It's like this for fighting games, as well. I've played both genres, but it's also the same deal for any mode that's inherently competitive, such as league play in the older shooters like Quake, CounterStrike, Team Fortress Classic & 2. Everyone says that they're "bad" but a few say they're "good", either through sheer practice and results or hubris.

You're right that there's a lot about it that isn't fun. One's ability to enjoy fighting games and RTS games begins and ends with understanding a multitude of different mechanics and having the physical execution to make one's plans a reality. People who play those genres have to practice daily to derive some decent enjoyment from the games in them, almost as if it's a second job (maybe even a third depending on what you do for a living, i.e. the software developers of HN still have to carve out time to keep up with tech advances).

It's worth it in the end in my opinion because of the people one meets in these communities. They're usually very dedicated, most like to see more people be able to compete and are really helpful, and will participate in group events in real life (tournaments for both fighting and RTS games, locals for fighting games).

The problem with online gaming for RTSs (and to some degree all skill-based games) is it's unwelcoming because there is too large a disparity between casual players and those that somehow spend hours a day on it.

> There is one thing I've noticed about RTS: every player seems to think they are awful at the game.

Dota 2 is another game where I've noticed this trend.

> This actually keeps a lot of players from even trying online play.

True with Dota 2 as well, lots of people that only play locally with bots, or resort to just watching streamers and others play it, because they're tired of the feeling of "not being good enough" while playing.

The common factor, I think, is that in both cases there are a hundred things going on in parallel every second, a hundred ways you could be optimizing things, and crucially, you could list those things yourself if you were given time - but you never are, so every moment you're aware that you're doing something somewhere suboptimally. Mistakes don't feel like "Ah, interesting, I've learnt not to do that", instead it's "Of course I should have done this instead, it's obvious, I must be an idiot to not have done this" - even though in the moment you were getting a dozen other things right, and just didn't have the mental capacity to stretch to this additional thing.

So any skill growth in the game happens slowly by your mind learning to make many of the optimal decisions subconsciously, thus making things slowly more manageable. But that's not an easily visible, tangible change. And it still leaves you with twenty things you could be doing better, that are "obvious" in retrospect.

Interesting observation.

I noticed that in real life, most people think they are sub-optimal. I've wondered what caused the pessimistic attitude and if it has always been this way.

(Of course, it could just be the people I hang out with, but I suspect it is pretty common for people to be harsh on themselves)

Your theory explains it. Life is always throwing us a lot of stuff at once (especially if 65% of our mental capacity is taken up by a smartphone). It is a game where we usually only have a general idea of what to do, lots of reasons not to do it, and not enough time to decide about everything.

If you stop and think, you are probably doing much more right than not. But overall, in the game of Life, you are also blowing lots of opportunities that you are aware of and simply don't have the time and resources to get right.

> skill growth in the game happens slowly by your mind learning to make many of the optimal decisions subconsciously, thus making things slowly more manageable. But that's not an easily visible, tangible change. And it still leaves you with twenty things you could be doing better, that are "obvious" in retrospect.

Maybe we should focus more on our slow advances. Players that consider themselves good, enjoy the game more and probably do better at it (in RTS and in Life).

RTS matches take comparatively longer with other online games. In a Vs fighting game the match is over under three minutes every time. In an RTS you might be there for 20-40 minutes and lose because of a single mistake. Except when playing on lower tiers and getting rushed and beaten in 5 over and over.

I played SC2 for a while, at rather modest level (got to gold). After a few years I tried getting back to it and couldn’t even get out of bronze as I found defending against constant rushes not fun.

I would contrast between faster and slower RTS games here. In SC2, everything is on a knife edge and it's common to fall apart after a bad engagement.

This is not a universal truth though. I primarily play AOE 2, where map distances and good static defence mean that an attacker needs momentum to push their advantage after a mistake from the other side if they want any chance to close the game. Hence it's common to see even pro players recover from somewhat horrifying gaffes when their opponent fails to push aggressively enough.

I played hours against friends. I did okay against them but got murdered in online play. The skill jump was huge and I never found a way to climb the ladder.

The first thing would be that almost all competitive RTSes are one-on-one games. Can't really flame your team-mates for getting pummelled.

And yep they're mechanically stressful. I used to play Broodwar competitively and it really felt more like exercising than gaming at some level. But it's also rewarding if you get into it, because just like in sports beating someone through mechanical skill is fairly satisfying.

RTS games are fairly unique in that you always know you could be doing things slightly faster, constantly. Yes, you can make a big mistake that loses you the game (like losing a queen badly in chess), but often if you just did your macro tasks a little faster you would have won, or scouted every 30 seconds instead of 35. The article touches on this in respect to APM.

Music is often the same way. Any beginner with an ear can tell they are not great, especially performing with others who are. They get shy and won't play, for fear of sounding bad.

I think that’s because there is no point where you can easily come back. Once you are behind defeat is often a foregone conclusion.

At least, in my games it generally comes down to a single battle.

I always felt like it was like playing Go. Very stressful.