Why am i so bad at rts games

I all ways practice alot with my friend chris but thats just our games where we have unwritten rules of minutes of no combat so we can build our defenses and armies up. I just don't have the patience to really learn RTS games. I get good at maybe one or two build orders and strategies and that's the extent of my power. I used to be pretty good at Age of Mythology My rating was around Just remember one thing, there will always be someone better than you and me in every online game.

The only one I was good at was the old Dawn of War. In every single other RTS, I suck I think it may have something to do with the fact that my bases are really neat and nice looking not stacking buildings together or too far apart. If I were to try to play either of those games online today I wouldn't last very long. My main problem with RTSs these days is that there's too much emphasis on rushing or action. I was way more into base building then rushing. I'm horrible at them.

I just don't get it, and I don't want to spend the time it takes to learn. I'm satisfied with controlling one unit in an FPS game. I would consider myself a casual RTS player in that I just play for fun. I think if you really wanted to get good at Starcraft or whatever you would have to invest time in it like anything else to get good at it. For the majority of players it doesn't come naturally. Please Log In to post. I think Command and Conquer 3 is the longest I played an RTS after launch, and it was mostly because me and a buddy were in a tournament through iGames.

By water only maps, you could play the game with way less units and it was a game, that was never reached again. Example 2: Age of Empires Economy. So are 4 resources and place storage building next to them too hard? Scouting and planning are no part any more of strategy, start at random location on a random huge map like RA1 or AOE2 is meanwhile reduced to something that does not require any brain power, you know exactly where to go to find your enemy.

That damages so many strategy options. Do you need there than a brain to play such game? You simply spam an ability and reuse all time same unit vs same unit, modern RTS feels more like connect the dots for 5 year old, than a game where you think and plan.

Just increase speed for connect the dots, doesn't make in intelligent. It's really difficult to make combat smart, but games where you loose instant your units for sure doesn't make a game smarter. Example 6, something is always too strong.

For some reasons it's there, just a certain unit or combination, that goes reduce games strategy to absurdity, where you always use only same tactic. RTS developer don't have the time unlike Blizzard to polish balance forever, so they did make some kind of fail save mechanics, recent developers dont understand. Example 7, getting you attached to the game, in old games they used narrators with good voice, ingame events to attach you to the situation that is happening. Go here, make this and kill object X, is the formula for any story , but how does it suppose to keep you a memory of the game?

If you played Starcraft, you for sure still do remember what happened as Jim Raynor did meet Kerrigan for the first time. Nah all fine, you the good guy. You just don't have any real choices in the story. In Battle Realms I played by a friend, he was surprised to see me play a completely different campaign than him, it turned out on first mission I had attacked civilians instead of the bandits, so did join other faction with other story line. Problem is if there is zero story, it feels like wasted time and by RTS you do first check out the story.

Already here would a lot of people give up on my games. Example 8, why is lan a lost technology? Example 9, -Why doesn't AI get better? It's not the first RTS people play and yeah, somehow you just don't see it in any RTS, an AI that is designed to act smart and play meta without cheating in resources.

Even script AI to be fun , is a task you don't see by lot of games. My personal problem, I always beat the best AI after some day, by any game. If you know the game, by most games AI doesn't even represent treat any more.

OK only Blizzard is doing this all the time,making videos and explaining every move, for every unit and his abilities. Blizzard did set pretty high standards for PvP, they are logic for any RTS player, but can any other developer achieve this? People are smart and if there is no second valid opinion they can evaluate, they start to make up certain conclusions and expectations from the game, that do never occur, so people start to loose interest in the game or don't even give it a try.

Maybe future RTS could break up this vicious cycle? Right now Indie don't have the skill and established Professional teams don't have the time. Showing 1 - 15 of comments. Has someone tested whether a custom lobby would work offline whilst other DoW III clients are connected to the same network through Steam since Steamworks can support LAN , or does mp games other than vs ai need to phone home towards Relics battle servers? Perhaps RTS as a game genre started to die out after PC gaming became more accessible and the previous early PC enthusiasts became fewer over the years being taken over by a majority of people less interested in earlier genres and more interested in games that do not require as much of an attention span, multitasking or tactics.

They then examined their brains with the aid of an MRI machine. The volume of each of the structures of interest was compared to the total volume of their brain. Each participant then trained with the video game "Space Fortress"—a game developed at the University of Illinois that can be used to measure performance on various cognitive tasks.

Half of the participants were tasked with simply getting the highest score possible, while the other half was given a series of tasks that forced them to improve their skills in different areas. The researchers found that those with a larger nucleus accumbens learned faster and excelled at the early stages of the game regardless of which group they were in.

Participants with larger caudate nucleus and putamen did best on the variable priority training exercises, where they had to focus on different aspects at various times throughout the training.

Both of these results make sense, according to the study's lead author Kirk Erickson. The nucleus accumbens is linked to the brain's reward center and would aid a participant's motivation following early successes.

According to Erikson, "The putamen and the caudate have been implicated in learning procedures, learning new skills, and those nuclei predicted learning throughout the hour period. The next time a Contra or old-school Mega Man variant puts you and your video game skills to the test, take solace in the thought that it may be biology rather than lack of skill that is holding you back.