安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
do you have any idea how many thoughts those "fast click-finger" players are able to process per second/minute?
just because they are doing things quickly does not mean they are not thinking or not being strategic.
rushing in RTS games is a valid strategy to end games quickly vs lower skilled opponents.
vs a strong opponent, it is not a strong strategy, as they will scout, prepare, and counter cost-effectively, leaving ur economy in the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
anyway if you don't like playing fast strategy games, maybe avoid playing "real-time" strategy games, as out-thinking and out-pacing your opponent is the aim of the game here ^_^
Go play Minesweeper or something. Multiplayer isn't for you.
0ad is tailored to AoE and almost having the same mechanics and I feel like you only need to be precise and fast to keep up with the best on the game. The same hectic and spamming technique and may the fastest to have armies that you can constantly produce wins.
Rise of Nations are mostly focused on keeping your military win every skirmishes or major battle especially from the beginning up to medieval age. You have to really know, understand and capitalize on your nation’s capabilities and various strategies around that nation powers must be used to stay in the game. Unique units and the varying 4 major research advantages of each nations play major roles. Though still having better APM gives the player advantage but the pacing seems to be easing up a bit on your lack of APM. The game is just really balanced that every pro players play random. In rare cases random placement of “rares” could decide the game but rarely happening.
I think the only way to ''solve'' aoe2 being so mechanically intensive is to develop scenarios with a fixed or limited income where people start with cities, and those cities can be captured or lost based off building/destroying castles. IIRC there was this Game of Thrones scenario that did a very good job of that.
And that's how most rts works. You spend some time getting a good understanding, you start developing habits to build workers and houses and all that, you learn a couple build orders, and then suddenly you're in the top 10% of players and everyone knows what's going on so your speed starts to matter. But even then, you can use game understanding off trash speed to probably hit the top 2% (if you had like strategy as good as viper has).
I don't think that really changes much at 75 pop. Fuedal is still basically the same. You still fall behind if you stop building vills. If you don't have castles and walls you're still vulnerable to raids. It just maxes out less hectic, and once you get castles up in imp age there's not the same large multitasking requirement as when you can afford to run 30 hussars under castle fire to kill vills.
Rise of nations as mentioned is probably the best you get for strategic rather than mechanical rts games. I'd say aoe 3 is like that too, although if you don't lure in hunts raiding can be really annoying. But at the very least just pure macro-wise, you can get close to optimal off a level of actions pretty much anyone can achieve.
Oh actually another good one for strategy, company of heroes. You might need some multitasking to not lose squads and stuff, but the game plays slow and there's basically no macro. You should try that game. I'd say without playing obviously switching to turn based games, that's the closest you'll get to a game where mechanics don't matter.
TLDR: try company of heros 2, or if it has to be the age style aoe 3 DE will come out sometime soon and its less mechanical.
I think the exception there is things like card games, or auto chess. I think those are less daunting than an rts game, because they're less complex to just get into. And you have time to figure things out. Rts games also combine mechanics too though, so when you don't know what you're doing you really suck and that discourages people.
So when you get a game like rise of nations, its not really flashy (like there's no splitting to dodge mangonels) so it doesn't sell to to the people just looking for fast clicking actioney stuff. And there's not enough people left who just want to figure out strategy to fuel the game.
All of this combined with it not getting hyped up so that there's not enough players left for a competitive experience and no one plays it.
I believe if matching was done in better way it would work, fortunately it is not.