| Forum Index > BW General |
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
The best things about SC are the game's pace, how dozens of units can perish within seconds, the quick turns of action, its intensity and non stop war going on. You can argue that WC3 is not as fast and exciting. You can say that the match develops at a much slower pace. But that's not even important. link | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
 . | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
In SC it's obvious to ANYONE what's going on, at least somewhat, and battles are fun whether you know the game or not. In WC3, you're required to have a fair bit of game knowledge before you can enjoy it. When I watch a WC3 match all I see is random units doing random spells with random effects making the whole battle scene hard to follow. In the end, I often don't even know who has won a battle or who is generally ahead! Also, SC gameplay is still very visible even on low-quality videos (Youtube...). WC3 battles turn into a real mess then. This is actually my biggest concern for SC2, that it won't be as "readable" as SC1 is. | ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
| ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
+1 creeping is boring to watch, but its better playing. wc3 should have a fastest setting. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
ToD wrote: I don't think it dominates Warcraft, certainly not outside of Korea for sure. I do agree that Starcraft is more spectator friendly since its more basic, and really fast, always bringing action packed games. "A more skilled" game is discutable, ofcourse the speed required to play the game at high level is much higher than in Warcraft, but Warcraft is much more axed on Strategies and timings which are much more important than in Starcraft. Ofcourse at highest level things might be harder in Starcraft as it's literally recognized as a sport with high salaries given to the bestest players in Korea, the interest for the game causes a lot more people to take it really seriously practicing tons for TV games etc. While in Warcraft we have a few tournaments where you must qualify to take part in, and a lot of invitational ones these days, the players are sponsored by teams that are very often not even based in same country as them. There is no coaches, every player is his own coach and practices in his own way. And Starcraft does have a lot of sponsorship actually, way more than Warcraft, but the thing is that is only happening in Korea. Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. | ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. Yeah well he is a WC3 top player what do you expect? I gotta admit for me playing WC3 is nearly as fun as Starcraft except for the extremely aggravating aspects of long games. The only thing i would really concede is that Starcraft is a far better spectator game. WC3 is still a very well made game and im giggling a lil about how many "thousands" of strategies there are in SC, as most are just mutations of standards and there is plenty of shit that vs the most standard of high level play is completely unviable. WC3 also has plenty of small deviations and in some ways offers the creative individual a lot more room what with tavern heroes and the largely viable tech trees, though it ends up being a lot like SC actually.. If someone deviates a little, it opens up the ability for another player to change up from the norm a lot. But if one player is super standard there is only so much you can do to play creatively. | ||
|
NathanSC
United States620 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. And he doesn't seem to have any idea that the TSL exists. Shame. | ||
|
parkin
1079 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
ToD wrote: "A more skilled" game is discutable, ofcourse the speed required to play the game at high level is much higher than in Warcraft, but Warcraft is much more axed on Strategies and timings which are much more important than in Starcraft. It might be just me having never played a competitive game of WC3 in my life, but when I watch it there is really no sense of timing at all. Nothing on par with say, a well executed gundam or sunk break. Sure, I suppose that you might have certain creep timings, but timing is based on economy really. On top of this, the faced-paced nature of SC vs WC3 make timing exponentially more important. Anywaysss, I kind of like watching WC3 early game when it kind of makes sense, they are harassing and setting their opponents behind, etc. When it hits late-game and big battles happen all I see are units wacking at each other for a good 2 minutes and when a good flank or trap actually happens the other guy just TPs out. Kind of boring. : \ Edit: I think it's really more a case of WC3 just gets plain boring to watch. I could understand the game reasonably well during WCG with Bunny commentating but like I said before, once it hit mid-late game, it was ridiculously boring. On the contrary, SC starts off a bit slow but mid-late game is almost always intense. | ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
But I really don't understand how he can say : "Warcraft is much more axed on Strategies" Oo. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:57 Nitro68 wrote: Timing are really important in WC3, but I would not say more important than in SC. But I really don't understand how he can say : "Warcraft is much more axed on Strategies" Oo. Could you give an example of WC3 timings to me? | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On April 15 2008 19:00 mahnini wrote: Could you give an example of WC3 timings to me? It's a lot about hero level timing... but also about tier 2 or even tier 3 units against an early push... For example in HU vs NE it's usually extremely important to get the arcanes up as quick as possible so people put 3-4 on them just to make it a few seconds quicker. The timing of the second hero is also a very important aspect in wc3. Timing of an early or midgame towerrushing is also very important. But since exps play a lesser role in WC3 than in Starcraft, I'd say Starcraft have the advatange of timing. The thing about WC3 is that everything that happens feels less significant. One or two footman lost, even in midgame, can turn the game. You get a nice itam from creeping. Wow, you have a big advantage. That way, the actions that happen doesn't feel as exciting as a big continuous battle in Starcraft. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 15 2008 19:00 mahnini wrote: Could you give an example of WC3 timings to me? I'd say timing is not more complex in War3 than in SC, but it's definitely just as important. Most of the skill in War3 falls into micro, timing and game sense. Both timing and game sense are quite different from the way they are understood in SC. Most BO timings are fairly standard, but the variations are from creep timing, hero level timing, etc. Timing attacks are also key, such as a tower push before a certain tech, tier or etc. This is especially important when one player expands (a major investment) and the timer starts ticking for the other player to do significant damage. Game sense is also different, because it is also important to constantly predicting what your opponent's army is doing, where they are creeping, etc. | ||
|
Mergesort
Norway18 Posts
On April 15 2008 19:00 mahnini wrote: Could you give an example of WC3 timings to me? The standard one-dimensional example would be timing attacks before a certain tech unit or ability is finished like bear form, equivalent to attacking just before a dt or defiler is out. There's also creeping timings (what and when you creep, and the ability to survive a possible creepjack), and there's tech timing (going late scout or heavy wood builds to hit t2 a bit faster than your opponent and get your 2nd hero 1 sec faster at the tavern fight, which matters a lot in some matchups). No doubt that sc is better to watch for nongamers and people who don't play the game themselves., would have been cool to see a survey about it to see how high the numbers actually are (90-10?). | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
| ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. He said that WC3 relies more on strategy than on speed in low-level games. And I agree with him. Most people who play starcraft do not have perfect timings, so if you watch most D/D+/C-/C/C+ games you will surely see people losing in a lot of ways that don't normally end a match. For example, the first 9 mutas should never kill a terran player, unless he had suffered huge losses earlier, but I'm sure that there are some players who lost the game to 9 mutas because their army was somewhere else and so on. Not because of bad strategy, or bad timing, but because of bad play. He did say that AT HIGH LEVELS, things are harder in StarCraft. And it's true. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
Just like in WarCraft, in Starcraft most of the things that really make difference are almost always behind the scene and without game knowledge will never be understood. For simple example let's take reaver drop or even better - mutalisks harass. That's often irrelevant whether it makes big damage or not, but inexperienced spectator may and often does assume that if muta didn't killed a lot than zerg is losing. The main difference here between Starcraft and WarCraft is that Starcraft offers "eye-candy" for spectators which doesn't let them have a tedious time and makes them think they understand what's going on. That just makes spectators have fun of simply watching battles. Eye-candy ingredients are constant action and diversity of this action. When there is no diversity (ZvZ) or constant action (average TvT) it becomes harder and harder to keep spectators. Another aspect which has nothing to do with Starcraft gameplay itself is that there is entertaining scene behind it with trashtalk and etc. One can find TvT boring but will surely watch it if that's his favorite player is playing against his biggest rival or any other entertaining background behind. And to counter "my girlfriend loves watching SC" I myself WarCraft noob in every aspect, but find watching it's replays as a very entertaining deed. And this article is looks rather like a trollbait. | ||
|
drug_vict1m
844 Posts
On April 15 2008 19:45 0xDEADBEEF wrote: SC micro > WC3 micro, SC macro > WC3 macro. fixed. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6098 Posts
| ||
|
Xeiji
Czech Republic12 Posts
On April 15 2008 22:23 Highways wrote: If you look at youtube Starcraft vods gets so many more views than warcraft 3 ones Isn't it because W3 players can watch replays while SC obviously can't? | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 15 2008 22:23 Highways wrote: If you look at youtube Starcraft vods gets so many more views than warcraft 3 ones That's because YouTube quality totally kills War3 matches. They make it about 10x harder to follow than if you had the replay. That's why 99% of WC3 audio commentaries are found in replay + mp3 format compared to VOD format for SC commentaries. Naturally, replays also get much higher # of hits, often in the thousands.. | ||
|
McCrank
204 Posts
I've played SC and WC3 for a lot of years and I like swords, bows and magic a lot more than sci-fi. Yet I enjoy watching SC a lot more than WC3. In fact I haven't really watched WC3 in a loooong time just because it's so boring to watch. SC is all the action, non of the bullshit. WC3 just bullshit and nearly no action. SC is straight up fuck your opponent over. WC3 is creep, creep, oh shit opponents army *tp home* creep, creep some more. I was watching a replay not long ago of the human player Sky. He didn't even scout his opponent for the entire game. He basically camped his 2 bases fought 2 battles and won. I just /facepalmed and went back to watching SC again. I think the only player I've enjoyed watching is Moon doing crazy stuff like abusing zeppelin with archers and killing endless amounts of towers with DH and panda. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
Waxangel
United States33165 Posts
| ||
|
Kage
India788 Posts
As an RTS Fan and having played both games a lot, I know for sure SC is better cause its faster and almost every game is so fun with so many quirks to it. War3 is repetitive. But there are so many brilliant moments to the game too. Definitely one of the best, but a rung lower than SC. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. What did you expect a progamer like ToD who plays War3 for a living? Starcraft is definitely superior in macro and strategy (as well as overall), but micro.. just no. Maybe SC micro is more pleasing to watch and seems faster, but it's not harder than War3's. Hundreds, thousands of strategies in SC...? No, there's actually only about 1-3 dominant strategies in every matchup, unless you count BO variation as different strategy (e.g. 1 Fac CC vs 2 Fac). Anyways, he's not exactly that educated about SC, but it's just the same as many SC pros who have no clue about War3. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 15 2008 23:34 FrozenArbiter wrote: Lol I thought ToD was pretty respectful towards SC :C Well, his chess example wasn't but his second post was, mostly. Well, ToD has actually always been known to be one of the more whiny/less mannered pros. I never liked him when I was following the War3 scene. | ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
On April 15 2008 22:53 Xeiji wrote: Isn't it because W3 players can watch replays while SC obviously can't? wow what the fuck are you talking about? | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
But I don't understand why SC players build their base all over the map. omg ! | ||
|
Puosu
6984 Posts
I think he is talking about the fact that all the "professional" WC3 replays are released and in SC the hands get their hands on them only if they're leaked. Also replays are a much bigger thing in WC3 than SC as far as I know for the reason above, heck, even their biggest community site has the word "replay" in it. Oh and I'd like to add my opinion to the "which game has harder micro" debate, I myself have never played neither of the games competitively and to be honest I'm pretty much terrible at both of them, but in both games I've played micro maps a lot, in WC3 I usually learned what and how to do something in a matter of very little time and execute the micro challenge perfectly but In SC I've yet to do anything like that. Again though, this is just from playing micro maps, so the micro probably is very different in actual play and because of that my opinion should pretty much be ignored.. but I wanted to write and now I look cool for writing a longer than average post. woho! | ||
|
Pafnucy
Poland1124 Posts
maybe the fact that we have proleague, MSL, OSL vods and not replays, while they do provide replays. Don't know about it much, but from what people posted here it seems that games are distributed in other way for each game. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Then on the other hand. Some friends of mine link me to Quake videos and I can't understand crap about it. I used to play WC3 myself a long time ago but if I watch it today I get confused myself. While BW is just so clean. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On April 15 2008 21:39 InRaged wrote: That's Carmac in a nutshell actuallyAnd this article is looks rather like a trollbait. | ||
|
Daflame
Australia26 Posts
As for the article, great read. | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:29 [X]Ken_D wrote: bw ego-boost +1 Lol most definitely! Damn Carmac's article is so sex  | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
|
Xeiji
Czech Republic12 Posts
That if SC players want to see top players all they have are VODs or some leaked replays, W3 players usually have all replays released after the tournament. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
On April 16 2008 00:50 Daflame wrote: Well I'm not going to go into an essay here guys, but I just wanted to state, Starcraft is harder than Warcraft III overall and it's pretty obvious. Just take a look at the differences between the Mineral Field and the Gold Mine. I think that's the best example I could give, but there are many other good examples as to why. As for the article, great read. Look at wood and vespene ;o The biggest War3 turn off for me was random items. It's added luck. Even how each unit has a damage range kinda irks me. The slower game pacing mixed in with "creeping" (which always bugged me, fighting stupid computer units instead of just the other guy) makes it a lot less exciting than starcraft. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
For people that have played both games, even a little bit, this is obvious. | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
Whereas, in WC3, I almost feel like I need to spend several hours studying and memorizing rules before I can play the game. You have units like the druid of the claw- normally a spell caster, turns into a tank/bear, casts one spell that gradually heals hp of one unit (which can only be cast in spell caster form), and has another spell that increases the damage output (by about 20% iirc) of all friendly units around it, which can at first only be cast from spellcaster form, but he gets an upgrade to cast it from bear form too. Confused much? I am! and that's just one unit! Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
to me it seems like all the people who disagree either have a retarded reason for it, or are in fact retarded. MAYBE ITS CUZ I LIKE SC LOLS | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
On April 15 2008 18:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: Didn't expect such bullshit from a top player like ToD. He definately has no clue about Starcraft it seems. Starcraft is superior in any point of gameplay. There's no need to discuss. Starcraft is superior in micro, macro AND strategy. The strategy decisions in Warcraft 3 are limited while you can choose hundreds, thousands of strategies in Starcraft. The only point Warcraft 3 is superior is the count of races. Just read the entire thread howerver i'd like to answer to this post. Where do you see any bullshit? He states clearly what are the pro and cons. Obviously those games can't be compared since they're both really different but to say that ToD has no clue about starcraft, well i could just say that "stfu you're an idiot" but i'll try to explain that there's no bullshits at all. First of all ToD played starcraft. Hell he could even beat elky back before his prime. I do agree that sc is more spec friendly, however to say that sc's micro > w3's micro is just bullshit. I bet 90% of you haven't played w3 competitively. Again those 2 games are just way too much different that it can't be comparable. Mid game w3 micro > sc micro. Simply because you can't send all your units and heroes to a single A-Move whereas in sc you can (just watch mondi vs a protoss : all he does are hotkeying units and dropping while a little group to attack another expansion; You can all do that with 3 singles a-move. Whereas in w3 you have to constantly watch to your units lives, to retreat them in order to not let them die, then microing your heroes to do some significantly damages while looking for his heroes spells. They're just way more micro in w3 than in sc since you have to constantly microing them for the entire battle and the entire game). Don't get me wrong, i hate warcraft3, i find it boring, non-spec friendly at all but i wanted to make it clear before someone comes with all his stupid arguments to prove that starcraft is clearly better when they obviously don't know what they're talking about. I'll repeat a countless time : theses 2 games are different. You MUST have played both of them at a rather high level to be able to compare them. Otherwise your arguments are worthless. Edit : Oh and yeah : i hate the sc2 engine. Even if i can understand what's happening, i really really hate how this engine looks like the w3's engine. We can't see shit when there are big battles happening, and i'm pretty sure if blizzard don't do something, they'll make this game looks like w3 and from a spectator point of view they'll clearly not understand what will happen. It's seriously worrying me a lot. They shouldn't have made this game in 3D. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On April 16 2008 07:27 RaiZ wrote: Oh and yeah : i hate the sc2 engine. Even if i can understand what's happening, i really really hate how this engine looks like the w3's engine. We can't see shit when there are big battles happening, and i'm pretty sure if blizzard don't do something, they'll make this game looks like w3 and from a spectator point of view they'll clearly not understand what will happen. It's seriously worrying me a lot. They shouldn't have made this game in 3D. I agree. I feel like when you look at the screenshots of SC2, you really can't tell what's going on behind the explosions, lasers, missles, and spells. It was the opposite in SC1, where if you look at any given screenshot of any given battle, you can tell what is happening. | ||
|
sunsplitter
United States4 Posts
On April 16 2008 04:09 Luddite wrote: Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. 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 | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On April 15 2008 23:19 Waxangel wrote: I don't think crazy BW fans like us are really qualified to assume what it looks like to someone who's never played the game, it's practically instinct to us, and it's hard to try and think beyond that That's really true. None of us here can fathom what it's like to watch BW from the eyes of someone who hasn't. But my own friends, who are CS players (CEVO) and have never played either game for longer than a week, hate watching WC3 (they make fun of it like they make fun of WoW) and love watching SC (three of them tune in to Tasteless for every single one). Maybe it's just the graphics, but I don't think so. I've only ever played about 5 games of WC3 many years ago, so I have absolutely no idea what's going on when I watch it... it looks exactly like he explained it; heroes chasing shit around bushes in the center of the map. Lame. And watching some of the pros live (mostly Tod, though I'm sure it's the same across the board) is a disappointment to me too... they do about as much shit as I used to playing DoW (maybe the game is really super deep in ways I don't know, but I don't see it). Watching SC/CS pros live is on an entirely different level of excitement and professionalism (SC would be even better if not for the whole manner bullshit and lack of emotion, but o'well) | ||
|
InfeSteD
United States4658 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5091 Posts
as an sc player myself im sure my decision is biased towards sc so i really cant say much but cmon man you wc players gotta admit that creeping around then using town portals all the time can be boring to watch... | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On April 16 2008 04:09 Luddite wrote: This article articulates really well something that I've been thinking/worrying about for SC2. In SC, most of the unit abilities are fairly simple. A zergling runs in, kills something, runs away, dies. A tank sieges, shoots stuff. Even the spell casters aren't that complicated- a psi storm kills anything under it, irradiate damages almost anything it touches, etc. Even an ignorant spectator can understand, "ah, reach won that battle despite being outnumbered because the other guys units were all clumped up and got destroyed by psi storm." The great part is that very complicated strategies are formed out of such simple components. Whereas, in WC3, I almost feel like I need to spend several hours studying and memorizing rules before I can play the game. You have units like the druid of the claw- normally a spell caster, turns into a tank/bear, casts one spell that gradually heals hp of one unit (which can only be cast in spell caster form), and has another spell that increases the damage output (by about 20% iirc) of all friendly units around it, which can at first only be cast from spellcaster form, but he gets an upgrade to cast it from bear form too. Confused much? I am! and that's just one unit! Worst of all is the armor/damage types. These are a little confusing for noobs in SC, but it's not TOO hard to understand that "ah, ok, my tanks make a big explosion, so that's less effective against small units like zealots. whereas those zealots just tear through anything." Compare to WC3: "OK his units are in ethereal form, which means only my spellcasters can damage them (but they do double damage), so he'll be targeting my spellcasters with his archers because for some reason archers do extra damage against my spellcasters and melee units do a lot less." Hell I can't even remember all of them, and I used to play a lot. They had to change everything in the expansion in order to balance the game properly. So yeah. To summarize. In SC, almost everything you need to know to understand the game, is right there on the screen. In WC3, to add more "complexity", they added a loooot of stuff that you just can't pick up from watching the game. A lot of the SC2 units seem to have fancy abilities, and I really hope they don't end up with these sort of invisible complications. Excellent post on what SC2 should avoid. I hope Blizzard knows this or at least read that. | ||
GTR
51392 Posts
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). | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Then, after watching it I went back to some BW vods. OMG by eyes were like "thank you! thank you!! these are much better thanks!!". It became instantly clear why BW is so better to watch. It's just so much more simple and clean visually, then the game is much more flexible and exciting. There is just no comparison, it's too obvious. BW is 10 bazilion times better. Search youtube.com for some jon747 vods on wc3 then watch some jon747 vods on bw. There is no way in hell any human being on planet earth will disagree that bw is much better to watch. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
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). I use to remember seeing proxy Ancients of War rush until it was completely removed as a viable strat. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
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. | ||
Sadist
United States7205 Posts
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. | ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
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. | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
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. | ||
|
GTR
51392 Posts
On April 16 2008 11:30 Dknight wrote: 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) | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
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. | ||
|
Darkmole
United States900 Posts
| ||
|
iLjh
United States160 Posts
in conclusion.. wc3 is wc3 and sc is sc. end of discussion | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
Having said that, it's still a fun game and I enjoy it. | ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
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. | ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
id expect it to be longer. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
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. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
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. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
| ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
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. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 16 2008 10:13 teamsolid wrote: 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 =] | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
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. | ||
|
JustQuitWarcraftIII
United States679 Posts
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. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
| ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
Just try and fight off zerglings with dragoons without watching them. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On April 17 2008 02:28 SoleSteeler wrote: 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. Doesn't it help that you never, ever have to go back to base for more than ten seconds? | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
On April 17 2008 03:34 Boonbag wrote: Wrong =[ .. and that's the whole point. Again moving and toying with your colorfull units for minutes and having almost nothign else to do is not what you can call "unit control". Just try and fight off zerglings with dragoons without watching them. If it was "minutes" I would agree. Battles CAN be over in seconds in War3 you know. They aren't always dancing around for "minutes". You obviously don't know anything about War3, based on what you're saying :/ And I have played SC/BW since the first day it was released, and continue to play it today, and have watched hundreds of VODs, I know about SC micro. With your example of Dragoons vs. Zerglings, will EVERY player micro his dragoons so they do a bit more vs. zerglings? Or will some players go back to their base and start producing 12 more dragoons to replace the ones he's about to lose? In War3, it's not like you have 6 huntresses and you can say "oh well, these units won't matter in the long run, I'll just let them die" where you can in SC without suffering as much. On April 17 2008 03:40 EmeraldSparks wrote: Doesn't it help that you never, ever have to go back to base for more than ten seconds? Of course. What's your point? Your view can be anywhere, my point is you're currently not doing much with your units, and apparently that doesn't "matter" in a War3 game. So I ask you two this: what is war3 about then if it's not micro and unit control? Why does one person win and not the other? It's certainly not macro, which is non-existent. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
| ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
| ||
|
JustQuitWarcraftIII
United States679 Posts
On April 17 2008 03:29 SoleSteeler wrote: 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? Yeah, I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone. SC creates more diversity since different players can adopt different styles of game-play. Micro alone cannot justify what a true, wickedly sick RTS game should be even though WC3 is very fun and more relaxing to play with. SC is about a balance of micro and macro. In the Dragoons vs Zerglings case, the player most likely chooses macro due to his abundance of resources or the bigger advantage gained thorough a quicker incoming of reinforcements. However, situations differ as seen in other times like the Casy vs Jaedong game. Casy could have always pumped out more units instead of concentrating on his few Vultures. But had he done so, the chance to pick off these Drones, thus wrecking havoc upon Jaedong's economy, would've been missed. So of course he'd keep these Vultures alive by all means. Even though he could've pumped out 10 more Vultures during that while, the chance of attacking these vulnerable Drones only presented itself once. Of course, getting hold of this chance was obviously far more important than simply making more units at the moment. So players generally weigh various situations to decided whether micro/macro shall give him more advantage and thus come to decide which of the two needs more focus. This is just my view on the issue and it might be flawed as I haven't gotten into SC so much. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On April 17 2008 04:07 SoleSteeler wrote: Explain to me why that is then. Don't just make a point and not back it up with your reasoning. The whole point of starcraft is beeing able to perfectly control your units while at the exact same time produce more. You don't "chose" between controling your units or producing some, you have to do both at the same time and the best you can. If you have to make a choice that either means a) you don't understand the game correctly b) you're not fast / skilled enough and need to practice more. | ||
|
JustQuitWarcraftIII
United States679 Posts
Anyways Carmac's thread was a little harsh for openly denouncing WC3. I mean people know what they know but frankness causes hate and flame wars often. I like Tod and his involvement in the comment section really indicates the extent of the article's provocation. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
| ||
|
JustQuitWarcraftIII
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On April 17 2008 04:31 SoleSteeler wrote: Still, no player can perfectly control his units + produce them at the same time. Yes, you should be doing some of both, but you can't do both perfectly as if you were 100% focused on one or the other. For one, if you're not taking your eyes off the battle, then you don't have enough hotkeys for all your buildings. If you go back to your base, it's possible that in that 1-2 seconds, your units back there could be fucked. You see it happen all the time. I just rewatched Flash using metal against Jaedong on Katrina, at one point Jaedong flies his mutas out, but they don't get completely out of range, and then Flash's goliaths begin firing and the mutas run back to defend themselves, where Jaedong would have wanted to move them out, instead of damaging them further. My overall point is that if it happens in BW, it sets you back yes, (read the post above yours by JustQuitWarIII) but it wouldn't set you back as much as in War3. In War3 you HAVE to babysit your units the whole game, especially vs. your enemy (as opposed to vs. creeps). Therefore, War3 is pretty much all unit control/micro. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Nowadays top pro gamers are getting closer and closer to doing so flawlessly. What you fail to understand, or rather, acknowledge, is that there is virtualy no limit to how much your gaming speed can devellop your starcraft game - there seems to be no real limit yet to the ammount of actions you can execute within the game at the same time. There is no such thing as a "break point" or a "wall" where doing more actions wouldn't translate into the game anymore. In warcraft III you reach that "limit" pretty fast. THe point where doing more action is either not necessary, or not possible. There is no such thing in Starcraft. | ||
|
NathanSC
United States620 Posts
On April 17 2008 04:31 SoleSteeler wrote: Still, no player can perfectly control his units + produce them at the same time. Yes, you should be doing some of both, but you can't do both perfectly as if you were 100% focused on one or the other. For one, if you're not taking your eyes off the battle, then you don't have enough hotkeys for all your buildings. If you go back to your base, it's possible that in that 1-2 seconds, your units back there could be fucked. You see it happen all the time. I just rewatched Flash using metal against Jaedong on Katrina, at one point Jaedong flies his mutas out, but they don't get completely out of range, and then Flash's goliaths begin firing and the mutas run back to defend themselves, where Jaedong would have wanted to move them out, instead of damaging them further. My overall point is that if it happens in BW, it sets you back yes, (read the post above yours by JustQuitWarIII) but it wouldn't set you back as much as in War3. In War3 you HAVE to babysit your units the whole game, especially vs. your enemy (as opposed to vs. creeps). Therefore, War3 is pretty much all unit control/micro. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. I don't think that's a very good example to use. Jaedong lost that game, and it is very easy to say he lost it due to the poor unit control you mentioned. A better example to use to argue that Warcraft 3 micro is more important is to point to a professional game where one player simply refused to micro and still steamrolled his opponent. Edit: A professional game of SC of course. | ||
|
JustQuitWarcraftIII
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
*sigh* | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
On April 17 2008 04:35 Boonbag wrote: Nowadays top pro gamers are getting closer and closer to doing so flawlessly. What you fail to understand, or rather, acknowledge, is that there is virtualy no limit to how much your gaming speed can devellop your starcraft game - there seems to be no real limit yet to the ammount of actions you can execute within the game at the same time. There is no such thing as a "break point" or a "wall" where doing more actions wouldn't translate into the game anymore. In warcraft III you reach that "limit" pretty fast. THe point where doing more action is either not necessary, or not possible. There is no such thing in Starcraft. I agree with everything you say here, and I don't think I've given reason to believe that I think otherwise? Where have I said otherwise? And yes they are getting closer and closer, but playing perfectly will always be impossible, perfect within the limitations of the UI is a better way of saying it. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
On April 17 2008 05:05 Mora wrote: a potentially great thread was ruined. *sigh* The thread isn't ruined. But I don't think it had too much potential, from the OP. Everyone agrees with the OP... we all know SC is 100x better as a spectator sport than War3, is much harder to play, etc. | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
:S | ||
|
ZergPowerrr
20 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On April 17 2008 05:51 alffla wrote: im getting so confused with the discussion now lol :S Discussion? Where? ....the responses by the WC3 pros just remind me of a dota pro(and ex-wc3 pro) rambling about how fucking hard it is to be a top dota player... | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On April 17 2008 00:29 FrozenArbiter wrote: 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 =] I recall a replay with MrX vs ElkY (?) TvP replay where the terran got manner pyloned twice on LT 6 o'clock and then the toss built gateways. There was some really cool rine micro but the protoss won later on with proxy robo-bay. I think X was T and elky P (but that would mean that they were both off-racing). Anyone recall this? Just as a fun fact, not trying to steal thread, but it was one of the coolest replays ever.  | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5410 Posts
On April 17 2008 05:47 MeriaDoKk wrote: then what are you discussing? That's true I guess. My argument is done with. It all was just a misunderstanding it seems anyhow. Thread doesn't have to "stop". | ||
|
Spedicus
Canada16 Posts
| ||
|
GunsofthePatriots
South Africa991 Posts
On April 15 2008 22:53 Xeiji wrote: Isn't it because W3 players can watch replays while SC obviously can't? Both games give you the option to watch a replay if you wanted. And btw starcraft got this first. I am guessing that you have never played StarCraft in your life. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On June 12 2008 01:45 GunsofthePatriots wrote: Both games give you the option to watch a replay if you wanted. And btw starcraft got this first. I am guessing that you have never played StarCraft in your life. He means that SC leagues dont release their replays, while the WC3 ones do. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
| ||
|
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
| ||
|
GunsofthePatriots
South Africa991 Posts
On June 12 2008 02:34 Sfydjklm wrote: He means that SC leagues dont release their replays, while the WC3 ones do. He should have said it more clearly. | ||
| ||
PiG Sty Festival
PiGFest 6.0 Group B
Rogue vs ZounLIVE!
SKillous vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Stormgate 11186Calm  10974Bisu 6676Sea  2826Horang2 1751Mini 1621Pusan 804Larva 397Hyuk 393Zeus 347[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaNa
ByuN vs Classic
Afreeca Starleague
Jaedong vs Light
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Creator
Cure vs ShoWTimE
OSC
Replay Cast
SpeCial vs Cham
The PondCast
PiG Sty Festival
Reynor vs Bunny
Dark vs Astrea
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
