On September 13 2010 17:25 Basisboek wrote: I've always wondered why warcraft3 did not get as much attention as starcraft. You point out some great points. I like the fact that you put experience as a resource; I never looked at it that way but it makes sense.
Simple: Which game's intricacies are easier to sell to a television audience? The game where the majority of mechanics make things die? Or the game with abilities and mechanics that have no apparent context? Good luck explaining why the Human player is about to win when he is trapped in his base but the Mountain King is about to hit level six.
I always really liked WC3, especially the Hero mechanics. At high levels, just like BW, the smallest details matter. Stuff like in which order to creep the map, making sure to buy stuff at the shop (Boots of Speed!) make the game really varied, but only to those who understand it. Unfortunately there are some problems for observers who are unexperienced with the game. Basically Orc (and to a slightly lesser extent Undead) open each game the same way, with the same heroes and unit composition, and that can be quite boring to the casual observer. Human and Night Elf have more variety, but can be equally boring in their own way (mass towers). My favorite tournament was the GOMTV invitational, because they had to excellent casters (Rotterdam and ToD) who really explained all the details in a very good (and funny) way. Sometimes I still rewatch some games from that tournament
Rotterdam is great. I remember meeting him on ladder once, it was 2v2 and we knew we were going to lose but the game was hilarious: mirror NE+OR, both teams going PotM + mass huntresses (NE) and FS + mass catas (OR). Basekill, basekill everywhere...
Well from a former war3 pro-gamer I can say that I personally enjoy it because simply put, the better player will 99% of the time always win. The game is based almost purely on micro and only a few builds are viable in any given matchup (mirrors are actually the most dynamic), but that is the story with almost are RTS, infact I'd say that Broodwar is more linear than war3.
Although I haven't played competitively in almost a year the game is extremely balanced with the only things coming to mind being dryad experience(finally fixed after years), (ne staff [item cooldown between heroes, finally fixed]), Hu vs UD (still more or less the UD's game to lose at the top level).
I don't really include Blademaster rants since before it was 'standard' Orc wasn't thought to be anywhere near overpowered. Another thing I admire most about warcraft 3 is that from top professional level play vs somebody just a tiny tiny bit below that level, the better player is evident, just from subtle micro and decisions that eventually snowball into a win.
Take that in contrast to sc2 where (albeit probably only from Terran) anyone that is high diamond can potentially take a game from a pro-gamer, or just in general somebody that has near perfect mechanics and knowledge of the game - which shouldn't happen in my eyes.
1) Should I get heroes? Usually, you want at least one hero with your army, although Axslav proved in his game vs Grubby that sometimes you can do without them. We will not go into hardcore here and assume that you should. The real question here is: how many of them? Should you stick to just one? Would 2 be better? Or maybe 3 of them is the way to go? Is it worth it to tech to a higher tier for another hero?
Could you please direct me to that game? I'd love to see someone play a viable game without heros... especially against Grubby. I did a youtube search and couldn't seem to find it.
Axslav is the only one who tried this and went into ladder to get to the top level without heros.
You can't play without heroes, it's not viable at all. Maybe Axslav did it once, he did a lot of awful strategies. That game would be an exception, he went heroes just like everyone else. And he was never at the top level of play. He was one of the better American players which in WC3 meant very, very little.
On September 15 2010 01:54 Agh wrote: Well from a former war3 pro-gamer I can say that I personally enjoy it because simply put, the better player will 99% of the time always win. The game is based almost purely on micro and only a few builds are viable in any given matchup (mirrors are actually the most dynamic), but that is the story with almost are RTS, infact I'd say that Broodwar is more linear than war3.
Although I haven't played competitively in almost a year the game is extremely balanced with the only things coming to mind being dryad experience(finally fixed after years), (ne staff [item cooldown between heroes, finally fixed]), Hu vs UD (still more or less the UD's game to lose at the top level).
I don't really include Blademaster rants since before it was 'standard' Orc wasn't thought to be anywhere near overpowered. Another thing I admire most about warcraft 3 is that from top professional level play vs somebody just a tiny tiny bit below that level, the better player is evident, just from subtle micro and decisions that eventually snowball into a win.
Take that in contrast to sc2 where (albeit probably only from Terran) anyone that is high diamond can potentially take a game from a pro-gamer, or just in general somebody that has near perfect mechanics and knowledge of the game - which shouldn't happen in my eyes.
You're making good points here, maybe apart from the last one. SC2 hasn't really been out long enough for any real pro-gamer to emerge, and I don't think anyone is even close to having perfect mechanics and knowledge of it. We just have to wait and see (although, I don't really have much faith in SC2).
I'd like to add my 2 cents on WC3 balance. I didn't follow it for quite a time now and probably some of it is already fixed (I sure hope so) but what struck me as out of balance was primarily the UD vs OR matchup. I used to be UD player and I know that anyone playing OR would auto-bash me here and point out how Destroyers destroy Orcs. The fact is however, that from the beginning of a match, UD is playing uphill: first comes the acolyte harassment, then transition to mid-game where Raiders and stomp from TC rule the field and only after all that UD player is finally able to get his expensive T3 units to deal with Orcs, which is not guaranteed as Raiders are a soft counter to them and cheap Batriders aren't helping either...
On September 15 2010 08:00 Manit0u wrote: I'd like to add my 2 cents on WC3 balance. I didn't follow it for quite a time now and probably some of it is already fixed (I sure hope so) but what struck me as out of balance was primarily the UD vs OR matchup. I used to be UD player and I know that anyone playing OR would auto-bash me here and point out how Destroyers destroy Orcs. The fact is however, that from the beginning of a match, UD is playing uphill: first comes the acolyte harassment, then transition to mid-game where Raiders and stomp from TC rule the field and only after all that UD player is finally able to get his expensive T3 units to deal with Orcs, which is not guaranteed as Raiders are a soft counter to them and cheap Batriders aren't helping either...
It's not the Aco harassment that's the problem, it's the fact that at T1 DKs have no heal and the BM can gib anything that's smaller than a Fiend.
I honestly think Ted from WE had the best idea with a Banshees splash at T3, using Aboms to tank with Lich armor. You don't see destroyers that much any more unfortunately ever since that bullshit change to them being effected by Batriders.
Also, not to mention that Orc's timings match up well against UD's. The need for T3 creates so many opportunities for Orc to exploit...
EPT
