I've seen some good WC3 games, it's definitely not as simple as people think.

The thing I don't like about WC3 though is that Undead seem to be way under-represented at the pro level. I guess it's just that much more difficult to balance when you have a fourth race.

Also that they don't really use a wide variety of maps. Aren't they still using the original Blizzard maps in tournaments?

Haemonculus

United States6980 Posts

September 13 2010 14:20 GMT

#22

WC3 was the first RTS game I ever played competitively. I still enjoy that game, even if b.net is downright plagued by hackers. It's about as bad as pubby bnet for SCBW, if not worse simply because that's where the ladder is.

Manit0u

Poland17831 Posts

September 13 2010 17:10 GMT

#23

On September 13 2010 18:24 AMaidensWrath wrote:

Show nested quote +

Do you by chance have a vod for that? Or some guide about this strategy?

http://tft.replayers.com/index.php?action=view&id=83113

There you go.

Goshawk.

United Kingdom5338 Posts

September 13 2010 17:14 GMT

#24

Btw comments suggest that isn't Grubby, and I doubt it is. -_-

Lennon

United Kingdom2275 Posts

September 13 2010 17:27 GMT

#25

On September 13 2010 16:23 thedeadhaji wrote:
Upkeep management seems so complex and fragile, but it's been an issue that has captured my attention since watching that th000 vs moon match (first war3 game I saw in 4 years

)

It's easy.
Macro to 50 food.
Take a break from macro.
Bank until 1.5k.
Macro to 80 food.

Manit0u

Poland17831 Posts

September 13 2010 17:44 GMT

#26

On September 14 2010 02:14 Goshawk. wrote:
Btw comments suggest that isn't Grubby, and I doubt it is. -_-

Even if that's not Grub, it's still an awesome game.

KinosJourney2

Sweden1811 Posts

September 13 2010 17:45 GMT

#27

I think WC3 is incredibly hard, i love the game in many ways and would play it more often but heroes being so important ruins it for me.
I wish they'd remove heroes or nerf them really hard so it becomes more like a Strategy-game than a RPG-game.

FortuneSyn

1826 Posts

September 13 2010 17:54 GMT

#28

So garena is the iccup equivalent for war 3 right? Have people migrated into the war3 iccup ladder? do the good people still play in that lag ridden hacker craphole that is bnet?

Manit0u

Poland17831 Posts

September 13 2010 18:42 GMT

#29

On September 14 2010 02:45 KinosJourney2 wrote:
I think WC3 is incredibly hard, i love the game in many ways and would play it more often but heroes being so important ruins it for me.
I wish they'd remove heroes or nerf them really hard so it becomes more like a Strategy-game than a RPG-game.

I tried it and I can tell you how the games would look like without heroes:

Orcs and Humans: Towers, towers everywhere!
Night Elves: Ancients of War + Archers + Ballistas to own them all.
Undead: Crying in the corner... Oh wait, Ghoul rush!

Not the greatest thing to behold. And besides, I've always thought that where WC3 really shines is 2v2, with 4 races to choose from, resource sharing, workers being able to repair allied structures and auras working for allies it opened a plethora of possibilities and made for quite a bit of astounding games. Unfortunately, at some point WC3L decided that 2v2 is not so hot (thanks to solo-people based teams whining, like 4K) and changed the format from 3x1v1 + 2x2v2 to 4x1v1 + 1x2v2, which in turn caused the number of dedicated 2v2 players to be abandoned and all teams sticking to just solo players who would form an impromptu 2v2 team for this one match...
Pity.

illu

Canada2531 Posts

September 13 2010 21:51 GMT

#30

Actually, WC3 really shines in FFA.

All the mechanisms in WC3 work really, really well in FFA. Especially on aspects of resource manamgement (through upkeep) and promoting aggression (through hero experience) make WC3 FFA games really playable.

I seriously doubt you can play the same kind of FFA games in other RTS games with the same level of enjoyment.

520

United States2822 Posts

September 13 2010 22:23 GMT

#31

On September 14 2010 06:51 illu wrote:
Actually, WC3 really shines in FFA.

All the mechanisms in WC3 work really, really well in FFA. Especially on aspects of resource manamgement (through upkeep) and promoting aggression (through hero experience) make WC3 FFA games really playable.

I seriously doubt you can play the same kind of FFA games in other RTS games with the same level of enjoyment.

Indeed. The prospect of having high leveled heroes which you can't get by simply creeping the very sparse creep camps in an FFA encourages a lot of aggression. The ability to Town Portal helps a lot as well, as you don't have to necessarily worry about counterattacks seriously crippling you.

Manit0u

Poland17831 Posts

September 14 2010 00:24 GMT

#32

In other words, WC3 seems to be designed as a 'more than just 2 players' game

ironchef

Canada1350 Posts

September 14 2010 00:37 GMT

#33

Nice analysis. Even as an ardent BW-is-the-best-game believer, I was pretty open to the hero idea or any unfamiliar mechanic. If it adds depth and fun to the game, who cares if it's un-BW-like. That said, I personally found it played awkwardly. But take that as a personal opinion, as I have relatively limited experience with wc3/tft.

I am curious if they make a wc4(rts warcraft) if/how they will improve upon the hero system. I think it has potential and that they could do a lot better, being the creative geniuses that they are. It's cool they have 2 rts with varying flavors.

illu

Canada2531 Posts

September 14 2010 00:40 GMT

#34

On September 14 2010 09:37 ironchef wrote:
Nice analysis. Even as an ardent BW-is-the-best-game believer, I was pretty open to the hero idea or any unfamiliar mechanic. If it adds depth and fun to the game, who cares if it's un-BW-like. That said, I personally found it played awkwardly. But take that as a personal opinion, as I have relatively limited experience with wc3/tft.

I am curious if they make a wc4(rts warcraft) if/how they will improve upon the hero system. I think it has potential and that they could do a lot better, being the creative geniuses that they are. It's cool they have 2 rts with varying flavors.

Yea, I think the system has a lot of potentials, but it was largely overshadowed by scbw.

I somewhat doubt there will be wc4 though. The fact of the matter is that RTS does not nearly make as much money as MMORPG.

Thoro

United States57 Posts

September 14 2010 00:41 GMT

#35

I used to be a moderate wc3 ladder player -first RTS I ever seriously played- and I gotta say, this guide is great for starcraft players transitioning into warcraft, but it's pretty bare-bones basic and not much of a new look.

That said, whoever says that warcraft 3 isn't as complicated as starcraft is, with all due respect, a wee bit of a moron.

It's not more complicated, either.

It's different.

See, Warcraft has an RPG aspect to it that Starcraft does not, making the playstyles of the two games vastly different. It's like comparing two different game genres.
Also noting, Warcraft is far more micro-based than Starcraft. Due to heroes, high health, and low army sizes, micro is much more effective than starcraft, and you can do a surprising amount with a single unit, or a low health unit. Personally, I find that this makes Warcraft 3 much more entertaining to watch -in general- (not always, for obvious reasons). Lets be honest- seeing someone not missing an inject isn't nearly entertaining as epic gosu Warden blink micro.

vindKtiv

United States215 Posts

September 14 2010 00:50 GMT

#36

I have admittedly enjoyed WarCraft III, and I must say I agree with this statement.

That said, whoever says that warcraft 3 isn't as complicated as starcraft is, with all due respect, a wee bit of a moron.

It's not more complicated, either.

It's different.

Brood War may be harder to master because of the UI, but WarCraft III is definitely different. That being said, I do enjoy Brood War more because there is less of a reliance on a hero and more of a reliance on macro.

FragKrag

United States11567 Posts

September 14 2010 01:18 GMT

#37

You know a WC3 player playing SC2 when they go out of their way or something to stim a marine and run it away into a corner :p

I liked WC3 because throughout the entire game every single unit mattered at all times, and the completely different playstyle

520

United States2822 Posts

September 14 2010 01:33 GMT

#38

Some of the things that some people find impressive about certain games may not be found impressive by other people. Blocking an Archmage with an Archer for long enough that your Demon Hunter can catch up to land the killing blow just to see the Archmage TP away at the last second may not be as immediately impressive to some people. Just like watching someone's entire army die to a tank line just to see them have seemingly conjured a huge army out of nowhere may not be impressive to people.

I think most people will appreciate a lot of the more overtly cool things, like Psi Storm carpet bombing or Zeppelin/Dropship micro or invis surrounds etc.

Mellotron

United States329 Posts

September 14 2010 01:41 GMT

#39

Awesome thread. Im more of a fan of the SC universe but Warcraft 3 was amazingly good and i spent a ton of time playing it (and watching it) a few years ago. At higher levels every single thing is important and one tiny detail can make or break a win. Many times that small factor was set in motion long before it payed off.

I personally am glad to see some Warcraft 3 players coming to SC2, and i hope they do well.

bellweather

United States404 Posts

September 14 2010 02:00 GMT

#40

Yes yes yes.
After essentially giving up on WC3 solo ladder due to hackers, imbalance, etc I found WC3 FFA and it really hooked me. Pre-teaming (namely clan members essentially allying with each other) and orc-mass tower-bat rider-gold hoarding aside, FFA gave new dimensions to gold management, map control, the worth of heroes and gathering exp wisely, and diplomacy-misdirection (both through denial of scouting and actually typing to your opponents).