So I played a lot in WOL and HOTS. I didn’t play much LOTV. Just got busy with work and other games. But I will say I think SC 2 is the best modern RTS still. And it’s crazy to think it’s kinda an old game now. But yeah it’s been fun
3 Likes
Welcome back!
Though its StarCraft 2’s last leg of life we are still clinging and kicking. Yeah I agree it is still the modern and best RTS game. Coupled it with a Sci-Fi warzone, to me it is still the best spectator e-sport.
2 Likes
Ya for sure even when I wasn’t playing I would try to follow GSL. It’s a shame the scene isn’t supported by blizzard like it was anymore…like if they took valves approach to Dota things could have been different
I wish StarCraft 2 stayed alive for much longer, but in order for that to happen, game rights must be sold to external company (Frost Giants ?), otherwise game will be COMPLETELY dead within a year. No content (coop commanders, maps), no bugfixing, no anti-cheat protection make large portion of the player database leaving. If you are back after long time enjoy the game while it lasts.
1 Like
Reality check: SC2 is an “EAM” game aka “Endurance and Multitasking.” Strategy has only a very minor role and 95-99% of the outcome is decided by A) who can click the fastest and B) who can click the fastest for the longest period of time.
1 Like
Real-Time: Decisions and actions are taken in real time rather than in set turns.
Strategy: A plan of action developed before a campaign or skirmish.
99.9% of players are going to have a plan of action in mind before a game, therefore this game is, by definition, a Real Time Strategy game. What is most likely to influence your win has literally no bearing on genre definition.
2 Likes
By your definition driving a car is an RTS game. In fact every single real time game in existence is under the massive umbrella you’ve created out of your imagination. Time to come up with a new definition because your definition is trash.
1 Like
If you’re conflating me driving my car with playing a video game, you’re the one that’s having issues with definitions friendo
1 Like
And there you have it. Completely destroyed.
A real-time strategy must, by definition, have strategy as its largest component because its literally in the name of the game genre. Are we going to start calling Call of Duty an RTS game, when it is clearly an FPS game, because it has a minor emphasis on strategy which, according to you, is enough to make it a real time strategy game?
Strategy MUST be the primary focus of the game, but the format of the strategy is in real-time, hence it is a “real time” “strategy” game.
1 Like
That’s not true. That’s your own personal requirement. There are also exactly 0 RTS games then, since the real time component will literally always make it so mechanics are more important. As you’ve pointed out: The best strategy in the world can’t win if you don’t use your mouse and keyboard. Therefore, strategy can actually never be the most important part of an RTS game.
By your requirements driving a car is an RTS game, Call of Duty is an RTS game, Overwatch is an RTS game.
Completely false. The real-time component only becomes the predominant factor when the number of elements that have to be managed inside the game is too numerous and/or the game pacing is too fast.
And by your requirements there’s no such thing as RTS.
So you can win a ladder game in an RTS with no inputs? Please demonstrate. If you can’t, then you tacitly admit that mechanics are more important than StrATeGy.
Note: Your opponent just leaving the game doesn’t count.
Kid this is a really simple concept. This game requires you to make 300+ decisions a minute. Professionals make up to 600 or more. Chess is a strategy game. The quality of the strategy in Blitz chess is abysmal compared to normal chess because the real-time component forces people to make decisions in only a few seconds. SC2 requires decisions to be made in about 0.15 seconds. You are delusional if you think this game is about strategy. This game is about fast reactions and APM spam.
Chess is also turn based and cannot be compared meaningfully to RTS. TBS is not the same as RTS and no one is saying it is, so nice strawman.
But that’s a really long winded way to say “You’re right but I don’t want to admit it” Batz. When you win a real game of w/e RTS you want without using any inputs, lemme know. Until then, ggnore
SC2 isn’t truly real time FYI. The game engine progresses the game in steps once every 1/16th of a second. So the comparison to Blitz chess is literally identical for the purposes of this conversation. The only difference is that SC2 “turns” take 0.0625 seconds while Blitz chess turns take 10-20 seconds. As the timer runs out, the quality of the moves in blitz chess PLUMMETS because a few seconds isn’t enough time to strategize to determine your next move. Well that happens at about the <10 second mark, but SC2 requires you to make decisions literally 50x faster than that.
Are you understanding this? Do I need to break it down? If Chess becomes dominated by the real-time factor when decisions have to be made at the rate of 1 every 10 seconds, can SC2 really be strategically focused when you have to make decisions at 50x that rate? The answer is: NO.
LOL
Kid the real time factor of chess becomes the dominant factor in the game when players start having to make 1 move every ~10 seconds. Starcraft requires you to make moves every 0.15 seconds (or faster). This isn’t up for debate. It’s a matter of simple, well established concepts.
Strategy takes time. SC2 is designed to give you as close to 0 time as is possible. It’s not about making smart decisions. It’s not about strategizing. It’s about having as fast of reactions as is humanly possible which means your brain has to CUT OUT the strategical thinking which by definition is too slow / requires too much time to do. SC2 short-circuits your reflexes to bypass any kind of critical thinking, analysis or strategy.
It blows my mind that it’s 2021, people have been playing SC2 for 10 years, some have been playing RTS for longer, and there are STILL people who have ZERO clue about the very basics of the game format. 
If you had infinite APM, you could win a GSL making nothing but marines. The strategical element of the game is dead:
I like how this became a place to discuss that the game isn’t a RTS game…look it says it in the box it’s an RTS so I’ll just go with that. I’m not surprised though general chat is people talking about Biden and trump all day
As far as it dying…ya definently needs balance work and regular map rotations. Who knows
what it would need to not die, is a matchmaking system that doesn’t pit you with cheesers as a welcoming committee.
It could be just coincidental - just my experience - but i also just recently started playing after quitting in early WoL. The first 20 games of placement matches and “Gold 3” were NOTHING but fending off worker rushes, cannon rush, 12 pool, proxy void, etc etc.
I was THIS close to just abandoning the game again, seriously. Because who wants to play against nothing but 2 minute all-ins over and over and over? Win or lose, it isn’t any fun.
But somehow, stubbornly sticking through it, around 20 wins in, the matchmaking seems to have self-regulated. Virtually every game is a proper match, save for the occasional 12 pool.
Bet that not everyone sticks around through the initial hazing period though. On top of already being a very difficult game, that requires 100% concentration throughout a match. No surprise that active player numbers sink drastically after new release hype wears off.
That should tell you everything you need to know about Blizzard’s understanding of the genre (non existent). SC2 is very clearly NOT an RTS game, so if it says so on the box it means the people who designed the box don’t know what an RTS game is.
An RTS game has to emphasize strategy. SC2 progresses too fast and has too many elements to manage, giving you a tenth of a second to react to game events, which emphasizes fast reactions and multitasking. Strategy cannot be a major component in a video game format that gives you a tenth of a second to make decisions, period.
I think the reaction time with SC2 is fine. The issue with SC2 is how hard it is to scout for all three races in general particularly in the early game. This leads to early attacks leading to critical damage that basically end the game right away. I think if they made early scouting easier you’d see better and longer macro games. But because scouting is so hard and you have so few units in the early game (units that hard counter each other), sneaky cheap things work even at the highest levels.
I’m not saying anything is wrong with SC2 either but just saying that most of what people are griping about here has nothing to do with reaction time and more to do with lack of information leading them to make uncorrectable errors and poor reactions early on particularly with cheeses. Anything in SC2 can be stopped if you see it coming early enough. However, to be even half decent at SC2 (ie break diamond 3) you need to learn how to sniff out 50 different cheeses and early timing attacks across all three races and know proper responses to them all (and then to really get to masters you have to know responses to pivot to incase you opened up with a less than ideal opener). That’s so insanely difficult and such a high learning curve. I’ve probably played 30,000 1v1 matches and still my scouting is utter crap as a masters player; scouting is just so hard. But yeah your reactions get better once you scout better and then micro and reaction times matter less when you have the right units in the right positions.