As someone working on an RTS, this series has been really really great. Our take has some special properties, that make the translation not as straightforward, but I always come away having some new clarity about some aspect of some system. Thanks for doing these!
@@GeneralsGentlemen it’s not public yet. I think we’ll go into early access early-ish next year, but I don’t want to eat my words. I’ll hit you up for one of the upcoming tester rounds, if you’re interested.
So, with regards to Supreme Commander, I would argue that Population Cap is not what is used to prevent snowballing, since even a highly skilled player fighting a novice will be hard pressed to reach that 1000 unit default cap (which player-lobbies and mods often increase anyway). Rather, it's a two separate items, perhaps falling under Defender's Advantage. 1.) Reclaim - The resources put into units don't simply disappear when the unit dies. They sit on the battlefield as wrecks that can be reclaimed by units with Engineering suites. Even players caught on the defensive back foot will start to see larger and larger piles of wrecks outside their base, which can be funneled into forces retaking territory (gaining more reclaim) or artillery pieces to strike into backline enemy positions. A player who rarely reclaims will rarely win. A player who tries to snowball over opponents should be wary they are not feeding their opponent's economies. 2.) The Commander - The assassination or king piece gameplay of Supreme Commander often prevents snowballing as well to a degree. As the primary target of the game is a 40m tall planetary siege unit covered in armor and with a weapon outclassing all but the highest-tier units, taking one down is a challenge. A snowball may help against the enemy's forces, but against the Armored Command Unit (ACU) it means little. ACUs will often be used to hold off snowballs while higher-tech retaliation forces are prepared, and Veterancy and Upgrades mean that any attack which doesn't kill the ACU risks making it harder to kill the second time. Heck, even late game ACUs can be a challenge to take down given their mobility, durability, and firepower. So, yeah, not really the PopCap stopping the snowballing.
Mileage may wary. I tend to at the level of a mostly inexperienced player with a few tricks up my sleeve to find the ACU's to be made of paper at the best of times. The risk of sending it on a walk tends to only produce results in early game where it's more a must than a choice, because of just how easy it is to assassinate it. All it takes is a move unseen like a few sneaky air units, or some other shenanigans like a fast T2, and it's not that strong. I kind of lost interest in Supreme Commander because it's just a bit too cheese heavy. That, and it's very rare to find a good game map played that isn't based on the idea of turtle up and build game enders to get some decent practice in, which seem to be the only one's getting played for some reason. Granted, they can be amusing, but just...aren't fun after a certain point because they turn into timed races over actual fighting prowess. All the other guys need to do is stall an enemy long enough to get a game ender built faster, fall back, and they can lose control of the whole map and still win, to the point fighting for map control can even be a bad thing. Supreme Commander is kinda odd in that how well the anti snowballing mechanics function depends entirely on what map is being played. With currently most games being the "turtle up and get your game ender race going" sort with no shortage of resources as long as the middle map is contested until bases get to the end game, the anti snowballing mechanics don't do that much because these player made maps are almost designed on purpose to ensure they don't end up contributing too much with how many resources there are. Yet, as very few play anything else, it's not like one has much of a choice in the matter.
@@videocrowsnest5251 Huh, that's honestly an interesting perspective, and it is fascinating to see how different skill levels interpret things. I'll say I am not inexperienced, but I am also far from good at the game. 😅 That said, I've never really seen the issues you've encountered, at least not playing Forged Alliance? Yeah, you need to use ACUs in the early game because they are economic and military powerhouses, and not leveraging them to push forward or hold certain fronts will leave you out-maneuvered, but they don't really lose viability until T3 (and even then, there are exceptions to that). Sure, they can be sniped - cheeky snipes are part of the game, but they're rarely more than longshots or luck early on. An ACU that is properly supported and upgraded can hold off T2 forces on their own, and if you're keeping up on your Intel game and countermeasures (Scouting, Interceptors, Tactical Missile Defenses, etc.) most games won't end with an early snipe. Even late-game snipes are hard considering the ACU's maneuverability. Heck, you mentioned fast T2, but a T2 rush means the opponent has less on the ground to stop you, and an ACU Overcharging properly can mitigate any tech advantage. As for maps encouraging turtling, that's...surprising to say the least. Namely because turtling is one of the worst strategies you can employ in SupCom, regardless of map. I can't even really picture a map where turtling is consistently viable. Yeah, reclaim can help defensive strategies (and counter snowballs), but you still need to push out to get that reclaim. If you're constantly ceding territory to an opponent or sitting within a small base, they can just reclaim the forces that were killed by your defenses, which can ironically make snowballing worse. You need to use that reclaim to push for map control because map control is almost always critical to winning, both because Mass Extractors are the best way to gain resources, but also because without map control you cannot really win outside of a snipe (which become harder over time). Fights shouldn't be staying middle-map either, as unless FAF has really changed something (or those custom maps are really getting out of hand), there should be a solid ebb and flow to combat.🤨 Like, seriously, fighting for map control is never a bad thing in my experience. As for game enders, I've almost never seen them (outside of a Gyle cast 😉). Paragons, Mavors, and Salvations aren't really something most games should ever get near. Normal experimentals and nukes, sure, but they're no game enders. T3 Artillery - yeah, that can dismantle an unprepared base, but all of those resources are things not sent to the front, letting the opponent either push through, build their own artillery and defenses, or even transition to more mobile economies (like the SCU). Even if a game ender gets on the field, they're also stupid fragile, so the minute you know one is up, scouting should be done to identify and kill it before it can cripple your economy. I don't know, I've just never seen the same issues, but as you said, mileage may vary.
@@TheFirstObserver If you want to see what I mean referring to game enders and the sorts being a dime a dozen - check out FAF and look at the maps being played. The most common ones you will find being played are three that demonstrate this issue quite well. They also come with the idea that a set location means what your role is (land/air/navy/eco) with no exceptions. The most common map people play is Dualgap, or any other gap alternative. Basically how most games go is the following: A 6v6 map. This is per team: Two land players go fight for land. Either they succeed in pushing past each other or just set up bases and have static defense lines with artillery used. Two Air player stays in base and builds up air to rush to T3 in order to get anti-air swarm going. One navy player sets up a navy and tries to support land players with destroyers while suppressing the other land player. They have a window of how long they got until attacking becomes very unlikely to do anything, which is dependent on the amount of torpedo defenses being spammed. One eco player doesn't move out of the base the whole game and makes no units. Simply rushes for a game ender. Build a nuke, kill other eco = GG. Or failing that, just make a t3 artillery piece and begin shelling. Most games are resolved by game ender nukes or artillery. Each player is locked into a role, because if they divert resources into anything else, they lose. However! After eco has properly set up, it doesn't matter if the land players lose, the middle map/navy is decimated. Each player has 12 mass deposits in base, so once those are all at T3 they don't need more to be able to maintain maximum production. Middle map becomes irrelevant thus. Due to the map being created in such a way, there are two narrow land routes to each base. After a certain point any kind of conventional attack is nearly impossible due to the water being flooded with Cybran torpedo defenses, land full of UEF t3 point defenses, and massive swarms of anti-air fighters/sam walls making air not work. Any attack into the defensive lines even if well co-ordinated will fail. The map is thus resolved by who spams more game ender artillery. This is the most common map played. It has two accomplishes in Setons, as well as pass. These three sorts of maps dominate in how much they are played. Despite being static, bland, relying entirely on a set script, and becoming races to see who gets the first experimentals or game enders going. Hardly any other maps get played. Even if such a lobby pops up, it can take an hour for it to fill. Because of being a newer player, most such lobbies also demand a certain + rank. My only way to build rank is to slog it out in the boring static maps where how it ends is known to all: experimental artillery, or nuke rush. And thus the circle is set. I can't get into even slow filling lobbies, which would let me play the game, I am not confident in hosting them, and all I have to do in the meanwhile is play the treadmill of gap spam where I do not learn much about anything on properly playing the game due to how the maps are designed by principle to be bad.
@@videocrowsnest5251 Well, I guess that's the problem: I don't think I've ever played Dual Gap. 🤣 That said, I am surprised to hear the issue is prevalent in Seton's as well.🤔 Yeah, different positions have different expected roles, but that's a given for any team vs. team match on a relatively large map (regardless of RTS). You'll always have frontlines and backlines, and in games where the environment plays a role (such as naval or land), you'll have positions better suited to that environment. That said, Mid-lane Commanders don't just become unnecessary. Sure, they do usually get pushed back (often by one of the side-lanes), but they are still crucial to stemming the flow of units towards the vulnerable side-lane bases. Even late game, losing a mid-lane player can spell doom for a team that's unable to quickly fill that gap. That said, most games shouldn't exactly get to late game (at least in the context of "Game-Enders" late). Normally a lane will collapse well before that point, and a domino effect will take place collapsing the other lanes, and then the other team can cut through opposing terrain with impunity. Regarding the T3 defenses (like the Cybran HARMs, UEF Ravager, or SAMs), the concept that they outright prevent conventional attacks also seems strange. That's a lot of resources to pump into an immobile defensive structure, especially one which is trivially removed by mobile artillery, tactical missile volleys, or (in the case of HARMs) ground-fired battleship barrages. And speaking of mobility, that's literally one of the most important assets to an air unit, one which SAMs forgo. Sure, they provide good air coverage, but its over a fixed and limited area, and they are more there to punish attacks (and prevent multiple passes) than actually stop something like a bombing run outright (especially if well-scouted). Considering actual air units like ASFs are generally better from an economic standpoint anyway, the player building a strong air force will generally outcompete the player relying on SAMs - which then allows those players to "win" the air game and achieve dominance, heavily limiting opponent mobility, and eventually winning. As a general rule of thumb (not including forward firebases), if you're seeing static defenses, it's because you've pushed an opponent far enough back towards their base that they need to redirect build power to something which can buy time for a recovery. As for the Game enders, well, first off your standard experimental units or nukes don't really count. Normal experimentals are powerful, but by no means impervious. Heck, the Percy was made for Experimental killin'. 😉Meanwhile, Anti-nukes are easy enough to build that most nukes never hit their targets, and by the time a Seraphim Yolona Oss is in-play, they should be prevalent enough to keep it at bay long enough to respond (and if the player fails to rebuild them when destroyed, or keep them stocked, that's on them 😂). I could see artillery being a pain on larger maps, but usually by the time it comes into play most economies should be well-shielded and/or mobile, and their own immobile nature (and lower health, and tendancy to be surrounded in oh-so-explosive generators) make them vulnerable to return fire and deep strikes. I could see why artillery could be a problem, but in my experience they're just another tool in the tool set with its own counters. Heck, I've lost a game after penning my opponent into a base with three Novaxes and a Duke....I did say I wasn't good. 😂 Anyway, yeah, as you said - mileage may vary. I haven't hit those specific issues yet, or maybe I have and haven't noticed since I've never really thought of them as issues. 🤔 As a side thing, since you were having trouble ranking up, did you try and create smaller games rather than just look for lobbies, or play things like the 1v1 or 2v2 ranked ladder? It can be awkward to make games, but it's the best way to get what you want. Heck, I didn't even think you could rank up from custom games, but as for learning experience there always used to be someone down to help practice on smaller maps where the fundamentals shine better. As for the ranked matches, IIRC they should also generally be on smaller map selections too (and sometimes randomly generated) so you can practice there, and they actually count towards your official rank.
@@TheFirstObserver I think Seton's is the least insufferable of the three linear maps and their kin. It sadly also gets played the least. Dual gap type maps are what get played the most out of any maps on any given day, and function as noob traps to boot. Nukes function as game enders when the whole gist of a map's spirit is "stay in base and do this". On Dual gap the eco slot players have the job of shielding their entire team from nukes. If the other team does two things: 1) Communicates 2) Plans and works together (which should be given but hardly ever happens in my experience - asking a team what the plan is and getting silence usually means it's a dud of a team) - they can quickly rush a nuke and slap eco out and then just win on impute by bombing everyone with nukes. It's dumb, it's silly, but it's how dual gap works and that's the most played map. Static defenses on dual gap/gap variant maps snowball out of control fast in the end game because of just how ludicrous the resource income is, even if you lost middle map control. I don't in general touch ladder because I tried once and after an hour of not going anywhere I thought it to be broken, and decided to just go play the custom games. As for hosting my own games, considering I have some weird bugs that keep hindering my ability to play, I am quite hesitant. For months now, I've had this bug where if I try to join a lobby that's more than 50% full, it just won't load the lobby at all. This bug came around during a patch sometime ago. I've tried asking around if anyone else suffers from it or has a solution, but usually I get completely ignored when I use the client chat room to ask.
in a red alert map called "War Tank" the player is purposely given a small base and everyone has equal amount of money, as long as you hold on to your own wealth you can have late game comebacks when your opponent runs out of money
Yay! Also, *numerous, distinct, small gambits* , for every mass or rush composition, which don't 'win-with-the-parry' but DO give you a chance to climb back a little bit, each, are an Anti-Snowball Mechanic that depends upon the *density* and *connectivity* of counters, as a whole. It's better to have numerous gambits which are all *very weak* , so that you *wouldn't* want to risk any particular one of them as an initial cheese-rush. (Unless you are Florencio...) Yet, once the opponent has an advantage, the sheer *variety* of obscure counters that you can choose from forces them to re-evaluate 'mass adept', and instead, they add more defenses and branch-out, which slows their exponential steamroll. That gives you breathing room, but it also means you have to stay on your toes, because they'll be able to shift compositions; that is, *more numerous tech-switches* per match = more chances for someone who is behind in units to get ahead with insight, timing, and luck. TLDR; when you're rich, and if there are lots of different ways to steal a little bit from you, then you have to spend a lot of money on many different locks.
The best rts game I have ever played is Kane's Wrath and I miss it so much. I really love the unique veterancy approach of kw, a heroic unit is indeed heroic, there is no other game like it even in other c&c games. Combine this with epic units and you add another layer of depth to your strategy game, trying to keep your units alive becomes rewarding. And I say these as a person who enjoyed many other rts gamew like red alert 2, ra3, generals, zero hour, war craft ft, supreme commander, sc forged alleince, sc2, etc... Having said all of these, kw still needs some balancing. Some factions are significantly weaker than others, like steel talons, reaper and zocom.
@Reaper-17 It is weak though. First of all, no arty and teleportation mean your enemy can play a very defensive game and keep hitting you with arty. Then there is the fact that, despite their thicc appearances, reaper tripods are only as tanky as regular tripods and the firepower bonus from tiberium is so little(official final patch) that it can be negligible. However, tripods are the best heavy units in the game, so i would add shields to devouvers, seekers(by default), stormriders, etc. and give r17 generally stronger shields with an upgrade in tech assembly. They would be a unique gamestyle faction that uses breakthrough head-on, instead of hit-and-run tactics.
@Reaper-17 If that's your favorite unit, then it is illogical to play R17, because you get the least out of it in that faction. Playing t59 or vanilla Scrin, you can teleport your hexapod, which increases its survivability, and as a result, you can get it to heroic rank easier.
Starcraft broodwar has the best anti snowball mechanic due to more bases = more spread out and more places to multitask = youre more vulnerable. And having a bigger army means that its harder to control and youre more prone to getting outplayed by your opponent. And if you fall behind, that's your own fault, you should have to face the consequences of this, it makes coming back into the game far more fun becouse you earn it through good play.
The sequel, StarCraft II, removes an anti-snowball mechanic that made the game challenging for multiplayer. The 12 selection limit and the bad pathfinding has been axed that it's much easy to control units regardless of army size. Combine this with low TTK and smartcasting and you get a game where looking away for even 1 second would cost you a game.
The video I'm releasing tomorrow is literally gonna praise the Snowballing in RA3 in part lol. What a coincidence this video just came out! Very insightful, good job!
Have you heard or seen an old rts by the name of Battle Realms? Currently, they have released its Zen Edition, giving it a cleaner look compared to its 2001/2003 counterpart. Give it a try if you're interested.
Funny though you brought up C&C Rivals as an example for anti-snowball mechanics... players getting simply stronger units by paying more or grinding for tons sounds pretty inherently snowbally to me.
Very interesting! I agree with a lot of this. I think though that some of the inherent mechanics in rts that are not necessarily negative feedback loops can still be put there intentionally to reduce this snowballing effect. Or they are at least taken into consideration and tailored as such. Like unit cap. At first it was used to reduce the take of rts games on the cup (i think?) but now some games can lower the unit cap precisely to reduce the snowball effect. This can also reduce gamelength but it is not always the case. CoH for example is much more focused in unit control than basebuilding (but there is a lot of very interesting “territory building” fir a lack of a better term?) and benefits from lower unit cap because it gives the players more actions per units. Speaking about gamelength I will personally accept snowballing in games that make for shorter, more expeditive matches. In this case snowballing can help to bring the match to an end as soon as there is a clear winner. The game must still be fun for everyone but this reduces the time “wasted” when playing a losing match. Thanks for the video! I enjoyed it and I watch all the videos in this series (multiple times) because I love them and I love rts games :)
I like the idea of secondary economy though like in Generals, it allows huge late game fights which you just never see in other RTS except maybe Supreme Commander. I never liked the idea of there being a point in the game where neither side can build anything else because all the resources on the map have been mined. Generals does it best, rather than having permanent income like Company of Heroes or an almost in-harassable economy like in Halo Wars 2 the Generals secondary eco is easily harassable, expensive to make but has huge payoff if you manage to protect it. The only issue was the fact that Black Markets were by far the best secondary eco especially compared to China's hackers. Although the USA Supply Drop Zones were decent.
The Age series also does that pretty well. In AoE2 gold and stone limits you the most (gold being used to pay for expensive and strong units while stone is used for building strong defenses) and will run out, in team games you can set up trading routes with your team mates so you will have a steady supply of gold and every map has relics which generates gold for the players that capture them. In practice that means that army composition changes as the value of gold and stone increases due to its scarcity but you can always field large armies.
Zero Hour attempted to solve China's terrible late game eco with the Internet Center, but the Internet Center was such a weak structure that got one-shot by every support power or Superweapon. One of the few things I think 1.6 did very well was fix the Internet Center by making it super tanky. Overall i agree though, i much prefer the idea of secondary eco to none at all, similar to my distain for population caps.
@@khankhomrad8855 aoe3 doesnt have this limits... But you can still lose when you're like for 1min afk when the aztec player is coming with his cojotes or the russian with the oprichnik boxes (or instant musketeers, like the elite of the ethiopian in aoe2 but weak and cheap) Aom too (aom sucks) But normally no game lasts 4h
Yeah the Internet Center was a great addition but you can only put 8 hackers inside and you're right, it dies too easily. It does make it hard for China, especially against GLA since he can Rebel ambush or Sneak attack your hackers and there's little you can do except put turrets next to your hackers. Also China Inf's invisible hackers are very good but that's just one army. And yea pop caps are the worst... Unless it's needed due to software limitations. Since in ZH you can build so many units that the game crashes.
for me it's: 1. Starcraft 2 (I love the progress you can make in this click fest, hte discipline needed to switch between micro and macro) 2. Supreme Commander (the scale, production automation, continous economy vs pay full price upfront, on top of that, super high micro potential) 3. Company of Heroes 1 (played way to many hours) Honorable mentions: a) Submarine Titans - Starcraft 2 rip off, game of my childhood, but has trash UI b) Homeworld 2 - a bit too slow, but looks super epic. And most of benefits of SupCom
Because most people hate having to deal with limited unit selection and unpredictablr pathfinding Just search up the average sc2 players opinion on sc1 to see for yourself
I think the snowball issue of Dawn of War comes from economical system more than being so safe of production buildings. Game encourages you to play aggressively but some races can't temporize with this design (Imperial Guard) while some races are exteremely good at early aggression (Dark Eldar). I think people do not play 1v1 games in Dawn of War (or just i didn't notice).
Glad to see this series still going, but why does youtube thinks that you were playing Heroes of the Storm??? P.S: what about posting the link to your new website on the video description?
Working on an OpenRA mod (not a particularly serious or well balanced one, but still...), and this is a very interesting video, gonna have to watch the rest of em...
Dawn of war 1 was the complete opposite of snowballing, the fact that requisition points are scattered around the map encourages players to split their forces to divide and conquer, rewarding small skirmishes and multi-tasking, instead of grouping together...
He also mentioned Plasma Generators being immensely protected. I also support your idea of it not being snowballing cuz, like. Infiltrator units exist and many specialized units exist that can be dropped behind enemy lines for every faction almost xd
You are confusing deathballing with snowballing. Snowballing is about positive feedback loops for the winning player these can be army upgrades, economic snowballing or territory, snowballing.. Deathballing is about creating a single ball of strong units and winning with it.
@@blinkwont Yes and there is more opportunity for counterplay and comebacks when the opponent's resource collection locations are scattered as that means their forces will be stretched thin...
I think it's a bit ironic that Supreme Commander. Forged Alliance came up when discussing population caps. In practice the population cap is basically never hit in that game and it certainly does nothing to prevent snowballing. And when the creators of that game came together to create a spritual successor they made Planetary Annihilation which has no population cap whatsoever and proudly boasts that you can have tens of thousands of units on the field with no issue. If anything SupCom is a game where snowballing is the entire point.
Yeah I agree. One example of an anti-snowball feature that I didn't think of for was the video was how in Supcom you can rebuild a structure on its destroyed wreck to get it at half price/time. This helps a losing player rebuild a partly destroyed base.
@@GeneralsGentlemen MMm. I can see how that could be seen as a weak anti-snowball feature but honestly it doesn't favor the losing side very strongly. Overall my point was more that SupCom is a game that is extremely snowball-y and doesn't really suffer from it.
@@GeneralsGentlemen I know I am late to this discussion, but I would argue that snowballing isn't the point, and is even why so few successor games have grabbed my attention. PA (as awesome as it is) is a bit more simple in its gameplay because its orbital mechanics and multiple combat fields are so complex for your average player that it would make it nigh impossible for said average players to engage with it. SupCom on the other hand has simpler environments and mechanics, and as such has far more nuanced control of the ACU through upgrades, has units with far more distinct capabilities (even within the same unit "class" between factions), and far more ways to win. In PA you pushed for the Eco needed to brute force an opponent into submission, or to pen them in enough you could build an "I win" unit. In Supreme Commander (specifically Forged Alliance), the "I win" units are rarely strong enough to actually give them the win by themselves. Instead, you might manage to sneak a stealthed tactical missile base behind the opponents' lines and snipe the opposing commander while they aren't looking, might use artillery to soften opposing defenses enough that a bombing run just barely manages to take down the Strategic Missile Defenses which were preventing the half-dozen nuclear subs hiding off the coast from finishing the fight, or might build enough defensive structures that the hordes coming against you end up feeding your own forces. Heck, a mad Cybran might just teleport in front of the enemy commander strapped like an experimental, or a group of Aeon Support Commanders might jump and insta-build a Galactic Colossus in the back of the enemy base. There are a lot of ways to turn a game around in SupCom. Personally, my belief is that Reclaim and ACUs are the strongest deterrents to snowballing. An ACU is strong enough that it takes a lot to kill, and it gets stronger the longer it fights and upgrades, so if you don't kill it the first time, you've probably just made the job harder next time. Likewise, reclaim adds that mechanic to a larger scale, as any attack that fails to wipe out the opponent is just recycled by their Engineers. Being able to rebuild structures slightly faster and cheaper if the wreck survived is one thing. Fearing that half of the 10,000 mass you just sent at your opponent is going to be coming right back at you in experimental form is another. 😉
Do you have any experience with Unreal Engine? I have wanted to make an RTS of my own for a very long time now, and Im just starting out now. Do you have engine recommendations or any tips besides these videos?
I do not agree with the method of forcing players to quickly expand outward for resources. This leads to constant rush tactics being employed and players locking down resources area as soon as the match starts. For eg- In C&C generals as soon as the match starts I send soldiers to capture the high value resource structures in the center of the map and lock that area down with the help of defensive structures. The player who does this always has a snowball effect where he quickly gets a resource advantage over the other player throughout the entire match. Instead the resource right next to each players base should be made unlimited , but limits should be placed on how much resources he can extract per second on that resource near the base, that way a losing player who has lost control of key areas of the map in the beginning of the match doesn't always become resource starved by mid game. Also high value resources outside the players base needs to be guarded by neutral enemies, sins of a solar empire does this effectively by pirates and mercenaries guarding neutral planets, this way no player can rush expand as soon as the match starts.
I always thought that Generals did a better job with oil than Red Alert or C&C. In Generals you need to research the capture upgrade to be able to capture the oil rigs and your troops take a few seconds to capture them. That means you have to invest resources, time and attention to capture them. Even in high level games players don't usually rush oil caps.
@@khankhomrad8855 Always send your troops quickly to rush capture the oil rigs. By the time they reach the destination, the capture building research would be done. As soon as it is done start capturing the building, meanwhile send your current construction dozer or worker there and construct defences, which guarantees that you have locked that area down. Your opponent won't be able to destroy it early in the game. Also send your other troops to capture all around the map in a similar fasion while all this is going on. If you do this strategy you are pretty much guaranteed to win unless you make major blunders. The only way to counter it is by using the same tactic.
@@mihirchitnis905 Not necessarily. A direct raid is an option as you have just invested quite a bit of cash. I do agree that this strategy is effective, but it is far from the best. If it was, you'd see every pro do that every single time, which isn't the case. Most of the time they focus on early game aggression and denying their opponents their oil instead of caping straight away. Additionally, China may choose to not cap early on and rush Lotus for cap (inf has a clear advantage here but this is a strategy that also works well for the other Chinese factions).
As an avid RTS gamer, my favorite thing has always been to struggle at first during the game and then slowly but surely having complete control over my enemy...
Look at fighting games, it don't have snowballing. One fighter deside to attack high, other desided to duck and kick, first fighter lost hp, but keeps everything else, players back to NEUTRAL position where they start all over again. Imagine you need to spend resources on each strike, fighter that wins engagements aquires new better moves, wich makes harder to win against him. Where is neutral in RTS?
Fighting games do have snowballing in the sense that playing agressively usually rewards you with meter and or positional advantage (corner) The neutral in an rts game is more nuanced and more of a spectrum and often also assymetrical
Neutral just means that neither player has a pressing advantage over the other player In starcraft1 for example a protoss player might have 3 bases while the terran is at only 2 but the game will still be in a neutral stage because neither player has the advantage despite protoss having map control
From the "every one gets a trophy and is a winner" gang...the entire idea of war is to exploit the enemy's mistakes and vulnerabilities, not have a fair and even fight. Make the games more realistic and the problem is solved, its not a game of skill and wits if you make everything even, especially during the war. Thats stupid, if you are a bad player, or have poor tactics, why do you get rewarded? Its like having two runners, one is a good runner and the other is not, then you tie the legs together of the good runner to make the bad runner feel better? Or to make sure they win against someone better? You destroy being better. War is not fair, and nor should it, if you are a bad player...get better, dont magically hamstring your enemies outside the realitiy of the warfare so you can win. Why not just have a big shiny red button that appears on the losers screen and you just press it and win instantly, why waste hours of play when you can just win by cheating?
Okay, how about we model everything that goes into modern warfare. From the fighters' mental states to the ammo they use. Come to think of it, in real life soldiers' equipment isn't made from 100 pounds of space ore all of 1000 meters from the enemy base... better model that too. You'll need to mine uranium then deplete it to make said rounds and farm crops to make rations, then dehydrate them. Also you'll need to mine the metal used in the ration tins and shape them at a factory. Ooh, and the factory will need power. And people to design and work it, who have their own mental states. After all can't have realism without the sheer exhaustion of working 12 hour shifts! What do you mean this doesn't sound like an rts?
The buterfly efect. The snowball efect. Net-work causation. Causal chain like stoic dialectic reasoning roots. Thanks content creater. We will keep learning from you, and other's. By the way. Do you enjoy the taste of your own jealousy like we do?
Isnt this like a normal aspects of anything in life? I mean these are allmost all universal issues. They affect both jim raynor and sone general from central africa.
so seeing you play bio, do you think its balanced that a stimmed bio army mows through everything while at the same being so cheap that you can just suicide army after army and not really lose much ressources while the opponent is being whittles down? so many games at the highest level of sc2 play, gsl, are ending the exact same way where a dying opponent is 'defeated' the way i described in the first sentence. additionally bio is most reliant on minerals and rewards low apm/attention with free mules. so not only is the army more cost efficiently but they also get free of their most important ressource even if they fail to defend their scvs because once harass is cleaned up 10 mules drop in the dead scvs place freeing up even more supply for even more of these ridicolously cost efficient bio units. bio is so strong, as evidenced by terran winning the most major sc2 tournaments since 2010, that it feels like abusing a broken aspect of the game that should have never survived the beta stage. as a mech-only player i totally agree that unstimmed bio is a joke but its as much of a joke stimmed. that upgrade should either increase movement speed or firing rate or still both but at reduced values. the 10 hp 'penalty' if stiming is such a non factor that its not even a tactical decision wether or not to stim.
I really just hope you are trolling phunku, holy hell your comment made me sad. I really dont believe you play sc2, and if you do you just dont have any understanding about the pro scene. If bio was that strong we would be see terrans absolutely dominating the sc2 pro scene, especially koreans with their top tier micro. Even though this was happening at the start the last 4+ years or so zergs have been tearing terrans apart and serral barely loses against the top korean terrans anymore, hell even reynor is now smashing terrans like they are nothing. Good thing they dont play GSL. Also the -10 hp for stim is a HUGE deal. So many times terrans stim just to escape or the stalkers blink away so they just wasted loads of health for nothing. You always need a big amount of medivacs just for healing and if they run out you basicially cant fight anymore. So many times ive seen 50+ supply of marines being in red hp with multiple medivacs out of energy... Just useless supply at that point. There is a reason loads of pro's actually want bio buffs. Take marines, which are pretty bad in lategame and just serve for cannon fodder against storms and colossi. Where lings get their attack speed upgrade, bio has nothing after their initial upgrades you get early in the game. On their own they just dont trade great against the tier 1 of the zerg while protoss have tons of splash damage to kill 25+ supply worth of bio. And yeah bio isnt expensive obviously, but its not like you can warp in loads of units or just pop out 50+ supply like zergs does. All in all bio is at a decent place, its not great. But in the right hands its pretty good.
In a field covered with wet snow, you create a small snowball the size of your fist, lay it in the snow, and roll it. The longer you roll it the bigger the snowball becomes.
@@heinzie5 If you make a snowball on the top of a snowy hill, if it rolls down it gets bigger. The bigger it becomes the faster it rolls. The faster it rolls the bigger it becomes. It is a process that reinforces itself. In RTS games, you invest in income, like in Starcraft you build a base near minerals. You harvest those minerals, and you can build more bases, who also can harvest more minerals. More minerals also allow you to build more units, so you can conquer a new area. In this area, you can build more bases that can harvest even more minerals. In other words, the longer you play the bigger and more powerful you become.
Always wining is like always losing. Since you have to give up your honour in life to have an ultimate supremacy action plan. Our own higher up actionary's are too complacent in life. How dull. How unlike being a true stoic. Time to be men with blasing heart's. What is the definition to Blase again? A French word....
I mean sc2 isnt even that popular in korea, its still mostly sc1 there. Sc2 is by far the most popular rts in the west right now, although with the (recent) release of age of empires remastered that is doing well. I dunno if you can really overestimate sc2, its pretty much the perfect rts tbh. It may be a bit too fast for some, but it fits the base building aspects and micro managing your army so seemingly together. Something that is lost in most rts that released afteer 2008 or so
@@ilax3071 its boring, is a copy of sc1 but with worse units... I played I got to master league for 6 months, you win if you are faster not smarter and that is the problem with this game.
@@diego2817 Mechanics are an important part of REAL TIME strategy, its not just strategy, its applying your strategy in REAL TIME which is based on how fast you are. And scbw is to this day by far the best RTS game ever made.
@@hkl1459 agree with you but SC is extremely fast for the sake of being fast there is no much room for strategy actually, if you compare it to coh or age
@@diego2817 Again, the speed of the game adds new tactics or strategies, i haven't played CoH but i play alot of AoE2 and alot of the strategy is based around unit composition, exploiting terrain and taking areas, the strategy is diffrent. And there's alot of strategy in broodwar while it is also very fast, TvT for example is extremely strategic and army movement in general is super important. You need a good strategy AND good control, a good strategy won't autowin you the game, same is true for AoE2, having a good strat can lose to superior mechanics and vice versa.
As someone working on an RTS, this series has been really really great. Our take has some special properties, that make the translation not as straightforward, but I always come away having some new clarity about some aspect of some system. Thanks for doing these!
You're welcome! What game are you working on?
@@GeneralsGentlemen it’s not public yet. I think we’ll go into early access early-ish next year, but I don’t want to eat my words. I’ll hit you up for one of the upcoming tester rounds, if you’re interested.
@@mario_actually how’s the RTS going? I’d like to be a tester
How's the game going @mario_actually ?
So, with regards to Supreme Commander, I would argue that Population Cap is not what is used to prevent snowballing, since even a highly skilled player fighting a novice will be hard pressed to reach that 1000 unit default cap (which player-lobbies and mods often increase anyway). Rather, it's a two separate items, perhaps falling under Defender's Advantage.
1.) Reclaim - The resources put into units don't simply disappear when the unit dies. They sit on the battlefield as wrecks that can be reclaimed by units with Engineering suites. Even players caught on the defensive back foot will start to see larger and larger piles of wrecks outside their base, which can be funneled into forces retaking territory (gaining more reclaim) or artillery pieces to strike into backline enemy positions. A player who rarely reclaims will rarely win. A player who tries to snowball over opponents should be wary they are not feeding their opponent's economies.
2.) The Commander - The assassination or king piece gameplay of Supreme Commander often prevents snowballing as well to a degree. As the primary target of the game is a 40m tall planetary siege unit covered in armor and with a weapon outclassing all but the highest-tier units, taking one down is a challenge. A snowball may help against the enemy's forces, but against the Armored Command Unit (ACU) it means little. ACUs will often be used to hold off snowballs while higher-tech retaliation forces are prepared, and Veterancy and Upgrades mean that any attack which doesn't kill the ACU risks making it harder to kill the second time. Heck, even late game ACUs can be a challenge to take down given their mobility, durability, and firepower.
So, yeah, not really the PopCap stopping the snowballing.
Mileage may wary. I tend to at the level of a mostly inexperienced player with a few tricks up my sleeve to find the ACU's to be made of paper at the best of times. The risk of sending it on a walk tends to only produce results in early game where it's more a must than a choice, because of just how easy it is to assassinate it. All it takes is a move unseen like a few sneaky air units, or some other shenanigans like a fast T2, and it's not that strong. I kind of lost interest in Supreme Commander because it's just a bit too cheese heavy. That, and it's very rare to find a good game map played that isn't based on the idea of turtle up and build game enders to get some decent practice in, which seem to be the only one's getting played for some reason. Granted, they can be amusing, but just...aren't fun after a certain point because they turn into timed races over actual fighting prowess. All the other guys need to do is stall an enemy long enough to get a game ender built faster, fall back, and they can lose control of the whole map and still win, to the point fighting for map control can even be a bad thing.
Supreme Commander is kinda odd in that how well the anti snowballing mechanics function depends entirely on what map is being played. With currently most games being the "turtle up and get your game ender race going" sort with no shortage of resources as long as the middle map is contested until bases get to the end game, the anti snowballing mechanics don't do that much because these player made maps are almost designed on purpose to ensure they don't end up contributing too much with how many resources there are. Yet, as very few play anything else, it's not like one has much of a choice in the matter.
@@videocrowsnest5251 Huh, that's honestly an interesting perspective, and it is fascinating to see how different skill levels interpret things. I'll say I am not inexperienced, but I am also far from good at the game. 😅
That said, I've never really seen the issues you've encountered, at least not playing Forged Alliance?
Yeah, you need to use ACUs in the early game because they are economic and military powerhouses, and not leveraging them to push forward or hold certain fronts will leave you out-maneuvered, but they don't really lose viability until T3 (and even then, there are exceptions to that). Sure, they can be sniped - cheeky snipes are part of the game, but they're rarely more than longshots or luck early on. An ACU that is properly supported and upgraded can hold off T2 forces on their own, and if you're keeping up on your Intel game and countermeasures (Scouting, Interceptors, Tactical Missile Defenses, etc.) most games won't end with an early snipe. Even late-game snipes are hard considering the ACU's maneuverability. Heck, you mentioned fast T2, but a T2 rush means the opponent has less on the ground to stop you, and an ACU Overcharging properly can mitigate any tech advantage.
As for maps encouraging turtling, that's...surprising to say the least. Namely because turtling is one of the worst strategies you can employ in SupCom, regardless of map. I can't even really picture a map where turtling is consistently viable. Yeah, reclaim can help defensive strategies (and counter snowballs), but you still need to push out to get that reclaim. If you're constantly ceding territory to an opponent or sitting within a small base, they can just reclaim the forces that were killed by your defenses, which can ironically make snowballing worse. You need to use that reclaim to push for map control because map control is almost always critical to winning, both because Mass Extractors are the best way to gain resources, but also because without map control you cannot really win outside of a snipe (which become harder over time). Fights shouldn't be staying middle-map either, as unless FAF has really changed something (or those custom maps are really getting out of hand), there should be a solid ebb and flow to combat.🤨
Like, seriously, fighting for map control is never a bad thing in my experience.
As for game enders, I've almost never seen them (outside of a Gyle cast 😉). Paragons, Mavors, and Salvations aren't really something most games should ever get near. Normal experimentals and nukes, sure, but they're no game enders. T3 Artillery - yeah, that can dismantle an unprepared base, but all of those resources are things not sent to the front, letting the opponent either push through, build their own artillery and defenses, or even transition to more mobile economies (like the SCU). Even if a game ender gets on the field, they're also stupid fragile, so the minute you know one is up, scouting should be done to identify and kill it before it can cripple your economy.
I don't know, I've just never seen the same issues, but as you said, mileage may vary.
@@TheFirstObserver If you want to see what I mean referring to game enders and the sorts being a dime a dozen - check out FAF and look at the maps being played. The most common ones you will find being played are three that demonstrate this issue quite well. They also come with the idea that a set location means what your role is (land/air/navy/eco) with no exceptions.
The most common map people play is Dualgap, or any other gap alternative. Basically how most games go is the following:
A 6v6 map. This is per team:
Two land players go fight for land. Either they succeed in pushing past each other or just set up bases and have static defense lines with artillery used.
Two Air player stays in base and builds up air to rush to T3 in order to get anti-air swarm going.
One navy player sets up a navy and tries to support land players with destroyers while suppressing the other land player. They have a window of how long they got until attacking becomes very unlikely to do anything, which is dependent on the amount of torpedo defenses being spammed.
One eco player doesn't move out of the base the whole game and makes no units. Simply rushes for a game ender. Build a nuke, kill other eco = GG. Or failing that, just make a t3 artillery piece and begin shelling.
Most games are resolved by game ender nukes or artillery. Each player is locked into a role, because if they divert resources into anything else, they lose.
However! After eco has properly set up, it doesn't matter if the land players lose, the middle map/navy is decimated. Each player has 12 mass deposits in base, so once those are all at T3 they don't need more to be able to maintain maximum production. Middle map becomes irrelevant thus.
Due to the map being created in such a way, there are two narrow land routes to each base. After a certain point any kind of conventional attack is nearly impossible due to the water being flooded with Cybran torpedo defenses, land full of UEF t3 point defenses, and massive swarms of anti-air fighters/sam walls making air not work. Any attack into the defensive lines even if well co-ordinated will fail. The map is thus resolved by who spams more game ender artillery.
This is the most common map played. It has two accomplishes in Setons, as well as pass. These three sorts of maps dominate in how much they are played. Despite being static, bland, relying entirely on a set script, and becoming races to see who gets the first experimentals or game enders going. Hardly any other maps get played. Even if such a lobby pops up, it can take an hour for it to fill.
Because of being a newer player, most such lobbies also demand a certain + rank. My only way to build rank is to slog it out in the boring static maps where how it ends is known to all: experimental artillery, or nuke rush. And thus the circle is set. I can't get into even slow filling lobbies, which would let me play the game, I am not confident in hosting them, and all I have to do in the meanwhile is play the treadmill of gap spam where I do not learn much about anything on properly playing the game due to how the maps are designed by principle to be bad.
@@videocrowsnest5251 Well, I guess that's the problem: I don't think I've ever played Dual Gap. 🤣
That said, I am surprised to hear the issue is prevalent in Seton's as well.🤔
Yeah, different positions have different expected roles, but that's a given for any team vs. team match on a relatively large map (regardless of RTS). You'll always have frontlines and backlines, and in games where the environment plays a role (such as naval or land), you'll have positions better suited to that environment. That said, Mid-lane Commanders don't just become unnecessary. Sure, they do usually get pushed back (often by one of the side-lanes), but they are still crucial to stemming the flow of units towards the vulnerable side-lane bases. Even late game, losing a mid-lane player can spell doom for a team that's unable to quickly fill that gap. That said, most games shouldn't exactly get to late game (at least in the context of "Game-Enders" late). Normally a lane will collapse well before that point, and a domino effect will take place collapsing the other lanes, and then the other team can cut through opposing terrain with impunity.
Regarding the T3 defenses (like the Cybran HARMs, UEF Ravager, or SAMs), the concept that they outright prevent conventional attacks also seems strange. That's a lot of resources to pump into an immobile defensive structure, especially one which is trivially removed by mobile artillery, tactical missile volleys, or (in the case of HARMs) ground-fired battleship barrages. And speaking of mobility, that's literally one of the most important assets to an air unit, one which SAMs forgo. Sure, they provide good air coverage, but its over a fixed and limited area, and they are more there to punish attacks (and prevent multiple passes) than actually stop something like a bombing run outright (especially if well-scouted). Considering actual air units like ASFs are generally better from an economic standpoint anyway, the player building a strong air force will generally outcompete the player relying on SAMs - which then allows those players to "win" the air game and achieve dominance, heavily limiting opponent mobility, and eventually winning. As a general rule of thumb (not including forward firebases), if you're seeing static defenses, it's because you've pushed an opponent far enough back towards their base that they need to redirect build power to something which can buy time for a recovery.
As for the Game enders, well, first off your standard experimental units or nukes don't really count. Normal experimentals are powerful, but by no means impervious. Heck, the Percy was made for Experimental killin'. 😉Meanwhile, Anti-nukes are easy enough to build that most nukes never hit their targets, and by the time a Seraphim Yolona Oss is in-play, they should be prevalent enough to keep it at bay long enough to respond (and if the player fails to rebuild them when destroyed, or keep them stocked, that's on them 😂). I could see artillery being a pain on larger maps, but usually by the time it comes into play most economies should be well-shielded and/or mobile, and their own immobile nature (and lower health, and tendancy to be surrounded in oh-so-explosive generators) make them vulnerable to return fire and deep strikes.
I could see why artillery could be a problem, but in my experience they're just another tool in the tool set with its own counters.
Heck, I've lost a game after penning my opponent into a base with three Novaxes and a Duke....I did say I wasn't good. 😂
Anyway, yeah, as you said - mileage may vary. I haven't hit those specific issues yet, or maybe I have and haven't noticed since I've never really thought of them as issues.
🤔
As a side thing, since you were having trouble ranking up, did you try and create smaller games rather than just look for lobbies, or play things like the 1v1 or 2v2 ranked ladder? It can be awkward to make games, but it's the best way to get what you want. Heck, I didn't even think you could rank up from custom games, but as for learning experience there always used to be someone down to help practice on smaller maps where the fundamentals shine better. As for the ranked matches, IIRC they should also generally be on smaller map selections too (and sometimes randomly generated) so you can practice there, and they actually count towards your official rank.
@@TheFirstObserver I think Seton's is the least insufferable of the three linear maps and their kin. It sadly also gets played the least. Dual gap type maps are what get played the most out of any maps on any given day, and function as noob traps to boot.
Nukes function as game enders when the whole gist of a map's spirit is "stay in base and do this". On Dual gap the eco slot players have the job of shielding their entire team from nukes. If the other team does two things: 1) Communicates 2) Plans and works together (which should be given but hardly ever happens in my experience - asking a team what the plan is and getting silence usually means it's a dud of a team) - they can quickly rush a nuke and slap eco out and then just win on impute by bombing everyone with nukes. It's dumb, it's silly, but it's how dual gap works and that's the most played map.
Static defenses on dual gap/gap variant maps snowball out of control fast in the end game because of just how ludicrous the resource income is, even if you lost middle map control.
I don't in general touch ladder because I tried once and after an hour of not going anywhere I thought it to be broken, and decided to just go play the custom games. As for hosting my own games, considering I have some weird bugs that keep hindering my ability to play, I am quite hesitant.
For months now, I've had this bug where if I try to join a lobby that's more than 50% full, it just won't load the lobby at all. This bug came around during a patch sometime ago. I've tried asking around if anyone else suffers from it or has a solution, but usually I get completely ignored when I use the client chat room to ask.
in a red alert map called "War Tank" the player is purposely given a small base and everyone has equal amount of money, as long as you hold on to your own wealth you can have late game comebacks when your opponent runs out of money
Yay! Also, *numerous, distinct, small gambits* , for every mass or rush composition, which don't 'win-with-the-parry' but DO give you a chance to climb back a little bit, each, are an Anti-Snowball Mechanic that depends upon the *density* and *connectivity* of counters, as a whole. It's better to have numerous gambits which are all *very weak* , so that you *wouldn't* want to risk any particular one of them as an initial cheese-rush. (Unless you are Florencio...) Yet, once the opponent has an advantage, the sheer *variety* of obscure counters that you can choose from forces them to re-evaluate 'mass adept', and instead, they add more defenses and branch-out, which slows their exponential steamroll. That gives you breathing room, but it also means you have to stay on your toes, because they'll be able to shift compositions; that is, *more numerous tech-switches* per match = more chances for someone who is behind in units to get ahead with insight, timing, and luck. TLDR; when you're rich, and if there are lots of different ways to steal a little bit from you, then you have to spend a lot of money on many different locks.
The best rts game I have ever played is Kane's Wrath and I miss it so much. I really love the unique veterancy approach of kw, a heroic unit is indeed heroic, there is no other game like it even in other c&c games. Combine this with epic units and you add another layer of depth to your strategy game, trying to keep your units alive becomes rewarding. And I say these as a person who enjoyed many other rts gamew like red alert 2, ra3, generals, zero hour, war craft ft, supreme commander, sc forged alleince, sc2, etc... Having said all of these, kw still needs some balancing. Some factions are significantly weaker than others, like steel talons, reaper and zocom.
@Reaper-17 It is weak though. First of all, no arty and teleportation mean your enemy can play a very defensive game and keep hitting you with arty. Then there is the fact that, despite their thicc appearances, reaper tripods are only as tanky as regular tripods and the firepower bonus from tiberium is so little(official final patch) that it can be negligible. However, tripods are the best heavy units in the game, so i would add shields to devouvers, seekers(by default), stormriders, etc. and give r17 generally stronger shields with an upgrade in tech assembly. They would be a unique gamestyle faction that uses breakthrough head-on, instead of hit-and-run tactics.
@Reaper-17 If that's your favorite unit, then it is illogical to play R17, because you get the least out of it in that faction. Playing t59 or vanilla Scrin, you can teleport your hexapod, which increases its survivability, and as a result, you can get it to heroic rank easier.
Starcraft broodwar has the best anti snowball mechanic due to more bases = more spread out and more places to multitask = youre more vulnerable. And having a bigger army means that its harder to control and youre more prone to getting outplayed by your opponent. And if you fall behind, that's your own fault, you should have to face the consequences of this, it makes coming back into the game far more fun becouse you earn it through good play.
The sequel, StarCraft II, removes an anti-snowball mechanic that made the game challenging for multiplayer. The 12 selection limit and the bad pathfinding has been axed that it's much easy to control units regardless of army size. Combine this with low TTK and smartcasting and you get a game where looking away for even 1 second would cost you a game.
The video I'm releasing tomorrow is literally gonna praise the Snowballing in RA3 in part lol. What a coincidence this video just came out! Very insightful, good job!
Have you heard or seen an old rts by the name of Battle Realms?
Currently, they have released its Zen Edition, giving it a cleaner look compared to its 2001/2003 counterpart. Give it a try if you're interested.
Reducing snowballing? Steel division has left the chat
Funny though you brought up C&C Rivals as an example for anti-snowball mechanics... players getting simply stronger units by paying more or grinding for tons sounds pretty inherently snowbally to me.
Very interesting! I agree with a lot of this. I think though that some of the inherent mechanics in rts that are not necessarily negative feedback loops can still be put there intentionally to reduce this snowballing effect. Or they are at least taken into consideration and tailored as such. Like unit cap. At first it was used to reduce the take of rts games on the cup (i think?) but now some games can lower the unit cap precisely to reduce the snowball effect. This can also reduce gamelength but it is not always the case.
CoH for example is much more focused in unit control than basebuilding (but there is a lot of very interesting “territory building” fir a lack of a better term?) and benefits from lower unit cap because it gives the players more actions per units.
Speaking about gamelength I will personally accept snowballing in games that make for shorter, more expeditive matches. In this case snowballing can help to bring the match to an end as soon as there is a clear winner. The game must still be fun for everyone but this reduces the time “wasted” when playing a losing match.
Thanks for the video! I enjoyed it and I watch all the videos in this series (multiple times) because I love them and I love rts games :)
You're welcome! Glad they he lped. :)
You are the knowledge blesser of our online web-family.
We will be open further wide to this grace in mind touching.
Thanks.
I like the idea of secondary economy though like in Generals, it allows huge late game fights which you just never see in other RTS except maybe Supreme Commander. I never liked the idea of there being a point in the game where neither side can build anything else because all the resources on the map have been mined. Generals does it best, rather than having permanent income like Company of Heroes or an almost in-harassable economy like in Halo Wars 2 the Generals secondary eco is easily harassable, expensive to make but has huge payoff if you manage to protect it. The only issue was the fact that Black Markets were by far the best secondary eco especially compared to China's hackers. Although the USA Supply Drop Zones were decent.
The Age series also does that pretty well. In AoE2 gold and stone limits you the most (gold being used to pay for expensive and strong units while stone is used for building strong defenses) and will run out, in team games you can set up trading routes with your team mates so you will have a steady supply of gold and every map has relics which generates gold for the players that capture them. In practice that means that army composition changes as the value of gold and stone increases due to its scarcity but you can always field large armies.
Zero Hour attempted to solve China's terrible late game eco with the Internet Center, but the Internet Center was such a weak structure that got one-shot by every support power or Superweapon.
One of the few things I think 1.6 did very well was fix the Internet Center by making it super tanky.
Overall i agree though, i much prefer the idea of secondary eco to none at all, similar to my distain for population caps.
@@khankhomrad8855 aoe3 doesnt have this limits... But you can still lose when you're like for 1min afk when the aztec player is coming with his cojotes or the russian with the oprichnik boxes (or instant musketeers, like the elite of the ethiopian in aoe2 but weak and cheap)
Aom too (aom sucks)
But normally no game lasts 4h
Yeah I do like how AoE does it
Yeah the Internet Center was a great addition but you can only put 8 hackers inside and you're right, it dies too easily. It does make it hard for China, especially against GLA since he can Rebel ambush or Sneak attack your hackers and there's little you can do except put turrets next to your hackers.
Also China Inf's invisible hackers are very good but that's just one army.
And yea pop caps are the worst... Unless it's needed due to software limitations. Since in ZH you can build so many units that the game crashes.
I have not really noticed snowballing until I watched this, glad you made this video
You jest sir.
my top 3 rts of all time :
3 zero hour
2 warcraft 3 (og)
1 age of empiers 2 (og) and all its updates including DE
for me it's:
1. Starcraft 2 (I love the progress you can make in this click fest, hte discipline needed to switch between micro and macro)
2. Supreme Commander (the scale, production automation, continous economy vs pay full price upfront, on top of that, super high micro potential)
3. Company of Heroes 1 (played way to many hours)
Honorable mentions:
a) Submarine Titans - Starcraft 2 rip off, game of my childhood, but has trash UI
b) Homeworld 2 - a bit too slow, but looks super epic. And most of benefits of SupCom
Great video! Though I really wanted you to mention Brood War with it's "bad" pathfinding (which turns out to be good) and 12 units limit
True, I didn't think about that. It works, but I don't think it's fun or good game design for modern games.
@@GeneralsGentlemen oh yeah? and why is that?
Because most people hate having to deal with limited unit selection and unpredictablr pathfinding
Just search up the average sc2 players opinion on sc1 to see for yourself
I think the snowball issue of Dawn of War comes from economical system more than being so safe of production buildings. Game encourages you to play aggressively but some races can't temporize with this design (Imperial Guard) while some races are exteremely good at early aggression (Dark Eldar). I think people do not play 1v1 games in Dawn of War (or just i didn't notice).
You just didn’t notice
king of RTS strategy , the gamer can apply the strategy command or minster of defense for five star general position @_@v
We deserve zero hour 2
auto sub for RoN footage in the beginning... supremely underrated
Which is your favorite rts ?
Glad to see this series still going, but why does youtube thinks that you were playing Heroes of the Storm???
P.S: what about posting the link to your new website on the video description?
Oops. Silly me I forgot. Ty.
Working on an OpenRA mod (not a particularly serious or well balanced one, but still...), and this is a very interesting video, gonna have to watch the rest of em...
Hey can you please make a video focused on Navel or Sea game play. Like what RTS does the best in the Sea.
Maybe supcom or ra3
But im not surr
My experience in dawn of war 3 was ruined by snowballing. If you dont have central node to get hero points you will die.
This was excellent and very well presented.
I would recommend talking slightly faster, though that might just be a personal preference.
just speed the video up to 1.5 if you need to
@@Cra3ier That's what I did, but most people don't and I was trying to give feedback for improving the videos.
Dawn of war 1 was the complete opposite of snowballing, the fact that requisition points are scattered around the map encourages players to split their forces to divide and conquer, rewarding small skirmishes and multi-tasking, instead of grouping together...
He also mentioned Plasma Generators being immensely protected.
I also support your idea of it not being snowballing cuz, like. Infiltrator units exist and many specialized units exist that can be dropped behind enemy lines for every faction almost xd
You are confusing deathballing with snowballing. Snowballing is about positive feedback loops for the winning player these can be army upgrades, economic snowballing or territory, snowballing.. Deathballing is about creating a single ball of strong units and winning with it.
@@blinkwont Yes and there is more opportunity for counterplay and comebacks when the opponent's resource collection locations are scattered as that means their forces will be stretched thin...
I think Relic is good at that
The official term is positive and negative feedback loops
snowballing becomes a problem when a game has a poor ui and lacking control over a lot of units
I think it's a bit ironic that Supreme Commander. Forged Alliance came up when discussing population caps. In practice the population cap is basically never hit in that game and it certainly does nothing to prevent snowballing. And when the creators of that game came together to create a spritual successor they made Planetary Annihilation which has no population cap whatsoever and proudly boasts that you can have tens of thousands of units on the field with no issue.
If anything SupCom is a game where snowballing is the entire point.
Yeah I agree. One example of an anti-snowball feature that I didn't think of for was the video was how in Supcom you can rebuild a structure on its destroyed wreck to get it at half price/time. This helps a losing player rebuild a partly destroyed base.
@@GeneralsGentlemen MMm. I can see how that could be seen as a weak anti-snowball feature but honestly it doesn't favor the losing side very strongly. Overall my point was more that SupCom is a game that is extremely snowball-y and doesn't really suffer from it.
@@doppelrutsch9540 Yeah I agree. But I don't think the very snowball-y approach would work on smaller-scale or simpler RTS.
@@GeneralsGentlemen I know I am late to this discussion, but I would argue that snowballing isn't the point, and is even why so few successor games have grabbed my attention.
PA (as awesome as it is) is a bit more simple in its gameplay because its orbital mechanics and multiple combat fields are so complex for your average player that it would make it nigh impossible for said average players to engage with it.
SupCom on the other hand has simpler environments and mechanics, and as such has far more nuanced control of the ACU through upgrades, has units with far more distinct capabilities (even within the same unit "class" between factions), and far more ways to win.
In PA you pushed for the Eco needed to brute force an opponent into submission, or to pen them in enough you could build an "I win" unit.
In Supreme Commander (specifically Forged Alliance), the "I win" units are rarely strong enough to actually give them the win by themselves. Instead, you might manage to sneak a stealthed tactical missile base behind the opponents' lines and snipe the opposing commander while they aren't looking, might use artillery to soften opposing defenses enough that a bombing run just barely manages to take down the Strategic Missile Defenses which were preventing the half-dozen nuclear subs hiding off the coast from finishing the fight, or might build enough defensive structures that the hordes coming against you end up feeding your own forces. Heck, a mad Cybran might just teleport in front of the enemy commander strapped like an experimental, or a group of Aeon Support Commanders might jump and insta-build a Galactic Colossus in the back of the enemy base. There are a lot of ways to turn a game around in SupCom.
Personally, my belief is that Reclaim and ACUs are the strongest deterrents to snowballing. An ACU is strong enough that it takes a lot to kill, and it gets stronger the longer it fights and upgrades, so if you don't kill it the first time, you've probably just made the job harder next time. Likewise, reclaim adds that mechanic to a larger scale, as any attack that fails to wipe out the opponent is just recycled by their Engineers.
Being able to rebuild structures slightly faster and cheaper if the wreck survived is one thing. Fearing that half of the 10,000 mass you just sent at your opponent is going to be coming right back at you in experimental form is another. 😉
fantastic breakdown saw this through Beastyqt hope to see more analysis videos
Thanks! What do you mean through Beastyqt? Did he tweet it or something?
Oh yeah I found his reaction video now. Cool, I only just noticed this. :D
@IhateECHOES Thanks. I have done many of them already. Here's the playlist for them all: ruclips.net/video/GCtUtnPJqKY/видео.html
What the hell is Snowballing?
A positive feedback loop
Earth 2150 🧡
Do you have any experience with Unreal Engine? I have wanted to make an RTS of my own for a very long time now, and Im just starting out now. Do you have engine recommendations or any tips besides these videos?
Nope, I have never done that I'm afraid.
Excellent overview
I love both dawn of war and starcraft.
I do not agree with the method of forcing players to quickly expand outward for resources. This leads to constant rush tactics being employed and players locking down resources area as soon as the match starts. For eg- In C&C generals as soon as the match starts I send soldiers to capture the high value resource structures in the center of the map and lock that area down with the help of defensive structures. The player who does this always has a snowball effect where he quickly gets a resource advantage over the other player throughout the entire match. Instead the resource right next to each players base should be made unlimited , but limits should be placed on how much resources he can extract per second on that resource near the base, that way a losing player who has lost control of key areas of the map in the beginning of the match doesn't always become resource starved by mid game. Also high value resources outside the players base needs to be guarded by neutral enemies, sins of a solar empire does this effectively by pirates and mercenaries guarding neutral planets, this way no player can rush expand as soon as the match starts.
I always thought that Generals did a better job with oil than Red Alert or C&C. In Generals you need to research the capture upgrade to be able to capture the oil rigs and your troops take a few seconds to capture them. That means you have to invest resources, time and attention to capture them. Even in high level games players don't usually rush oil caps.
@@khankhomrad8855 Always send your troops quickly to rush capture the oil rigs. By the time they reach the destination, the capture building research would be done. As soon as it is done start capturing the building, meanwhile send your current construction dozer or worker there and construct defences, which guarantees that you have locked that area down. Your opponent won't be able to destroy it early in the game. Also send your other troops to capture all around the map in a similar fasion while all this is going on. If you do this strategy you are pretty much guaranteed to win unless you make major blunders. The only way to counter it is by using the same tactic.
@@mihirchitnis905 Not necessarily. A direct raid is an option as you have just invested quite a bit of cash. I do agree that this strategy is effective, but it is far from the best. If it was, you'd see every pro do that every single time, which isn't the case. Most of the time they focus on early game aggression and denying their opponents their oil instead of caping straight away. Additionally, China may choose to not cap early on and rush Lotus for cap (inf has a clear advantage here but this is a strategy that also works well for the other Chinese factions).
As an avid RTS gamer, my favorite thing has always been to struggle at first during the game and then slowly but surely having complete control over my enemy...
So you want an inevitable when through mini-action labour.
Oops.
We mean micromanaging.
Enemy's who are resign to losing.
Ha...
How fun..
This is a comment telling RUclips that this was a good video and it's getting engagement of the viewer
Can someone tell me the name of the game at 10:00?
War Party. Each game has text saying it.
Rts is not dead!!!
Do you know anything about the new Age Of Empires? On Google, it seems to suggest that it's in the Company of Heroes series of games.
It's being made by relic. As far as I can tell by content that's been made publicly available, it's still going to play like regular age of empires
@@Waywardstrategist Damn. I thought it might be a bit different somehow. I think the Age of Empires/Empire Earth style is very dated now.
@@delailama736 Not really, it's crazy popular again. Some people speculated they're going to introduce elements from Stronghold games
Looks to be closer to aoe 3 than 2, which is good since aoe 3 had much better overall design and ai.
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 doesn't hide the fact that aoe is dated
Look at fighting games, it don't have snowballing. One fighter deside to attack high, other desided to duck and kick, first fighter lost hp, but keeps everything else, players back to NEUTRAL position where they start all over again. Imagine you need to spend resources on each strike, fighter that wins engagements aquires new better moves, wich makes harder to win against him.
Where is neutral in RTS?
Fighting games do have snowballing in the sense that playing agressively usually rewards you with meter and or positional advantage (corner)
The neutral in an rts game is more nuanced and more of a spectrum and often also assymetrical
Neutral just means that neither player has a pressing advantage over the other player
In starcraft1 for example a protoss player might have 3 bases while the terran is at only 2 but the game will still be in a neutral stage because neither player has the advantage despite protoss having map control
From the "every one gets a trophy and is a winner" gang...the entire idea of war is to exploit the enemy's mistakes and vulnerabilities, not have a fair and even fight. Make the games more realistic and the problem is solved, its not a game of skill and wits if you make everything even, especially during the war. Thats stupid, if you are a bad player, or have poor tactics, why do you get rewarded? Its like having two runners, one is a good runner and the other is not, then you tie the legs together of the good runner to make the bad runner feel better? Or to make sure they win against someone better? You destroy being better. War is not fair, and nor should it, if you are a bad player...get better, dont magically hamstring your enemies outside the realitiy of the warfare so you can win. Why not just have a big shiny red button that appears on the losers screen and you just press it and win instantly, why waste hours of play when you can just win by cheating?
Okay, how about we model everything that goes into modern warfare. From the fighters' mental states to the ammo they use. Come to think of it, in real life soldiers' equipment isn't made from 100 pounds of space ore all of 1000 meters from the enemy base... better model that too. You'll need to mine uranium then deplete it to make said rounds and farm crops to make rations, then dehydrate them. Also you'll need to mine the metal used in the ration tins and shape them at a factory. Ooh, and the factory will need power. And people to design and work it, who have their own mental states. After all can't have realism without the sheer exhaustion of working 12 hour shifts! What do you mean this doesn't sound like an rts?
This is such a stupid argument
Its clear you dont understand anything
The buterfly efect.
The snowball efect.
Net-work causation.
Causal chain like stoic dialectic reasoning roots.
Thanks content creater.
We will keep learning from you, and other's.
By the way.
Do you enjoy the taste of your own jealousy like we do?
Isnt this like a normal aspects of anything in life? I mean these are allmost all universal issues. They affect both jim raynor and sone general from central africa.
comment for youtube algo
so seeing you play bio, do you think its balanced that a stimmed bio army mows through everything while at the same being so cheap that you can just suicide army after army and not really lose much ressources while the opponent is being whittles down?
so many games at the highest level of sc2 play, gsl, are ending the exact same way where a dying opponent is 'defeated' the way i described in the first sentence. additionally bio is most reliant on minerals and rewards low apm/attention with free mules. so not only is the army more cost efficiently but they also get free of their most important ressource even if they fail to defend their scvs because once harass is cleaned up 10 mules drop in the dead scvs place freeing up even more supply for even more of these ridicolously cost efficient bio units.
bio is so strong, as evidenced by terran winning the most major sc2 tournaments since 2010, that it feels like abusing a broken aspect of the game that should have never survived the beta stage. as a mech-only player i totally agree that unstimmed bio is a joke but its as much of a joke stimmed. that upgrade should either increase movement speed or firing rate or still both but at reduced values. the 10 hp 'penalty' if stiming is such a non factor that its not even a tactical decision wether or not to stim.
Just play bw
Marines are very different in that game
It doesnt have the same problem you describe here
I really just hope you are trolling phunku, holy hell your comment made me sad. I really dont believe you play sc2, and if you do you just dont have any understanding about the pro scene. If bio was that strong we would be see terrans absolutely dominating the sc2 pro scene, especially koreans with their top tier micro. Even though this was happening at the start the last 4+ years or so zergs have been tearing terrans apart and serral barely loses against the top korean terrans anymore, hell even reynor is now smashing terrans like they are nothing. Good thing they dont play GSL. Also the -10 hp for stim is a HUGE deal. So many times terrans stim just to escape or the stalkers blink away so they just wasted loads of health for nothing.
You always need a big amount of medivacs just for healing and if they run out you basicially cant fight anymore. So many times ive seen 50+ supply of marines being in red hp with multiple medivacs out of energy... Just useless supply at that point. There is a reason loads of pro's actually want bio buffs. Take marines, which are pretty bad in lategame and just serve for cannon fodder against storms and colossi. Where lings get their attack speed upgrade, bio has nothing after their initial upgrades you get early in the game. On their own they just dont trade great against the tier 1 of the zerg while protoss have tons of splash damage to kill 25+ supply worth of bio. And yeah bio isnt expensive obviously, but its not like you can warp in loads of units or just pop out 50+ supply like zergs does. All in all bio is at a decent place, its not great. But in the right hands its pretty good.
don't know what snowballing is
In a field covered with wet snow, you create a small snowball the size of your fist, lay it in the snow, and roll it. The longer you roll it the bigger the snowball becomes.
@@petersteenkamp i don't know what snowballing is in RTS games
@@heinzie5 If you make a snowball on the top of a snowy hill, if it rolls down it gets bigger. The bigger it becomes the faster it rolls. The faster it rolls the bigger it becomes. It is a process that reinforces itself. In RTS games, you invest in income, like in Starcraft you build a base near minerals. You harvest those minerals, and you can build more bases, who also can harvest more minerals. More minerals also allow you to build more units, so you can conquer a new area. In this area, you can build more bases that can harvest even more minerals. In other words, the longer you play the bigger and more powerful you become.
Extremely useful and succint! Lovely! 666th like lol
"anti snowball mechanics should be subtle" - Dota 2 didnt get that message.
Always wining is like always losing.
Since you have to give up your honour in life to have an ultimate supremacy action plan.
Our own higher up actionary's are too complacent in life.
How dull.
How unlike being a true stoic.
Time to be men with blasing heart's.
What is the definition to Blase again?
A French word....
Homeworld, dow1, age2, coh and c&c Are the best RTS... SC is overrated by Koreans
I mean sc2 isnt even that popular in korea, its still mostly sc1 there. Sc2 is by far the most popular rts in the west right now, although with the (recent) release of age of empires remastered that is doing well. I dunno if you can really overestimate sc2, its pretty much the perfect rts tbh. It may be a bit too fast for some, but it fits the base building aspects and micro managing your army so seemingly together. Something that is lost in most rts that released afteer 2008 or so
@@ilax3071 its boring, is a copy of sc1 but with worse units... I played I got to master league for 6 months, you win if you are faster not smarter and that is the problem with this game.
@@diego2817 Mechanics are an important part of REAL TIME strategy, its not just strategy, its applying your strategy in REAL TIME which is based on how fast you are. And scbw is to this day by far the best RTS game ever made.
@@hkl1459 agree with you but SC is extremely fast for the sake of being fast there is no much room for strategy actually, if you compare it to coh or age
@@diego2817 Again, the speed of the game adds new tactics or strategies, i haven't played CoH but i play alot of AoE2 and alot of the strategy is based around unit composition, exploiting terrain and taking areas, the strategy is diffrent. And there's alot of strategy in broodwar while it is also very fast, TvT for example is extremely strategic and army movement in general is super important. You need a good strategy AND good control, a good strategy won't autowin you the game, same is true for AoE2, having a good strat can lose to superior mechanics and vice versa.