[mattmanser]

This is the worst type of "gaming" and probably exactly why the RTS genre is dying.

If people within 10% of each other means one gets thrashed then it's simply not fun for one of the players.

The RTSes you're lauding, which I do enjoy, often are little more than thinly disguised rock/paper/scissor with a big dash of "what is over powered today". Until it all gets balanced into a vanilla mush of nothingness. With the added bonus of the occasional unintended broken mechanic, tower rushes, marine rushes, zerg rushes. Anything called "rush" is usually an exploit of poorly thought out mechanic and an all or nothing of wasting 2 peoples time for ten minutes after which one or the other simply quits depending on whether the rush was spotted or not.

Most RTS games also seem to suffer from the same "let's play for 5 minutes of building and capturing exactly the same things every single game before the match actually starts"

I myself do love these games, but I have friends who hate them. It's not the pinnacle of gaming, it's simply one form of it.

[jules]

> If people within 10% of each other means one gets thrashed then it's simply not fun for one of the players.

You just need to balance games correctly. This is why modern games use Elo or TrueSkill to track each player's performance, just as in chess. Chess too has a huge skill gap: an average player has no chance against a top player, but using Elo even games can be played.

I disagree that RTS is like Rock Paper Scissors. Starcraft maybe, but a well designed modern game no. In Rock Paper Scissors any person can have a roughly 50% win rate against any other person. The fact that an average player cannot win against a good player with any rush strategy indicates that it's not Rock Paper Scissors.

The same goes for the start of a game. A good modern RTS does not require a standard 5 minute opening.

> It's not the pinnacle of gaming

Oh, certainly. RTSes usually do very poorly on some other points (e.g. storytelling), and aren't the best even on points that they score well on (e.g. chess involves far more decision making). Whether you find those important is completely subjective.

[ajuc]

> This is the worst type of "gaming" and probably exactly why the RTS genre is dying.

I don't know. I play sc2, and after a few or at most a dozen of matches I just have to quit - too much stress. But I quite like it and I return to it every few days. I don't waste as much time as I would on some no-stress rpgs or europe universalis alikes (waiting for positive reinforcement type of games). These are just different kinds of games. Starcraft fills similar niche like chess - relatively quick competive sport. I don't see people running around bashing chess for the use of clock or the fact that you will lose a lot when you play chess.

> If people within 10% of each other means one gets thrashed then it's simply not fun for one of the players.

Or maybe some players like to get trashed 50% of the time if it's in a honest game? Ladder system is there to match people with similar skill and it mostly works. Inventing chess that are less stressful (let's say you can throw a dice to see if the enemy attack worked) wouldn't make it better game.

[vonmoltke]

I got turned off multiplayer RTS games way back in the C&C: Red Alert days, where every single game was "build a shitload of tanks and rush your opponent". Every time I have dipped my toe back in over the years since I have found basically the same mechanic. Plus, I don't really want to get better at a game where the primary skill is clicking around the map like a manic Jack Russel terrier on speed.