Windows Rant on rushing in RTS games

After reading a post in the supcom vs cnc3 thread, I got inspired to go on a rampage about people who complain about rushing - it really irritates me sometimes. Most of the people are fine, everyone has a go now and again, but it's those people who are ignorant of it and become hardcore than annoy me.

The amount of people who complain about rushing in an online competitive game is just ridiculous. If you like your nice, slow paced RTS where you steamroller your opponent with a gazillion uber units, that's fine, don't bother playing against humans online - play the singleplayer, or play in fun games such as comp stomps. Sorry mate, but if we are playing a competitive game, I'm trying to win (without exploiting bugs and cheating). Rushing isn't exploiting the game, it's part of the game. If you get beat by rushers, what's your complaint? Your opponent has used his skills and strategy to beat you. If you don't like playing against these opponents, then fine, go spend your time playing "no rush for 20 minutes noob games" but don't friggin' complain! Rushing is a strategy - it requires skill to pull off. If you don't have the skill, then you get mauled when someone counterattacks your rush.

Also, I hear people saying about how "rushing requires less skill to pull off". Bull****. Rushing requires just about as much skill as most things in a RTS. You need an solid early game economy for a rush. You need to micro your rush, and keep your economy going. You need to deal with counterattacks. One of the most challenging games I've played involved micromanaging a rush and targeting my opponent's economy, keeping my economy alive, and defending my opponent's rush at the same time in generals ZH. Rushing is an art, which is effective when learnt properly. It's the n00bs who complain about it. They just bitch and whine, refuse to learn how to deal with it and stay eternally at that level. The real newbies will realise that they got beaten by a better player with better skills and a better strategy, learn from their mistakes and become the top players.

/rant over

Agree? Think I'm talking a load of crap? What's your view?

 

As much as I hate being rushed, I have to agree, it is a valid tactic, and it does require skill to pull off. It's also perfectly possible for a turtler to squash your opponents early attack if you can turtle correctly, leaving your opponent at a severe disadvantage. It's part of a competitive game, it's like complaining people use the sword in Halo because it's a noob weapon and only noobs can use it, it's there in the game, nothing is stopping you going and doing it, and the sword doesn't immediately make the user the winner, it's very easy to kill a sword carrier.

 

To be honest, I can happily see both sides of the arguement. Calling those who hate rushing "noobs" is a bit stupid imo. Most RTS games these days aren't about stratagy, they're about rushing. Not everyone wants a game to be a choice of two different types of rush and over within 5 minutes every time. Some people just wish there was a way of having slower paced games, where rushing wasn't used in order that a far greater number of tactics and stratagies can be used.

Rushing is understandable, but I think overall it reduces a games scope, and makes it far less interesting for those who aren't after the whole "5 minute game of extremely intense combat". RTS to me has always been about slower(than FPS) well thought out gameplay, and online play of CnC type games is very far away from that concept, which is why I've always avoided stuff like that.

I guess when it comes down to it, anti-rushers just want to play a different game than rushers. Rushers want an intense game of micromanagement with speed and well planned routines, where-as anti-rushers prefer a slower pace with the emphasis more on outhinking your foe, than outclicking him. Apples & Oranges I suppose. There'd be no problem if there was a clearly delineation of rushy games and non-rushy games, but the rushers do seem to invade nearly every RTS that gets created.

 

What you have to understand is that there are different play styles out there. Those who dislike rush play (and I'm one of those) want to experience the game in its fullness and base/defence wall building to us is 80% of that fun.
The trouble is when you play against someone who prefers the quick win just makes the game not fun because it doesn't fulfil your expectations.

For the fact that rushing wins over "turtle" play 99% of the time just goes to show that the games are not really balanced at all, there should be an even chance of outcome and it shouldn't be determined by a pre-set defined tactic that a "rush" player can use.

I also agree with spec, calling people who dislike "rushers" n00bs is plain disrespectful to your opponent and elitist. That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what breeds hate for the other style of player to your own and tbh it's poor. Sadly it's also the reason I rarely play against people that I do not know.

 

The only time rushing is a problem for me is when the game is imbalanced to the point of allowing rushers to rush like mad right out the gates, and non-rushers not having any kind of viable counter to the rush. In CnC3 online, several of the 1v1 maps are completely catered to rushing. Take Tournament Tower for example. It's an extremely small map and the strategy that I see people using on it 9 times out of 10 is to send a surveyor to the blue tib, pop down a refinery or two, build 3 war facs on the narrow roads near the tower, with the help of a crane, and start pumping out a never ending supply of tanks.

Unless you do the same thing, you can't win. Period. Anti-tank infantry are completely useless, and this early into the game you aren't gonna be able to build any kind of viable defenses, especially since your enemy is pumping out tanks literally 100ft away from your base. Hopefully the 1.05 balance patch gives anti-tank infantry that extra muscle they need to be worth while. I think rushing is a completely valid strategy, especially in CnC, but there has to be a workable counter to it.

 

yah this is a never ending type of debate, back in the day I was a rusher in ZH and CnC 1&2 but nowadays my nerves are too frazzled and I don't have the time to perfect my micro and economy to where I want to rush in a game. It's a legitimate stratedgy yes, but not a particularily fun one to play against. Perhaps the one reason I liked Homeworld 2, although I wasn't spectacular at it, the map scope etc, discouraged rushing. and it was sort of a do or die all forces at once

 

coudn't have said it better

 

I have to say I do get annoyed at some of my friends rushing during LANs.

The main reason I'm annoyed is that I am a complete n00b.
Most of the time I'm basically just learning the game and what the capabilities of the units are when I'm picked off.
I didn't spend hours playing against people online with TA or CnC.

I did play the single player CnC (all of them I think), but that's a completely different game than against human players.

You're right, rushing is a valid strategy. But there does have to be some way to balance it so that people who aren't as focused on all out attack can have a chance.

 

What game people fight on depends on what map they're playing, small 1v1 maps are rush games, you're so close, theres little point in turtling, the bigger maps are more suited to turtling. You're strategies should adapt to what map you're playing, if you're going to turtle on a 1v1 map, you're bound to lose.

I suck at C&C, I can't rush, which is why I don't play online. If you don't like rushing, do comp stomps, or don't attack until after x amount of time games.

 

I hate rushing. It's boring and it doesn't give you the chance to enjoy the game. You have to remember that although you play to win, others play for the joy of the game and you're ruining it for them. Developers really should try to find ways to protect the player from rushes-maybe the players should start with fortifications or something.

 

But that would ruin it for people who enjoy rushing, theres a simple way around this, and thats not to play rushers.

 

First of all, I think I should clarify "the n00b" issue. I probably didn't explain it too well, as it was a spur of the moment thing, but I'm definitely not calling people who dislike "rushers" n00bs. In fact, in most singleplayer RTS games, I enjoy nice, long, drawn out games without rushing as much as anyone. When I play in a "comp stomp" game, we don't rush the AI; instead, we end up teching up somewhat and steamrollering the AI. We don't all want to play against a rush, and these types of games are good for people who don't like rushers. This I don't have a problem with that. If someone signs up for a "no rush" game, they have a right to complain if they are rushed!

The people I'm targeting, and calling n00bs are these: people who play quite competitively online in games with no set rules (by rules I mean mutual agreements before the match like "no superweapons", "no rushing for 10 minutes, "no whatever" etc). These people complain when they get beaten by a rush. They call their opponents lame. They think rushing is "cheap". Instead of trying to analyse their mistakes, they continue to play with the same style, continue to lose to rushers in competitive games, and continue to complain. These are the people I'm taking about.

Veles made an good example in Halo with the sword. The issue reminds me of the AWP in counter-strike. Calling rushing in a competitive game a lame strategy is like calling AWPers in a clan match lame. The people I'm calling n00bs are the ones who play in proper servers but always stand still when facing an AWPer, then complain when they die every time. My point is this: if you don't like the AWP, then go play on a fun server, or a server than bans AWPs! If you play on a proper server, don't complain of getting AWPed! It is the same for rushing.

I also forgot to mention something very important, which was brought up by Neogumbercules:

Yeah, I agree with that. If there isn't a counter, then the game is at fault, not the player.

I have no problems with that, if you don't like playing rushing games, play fun games and comp stomps or no rush games. Perfectly reasonable. However, when someone list a "no rules" game, and you join, you can't really complain when you get rushed. Unfortunately, from my experience, many of the people who get beaten this way will accuse you of being "lame".

Again, that's fine. But what I'm saying is that there are games which you can play that avoids rushing, such as prearranged "no rush" games, comp stomps etc. Also, you make the point that whilst people rush to win, it ruins the games for others. I'm sorry, but when you play competitively, you use what you can to win.

You know why rushy games seem to invade every RTS? Because it's one of the most effective strategies to RTS games out there! I think it's safe to say that people who want to win will use the best strategies. Hence rushing is popular.

Yup, I agree with that.

 

But you see the problem there is that rushers invade every stratagy game in existance. You guys are, quite frankly, a minority that are essentially ruining the game for the majority. It might be within the rules, it might be perfectly acceptable in many ways, but you're still ruining the game for a great many people.

Rushing players when there's a stated or implied desire for there not to be rushing(some would say that playing an RTStratagy game at all is implication enough) is lame.

 

Well, if you don't like being rushed, stop being nubs and build friggin' turrets!

Games where you can effectively rush - CNC3 for example - are all about the micro - and to bitch about a rush, you ignore the fact that someone needs to be able to macro too. Failing to do that will make you a prime target for a death-ly rush shortly thereafter.

Take CNC3; most rushes can be thwarted by turrets for NOD or GDI; but as the Scrin, you're left using units to take care of the enemies. Still though, would you want a "20 minute no rush rule" where you waste the other person's time, and at 20 minutes they roll 150 mammoth tanks through your base while saying in the chat "lolol, want some of my 150,000 resources", or would you rather get owned in under 5 minutes by someone MUCH better, and learn to counter it.

 

In a competitive ranked match, you can't really complain, it's a very efficient and effective way of winning, and it's in a competitive, no-rules environment, so it's perfectly valid.

Custom games are the best, finding one that is a no rushing game, and then you can have your fun. I don't think rushers are in the minority at all, most people I've played against are rushers.

 

Again, I would ask you to question why this is the case. It is because when performed with skill and proficiency, rushing is a deadly and highly effective tactic. As many RTS games uses the good old C&C/’craft’s mechanics of base construction, resource harvest and unit construction, a good strategy in one of these games tends to leak into the others. Hence that’s why rushers are so widespread in these types of games! In the same way you wouldn’t see many rushers in any of the total war series (as they aren’t based on C&C/’craft).

Whilst I see where you are coming from, I do not believe this is completely true. Rushing certainly may ruin a game. As I have said before, you don’t have to play a rush game! There are many games set up in the many RTS lobbies which are titled “no rush 10 mins”, “fun game only” and so on. This is because as you have said, a large amount of people want to play a fun relaxed game. Rushing doesn’t occur in those games and rushers haven’t ruined your game! Then again, rushers find these games boring. Which is why they set up games called “quick 1v1 no rules”. In the same way they hope that the game is fast and full of rushing. Now imagine a hypothetical player joins this game, and loses to a rush. He proceeds to call the host “lame”. This is my peeve: if he wanted a slow game, there are many games out there for him, but he deliberately joined a game which he knew that rushing could and usually would occur. IMHO, he hasn’t much right to complain. Yet this is what I’ve seen day in day out back since the days when RTS games gained internet multiplayer. Not only this, but our hypothetical gamer has ruined a game for the rusher; instead of a fast paced action frenzy, the rusher gets a crappy game he probably didn’t want to play.

Yup. When the game states “no rush 10 minutes”, then there’s a desire for no rush. It would be rude and dishonourable for anyone to rush in this game. When the game states “1v1”, “2v2” or “1v1 no rules”, I’m sure you agree with me that there isn’t any stated desire of rushing. So why is it lame?

 

I try to rush in 1v1 because I know for a fact I'm gonna get rushed. That's just the way of the game (CnC3). When you do automatch, expect to be rushed and you rush instead.

The real fun I have is on big team games. Me and my two clan mates that I play with exclusively have come up with some really annoying strategies that PISS people off all the time. Games with us usually last upwards of 20 minutes. What I have been doing lately is just play as Scrin while my partners play as either GDI or Nod. They work on completely controlling the tiberium on The Rocktagon map and I tech up really fast and go heavy on defense while working my secret strategy:

The Mastermind. This little guy is a game ender. For those of you who don't know, the mastermind can take control of any structure in the game from range. He heals quickly in tiberium, and runs about 60mph. As long as I keep him focused on the structure I captured he will be in control of it. Now the strategy is to have Scrins powerful base defense structures ready to deploy. What I do is sneak into the enemy base while my teammates keep everyone busy and capture a structure. I then plop down 3 Storm Columns right in ithe middle of their base. Total devastation. I then sell the building I captured and work on capping and selling more buildings.

The alternate version of this strategy is to drop a structure called the signal transmitter in the middle of the enemy base. The Signal Tranmitter summons a unit called The Mothership to a base. The Mothership is capable of destroying an entire base in one shot.

So my advice to the anti-rushers is don't play 1v1 automatch games on CnC3. Big team games are very very fun and have a lot of dynamics that you never see in 1v1.

 

meh turyle isn't a valid tactic anywhere in real life as it starves you of reasources just like in an rts game. In most RTS games building tanks is alot better strat than build fixed guns as the tanks can be used for attack or defense. It you are playing an experienced player rushing is foolish anyway as there force will be bigger and more advanced than yours if they don't rush due to the time lag of you moving your forces. If you are been beaten by the initial rush you suck I'm sorry to say. When I play RTS (usually warzone 2100) the battles usually last 3hrs+ but nethier player will have built much in the way of defensive structures and it's usually the fastest player through the tech tree who wins.

 

There is nothing wrong with rushing. The best way to keep an opponent down in early stages of most RTS games is to swarm them with cheap units; it's just the nature of the game.

I can't speak for C&C3, but beating a rush on SupCom isn't difficult if you use the walls and point defences correctly, and usually the rusher is investing so much in sheer volume that a well-placed air strike or drop behind enemy lines will do a huge amount of damage.

 

I think real life you like to disagree with you there, there are plenty of examples of turtling in RL. The mechanics used in C&C are nothing like real life warfare, for every battle, a commander doesn't set up a brand new base, with production facilities capable of creating the army's most powerful tanks in a matter of moments.