• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

I fail at micro-managing (rts rant)

F

f1y

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
8,111
Why do I suck so horribly bad at RTS games? I booted up C&C 3 today, and OMG I get owned so hard. I remeber back in the day of C&C 95 I was top of the leader boards.. :( of corse I was like 13 back then, and that's all I did.. My records like 2 wins and 15 losses right now. 1 was free win, and the second was an engineer rush, so they don't really count

Just spent too much time in the First person shooter genre i guess.. It takes a special breed to play RTS's

I'm always strectched for cash/tiberium whatever.

I normally play GDI, build a consturstion arm first to have construction queues. Then I build a Power place, and a refinery. Then a Barracks, and then a War factory. By then I'm strapped for cash and some how who ever i'm playing has 30 billion air units, and is one rich mofo..

Anyone want to get down on some C&C 3?

xfire - lrn2f1y
 
Seriously, I have some friends that are really good at micro and it is intense to watch. Checking the stats after the game and looking at the actions per minute just perplexes me. It does seem, however, that (talking about WC3 here) that a lot of it is repetition of strategies with minor tweaks. Once you know what to build, when, and place where - it become a lot more liquid of a motion and you can react to (or avoid) problems such as resource shortage.

I don't have much experience with CC3, but my brain just can't get into that mode, I HATE losing especially getting crushed, and am always too meticulous to properly play a RTS game, sigh.
 
the biggest thing i find in any rts, is build a shit ton of the build units right off the bat. of course games like supcom make this more complicated.
 
I've never been into strategy games - ever. Just don't have what it takes for them, I guess. I did enjoy Warcraft 3 a little bit (single player only) but I would always end up frustrated after I get pass the beginning easy levels of the campaign and get into the more advanced stuff: I'd be meticulously building my base and building up my army only to get rushed. Heh.
 
Oh dude, I got down on SupCom at the last LAN i went too...

Damn... it's crazy to watch someone who knows what they're doing go at it.
 
i dont do so well at the micro managing anymore myself, to many them need bases and stuff built while fun, the few games that were about points were cool to. But some of the turn based games had it set just right, agree on a points amount for each side, and then buy what you want place them and start fighting, while you could run out of units, i spent the time playing instead of ignoring what the enemy was doing to build build build. I really do hate base rushes as soon as you start the game, many of the people out there build the first units or tanks whatever and swarm you as soon as it starts. whats the fun in that, no big battle just instant win if your not ready for it. personally i like to get the base built up and the army made and then fight it out. I do remember playing Dune on the sega genesis and playing harkonnen and being rushed by atriedes infantry and quads waiting for the harvester to return to make another missle trooper or two with a cratered entrance to my base, fought off the enemy for a hour or two before i was able to wipe him out. that was fun.
 
The key to C&C3 is resource management. The first thing I do is build a refinery and an Emissary (I play Nod), and then I build some cranes. Once I have my first crane built, I balance between advancing my tech tree and spreading my resource gathering. By the time I have a war factory or air tower built, I also have enough refineries and miners to be able to afford churning out a ton of units.
 
I'm partial to Nod as well. I'm not amazing, but I get by.

Feel free to add me to your friends in-game: BindyBoondyBa
(I don't use Xfire)
 
How do you fare in CoH?

Since you get resources by being aggressive with your troops and capturing points, I'd imagine you may enjoy that style a bit more. Have you tried it? Then again, it requires micromanaging of a completely different nature.
 
To be quite honest, the Command and Conquer series have had TERRIBLE multiplayer. Virtually every single game degenerates into who can build the most refineries and most tanks and rape the other guy first.

It is my honest opinion, that the best multiplayer strategy game ever made to date (and perhaps forever) is StarCraft. I have never seen a game that has been balanced so well with so many different options for strategies. Some people don't like the speed of it, but I think WC3 is too slow, so I guess that's one thing...

A lot about getting good at an RTS when you're playing for the first time is studying a solid build order and understanding WHY that build order is the way it is. Once you understand the game more, you can start making your own build order for a strategy. That really is the biggest hurdle. Whenever I play a new RTS, I tend to just click and make things when I have resources and I never really think ahead about what I gave up in the future to make that one extra unit right now. If you understand exactly how much everything costs and how long things take to produce, RTS games (a well balanced one) really do turn into a very sophistocated and dynamic chess game.
 
I've never liked multiplayer RTS for this very reason. It's more about having a very rigorously tested, specific and well executed routine strategy. There's no improvisation to it, none of the spark that draws me more to the FPS region of online multiplayer.
 
I guess it's a good sign that there are still Starcraft tournaments in some parts of the world (prolly in the US too that I'm not aware of)
 
vsboxerboy said:
I guess it's a good sign that there are still Starcraft tournaments in some parts of the world (prolly in the US too that I'm not aware of)
Click to expand...

I went to the Blizzard World Wide Invitational in Paris this year, and got to see some Korean guys playing StarCraft competitively, I swear to god that time itself was being manipulated somehow, it's the only way those guys could be moving so fast relative to the rest of us and still know what the hell the they were doing.
 
krameriffic said:
I've never liked multiplayer RTS for this very reason. It's more about having a very rigorously tested, specific and well executed routine strategy. There's no improvisation to it, none of the spark that draws me more to the FPS region of online multiplayer.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If anything, they're both equally susceptible to "very rigorously tested, specific and well executed routine strategy." I don't think you can make the claim of there being no improvisation in RTS games compared to FPS games.

And to be quite honest, if you were a good player, you wouldn't have to improvise in the first place. You'd have a strategy which would not have put you in the situation where you'd have to improvise in the first place or if you got into a bad spot, you'd have a strategy to get yourself out of it. The players that lose are the ones who are forced to improvise while the opponent still knows exactly what their own strategy is.
 
the one rule for any conventional rts, and pretty much any competitive type of game, is always be doing something. if you're ever waiting for resources, waiting for units, waiting for something to build, then you're doing it wrong. that's why rts skill is measured in clicks per minute, the winner will always be the one constantly carrying out their strategy instead of just reacting to their opponent. I suck at rts too, even though I love to play, I just don't have that kind of stamina.

krameriffic said:
I've never liked multiplayer RTS for this very reason. It's more about having a very rigorously tested, specific and well executed routine strategy. There's no improvisation to it, none of the spark that draws me more to the FPS region of online multiplayer.
Click to expand...

some are deeper than others, that would totally depend on the game not the type. I think what you mean is the scale of such strategies, to compare the amount of variables possible to improvise on they can be about the same imo. every game has rules and limits that define potential strategies and tactics, as always the outcome is a result of knowledge and execution.
 
I've tried numerous times to get good at RTS games and I cannot seem to do it, which from a gamer who adapts to most games well, is just slightly irritating.

My problem is that games are too long and figuring out why you're getting owned is usualy very difficult, at least for me. So learning to get better at the game is slow and tedius.

With an FPS, even one I've not played before, I can run out die, spawn a few seconds later, run out, do a bit better learn from my previous death then die again, and repeat until I know what I'm doing, and that can be within a single match or so...It's usualy pretty obvious what went wrong as well, zigged when I should have zagged etc.

For some reason with RTS i just get steamrolled every time, and pinning down how the other person builds up so fast seems impossible. The simple solution is that I avoid RTS games like the plague ;)
 
I've sucked at RTS since I was young, hell MTG and chess too. I can brute force the hell out of something but when it comes time to think of a strategy I suck.

If I do play an RTS I tend to turtle and focus on infastructure before I finally start building offense.This gets me beat on ALOT. Sure I may be able to build the most advanced units before everyone but I'm usually only building advanced defense.

I'm one of those guys people hate in FFAs. I sit back and wall in and don't make a move until I'm pretty damn sure it'll end favorably for me. And I STILL end up getting my ass kicked.
 
you are exactly like myself, it's is one of the reasons i suck at although with practice i can win at company of heroes, you have to go out and attack or you lose real fast. It is the same as other games where yo have to secure resources before your opposition or get swamped.
 
Riftsaw said:
I've sucked at RTS since I was young, hell MTG and chess too. I can brute force the hell out of something but when it comes time to think of a strategy I suck.

If I do play an RTS I tend to turtle and focus on infastructure before I finally start building offense.This gets me beat on ALOT. Sure I may be able to build the most advanced units before everyone but I'm usually only building advanced defense.

I'm one of those guys people hate in FFAs. I sit back and wall in and don't make a move until I'm pretty damn sure it'll end favorably for me. And I STILL end up getting my ass kicked.
Click to expand...

haha, I can relate.

RTS is all about taking ground, the person who grabs the resources first is the one who is most likely to win, I foucs on development too, and building a good base defence which is hard to assault, but ultimately built into my own corner when the enemy owns all the resources on the map, is never going to end well.

I recently bought an RTS I cant remember the name now [edit] world in conflict I think [/edit], but you dont get resources you just get these deployment points and everyone gets an equal amount, they build up over time and you para drop units into safe zones and use them to attack.

Theres no economy management at all, its just fighting, which was good fun.
 
f1y said:
Oh dude, I got down on SupCom at the last LAN i went too...

Damn... it's crazy to watch someone who knows what they're doing go at it.
Click to expand...

When we played at our lan it took 4 people teaming up on me to finally take me town. We played a 1 on 3 and i destoyed all of them, that was my game though and i got into it. I just can't get into the new C&C games for some reason, probably cause i was a huge westwood fan. oh well.
 
It comes down to practice, of course not everyone can be a master at RTSs, but if your new to a game and expect to win because 10 years ago you weren't bad at the gendra, you're kidding yourself!

I play warcraft 3 a few times a week, i get my ass kicked, my record is pretty bad, but every time i play i get better.

Also, having good sportmanship helps! My partner hates losing, but i don't give a rats ass, as long as i am entertained.
 
MartinX said:
I went to the Blizzard World Wide Invitational in Paris this year, and got to see some Korean guys playing StarCraft competitively, I swear to god that time itself was being manipulated somehow, it's the only way those guys could be moving so fast relative to the rest of us and still know what the hell the they were doing.
Click to expand...

Living in South Korea & seeing the Blizz WWI in Seoul was cool experience. Seeing StarCraft as a hardcore gaming outlet is crazy& when StarCraft 2 was announced, the crowd went wild. I was loving every moment of the introduction of the game as well as the gameplay & cinematic videos. I bought a StarCraft shirt & WarCraft keychain. I wish more events happened like that in the US...
 
mas said:
some are deeper than others, that would totally depend on the game not the type. I think what you mean is the scale of such strategies, to compare the amount of variables possible to improvise on they can be about the same imo. every game has rules and limits that define potential strategies and tactics, as always the outcome is a result of knowledge and execution.
Click to expand...

I agree. In every RTS I've played, I figure out or adopt a build order that works best for me, and stick to it. But following a build order strategy absolutely does not mean there's no improvisation. In Company of Heroes, for instance, you have to think on your feet. You can try an uber unit spam a la Red Alert, but an adept foe will adapt and you will lose.

In Company of Heroes, I'd say my micro is fairly good. It's the primary reason I like the game because the amount of micro and thought it takes to pull out a win in every engagment really puts the "S" in RTS. But on my off days, when my micro is bad.. it's baaaaaddd... On the other side, I'd have to admit my macro in Company of Heroes needs a lot of work. I often lose units or have floating resources because I'm off busy with something else. I just wish in RTS games, I wouldn't always have to babysit my units.
 
My shjortcoming with C&C is that I try to build up my base first, which usually fails because resources come slowly at first, and I can't get enough offense established by the time the enemy starts invading. Gotta find a balance between infrastructure and attack units.
 
For me in RTS's a good offensive is your best defense. Its all about map control and strategies. Can't wait for SC2:D
 
GJSNeptune said:
Gotta find a balance between infrastructure and attack units.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what my problem is, finding that balance between offense and defense. If I try to be defensive, I can hold the enemy back but I can't attack since all of my units are on the offense. Same thing with I try to attack early, I can have tons of units and they can create a nice size hole in their base, but then outta nowhere, my base gets raped as I have no defense.

Even with a simple game like Multiwinia, I get PWNZORz half the time.
 
In Multiwinia, one important thing is to capture the spawn points in a way that you can get officers to immediatly point the new guys to your front lines, without putting those bases in too much risk. if you can setup an automated routing system, you are half way to winning.. Just watch out for any sneaky attacks to your relatively unmanned bases, especially transports, and any AOE attacks.

Also, IMO, a turtle defense almost will always lead to defeat, unless you have an _overwhelming_ advantage in spawn points and just want to wind down the last mins of the clock. You always want to bring the front line out away from your bases, and instead use officers to route the guys over. Its easier to coordinate the little guys to the right positions, since there will be less panic at your base.

Also, this gives you more access to the map to grab those crates.. and be wise when to use those powerups btw.. It pays not show your hand until absoltely necessary.


Multiwinia is a little trickier than it initially seems. One thing I love about Multiwinia is I don't have to be the master clicker when it comes to building bases. Instead, you just have to manage taking over spawn points and balance sending them to the front lines.
 
In general, I find that people overanalyze games too much. Virtually every single competition game can be boiled down to a few fundamental concepts, with the giant gorilla in the room being: control.

Sure, there are definitely some people who are absolutely amazing and can pull off lots of fancy tricks and do some "trick play" and completely dominate the opponent in style. However, all of the flash can easily be replaced by very simple strategies which can accomplish nearly the same thing, and arguably with much higher success due to it being simpler. Virtually all games can boil down to you finding out what the opponent has or doesn't have and exploiting this to FORCE the opponent into a situation which gives you the advantage.

One of my favorite examples is of de_dust2. A lot of people in the lower levels of competition don't realize that mid is absolutely KEY to winning on BOTH sides (CT and T). Mid is structured in de_dust2 so that you can pretty much go anywhere if you control it, and if you control it, you can potentially go anywhere without the other team knowing where you're going. If you control mid as T, you can attack anywhere you want at the time you want. If you control mid as CT, you can see where T goes BEFORE they can attack you at either site.

When I played CSS a while back with my team, it was absolutely amazing accurately I could read the T side play while on CT side as the mid player. In most cases, it seemed like I knew their strategy before even they knew their own strategy.

The same can be said for RTS games and virtually any other game where two parties compete directly with each other (ie - not bowling or golfing). If you have the fundamental basics of the game down (adept at shooting or macro/micro) then the rest is strategy where it boils down to you finding out information about your opponent and you exploiting it. You poke/prod at them to elicit a reaction which you can further exploit to your own advantage. If you are able to do this, you gain a very high level of control.
 
I, much like you OP, was awsome at RTS and FPS back when i started gaming... i would say 16-23 were my prime years then i got a job , moved, got busy with work..

i could handle RTS and as said above, if you werent clicking - well you were losing then.

the problem is, we age... we do other things with our mind, we dont keep them as active.

over the last year i have gotten back in FPS alot!! and i have noticed my reaction time to anything has gone through the roof to what it was say 2 -3 years ago.

I think i need to try out some RTS again!



^^^ said it well, know you're opponents, know the game. I think this is why so many people cry hacker on FPS because people know the maps and what ways people caN come and i would bet that most people who ply CS:S or TF2 are so predictable, infact i know they are, how often do you kill a person in one spot, go back next round and there they are again.... and if you kill them there again they cry hacker!
 
There's ONE single truth in RTS gameplay that keeps me from really enjoying RTS games(except for total war games).

That is this. If you made a clone of the BEST RTS player, coded the game he was a master at to accept another player to control the same army, AND they were perfectly coordinated with each other to do specific tasks. This duo(on voice comms) would beat the one player EVERY TIME. Simply because the amount of tasks in a typical RTS where you have base management and combat can easily be divided efficiently.

One human simply can't do everything efficiently enough to truly have a great performance in an RTS game where base management is involved. True, there are some stellar players, that boggle the mind with how many clicks they make, but they are still limited by one mouse, one keyboard and one mind.

No matter how good you become, you will still only have a performance that is mediocre compared to a theoretical performance done by 2, maybe even more players controlling an individual player.
 
i think part of the problem with many of the new games is pathfinding for your units, you could have a safe path where you want to send them, and sometimes they will walk all the way around and through enemy positions to get to the same way. Same thing happens in a lot of games if you have units sitting in a chokepoint instead of either the units letting them past, or unit collision being shut off they either walk around or just sit there. OR they get stuck on something on the map which happens too often. Total Annihilation was a killer rts, ill have to try Sup Comm sometime since some of the guys from TA worked on it. I liked that you could shift click a route for your units to patrol, usually id send the weak units to find the enemy or just let me know when they are coming, same thing with aircraft, id have them constantly moving with a radar plane so that the heavy artillery could be used to hit them where it hurts or the main weapons could fire. With the mods of units you could have crazy resource numbers but id let the enemy build up and then the buzzaw or gatling would fire until it sucked all the resources up. Some of the new games have cool features, but like in DOW you cant get the barracks to build the top level troops maxed out with numbers or weapons, its like click again and again and then when they die you have to click click click or the entire unit is gone. I wish it would have loadout menus with the option of setting what types you want. Sucks when you get a tank rush at you, and you have to spend time equipping units geared for infantry to anti-tank. I try to keep my heavies repaired as much as possible as the build time for some is crazy, like the baneblade. Troop AI is bad in a lot of games too, you set a perimeter and yeah they shoot when the enemy walks by, but most of the time they dont follow him to make sure he dies. Dark Reign too was fun, it was a little rushed i think but you could have multiple players per team if you wanted, one could build, one could fight, one could defend, more rts games need that so you dont always have to attack your friends. I dont play online too much as the base rush really irks me within the first couple minutes, but i try to play vs the pc on hard with 2-3 opponents and if i can whip its ass, then i think about going online. In C&C Generals i got killed like crazy, but in the Total War games, i usually won easily by using the strengths of my units and watching for mstakes the enemy makes. One game i played was a lot of knights etc, i was attacking and my friend was defending a castle, he pulled everything inside the castle and i had 20 men at arms enter the gate, and when he tried to come out and attack those infantry decimated everything he threw at them, and while he was occupied with that i was able to smash the wall in two points and enter and encircle him.
 
im trying to get the older close combat games to work on my pc, i own them all but since moving cant locate them, so i got a copy and it loads and installs, its patched and tried 3 video drivers, but it just hangs after the logo screen. this is Close Combat 3, I want to get Cross of IRon , Modern Tactics, and Wacht an Rhei i think its called but am worried if it will not run on my pc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top