Best is not subjective at all, favorite would be.
I'll say it again, what you think, what I think, they don't matter. It's what the companies think, and I'll bet you any game developer would rather have the level of success starcraft had than their own. These are companies, there is a set definition of best. The most money made. It's not about what you enjoy the most, it's about one thing. How much they made, I can't explain that any simpler. That's all there is to it. The only thing you can argue with here is semantics and what a word means to "you" when that's not what matters at all.
And yes setarcos, how terrible to have a game that requires micromanagement and overwhelms. Competitive gaming is BUILT around overwhelming the player for an RTS. The whole damn point is so that the faster you are, the more efficient you are, the better you are. Your level of skill determines what you can control, and how well you can do it. You would waste a couple seconds going to build that extra barracks or what have you, I'd build it in less than one. If you want a game where speed doesn't matter maybe play one where it has no bearing at all, maybe you've heard of the phrase "Turn based strategy" There are many deep games using TBS, I like quite a few, FF tactics, all the civ games, just to name a few. All great fun, many many hours of entertainment, strategy and it allows time to think about your moves. All in all, a different kind of fun, not more, not less. Different.
What else would you suggest we build on, nothing more than build order? Because let me tell you, if it wasn't for the overwhelm factor in an RTS, where you could do everything and anything perfectly because of queues, there is no skill involved. It's nothing more than math. And I'll be the first to say I like math, but a game that devolves into nothing more than a build order? No micro? No player speed? That's not what I want a RTS game for, if I want a numbers game there are plenty of better platforms for one than an RTS. Ones with far more depth, far more complexity, and more difficult math.
And wow, repairing buildings? How fundamentally genre changing. Not having to pay attention, taking away from the overwhelm factor, good idea. If you want to essentially castrate even more of the competitive elements. If you want a single player game go pick a 4x, not an RTS. I play both, when I want one style of gameplay, I choose the corresponding genre, surprise surprise. We all had high hopes for sins, it's a good game, but it's not what any one of us *really* wanted. So many people wanted 4x depth in an RTS, but there's a reason why it doesn't work. It takes all of the micromanagement out of it or it takes the overwhelm factor to the absolute extreme and makes it frustrating to play. Sins did the former. Granted micro can help, but it's really paltry. Build orders and player speed/knowledge are the entire game. Knowing how to counter each unit, how to get your econ faster, how to get your units faster. It's all about the knowledge and speed, the build order being part of knowledge.
So you're left with physics based weaponry, yes, that's just what we need. Hills having more of an effect on gameplay than skill. It's cool, it's innovative, and it's utter garbage in a multiplayer setting. Depending on the map in TA or sup com, some units value went through the floor, others through the roof. And all because of the lovely little thing called physics.
Not being able to fire and move, ever think there might have been a reason for that? Starcraft wouldn't be Starcraft if say marines could run away from zerglings and still be shooting, anything that melee'd would be useless. Micro would be even MORE powerful. For a competitive game, not moving and shooting allows a tighter balance between the units. It's not like they couldn't have made them move and shoot, they chose not to.
Sins Forums
Demigod Forums
You can measure units sold, you can measure the player base/popularity, you can measure longevity, but you can't measure "best" and everyone's definition of it varies.
.