do than what's been tried. Instead everyone just wants to copy CoH/Starcraft/whatever e-sports shit.
5630fda1ae663eab1b28b196761c47b740a8d08b2cc578f769cec462a8a07571.jpg (u)
[Hide] (40KB, 1024x768)
>There's no goddamn FAQ,
are you fucking stu-
seagull wtf
Replies: >>64253 >>64258
Replies: >>64254
Seriously why did these stop working?
look again, I finally figured out what was wrong
I wasnt doing it right the whole time
Replies: >>64261 >>64262
1e9d3356e5a2b0c7d59169073653d37280c6ff977b05a8f3355a5312b59aa147.png (u)
[Hide] (56.3KB, 270x270)
let's see how good of a monkey you were
spoiler text
(##2d9+3) Rolled 2 dice with 9 sides and modifier +3 = 15
>>>/b/	>>>/b/
>>>/b/123	>>>/b/123
inline monospace
int main() {...}
( ・ω・) Let's try that again.
75fe87279af873e22dbd5e01b0cb8f1d139b0aa39be52f812349fa2e7245afbf.png (u)
[Hide] (85.3KB, 558x535)
italic doesn't work
Replies: >>64263 >>64298
I see it, ill go edit the helper again
Metzo.mp4 (u)
[Hide] (8.9MB, 368x368, 04:00)
>Can't evolve anymore
Niggers, have you played a single RTS in your life?
Something like World in Conflict and Company of Heroes have tons of space to be improved upon.
The issue I find is that most faggot devs would rather go all arcady and shit with their mechanics instead of a more authentic approach.

Scale, visuals and gameplay, that's what a modern RTS should strive for to make bank.
There's a reason Wargame/Steel Battalion and Total War still sell well.

There's so much you could add in WiC from naval units to completely new classes and there's so much you could add to Company of Heroes from bigger scale to completely new units.

The things that are missing are:
Replies: >>65446 >>65450
shantae_huh.jpg (u)
[Hide] (46.7KB, 315x372)
And I also see the faq page no longer is 404, but do dice rolls need to be on their own line? I've never tested it. (##1d10+1) Rolled 1 dice with 10 sides and modifier +1 = 2
(##1d10+1) Rolled 1 dice with 10 sides and modifier +1 = 8
Replies: >>64266
Looks like it works (##1d20) Rolled 1 dice with 20 sides = 14 wherever I put it.
etna.gif (u)
[Hide] (14.6MB, 543x768)
>seagull derailing thread to spoonfeed newfags
>muh spoonfeeding
That's sturg, not seagull. Also, reported your post for going against the status quo and deamaning our glorious leader, seagull
>calling other people a newfag
Replies: >>64299
1d6c857e2bfd511242cea45413d9d3ab653bee401ceeb6cac7139cc467c76190.png (u)
[Hide] (338.6KB, 823x720)
What the fuck fish, why did you turn italic code to bold?
Replies: >>64300
up yours fagfish
Etna is cute, but not quite to my taste.
Replies: >>65132
Replies: >>65133
Etna_Mold.webm (u)
[Hide] (428.4KB, 791x870, 00:00)
We all have our preferences anon.
Replies: >>65256
1422305486254.jpg (u)
[Hide] (17.1KB, 321x322)
>2 new RTS games are upcoming
>One is being made by Uncapped Games studio, which was made by Tencent
>Other is being made by Frost Giant, which is funded by Riot and ergo Tencent
Replies: >>65255 >>65256
When_Senpai_Doesnt_Fit.png (u)
[Hide] (27.9KB, 381x323)
>Brutal: Legends =D
That hurts, anon. That hurts a lot.
Replies: >>65262 >>65387
Fair enough. God I wish that was me being ridden by Etna
Fuckin' chinks, they're killing RTSes for good.
Replies: >>65260 >>65387
Spoiler File (u)
(773.4KB, 1080x1080)
I think Flonne is cuter.
Replies: >>65274
Uprising: Join or Die
That multiplayer C&C Renegade game
Battlefield 2
Replies: >>65783
RTS is for low iq people, lmao. Grand strategy is the real shit
Replies: >>65390 >>65404
My nigger. Angel Flonne best Flonne
They see a stagnant genre that once had an enormous fanbase in parts of their sphere, and they think they can make some money selling crap to idiots. It shouldn't take communists to teach capitalism to capitalists.
Replies: >>65404
grand "strategy" is played only by trannies
You post a like a low IQ negroid, so we can easily invalidate your wrong opinion.

>It shouldn't take communists to teach capitalism to capitalists.
Except China's capitalism is just as crony as the West. When ever they revive or invest into a dead or small genre that rarely anyone has cares about, the games always tend to be shit, because chinks for some reason enjoys bad rushed games. The West is doing capitalism, but only in what interests them and the market, while chinks are trying to rebuild dead ones into something worse than they were before.
>>63597 (OP) 
Hard to play either on a smartphone
There is alot of room to approve, but the issue is its a HUGE time investment that comes with alot of pain for a niche game, and most people don't want to do that, especially when most players are miles ahead in terms of skill. This isn't even considering how awful it is to deal with these fags to.
Personally I tried with CoH, and either I had a Chinese teamate who kept spamming the ping botton and was completly useless, or the enemy knew we where new, and litterally hunkers down and won't let you budge, making the match stale. Rather then bum rush me to quit wasting my time, hell I had both instances I mentioned happen at once. But man o man, when I played with friends who skill levels varied, it was a lot of fun.
Replies: >>65447 >>65450
Forgot to mention, some of the vet players will give you advice and actual useful tips, but it varies from game to game. One thing I think CoH did that eas absolute cancer was letting people view your stats. Hard to get a balanced team cause some faggot sees your not a top tier player, and joins the oher veteren player. Most of my CoH matches wind up being two noobs versus two vets. Geez what fun.
I don't disagree with your general points but both WiC and Wargame are RTTs not RTS. Wargame also declined further into micromanagement and DLC power creep hell with each entry not helped by the community being faggots and only playing the worst gamemodes but that's a seperate issue.

I'm not actually a huge fan of CoH but the big issue with the first game is people playing Annihilation and the fact patches kept nerfing any faction or strategy that wasn't in the standard meta. The game works far better on the capture point mode though given 2 is out we'll likely never see a return to an actually decent airborne tree or unnerfed bong artillery.
GT_Against_The_Tide.jpg (u)
[Hide] (309.7KB, 1920x1080)
graviteam-tactics-against-tide-0319-01.jpg (u)
[Hide] (519.1KB, 1920x1080)
Is Graviteam Tactics the absolute peak of RTS games?
Replies: >>65455
I don't know. I've never played it.
104361852_10158529747722431_2830946670117735847_o-1536x864.jpg (u)
[Hide] (198.2KB, 1536x864)
maxresdefault.jpg (u)
[Hide] (128.6KB, 1280x720)
opera_9Kct5kShHR.png (u)
[Hide] (1.7MB, 1488x837)
opera_sRT3PzRPBY.png (u)
[Hide] (1.8MB, 1488x837)
Hopefully the Firestorm sequel to Renegade also. I say "hopefully" because last month one of the original developers left the project to accept a professional job offer, and it sounds like the project's momentum is much slower until the Ren-X team finds his replacements. In Firestorm X Dev Talk #5 on the Renegade X YouTube channel, it sounded like Firestorm X would for sure release in 2021. But now according to brief developer updates on the Ren-X forums, the Ren-X team is back to being unsure of even a release year for Firestorm X. Fortunately the Ren-X team has plans for another Dev Talk around the end of Summer, so I'm not yet mulling the possibility of the Firestorm X project going into limbo until further notice.
Replies: >>65810
Those maps look pretty big. 
Honestly might be too big for the type of game Renegade X is
Replies: >>65882
They are big. Firestorm X is completely different to Renegade X, and I'm curious about why the developers label Firestorm as an expansion to Renegade rather than a sequel. Judging by the Dev Talk videos, Firestorm looks like a C&C themed Battlefield game. But it also has RTS aspects like base building, tech trees, collecting resources, and the like.

Also curiously the large maps are another one of the reasons for why Firestorm is taking so long to complete. Because it wasn't until the Fall or Winter of last year that someone discovered some mysterious UDK wizardry that allows the creation of these larger maps without the game running like garbage when 64 players are on the same map.
Replies: >>65927
I hope they have several smaller maps at launch. I prefer very large playercounts for my FPSes, but they're indie launching a traditionally unpopular genre (RTS/FPS games always sound like great ideas and even play well but fail pretty quickly, for whatever reason) that's a follow-on to a cult classic. They're probably going to have some low-pop times of day, and players will need something to do other than tooling around with 16 or 20 players in a map made for 64. I want this game to succeed because I've always enjoyed these RTS/FPSes (more so when they're RTS-lite like Renegade was rather than having a commander role to fuck up) and there just hasn't been a good one in a while.
Replies: >>65959
I suppose the easy solution for smaller maps is to repurpose Renegade's maps with Firestorm's basebuilding. I see by earlier Dev Talk videos and pre-pre alpha media they've done this already with one, maybe two maps. I barely recall in the very early days of development that one of the design goals for original Firestorm maps is dynamically scaling sizes based on player counts. But this could just be my imagination. I have no idea how such a thing would work either.
Replies: >>66038
It's a tough problem, because you have to decide what to do if players join or leave a match in progress, which they inevitably will. It's probably tempting to say that if more than, say, 10 players leave a match then the enjoyment factor of the match is probably fucked even if the map doesn't dynamically scale down. I guess they had to be talking only about picking a different scale of map for a different number of players when the round starts, and that's conceptually simple enough to do by designing the map so that you block off areas of it to make it appropriate for the number of players at round start. But I imagine that actually doing that and doing it well isn't easy, and is probably about as hard as it would be to just design a separate, smaller map. Older games with relatively large server sizes handled that by being successful and having lots of players available to fill in when people quit out of--which I guess begs the question a little bit.
The mobile platform and the addiction of instant gratification is what's killing MMO's and RTS.

There's no room for instant feel good moments in an RTS, you get fucked until you learn and then you start to win, that's kind of it, it's a long learning process and isn't fun for the low attention span player of today.

For MMORPG's it's a bit more complex, they can sort of adopt the instant gratification model, but it rarely pans out well and makes the playerbase fuck off en masse, MMORPG's are more suited to using delayed gratification, where you gradually level to a certain point and fully enjoy each unlock as it comes, developing that interest and immersion within the game and then you can get the cool loot at the endgame, vs being handed a bunch of xp boosters at lv 1 and getting to max level within a week or a few months.

This is usually a method of pandering to the causal gamer, but in reality it turns off the more dedicated playerbase, and then the casual player doesn't really want to invest any time into the game, and eventually deletes it due to lack of interest.

It's a really bad business model, and these companies bleed themselves dry over this, relying on hefty whaling from microtransactions to keep afloat.

With the growing popularity of tablets and mobile phones, it's quickly dominating the market & these games rarely also rarely translate well to Mobile, although Runescape is making an attempt and doing somewhat well off it, helps that Runescape movement is attached to clicking the mouse rather than wasd, but it's a struggle, there's a lot lost in translation to the mobile interface and you lose a lot of complexity, and it just results in extra challenge to the end user as they lose the 40-50 or so button inputs needed to really be good at the game, as in any MMO.

The same issue exists for other MMO's, but worse as they use WASD to move around, & the fine control needed for any good RTS would never make it on mobile, not to mention most player keep or drop an app within about 5 minutes, it's kind of hard for MMO's and RTS to sell themselves on their mechanics within those 5 minutes, vs a game where you can just get dropped into the game with minimal instruction and get sucked in like a battle royale or minecraft.

These games needs to adapt to the current market trends or die. Sad as that may be.
Telos.png (u)
[Hide] (229.2KB, 508x285)
Also, there must be at least one of you that plays RS3 other than me.
How the fuck do I deal with this cunt? I feel mentally exhausted getting 1 kill after 20 minutes of attempts. I'm only on 155% enrage.
Replies: >>69545 >>69564
Monster_Hunter_logo.png (u)
[Hide] (137.6KB, 376x265)
>>63597 (OP) 
I still like RTS games but why should I still give a fuck about MMOs when Monster Hunter is now a thing? I mean when an MMO dies all your grinding is for fuck all. With MH I can still go on quests with randoms that will piss me off but have the added bonus of being able to do that shit offline and when I found out MH players have bodged together private servers for old MH PSP games well MMO just became fucking pointless for me.
Replies: >>66242
Seems you've taken the ultimate redpill. That smaller, more focused multiplayer games will always be more enjoyable as well as economical than MMOs. Truly a failed genre, ocean wide and puddle deep with no hope of creating content that isn't padded out with filling bars, watching numbers go up or literally waiting around for time gated content.
Now if only they'd stop being profitable.
Replies: >>66246
might_seed.png (u)
[Hide] (7.3KB, 320x320)
The red pill in question.
Case in point: Blizzard dying because of that.
>it's all the fault of Candy Crush and modern casual gaymers, amrite???
>please disregard all earlier symptoms of RTS fatigue
>please disregard all the dogshit releases making the genre unappealing to players and publishers alike
>please disregard the thousands of attempts to chase esports money
Your misunderstanding of MMOs is just as laughable.
The whole genre is built on anything but instant gratification: the intended gameplay loop is 100% grind on time-consuming raid requiring the cooperation of many players and severely punishing any mistake, the intended result is players dedicating 100% of their free time on your game to not disappoint their guildmates, quickly falling into the sunk cost fallacy, and soon being de facto locked into your product no matter what the competition does.
XP boosters don't exist to pander to casuals, they're there to get the newfags into the grind faster: casuals are going to fuck off the moment they notice a hint of spreadsheet, they're not the target audience unless you're going for the "pls forget that you're actually paying a subscription" business model a la Patreon/Netflix/Amazon Prime/whatever.
Replies: >>66295 >>66377
confused_loli.png (u)
[Hide] (142.8KB, 362x346)
Why are you so aggressively agreeing with me?
Replies: >>66298 >>66317
Anon's been taking testosterone supplements.
The first line of your post was
>The mobile platform and the addiction of instant gratification is what's killing MMO's and RTS.
This is wrong and retarded.
I'm not agreeing with you, I'm insulting you because you're writing reddit-tier posts: long and eloquent, but completely detached from reality.
Now fuck off.
Replies: >>66377
This thread has had some great discussion. Also, a bit autistic, because after a certain point we're just going to be repeating the same thing over and over again. All the money that could go into MMOs have moved onto gacha and mobile phones.
>Make MMO
<Have to hire modelers, animators, etc.
<Unironically one of the hardest game genres to program for
<Hard to make new content
<All the server costs
>Make gacha
<The bare minimum you have to do is hire some competent character designers and artists/modelers
<Can easily get women, fujos, and the gays to play the game, by adding male characters
<Server costs, but it doesn't matter due to how easy it is to make money
Replies: >>66454
>The whole genre is built on anything but instant gratification:
That's exactly what he said.
>XP boosters don't exist to pander to casuals
That's not what he said but I disagree with you there.

>For MMORPG's it's a bit more complex, they can sort of adopt the instant gratification model, but it rarely pans out well and makes the playerbase fuck off en masse, MMORPG's are more suited to using delayed gratification, where you gradually level to a certain point and fully enjoy each unlock as it comes, developing that interest and immersion within the game and then you can get the cool loot at the endgame, vs being handed a bunch of xp boosters at lv 1 and getting to max level within a week or a few months.
I discussed this in the last MMO thread and concluded its quite possibly the worst system to build a MMO on. It needs a progression system that doesn't separate players or force all of them to be at the same level to play together.
Pretty much. People played MMOs for the social interaction and the grinding-levelling loop with semi-random drop-based gear progression eventually replacing the levels. Once someone is hooked the non-guaranteed nature of later gear drops actually improved their attachment to the game since it felt like more of an event when something dropped even though it was functionally the same as hitting a defined XP count and getting a power boost. The dopamine hits from grinding/gear dropping are easily replaced with gacha mechanics and the social interaction nowadays is provided by Discord, Reddit, streamers' chatrooms and so on. In fact you can often even repurpose existing settings, MMO or otherwise, for your new gacha spin-off and catch retards like this
Replies: >>66455
I honestly don't understand how anyone can spend a single cent on gacha shit. How did we get from people throwing a fit over $5 horse armor to people blowing $16,000 on jpegs?
>I honestly don't understand how anyone can spend a single cent on gacha shit.
The vast majority of all revenue for these games is derived from a handful of whales, it is basically unregulated gambling even where some games are not directly gambling they target the same dopamine hit mechanic that targets addicts and children/adolescents neither of whom have sufficient self-control to resist it. Outside of that you have more casual users who throw a handful of cash at it now and again but honestly they're of more use to the devs as a protective '90% of our users are responsible and spend next to nothing ingame' cover for their exploitation as they are for making money and if they break even on dev costs that's just gravy. Partly it's a social thing as well nowadays, the big realisation was people are far more likely to spend money either on things they can either show off or particularly for content that can be used in cooperative gameplay: it's a lot easier for an addict to justify his paying to himself as helping out his team than it is as a personal purchase.

Horse armour was useless since only you can see it, horse armour everyone can see or a buff that lets you feel like you're the man who saved all your friends is selling a feeling. The former idea, the bragging rights skins or overpowered equipment, was the earlier concept developed in the original home of F2P shit which was asia where face is everything and bugpeople mentality means the idea people who pay get unfair advantages is just culturally normal but the latter idea of selling the feeling of teamwork instead of individual power/prestige is more for the western market western teenagers are also bugpeople-tier sociopaths so they stick to the skins/equipment until they grow into actually functional adults. Similarly having gacha have (((reddit))) communities and the like sells that feeling since people want to feel like they're taking part in a community developing strategies and swapping even where there isn't direct multiplayer cooperation and they can't take part if they don't have the content.

>How did we get from people throwing a fit over $5 horse armor to people blowing $16,000 on jpegs?
The window has been moved gradually. Every 4-5 years either people who are young or casual older people who never did vidya will move into games and accept the current level of jewing as the baseline. Then over those years it gets gradually turned up and sure a bunch of those people will get turned off and move off to other games or stop playing entirely but others will hang on if they're addicted or have no other social outlet and the fact each one is paying more money more or less evens out the losses from those who dropped out. Once they're in that loop the sunk costs fallacy sinks in. Then this process repeats after 5 years with a new micro-generation of players except their window 'starts' where the last one left off. Of course this is simplified and in reality it's more like a constant churn where the tail end of the last group overlaps with the head of the new one but you get the idea. There's a question I suppose about how sustainable this all is but digital items cost nothing to create and a negligible amount to run as a service and the market will continue to grow as long as population grows.

Key to understanding a lot of this is that usually whales are only throwing money at a single game, maybe two. Going back maybe 15 years the industry realised that even if you very loosely defined hardcore gamers as people who bought something silly like 3-4 full price games a year the number of potential customers was only in the low double digit millions and every AAA release was competing for a slice of that comparatively small market. Thus they had to find better ways to monetise the far larger market of people who stuck to a handful of games and preferably lower the barrier to swap from competitor games (no entry fee) while upping the barrier to leave your product (sunk costs fallacy). Instead of making your money from 100 customers paying $60 why not have 10 customers pay $600? Those 10 people will feel like they've invested too much to leave easily and as long as you drip feed in new 'content' again basically just jpges and fancy animations, cost to produce is tiny to make them suffer from the fear of missing out they'll keep coming back.

For the whales, who make the money, gacha is a de facto subscription: you 'must' keep paying to keep on top of the content for your social position. Whales are subject to both sunk costs fallacy and the fear they'll miss out if they don't keep up.
Replies: >>66470
Mental illness, simple as.
The people who hated horse armor still loathe it, but they can't sway the opinion of literal addicts, especially when they're being groomed by some megacorp that wants to milk every last dollar out of them.
This is also why "voting with your wallet" is amerilard nonsense.
Replies: >>66692
872ec4edbda955c12d921abe2d9487ab2a2eedd2303164152a9262780c216ea4.png (u)
[Hide] (622.2KB, 828x720)
>sunk costs fallacy
But all their jpegs disappear when the game inevitably dies anyway.
Replies: >>66472
People falling into a fallacy are hardly thinking rationally in the first place. Remember this is a way not to monetise hardcore gamers (i.e. you and I) but to maximise cash from the casual gamers who play a handful of games.
Replies: >>66688 >>66718
Like the other anon says, it comes down to the profile of the "average" gamer having changed over time. Numerically, gamers today are mostly people who play mobile games and are willing to hear that they have to pay a buck to play ten more games of their game today. Just by weight of numbers, that makes their voice louder. 
Very, very few people think rationally the majority of the time, and even usually-rational thinkers can have situations or subjects where they don't think rationally.
>This is also why "voting with your wallet" is amerilard nonsense.
That doesn't logically follow at all.  It's a phrase meant to convey that the bulk of consumers (or constituents) can alter the direction of their host (or parasite) via selection. Perhaps you're alluding to the "whale" phenomenon, if so you need to remember that it's not really the number of people, it's the amount of value that's relevant. In that case instead of being "a majority of people need to [want/not want] this" it's "a majority of wealth needs to be directed [away from/towards] this". That could be a couple of significant investors, or it could be the majority of consumers. Generally margins aren't so high for some consumers that the rest can be thrown away, but sometimes that is the case.
Replies: >>66693 >>66718
That anon is stating the unsupported assumption that much of the money spent on optional content in games is spent by people who're impossible to convince against spending the money, so that there's no pathway to making it unprofitable for companies to sell optional content. It sounds like "the masses are too stupid to help themselves/we've lost fellow gamers" defeatism to me.
Replies: >>66718
Whales aren't casual gamers by any sane definition.
Casual gamers might play candy crush when they have 5 minutes of free time and the latest assassin creed when they've got 30, but they're absolutely not grinding daily for jpegs or battlepasses.

>It's a phrase meant to convey that the bulk of consumers (or constituents) can alter the direction of their host
And that's exactly why it is nonsense: wallet "votes" are valued by their monetary value, not by the amount of people behind them.
The entire point of voting in politics is to ensure you go with the choice that pisses off the least amount of people, giving some people more valuable votes is how you get the French revolution or the Rwanda genocide.

>bro just, like, convince the whales wasting their life savings on jpegs
>bro, they're totally sane individuals making a healthy choice
>bro, why you gotta mess with the """free""" market
>bro, the 0.01% of whales are totally "the masses"
Fuck off
Replies: >>66736
The point of voting is to make goyim think their opinions matter and they can get what they want if they just keep working, when the truth is every option on the ballot works for you. Even if this isn't the case anyone who's used an imageboard for more than 5 years should know that most human beings can't even take control of their own lives, why would you let them have control over others?
Replies: >>66750
>>63597 (OP) 
A combination of getting good enough at them to actively participate in the community taking a very, very long time to complete, and their core gameplay already having enough refinement to leave room only for small innovations. The result is veteran players will not leave the older games they spent hundreds of hours on to relearn a new meta in a new game, and the newer players ignore small innovations from a new game for the already established and popular older games. These are some of the same reasons for why Arena FPS's today are not really a thing.

If there's a brighter future for MMO's, RTS's, and AFPS's, then it's outside any known design philosophy and techniques, like hybrid genres, or human-like AI.
>why would you let them have control over others?
Because the alternative is giving that control to one random cunt, or to a bunch of rich cunts with decades of experience in scamming people.
Replies: >>67211 >>67214
>or to a bunch of rich cunts with decades of experience in scamming people
Oh my, I sure am glad that we have democracy to prevent every single layer of power in our societies to fall into the hands of a group of (((people))) known for their wealth and ruthlessly deceiving and exploiting people at every opportunity.
Replies: >>69698
I will have a rich tyrant that is aligned with my views and beliefs over anyone else that works for the interests of others that don't think like me, anytime
Replies: >>67248 >>69698
>he thinks he gets to choose the tyrant
>he thinks he gets to convince the tyrant
How's high school, champ?
Replies: >>67286
The"benevolent dictator" has been proven in the market, there's just nothing better for quality. The only issue is getting the elite players to collectively abandon once he's been dethroned for whatever reason. Nostalgia and sunk-cost are a windfall for eager Mammon worshipers  to swoop in and capture from established IPs.
Replies: >>69698
>he thinks that tyrants can't be indoctrinated to follow my views
It will be fun watching authorities loyal to MY tyrant of choice persecuting and killing you.
Replies: >>69584
>there must be at least one of you that plays RS3 other than me
I messed around with it for a tiny bit, maybe if there was a private server with all its contents I'd try it, I'd actually rather play RS3 than OSR
>>63597 (OP) 
Almost every video game genre in existance requires a progress in technology and mechanics to justify new software. Otherwise there is no real reason to play them over older games. The video game industry, regardless of the level(AAA,AA, Indie etc.), hasn't invested in serious computer science to bring real improvements into the market and thus it it no wonder that almost every video game genre is in a state of purgatory.
Replies: >>69748 >>69749
1251990278fd83172a19e828b7e72c836040d0047fbe013a13c008006fb22745.jpg (u)
[Hide] (11.9KB, 400x379)
>playing a terrible MMO that looks like shit, plays like shit, misses any of the charm of vanilla RS2 and is funded by chinks
Replies: >>75117 >>75175
/v/ - Video Games
Replies: >>69747
>newfags still believe in the enlightened king sham
Fucking Thomas of Aquinas recognized it as a lie, wake up faggots.
>inb4 Aquinas was a libtard
Replies: >>69700 >>69728
0ca653be057afe1bd301710b27931cc8b9aeb192633c84a5169d778a4f4ba8cb.jpg (u)
[Hide] (36.7KB, 348x342)
>a benevolent dictatorship doesn't work because monarchy is bullshit
Replies: >>69702
>Aquinas writes that virtue among rulers has proven to be rare and unreliable
>anon decides that surely Aquinas was referring purely to monarchy
At least try to read, I get that it's harder without cute anime girls but you can do it.
Replies: >>69716
If you post something so vague as "you're all dumb because my favorite writer wrote you're dumb!" then you should expect people to misinterpret whatever it is you're referencing without even citing. How can they not? You've completely failed to even explain the point beyond "kings bad." Being the beautiful, well-educated scholar that you are, you should realize that's just a baseless assertion and can therefore be effortlessly negated or contradicted with the following: You are wrong.
Or, perhaps you'd prefer something with a bit more authority? In that case: Even Socrates and Aristotle knew that kings weren't bad! Wake up, sheeperson!
Are you implying Aquinas was stupid
Videogames are politics.
>invested in computer science
What the fuck are you talking about? You sound like a tone-deaf kike from Amazon or Netflix trying to break into the market by throwing money at random assholes until a good game pops out. Making effective and innovative games is about choosing the right people, not having a big budget. John Carmack for example was studying research papers on the literal cutting edge of PC graphics rendering when he wrote Doom.
Talent (and by default, good genetics) is what produces quality. Nor money, nor tools or equipment.
Good games are only possible when people of superior genes gather to make them.
The reason why games are shit today is because the inferior, the subhumans, the ones with bad genes that shouldn't even be allowed to be born, were tolerated and integrated into society, to the point that they are working on jobs that should be exclusive to people with good genes.
Replies: >>69955 >>69995
Why would people with amazing genes waste them on videogames
Replies: >>70011 >>70016
every time you see a post like this remember the poster is at least 30% groid
Replies: >>70014
Because actual people have passion for their hobbies, you drone.
>butthurt untalented with inferior genes subhuman
Take a man ideally suited to be the leader of your society for example. Even if he is among the hardest workers to ever live, there will be limitations to what he can do and he will have to choose his battles. This fits into what you were saying; he wouldn't waste his time on making entertainment in all likelihood. However passion is also a part of those genetics and there are other factors that make someone more specialized at a certain task than others. Someone who writes a new engine that revolutionizes game development is probably predisposed to a love of building things and independence. He may not be good with people but it may not matter in his case; his talent for building may be so great as to make up for a lack of a backing team. He might have become a different sort of engineer, but those other fields usually have massive budgetary constraints and safety constraints which would impede his desire to work faster.
Replies: >>70018 >>70053
Also, writing software for games is much more interesting than writing software for enterprise if you like math at all. The latter is filled with routine shit like writing out mapping layers for data. But with games you have to think about virtually everything because everything is a product of your imagination.
He asked why somebody with the ability would use it, not why somebody who succeeds would have the ability. Mostly because the latter is obvious.
(summer).jpg (u)
[Hide] (162.5KB, 737x1024)
Hey lads I was wondering if we could organize a thread were we play some MMORPGS.
The goal would making a guild in that game and finishing all the content the game has to offer, the games should ideal have an private server so most anons can participate.
Although I played some MMORPGS but I never tried the social aspect of it, or have done any raiding or content that requires massive amount of players.
I think this idea would help anon like me to get into MMORPGS.
no_one_around_to_help.webm (u)
[Hide] (8.4MB, 640x360, 01:21)
what_the_fuck_am_I_casting.jpg (u)
[Hide] (438.2KB, 1680x1050)
>I want to be led by my hand into the MMOs by anons
god help you, underage anon
Replies: >>73851
Alright I want to play an MMO that doesn't look like that, what the fucking is happening in that pic ?
>finishing all the content the game has to offer
Good fucking luck trying to get speedrun niggers to stop grinding 24 hours per day so you can keep up or take time to enjoy the game.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, anon. However, the best way to get into MMOs are playing them with your IRL friends, or people you can count on to play with you consistently. Anyway, here are some suggestions:
>Guild Wars 2
>Star Trek Online
>Dungeon Fighter Online It doesn't run on Linux, RIP Linux friends.
>Lord of the Rings Online
I miss Tribes Ascend so much. I might make a thread about lamenting about dead games and seeing if there are any possible successors.
>I miss Tribes Ascend so much.
You should make a TA gamenight thread instead
Replies: >>74027
Feels great being part of a /v/ guild and having competent players who can get shit done. Too bad everyone stops playing by the time I get high enough level to play with them
I hope that we can get into a (good) mmo at some point again. It seems like for the most part, the /v/ user base has moved on to other things or has played enough mmo for a lifetime.
Replies: >>73868
Most of my IRL don't like MMOs and I like the idea of >>73866, I want to play with you guys no homo
Replies: >>74027
>However, the best way to get into MMOs are playing them with your IRL friends
I don't think that's true, but maybe you have good IRLs. I feel most comfortable with anons even though I think I would find most of you insufferable irl or you would think the same of me. Besides that, I don't think getting people into a game, and an MMO of all things, ever really works unless you're very similar and they just happen to not be playing something else. Plus depending on your personality, there can be a lot of guilt and other negative emotion involved. e.g. you feel like you're bothering them, they dropped the game so you're upset at them or yourself, they started playing the game and now you feel guilty about causing them to waste hours of their life on it
Replies: >>73875 >>74027
8675eb2e9985c1f47eedeb09edfa00a52bb36d2d9f4a88f341f8f7176e6b1ab4.gif (u)
[Hide] (1.6MB, 500x281)
I didn't know this existed!
Fair enough.
Guess I'm lucky then. I know a handful of people IRL that are into them.
A-anon, are you ok?
ClipboardImage.png (u)
[Hide] (905.5KB, 680x680)
Nigger they kicked out the chinks last year.
It's American owned now, for better or worse.
Meet the new face of Jagex.
Replies: >>75139
Are they still doing gay pride parades?
Replies: >>75167
Not to my knowledge, but I don't go to any in game Jmod events because I can imagine it's just an hour of whoever can be the biggest attentionwhore and suck up to whichever 'jmod' is hosting the hour.
So I wouldn't really know, they're probably doing gay shit there, but I've never seen it.
Isn't the chinks losing power over vydia because the chink goverment? Tencent is in ruins, last I read about them.
9d3371c8468070488d402c94e4a8e66e6d14f671f08e66ba0cfff086b0dcd341.jpg (u)
[Hide] (602.7KB, 2048x2048)
RTS are dead because It's too late to git gud at them. The only people who still play them are veterans who know the game like the palm of their hand and can crush newbies by pumping 200 APM, which is in turn the reason why noobs don't even want to try them. Just join one of those "noob rooms" in Gameranger. There is no upwards mobility anymore, specially since in most of the games there are metas to follow.

It also didn't help that the genre was eclipsed by FPS in the late 2000's.

162 replies | 36 files | 101 UIDs
Show Post Actions



- news - rules - faq -
jschan 0.1.5