>>60833929To be fair, an issue with RTS has always been it kind of having one foot in the singleplayer and one foot in the multiplayer pool and not doing either particularly well.
Competitive RTS always have the zero sum issue where advantages snowball very quickly and there isn't much you can do to 'get back' into the game against a decent player. If you fall behind early you need the other player to make a mistake, despite the games often taking 20+ minutes to close out. That makes them boring, frustrating and unfulfilling for a lot of casual players that have no interest in climbing to the top-tier competitive brackets.
This is especially true of basebuilder RTS where the first half dozen minutes of every game is spent playing out the same sequence of actions without any real interaction with the other side. If an RTS is going to have that kind of bland afterthought multiplayer then it needs a really substantial and robust singleplayer (I don't think any RTS has ever managed this). If it's going to have a typical RTS singleplayer then it needs to solve some of these long-standing issues with multiplayer.
