|
On April 16 2008 09:45 GTR-2-Go wrote:
Uh, why in War3 don't we see proxy buildings?
Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him).
Grubby, ToD, HoT, Creophelus, Xyligan, Deadman, Zeus...the list can go on and on and on. While the Koreans make up the majority of the top players, they do not dominate it in any way close to how they do in SC except for Moon, though not in the past few months.
|
On April 16 2008 08:15 sunsplitter wrote:
I find the opposite to be true actually. The damage types may be more complicated in WC3, but at least all the information you need is right there in the game in tooltips; I assume it just takes a while to learn, time that I never put in. Whereas with SC, you actually have to look up unit sizes and damage types on the SC compendium website, some of which aren't even that intuitive (muta has a medium sprite but small size, lurk a large sprite and medium size, sair and scout look to be the same size but aren't, etc.), and even then there are little details that easily escape notice - zealots and firebats and goliath missiles have armor doubled against them, firebat can get an extra hit against large targets, not to mention things that were changed in patches - sunken has extra armor, dragoon and cannon have identical looking attacks that do different damage types. I only know all this stuff after ten years of playing
I agree that there are SOME counterintuitive things in starcraft, particularly related to the armor/damage system, but it's still waaaaay simpler than WC3. If nothing else, SC only has 3 armor and damage types, whereas WC3 has what? hero, building, unarmored, light armered, medium armor, heavy armor, so 6? and that many damage types too? And having the information in the game in tooltips is of very little help because you don't have time to read those during a battle, and you certainly can't read them as a spectator.
|
51507 Posts
On April 16 2008 11:30 Dknight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2008 09:45 GTR-2-Go wrote:
Uh, why in War3 don't we see proxy buildings?
Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him). Grubby, ToD, HoT, Creophelus, Xyligan, Deadman, Zeus...the list can go on and on and on. While the Koreans make up the majority of the top players, they do not dominate it in any way close to how they do in SC except for Moon, though not in the past few months.
Oh no I meant played both Starcraft and Warcraft (at a high level)
|
Madfrog is a good example of someone who played at both games high level. Same with Insomnia (known as [o]Mr.X in BW). Freedom is one player who went from War3 to BW 
Like it or not, the best players from both BW and War3 will dominate in SC2; War3 takes a lot of skill to play at the highest level, and the players that do so will be quite capable of competing with the best of BW's players (foreigners at least).
But yes, War3 is a shitty spectator sport. There's no arguing it. I think I've only managed to sit through one War3 VOD ever, and it was boring as hell. I find replays to be highly entertaining still, though (I've probably watched 5000+ replays). And playing it is still fun, but can be frustrating.
|
wondering since SC is balanced and everything is W3 balanced yet?
|
they're 2 different games... u can't compare the two. i play both and indeed wc3 is way more micro oriented and nothing like sc. in aspects of tech, creeps, and play style... in comparison to starcraft which is a lot more macro oriented and there isn't as much of a wide array of strategy when compared to wc3. wc3 offers more strategy and more timing, just like tod stated... while in starcraft you dont see many "new" strategies.. u just see slight differentiations of existing ones. due to the age of sc, there pretty much isnt much possibility for new strategies... unless you are boxer... every strategy possible has already been thought of.
in conclusion.. wc3 is wc3 and sc is sc. end of discussion
|
I've gotten into W3 recently at my friend's since my computer has been down for a while, and what annoys me more than anything is how there are "equivalents" in W3. For example, Knights, Taurens, Aboms, or DotC. And I also hate how you have to creep instead of fighting your real opponents, and the damage to hit point ratio is just retarded. And I also feel the base defense advantage of the game is too powerful. Idk, maybe I'm just too used to SC, but I think being a SC player has made me worse at WC.
Having said that, it's still a fun game and I enjoy it.
|
A few people have already said most of what I think needs to be said, so I'm just gonna reinforce the idea that no one disagrees that StarCraft is better for spectators. Most WarCraft 3 players who are even remotely familiar with StarCraft are willing to admit that. There's really no argument, if you can find a WarCraft 3 player who truly believes that it's more fun to watch than StarCraft, then you've got yourself a diamond in the rough.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the difficulties, the enjoyment of playing, or any other kind of direct comparison between the two games.
|
wow, short/
id expect it to be longer.
|
becuase poeple play sc for the game and ums when most play wc3 for the ums...
|
Watching the 10-12 first minutes of a WC3 game is fun (harass, creepjack, small armies where you understand what happend, ...). But after 15 minutes it becomes really boring, long fights impossible to understand, TPs, lame strat, ...
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
When Wizard was in his prime he'd always joke about how war3 is such an easy and simple game and that it required almost no practice.
|
I really do think his article makes very little point.
A realistic view on this matter, imo would be that games didn't yet reach a graphic level and technique sufficient for them to be understood or enjoyed by any random person walking by.
If you show to my grand father, who's 75, both starcraft and war3 on two different screens, he wil hardly make any difference. But then, he isn't the targeted audience.
But I often noticed my step father or my mom back when I was playing home, wouldn't make a difference at all between any game I was playing, but maybe if I was to play a racing simulator or something like that.
Besides, I'm pretty sure if you ask his GF what an RTS is, she prolly knows.
I'd say, unless computer gaming culture takes over the world and gets everyone to play games daily for 50 years, that E sport mainstream fantasy is unlikely to happen.
|
I also wish that statement of WarIII beeing a "micro oriented" game dies someday soon. Unit control is not about beeing able to toy and play doll with ur units for 2 minutes straight, or calmly tag and surrond one specific unit focusing on that only..
Unit control is about beeing able to get the best out of units that die in less than 2 seconds if you dont watch them, and not mistaking a single moment. It's about beeing able to multitask and not fuck up.
If there is any type of skill involved at beeing good in War3 it is certainly not unit control. Unit control in Starcraft is basically taking War3 combat pace and multiplying it by 10.
|
Also on "war3 and SC top players will dominate SC2" that's just bullshit. You have a redundancy in the RTS western "top crew" that enjoys RTS newly released, but players that will dominate SC2 will just be the most dedicated and talented ones at this new game.
|
On April 16 2008 11:10 Sadist wrote:
WC3 is almost impossible to understand for me (but ive played very few games on bnet.
The units overlap and there are spells going on and you cant really tell whats dying. The creeping aspect is, was, and always will be super fucking gay.
"super fucking gay"
That's all there is to say.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 16 2008 10:13 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2008 09:45 GTR-2-Go wrote:
Uh, why in War3 don't we see proxy buildings?
Also the only people I know that have played at a high-level (top foreign) are Wizard (P/NE player from the US) and Elky (we all know him). You do. In fact you see proxy-shops in at least a quarter of matches by Korean Orc or NE. Other buildings are too expensive to afford to lose, so are only proxied if you are doing a tower rush. Also, Insomnia (who recently retired) played SC at a high level before.
Insomnia might be more known to some as Mr[X] (I think the X was in brackets?). Bulgarian zerg player, and if you go to http://www.battlereports.com you can find some totally sweet battlereports by Breeze (who posts/used to post here, now posts on liquidpoker.net) featuring him.
Tonnes of old school nostalgia.. Mr[X] vs Intotherain from KBK (I believe), a multiparter vs Whear (I think that's how you spell it, US terran).. Ah good stuff =]
|
On April 16 2008 22:17 Boonbag wrote:
I also wish that statement of WarIII beeing a "micro oriented" game dies someday soon. Unit control is not about beeing able to toy and play doll with ur units for 2 minutes straight, or calmly tag and surrond one specific unit focusing on that only..
Unit control is about beeing able to get the best out of units that die in less than 2 seconds if you dont watch them, and not mistaking a single moment. It's about beeing able to multitask and not fuck up.
If there is any type of skill involved at beeing good in War3 it is certainly not unit control. Unit control in Starcraft is basically taking War3 combat pace and multiplying it by 10.
Believe it or not, micro is extremely important in War3, if you AREN'T watching every unit and getting the use out of them, chances are your opponent is and you'll lose. If you don't watch your hero for a split second, he'll get surrounded and killed, or he'll flank half your army, etc. It's not like you can go back to your base for 2 minutes, come back and say "lawl he's microing, I better micro for a few seconds then watch for another 2 minutes". You have to be continually controlling your units. That's mainly what War3 is about.
Also, many units WILL die very fast ( < 5 seconds), yes it's not as fast as in BW, but in BW you have like 5x the units to control and they're cheaper, more expendable. In War3 units aren't as expendable, but you need to get the most out of them, all the same.
On April 16 2008 22:21 Boonbag wrote:
Also on "war3 and SC top players will dominate SC2" that's just bullshit. You have a redundancy in the RTS western "top crew" that enjoys RTS newly released, but players that will dominate SC2 will just be the most dedicated and talented ones at this new game.
Obviously; my point is that even though War3 requires less skill than BW, the top players that play it are still very talented and will be able to repeat their success in SC2.
|
Can't really say WC3 micro>SC micro. Yes, in WC3 you do need very good micro but in SC the same case applies in certain situations. For example, Marine micro vs Lurkers or Zealot/Dragoon/High Templar control vs a Terran army. Those WC3 full of themselves obviously don't know how hard these can be. I hadplayed WC3 for a long time, considering my micro excellent until coming unto SC. No one can deny WC3 as one the best games ever but SC simply has gone past the borders of a mere, mortal game.
Plus, micro SC can be a lot more rewarding, seen in cases as when a successful micro move can mean the difference between a few casualties or a pure rape as seen in many Marine vs Lurker battles. Sorry for going off topic.
|
You can't say War3 Micro> SC micro no, notice I didn't say anything about SC's micro, I was merely defending the attack that War3's micro isn't "important" (however that would work). I think SC's micro is harder to pull off, but it's not as important as War3's micro, because if you don't micro in War3 it's pretty much auto lose. Not the case in SC, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
