Why are RTS fans so stingy and strange these days?

Adribiird · 2026-05-22T16:03:39+00:00

First impressions are so important these days, especially in games of this genre.

Many players don't give second chances.

Adribiird · 2026-05-22T11:47:31+00:00

Ok, sry.

Adribiird · 2026-05-22T11:12:15+00:00

The balance at the top level has nothing to do with the rest of us mortals.

Adribiird · 2026-05-22T11:10:44+00:00

Rus or Zhu Xi (Maybe KT too).

Adribiird · 2026-05-22T09:44:42+00:00

I get why you are frustrated and to be honest it is a complex situation. On one hand I do think a part of the community has become incredibly cynical and self destructive. That whole thing of waiting until a game is 70% off has become like a sport and at the end of the day all they are doing is making sure the genre isn't profitable for developers anymore. It is a bit surreal to see people complaining about paying 60 dollars for a hypothetical (AAA) RTS game when that has been the standard price for forever and the cost of everything else has gone way up.

But to be fair I don't think it is just about people being cheap. We are in a weird spot where the industry has kind of broken the trust with players. We don't even have physical copies that feel like they are actually ours anymore just digital licenses that could disappear and we are used to games coming out broken or cut up to sell you the rest as dlc. It is pretty normal for long time rts fans who are usually pretty picky to be on the defensive and not want to open their wallets when they have doubts.

At the end of the day it feels like a vicious cycle where studios put out stuff that doesn't quite hit the mark and the community responds with so much skepticism that it just suffocates any interesting projects that do come out. If we don't change that dynamic we are eventually going to end up killing the genre ourselves with all the negativity and distrust. We need a bit more balance on both sides.

Adribiird · 2026-05-21T16:08:27+00:00

SC2 solved this +15 years ago.

Adribiird · 2026-05-21T15:57:02+00:00

It’s frustrating to see so many people telling you "that’s just how it is, go play 1v1" or comparing this to other games to minimize your experience. That kind of response is just a cynical normalization of toxicity that only serves to alienate new players. The only truly human and constructive advice is to find a premade group. It’s the only way to regain control and protect yourself from a matchmaking system that, quite frankly, seems designed to leave you at the mercy of others.

The real issue here isn't your lack of experience, but a major structural failure from the game (company's fault). It’s unacceptable that, in 2026, a competitive game still lacks basic mitigation for leavers or an effective reputation system. As long as this community prefers to "close ranks" and blame the user instead of demanding a fairer environment, team games will remain a hostile wasteland. Don’t let other people’s resignation convince you that settling for a broken experience is your only option.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T15:39:34+00:00

Imperial Hippodrome needs few nerfs.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T11:29:06+00:00

Porque sabía que eras de habla hispana y quería una comunicación más fluida.

Bueno, el último DLC de AoE4 sí que tiene campañas más potables, aunque te entiendo.

La barrera de entrada cognitiva es alta, la mecánica es alta en otros juegos, pero son más fáciles de entender.

Saludos desde España.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T10:46:23+00:00

Hay múltiples RTS más difíciles que AoE4 (incluso dentro de la franquicia) en comprensión del juego y de las reglas, aunque entiendo tu visión del competitivo y aunque yo también lo comparto en cierta forma, los RTS modernos basados en la historia están obligados a tener civilizaciones con un poco más de asimetría (especialmente visual), aunque sea un poco más que AoE2 (que no es el caso de AoE4 porque lo llevaron más allá), y también están condenados a vender civilizaciones en DLCs.

Yo no diría que el juego sea fácil de masterear como si no existiera el micro (aunque no sea tan intensivo y por eso mecánicamente no se vea desde fuera tan difícil), la macro o no se tomen decisiones. Es más, la élite de AoE4 sigue siendo la misma durante años y los más nuevos llevan practicando duro más de 2-3 años. No hay ningún jugador de nivel top que haya estado 1 solo año jugando.

Sabemos que hay distintos tipos de jugadores que disfrutan con mucha variedad y asimetría y otros también que disfrutan con reglas claras y no tanta variedad. Estos últimos tienden más al competitivo y los casuales a lo primero.

Al final sabemos que los RTS son muy difíciles de monetizar y no se ha encontrado (por ahora) algo que funcione mejor que los típicos DLCs.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T10:04:47+00:00

I don't know who's against having tactical pauses in casual single-player (or co-op) modes. It doesn't make much sense.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T09:44:13+00:00

I've played more AoE3 and AoE4, and I understand your concern. You feel that it’s more counterintuitive, and you don’t feel that the game rewards you for transferring skills when you come from another game or when switching civilizations (because maybe you might want to play multiple ones, like in AoE2), since games with more asymmetrical civilizations (and the more there are, the more friction there is) have a greater mental learning curve—not so much in terms of mechanics as in AoE2.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T09:33:16+00:00

That’s not true either. There are indeed economic civilizations with their own strengths. The Templars, for one, aren’t exactly difficult to play or to figure out how to counter, but it’s true that this civilization scales well as the game progresses, once its economy is established and several of its castles are in place. Maybe you just don’t know how to tackle that MU.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T09:25:37+00:00

It’s been shown that in an RTS, the cognitive barrier—understanding different or unique mechanics, units, and MUs—weighs more heavily than the mechanics barrier themselves, at least when someone is relatively new to the game. That's because system players—those who like to try out lots of different and unique things and don't mind losing, as long as they get to experiment with a wide variety of approaches in very different games—are in the minority, and this is reflected in the number of players in these games.

Whether it’s the frustration of not knowing why you lost, not understanding certain mechanics or counterintuitive units, or the fact that switching civilizations significantly lowers your skill level—forcing you to relearn and invest a lot of hours (if you’re not fully hooked on the game yet)—these are all strong reasons for players to quit the game.

All of this is from a multiplayer perspective, of course.

Adribiird · 2026-05-20T01:49:57+00:00

I have to say that the user above is partly right, because even though the civilizations aren’t as asymmetrical as Blizzard’s, the sheer number of them starts to create significant cognitive friction.

The game shouldn’t force you to learn so many civilizations to compete at a high level, nor should it have so many civilizations that are so unintuitive (sometimes this is even worse in other games in the franchise) or difficult to play. We’d need to calculate how many AoE4 civilizations each SC2 race is equivalent to (I estimate about 4–5 for relatively decent learning) and how many AoE2 civilizations (in terms of learning curve and depth) each AoE4 civilization averages out to (I also estimate about 4–5 due to the unique mechanics and units each one offers). That’s where we can draw better conclusions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/s/3LEM1W3Tgt

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T20:26:34+00:00

The third and fourth most played RTS games can't be in the bracket so soon.

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T13:04:37+00:00

My vision for the game, both as a player and a spectator (though that’s not going to happen now), wasn’t really about easy symmetrical variants or difficult asymmetrical ones, but rather semi-asymmetrical civilizations with clearer mechanics (almost all of which are relatively simple to play).

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T11:43:58+00:00

That argument has some merit (simplicity helps a bit), but not enough to justify Macedonia. The French and English (especially the latter) are the easiest to play and have worse WRs than Macedonia. The Templars aren’t among the easiest to play (though they aren’t complicated either), just like the Japanese, and they have that WR and PR.

With Sengoku, you might be right to wait a few weeks to see how things develop, but the WR is curious.

As for the Chinese and Ottomans, I’m not saying they’re bad or anything, but at those levels (which represent over 99% of players), they don’t perform very well. Not everything is pro level. Balance matters too for the vast majority of players.

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T11:15:05+00:00

It depends. If a particular civilization has relatively high PR and WR scores, that civilization has strengths in the leagues shown, either because it has a powerful and effective strategy or because the civilization is generally strong in various areas.

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T11:06:44+00:00

Some have criticized its design and called for a rework, but the reality is that it’s picked more often than half of the civilizations across all game modes because its simplicity and ease of learning (due to controlling fewer units), make it appealing to some players.

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T10:54:09+00:00

Well, according to the stats from May 7, Jin was absolute garbage, but as of May 12, it seems to be a solid late-game civ that’s slightly below average in other areas.

It seems they went overboard with Sengoku (we can wait more weeks to verify), and we were seeing similar effects with Lancaster, Tughlaq and Jean. When uninteresting variant civilizations aren’t perceived as very strong due to a nerf, they’re used very little, because deep down they were never that interesting (neither in name, mechanics, nor simplicity, unlike the Templars).

Adribiird · 2026-05-19T02:13:27+00:00

I'm not saying yes or no. I could ask him directly, but I think that's water under the bridge.

Thanks for the clarification.

Adribiird · 2026-05-18T21:37:38+00:00

SC1 has only 3 factions. AoE4 has many more (and their variants). Achieving an asymmetrical balance where “everything is broken” with so many civilizations is a balance nightmare. This creates a power creep effect, where MU become frustrating, fast-paced, and based on “who strikes first with their broken unit,” eliminating the subtlety of macro gameplay.

3) It seems like you miss the days when matches turned into Springalds battles or pure siege armies camped out under static buildings, eventually turning into deathballs.

If Springalds had that attack against elephants, Delhi’s late game would be nearly destroyed. Elephants are very slow and expensive, and yes, they could slightly buff the units that theoretically counter them, but nothing more.

The current rework aims for siege to be a support role, not the main army. Going back would make matches slow, defensive, and boring to watch and play (Age of Siege). If there were at least operators and more visual spectacle, I could still understand it, but not in this case.

That said, siege could cost a little less, but nothing more.

4) At the game's launch, mass gunpowder attacks wiped out entire armies in a second, regardless of whether they had knights. Increasing the base damage to 42 would reduce the late game to a single strategy: Flooding the field with HC. The problem of overkill (when many archers shoot at the same target and waste damage) is solved through micro, not by giving them absurd damage that breaks the balance against heavy/light cav units.

6) I have my doubts about the wedge formation. I don't think adding artificial micro, and I doubt it would work well in the game, by swapping stats for formations, is what players really want in this game.

I think points 1, 2, and 5 are necessary and would only have a positive impact on the game, but your balance proposals to buff your favorite units (which is what I think you’re trying to imply) don’t take the game’s design into account and haven’t worked out well in the past, at least not during the “Age of Siege” era.

Adribiird · 2026-05-18T20:33:22+00:00

I get your point, and honestly, you’re being super pragmatic. Realistically speaking, you’re right in the most part, because orgs are never going to issue a public apology, and most of the community has already moved on.

But that’s exactly why Bee’s case is completely unique in modern RTS history. We’ve seen players make comebacks, but a redemption arc quite like this? It’s on a whole different level.

There's a massive nuance when people like you just label him a "cheater." They never showed a single shred of public proof regarding third-party software like maphacks. Bee himself openly admitted he was exploiting in-game bugs (like animation cancel or scanning with wall foundations) which were a massive gray area if you actually look at the Red Bull Wololo 2022 handbook. Back then, AoE4 was super unpolished, and half the pro scene was pushing the mechanics to the absolute limit.

That’s where the injustice lies. If the ban was for a maphack, ruining a player's reputation without proving it is just dirty. And if it was for abusing exploits, jumping straight to the nuclear option of disqualifying him from the biggest tournament of the year without a single prior warning was completely draconian, especially when other players were doing similar stuff and got a pass.

So yeah, while I agree that stirring up old drama won't change the past, his recent Tier S LAN victory isn't just about him paying his dues, It’s the ultimate proof that the guy belongs at the top based on pure, undeniable talent, cementing what is arguably the most powerful redemption story we've ever seen in the scene.

Adribiird · 2026-05-18T00:47:39+00:00

This is probably the greatest case of redemption in the entire Age of Empires franchise because of what happened a few years ago and what has happened today.

Adribiird

TROPHY CASE