If by "not very good" you mean my style doesn't really get the job done in PVP multiplayer, then sure, I'm horrible at RTS games. But hoping the computer can't kill me before I can roll them? Not so much.
Don't you know? In war everyone starts with the same number of units, and they all line up in a field across from each other. And they can only move in certain directions.
I will agree that part of the glory of the single-player RTS is stockpiling resources until you can steamroll your opponent, there's an interesting multi-player angle that should be considered.
If the emphasis of gameplay is on combat, then the static resource pile can be construed as a way to force focus away from resource management and towards combat. I almost never play multi-player for the simple fact that I am a "conservative turtle" style of player. And as such, "zerging" makes my soul weep. With a static resource pool, it removes the "urban sprawl" portion of an RTS that I severely lack at.
There's certainly an argument to be made that resource management is a good 75% of war. However changing that portion of the game puts players on more equal footing, and puts much more stress on the units and combat and effective usage. And as far as being able to maintain an advantage over your opponent, I don't think a stunning victory would be in any way limited unless resource gains are instantaneous.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, Terran, Protoss, either works. I've usually found Protoss base defenses a little lacking though. Bunkers are king.
I agree with your assessment on traditional multiplayer games and their results, as well as what make this style of MP interesting.
If by "not very good" you mean my style doesn't really get the job done in PVP multiplayer, then sure, I'm horrible at RTS games. But hoping the computer can't kill me before I can roll them? Not so much.
Don't you know? In war everyone starts with the same number of units, and they all line up in a field across from each other. And they can only move in certain directions.
I will agree that part of the glory of the single-player RTS is stockpiling resources until you can steamroll your opponent, there's an interesting multi-player angle that should be considered.
If the emphasis of gameplay is on combat, then the static resource pile can be construed as a way to force focus away from resource management and towards combat. I almost never play multi-player for the simple fact that I am a "conservative turtle" style of player. And as such, "zerging" makes my soul weep. With a static resource pool, it removes the "urban sprawl" portion of an RTS that I severely lack at.
There's certainly an argument to be made that resource management is a good 75% of war. However changing that portion of the game puts players on more equal footing, and puts much more stress on the units and combat and effective usage. And as far as being able to maintain an advantage over your opponent, I don't think a stunning victory would be in any way limited unless resource gains are instantaneous.
In any event, it is curious.