RTS multiplayer team play - your favourite kind of idiots

Remove all ads!

I've just lost a game of Warcraft 3 because of idiots who couldn't understand that 2 is one less than 3 and that 1v3 is complete suicide. How do they make it to relatively high levels (even above 10) in team games if they have no idea what a team is?

I hate to lose games because of idiots who think that what's going to make it? Personal bravery? It's a game. It's all numbers. Freaks think... wait, they don't think. That's the problem. Idiots don't think. Hate losing games because of idiots.

I even specifically asked them NOT to attack alone in the very beginning of the game, taught by experience. To no avail. Morons.

What's your favourite kind of idiot in an RTS game?

 

The arrogants know-it-alls, you *must* know the type, the ones who think they are 'masters' of the game.

 

I haven't played a single RTS for far too long. Might pick up a copy of one of the C&Cs from the bargain bin.

As for idiots, I prefer playing single player, always have. Especially for RTS games. Way too many idiots/cheats online to get a decent game.

 

I haven't played RTS either, but if I did, I would probably use the same strategy as I would against computer players.

In my experience in online gaming, I don't like the silent players. You should at least say something when everyone else is talking. It is a bit easier to tolerate if the silent player is doing well and doing his part. But it's hard to cooperate still if the guy never responds to anything you say.

 

I hate the players that agree to long play (say, 15 minutes before first attack) and then rush after three or four minutes. There was one game (Starcraft, I believe) that we agreed to play long in a 2v2 team. The opponents rushed after three minutes, but we were able to beat them. Anyway, quite quickly, we were able to build up, and mount a really advanced (in the sense of late units) force. That's pretty much it, the enemies were simply wiped off, but most often, the 'no rush' game turns into a rush as soon as possible.

Ditto about the silent players, they ruin any team experience if you don't know what they are doing. Well, unless you play in a gaming hole, and you communicate verbally.

 

Yeah, my point about silent players is that I don't know what they are going to achieve striking alone against all enemies. The only thing they're going to do is lose the whole army fast and make it more difficult for the rest of the team. Or they cry about being striked back after thoughtlessly losing all forces.

Worse still are those who agree on no rush or at least no lone rush but get out of their base to strike so soon as they have built some army. It would work if everyone else did that, but after they lose the whole army, having spent all resources on it instead of technological advancement, it gets really difficult. They are often high-level players with great statistics, but they are worse for a team than a level 1 clean stat newbie.

 

Idiots in your team that doesent care about their economy. They build tons of military units, but when they are killed, they are left with nothing.

Rushers... I loath them, wheter they be on my team or the other. Ruins a good strategy game.

People who think multiplayer is like single player; they build small armys of mixed forces.

People who build their base in a chaotic manner, with all the houses spread out, making it hard to pass through.

The ones I hate the most is the people who doesent build markets, or build markets close to mine (mostly in AoE II)... These idiots prevents themself and me from getting unlimited gold fast, and if they build too close they reduce the gains. Morons...

 

Thats quite harsh, really. I didn't bother building a market in the optimum location for gold, I just plonked it down near my houses or town centre. Infinite gold is all very well, but it depends on the route the caravans have to pass through.

 

Games like Warcraft 3 are just plain boring especially online. I tried it something like 2 years ago and then it seemed to all about rushing and wiping you out in the first 5 minutes of the game. Then repeating it over and over again, so no wonder it seemed like a brainless community.

What I would like to see are games that mix RTS and FPS, perhaps with a bit of RPG thrown in. Longer matches, less one-player-decides-all oriented, teamplay focused games. Sadly, there isn't a single game like this at the market...

As to rushing and other tactics like that; the game mechanics allow that, thus it will be used. Blame the authors and pray that there will be some after-sales development (vain hope that is).

[ April 27, 2005, 12:21: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

 

If your team controlls one half of the map (or one sideline) you should always build the maps in the corner. If you dont you're missing out on ALOT of gold.

 

To those who hate rushing maybe you should't be playing Warcraft 3, it is a very fast paced game. Starcraft is even worse, mainly when going up against the zerg, who were practically made for early game rushing. There are special strategies that can be used against such irritating tactics. Also I would suggest you play AoE since it is a considerably slower paced game.

@Wirhe
As to games that mix RTS with RPG and some FPS too, well your in luck. Theres a game called 'Savage:Battle for Newerth' that has all of that. Maybe you shoud check it out.

 

In Warcraft 3, you can always play human, train many peasants and build some towers and then ring for militia when the enemy comes. You won't defeat the ever annoying hit and run orc rushers (I hate it), but you should almost invariably survive until you have two barracks and some initial upgrades researched so you can start spawning your riflemen. Unless you're going tech for knights, but in that case, you can use footmen early in the game because the upgrades are the same as for knights. Note: footies are great for getting rid of towers when you have researched the Defend ability (70% piercing damage reduction while movement rate slowed by 30%). It's quite hard to stop a mass of footmen with Defend activated. No ranged units will do and polymorphing, slowing or otherwise incapacitating a couple of them doesn't make much difference. Not like you can't replace the missing ones with spellbreakers or get your own casters, preferably several priests with Inner Fire.

 

French

Would be wrong to call them idiots I guess but since I can't speak French and way too many of them have serious problems with speaking English in an understandable way the game tends to end in total chaos.

@Wirhe

You should try out the Battlezone games if you can find them. I just love the way the game combines RTS and FPS.

 

@ Atari Man

Looks promising, but after a short googling it seems to lack in one, very important aspect: no building and no truly different classes. I used to play "Natural Selection" for quite a lot, thanks to classes like lerk that allowed you to fly, jetpack upgrade that allowed marines to do the same, building stuff, commanding, wall-climbing as a skulk, etc. Sadly, the recent builds have lost a lot of that charm and moved the game towards Counter-Strike and TFC -both of which were born braindead.

So hopefully Battle for Newerth is something like that, but without the faults. Another very promising looking game is "Guild Wars" -the first multiplayer RPG for quite some time and it doesn't require credit card either.

@ Morgoroth

Yeah, I have played them, but aren't they rather old for multiplayer? There can't be many people online today...

 

The ones that abuses the signal flare in Age of Mythology as soon as something "funny" happens and writes lol everytime.

 

I like RTS's. I play Aoc still, because AoM is a pile of crap.

I consider myself to be quite sensational at the game. I am teh best gamer. I rush your ass off if you dissagree!

 

http://www.chevalier.boo.pl/puebla.w3g

Behold the freaking idiot who made a lot of peons, killed his hall and attacked another player (EDIT: from his own team, that is). As a result, we were both left delayed, 2v3 and with not a peon from him to build a base with after he left.

What kind of pleasure do such idiots have?

[ May 13, 2005, 11:22: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'll share a rush attack I love to use while playing as orcs. Take two of your starting Peons and put on lumber and the other three are to be sent to the enemy base. Once arrived they should begin building three burrows, not in the base but just outside, like a perimeter. During this your town hall should be producing new peons, which in turn get sent to the newly finished burrows. At this early stage the enemy will be screwed, they only have workers who are killed by a barrage of arrows.

Now this is more effective then you would think, Even if they get a hero out in time the burrows will smoke him easily.

Hmm...maybe I missed the point of this thread.

 

I've reported him to Blizzard support and got an answer. The gentleman who replied said he would forward my report to the appropriate people and they would address the problem. They are aware of players deliberately causing their teams to lose and they want to root that out. Well, wonder if I ever see the guy anymore.

@Atari Man: How about the human arcane towers? If built in the right position, they could drain the enemy hero of mana and do some nice damage from mana burning... But I've never been able to make a successful tower rush with humans. Maybe this will interest you?

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/15/1350.html

 

(this is all regarding Battlezone 1, as I never played 2)

You can build. You MUST build.

Different classes...well, does being able to hop out of a vehicle, waltz around on foot (wielding a sniper rifle that can take out vehicle pilots) and then get into any vehicle you wish to count as having multiple classes?

The Uprising games also were FPS/RTS, however the building was limited and there was only one "class", which was an uber tank of doom. But, anyway, Battlezone was far superior from a gameplay standpoint.