Which aspect of RTS do you like most?

[Turnro]

Are you someone who enjoys the multi-player experience? Or perhaps enjoy playing custom games with random people lol

As for me, I enjoy the campaigns the most

 

[chobibo]

Mindless slaughter and teamwork.

 

[Orcnet]

I prefer melee, which started them all, but alas the gaming community is gone and we are on the edge of the dark age of warcraft 3's remaining goods

 

[chobibo]

A few people still play melee. Most players nowadays prefer MOBA or FPS type games.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

Honestly, it's because most (amazing) RTS games like Age of Empires II and Warcraft III have some way to create your own scenarios / maps. It's this creativity that keeps me coming back to these games and it's the reason why I've been playing Warcraft III for six or seven years.

 

[Rui]

=P Hmm let's see... for me, it's that you can beat your enemies... strategically! Exception is made when sometimes it's easy to mass some unit and hard to mass its counter, so the counter becomes useless. Such a situation happens in SC2 with immortals and stalkers. If your enemy is massing stalkers and you went for a Waygate build, too bad, you have to go for Stalkers too and micromanage: robotics is too expensive, economically and time-wise.

In Wc3's particular case, I like it that I don't have to expand to be useful in the game. Just a few weeks ago I played a team melee where my allies expanded and had gryphons and whatnot, but I was still the one holding off the enemy with only my Alchemist, tauren chieftain, 1 or 2 tauren and few headhunters. We eventually lost, as one of my allies decided he'd sulk and afk midway (these ridiculous situations still happen, yes =P), but it was a bloody awesome game. This is a detail I like in WC3: you can be useful to your team no matter how small your forces are.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

=P Hmm let's see... for me, it's that you can beat your enemies... strategically! Exception is made when sometimes it's easy to mass some unit and hard to mass its counter, so the counter becomes useless. Such a situation happens in SC2 with immortals and stalkers. If your enemy is massing stalkers and you went for a Waygate build, too bad, you have to go for Stalkers too and micromanage: robotics is too expensive, economically and time-wise.

In Wc3's particular case, I like it that I don't have to expand to be useful in the game. Just a few weeks ago I played a team melee where my allies expanded and had gryphons and whatnot, but I was still the one holding off the enemy with only my Alchemist, tauren chieftain, 1 or 2 tauren and few headhunters. We eventually lost, as one of my allies decided he'd sulk and afk midway (these ridiculous situations still happen, yes =P), but it was a bloody awesome game. This is a detail I like in WC3: you can be useful to your team no matter how small your forces are.

I don't understand the logic behind acting like that. See, if I knew that I was going to lose in a WCIII match, I would just have fun with it and launch an all out assault against the enemy.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

I like tactics. Flanking, Pushing, Economics, all that is fun. I feel that Warcraft heroes took it away from it, but that's fine. So, anyone want to join my Custom Map RTS group below in my signature?

 

[chobibo]

You forgot the most important element of strategy camper mah friend, harassment. It's illegal in real life though.