Windows Rant on rushing in RTS games

dragontail what is this!? lol on the other thread you said you totally disagreed with me and wanted to start this thread, but you took my viewpoint! sorry if there was a little misdirection on my part; the examples i gave were to demonstrate that there were NO real life equal to "no rushing"

Frankly, i have no respect for the squabblers and plain sore losers in any game type. Because dragon took the time out to set aside this thread, im goning to have me a rant. First there needs to be a little bit of clarification between insults. See here.

[rant] Whats the most common way to beat someone in any given game, assuming ur evenly matched? id hope the answer is strategy. now this applies to all game types, wether its halo boys complaining about the newb combo, ect, ect. The one usually called the newb in this case is the one who won by an "unfair means," which is to say a strategy that the other person has full access to and is either not skilled enough to execute or just too dumb to realize its worth. "rushing" is one such thing.
Now how can u possibly define rushing? attacking before the player is ready? who decides? we should all just wait till the other person has a full armament before we nuke ourselfs to shreds? or even better, attacking before attack possibilities are even opened? which would mean (in supcom at least) attacking before you even enter the arena.
The fact is, once again, an RTS is meant to reflect real battles and war. In real war, whats the objective... OH! might it be to win!? thats what real battle is, attacking and counter attacking at whatever weakness the opponent provides because noone cares about fairness when it comes to ultimate victory (speaking just in the scope of a total war, no civilian issues brought in).
That said, the whiney SOBs who complain about rushing are obviously not winning, and are blaming that on the fault of the game. Simply because you do not have the skill or the ability to perform in the game as it was meant to be played and its REALITY reflects it to be does not make it rushing's fault. It is entirely yours. You. Are. Obnoxious. And obviously do not understand the point of any game where it is you against another human being just as smart as you with just as much ability; where both of you begin a battle with hundreds of units which will last hours and will make the grass scorch with empty hulks that begins with only one unit, apearing in a flash of light. (sorry for the supcom referance again) And while were on the topic of the general state of being of a noob, im really itching to rant a bit about labeling somone who spams a unit or a weapon (while not being the fault of the game, such as bad balancing) being a noob. Same argument. You had all the options as the opponent, you were not handicapped in any way. Hell, the only way youd be happy is if the game played out exactly how you wanted it to; the battles start only when ur ready; your opponent does not counter your movements, ect.

Go back to whatever simple games you played before and gave you such ideas as rushing being unfair or giving your opponent an unfair advantage. Leave the real strategy for those who accept it for what it is.
[/rant]

whew! that was refreshing! sorry for the tie in to newb labeling, but its been on my chest too on the list of "pathetic excuses for not winning." i do have to throw in a disclaimer. im not nearly good enough to say that im the source of all strategy or what not, in fact ive been getting trounced recently in supcom. but ill get better and losing now doesnt give me an excuse to whine.

Ever seen a godly replay between the top of the ladder players in any rts? starcraft, warcraft, ground control, homeworld, total war, ect. 2 evenly matched opponents start the game and their first rushes collide, neither giving ground. they both walk up the tech tree and constantly throw everything they have into battle. THATS what an rts is, and the perfect example is that none of the best players anywhere are late game builders; doing nothing but complain about unfair rushing. the moral of the story? you'll never be good strategists or gamers by ignoring the tried and true moral of war; hit hard, hit fast, and take no prisioners.

 

wow. i have nothing to say to this, except what ive said above. If what youre saying is true, then the small percentage of rushers who "ruin it for everyone" are the ones at the top of all the ladders and the ones winning 10k at tourneys.

as for the implied consent... Strategy(n): a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world. (dictionary.com)
Now i dont know what YOUR goal is in a game, but usually id imagine it would be winning. unless you say the dictionary is lying, this means that your immediate goal is NOT to win, but to fart around a little bit on the map. In which case, i can do nothing but slaap my knee in laughter.

Wikipedia has something even more interesting to say on the topic, searched under "RTS"
"One criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "rushes" where the players take turns throwing swarms of units at each other. For example, the original Command & Conquer gave birth to the now-common "tank rush" tactic, where the game outcome is often decided very early on by one player gaining an initial advantage in resources and producing large amounts of a "tank" unit --an initially relatively powerful but still quite cheap unit-- which is thrown at the opposition before they have had time to establish defences or production. This strategy, often criticized, is considered by some to be simply realistic and akin to the Blitzkrieg strategy used by the German military in World War II."

huh. rushing is realistic to actual, real war?! this is news to me... Worked well as nothing else for the germans too, if i can recall. what was it, a week after June 22, 1941 the germans were 200 miles towards moscow? i know what the russians did! they dropped their babushkas and pointed to the Panzer divisions shouting "noobs! everyone knows rushing is cheating!"

take YOUR misguided theories and play some of those aformented top of the ladder players. if you dont get your pants owned off, ill eat my mouse.

 

i agree with the second part, not the first. when ur playing an equal or better player, i dont think its called rushing anymore, then the first early attack is called a battle because he will undoubtedly meet you in the middle and try to make it to YOUR side.

As for the top bit, id have to go against. turtling has no analogy except for modern day bunkers, and yes it is a valid target. you turtle so that you can defend your military assests, be it reasources or infrastructure. In real life, i can think of 3 large US military bunkers off the top of my head easy, and those arent bunkers so much as fortresses. If the cost for turtling is worth more then the defensive gain, then of COURSE you wouldnt do it!

 

Hey damouse! I think you misread my comment on the other thread I said,

But that could be easily misread as

So I shared your opinion on it all along, lol, (though not as strongily it seems).

Ah, but the thing is damouse, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. To quote the guys at Gearbox Software (developed Brothers In Arms): war isn't fair, but video games should be! So of course, all these tactics are semi accurate to RL, but imho, no game should be so realistic so that it's not fair and not fun. And at the end of the day, we play games, because they are fun. So developers naturally take out the unfun bits out of the games. Say rushing isn't fun (personally, I think it's part of the game, and great to play and play against, but many people don't agree, I'm talking from their perspective). The developers should take rushing out. You see, it doesn't have anything to do with realism! I'm sure many of you have played Call of Duty 2, with it's health system where you can take an infinite amount of bullets and still live. Is that historically accurate to RL? Nope. Doesn't have to be. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the argument about rushing has little to do with historical accuracy, but more to do with if it makes a fun game for people to want to play.

Yes, a good rush will cripple the opponent, giving you a big advantage. Hence, it's a preferred strategy used by many if not all of the pros (at least in 1v1).

I think you need to take into account that many people think strategy games as sort of like chess, where you outthink your opponent, rather than having the better micro. Certainly, these people are better suited to TBS imho, rather than RTS, where fast pace is the better strategy.

 

Actually, I'd say it's more accurate to real life than magical boxes that can cure fatal wounds by walking over them. If you get shot in the shoulder, and it misses vital stuff like big arteries, a "flesh wound" as it's called in Hollywood, no matter how many of them you take, you're not gonna die. The idea behind the CoD2 health system, is some wounds you take, don't kill you, you can just shrug them off, but if you take a shot to the head, or you lose a limb, you're buggered.

But anyway, thats completely off topic.

On the subject of FPS games, I suppose a rush is kind of like a headshot, the average player can pull off a few, but there are some players who are just unbelievably skilled, and can pull off headshots like it's an art form.

 

lol miscommunication is oh so enjoyable! sorry dragontail...

And i think i have some problems with what you said for the opposing argument.

Who says war isnt fair? as long as both sides have equal amount of materials and roughly equal armies (as we're assuming for our RTS example) then of course the war is fair, and it is up to the leaders to resolve it. Rushing is perfectly legal because both sides have the option to implement it! Again, assuming that there isnt some fatal flaw with the game such as a terribly strong first unit that renders all other units worthless in the face of a spam, any fault of the loss is not a fault of the game and hence, rushing as being a part of the game.


And the professional gamer does not use the rush because it is easily crippling, he uses it to win. when pros go up against each other and match their rushes i doubt thexpected outcome is to hit the base and win the game first off the bat, but to challenge the enemy so they do not have time to economize or tech up, and if the attack does break through then the enemy played a very bad opening as it is.

As we come to the topic of chess, that IS something i know about and am good at. in chess you dont hold off your oponent untill you can align an attack, you begin right off the bat and come out of the gates firing because up untill the midrange/professional level, the OPENING decides the fate of the game. any IM or GM will tell you that the opening is the most crucial and integral part of the game; you lose that then its a hard, hard climb back to the top. If anything chess should reinforce my side because the opening is such a big deal.

lol so at the end of the day, there is something wrong with this picture... Either its that the game is unfair, too realistic, or tilted in favor of the rusher, or that the players who whine about it are flawed. i vote the latter.

 

Well I don't play C&C or any other RTSs anymore... haven't done since the late 90's. But I recognise the issues here... I hate the idea of rushing too.

Well actually, I think it's perfectly valid idea, but as some people have pointed out, it's an issue of game balance. Regardless of the game, greater emphasis should be placed on defensive capabilities earlier in the game. There is little guile or strategy used in rushing generally. Rushing is about surprising the guy who is turtling... the solution... resort to same. Thus the game descends into a lottery - a simple war of attrition. Of all the myriad of strategies available you've suddenly been narrowed down to a handful of variants.

I don't think the game developers should always seek to remove rushing entirely, but for the sake of interest and variety, they should make a number of other strategies equally viable.

Think of rushing as long-ball football. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a crude approach if used all the time.

However, all that said, given that it is within the rules - and not against the spirit of the game either - I don't see anything wrong with rushing in a competitive game. It's not the users fault, it's the developers. If it's the most effective way of winning, use it.

I hate Chelsea. I hate the way they play. Very 'effective' but with little charm. But I can't deny their success. Whereas Arsenal can really dazzle.. but look where they are in the table.

 

But that never happens, war isn't fair. Was the war in Iraq fair? Was dropping those A-bombs on Japan fair? Not really. Only an idiot fights with even odds in a RL situation. You may as well just flip a coin, if it's heads, shoot yourself in the head.

Trying to compare C&C to real life is a bit pointless, as is chess really, similar, but completely different at the same time.

 

lol i think the keyphrase was "for our RTS example." In said example, all IS fair; and if you had an RL scenario with the same circumstances (unlikely as it is) then that would also be fair.

but its not just odds, because the outcome has everything to do on how you perform. a fair battle is only the circumstances, the outcome is a result of the players. Or countries. Or generals....

 

psha awping is nothing like rushing.
i dont mind one awp, or two in a game of 20 people, but when 9 out of 10 of the ****ers are awping that is totaly ****ing stupid, its basicly a one hit wep, and they have 9 chances to hit you. on bigger maps its somewhat easy to kill them, just camp the game out lol.

onto rushing, i agree that its fair, and if i was in a bad mood i would probably do it myself to get the enjoyment of winning fast, personally i have never rushed i think it makes the game bland, i would rather use the game to the full extent, with the most powerfull tanks and some strats. (on C&C:TS, was playing one game, i think i died in under 5 minutes from some guy who made tons, and tons of riflemen in gdi, it wasnt that good because its not what I expected, but i still killed alot of me with my harvester lol)
and rofl chess is a rush game now?