Since SC2's announcement, other RTS games have gone into second plan or disappeared completely from this boards. I thought it might be nice to bring this one back from the grave and have some reasonable discussion going. What I want to show you, is how stuff that many BW fans loathe (heroes, items, creepcamps, upkeep) plays a big part in WC3's macro game.
Before we start, I'd like to clarify 2 things: 1) This is not a WC3 vs BW/SC2 bashfest, please keep that in mind 2) By "macro" I don't mean the mechanical aspect of it (producing, teching, expanding) but the decisionmaking process behind it (what, when, why).
Part 1: The Third Resource Type
Unlike common thinking, you have 3 resources in WC3, not just 2. Gold and lumber are important, but the third one is the hardest to obtain and more often than not crucial to player's success or failure. I'm of course talking about experience here. It is essentially a resource, which you can: a) gather - by killing stuff b) spend - to level up your heroes, making them stronger and opening new options c) deny - by preventing your stuff from dying.
It is vital to the gameflow in WC3 just like any other resource type, and quite big part of gameplay focuses on gathering and denying it, making for some interesting mind-games (more on that later). I put it in the beginning, so it would be easier to understand the following parts as it is one of the focal points for them.
Part 2: Heroes
Heroes play pretty big role in WC3, different for every army as some tend to rely more on them (Undead) while other rely more on their units with heroes playing a supportive role for the most part (Human). They are a way to gather and spend the aforementioned third resource type - experience, and this involves many crucial decisions which aren't always easy.
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?
2) When to get heroes? Timing here is rather important. You always need to consider the expense to benefit ratio. Will purchasing a hero (which costs a significant amount of resources) give me the advantage I need or can I withold with it some more and buy something else instead?
3) Which heroes to get? What options does a certain hero open for me? Which other heroes he works well with and which hinder him? What hero(es) does my opponent have? What's enemy's army composition? What is he likely to get? What can my opponent do to counter it? Does my hero need high levels to be effective ("breakpoints")?
As you can see, each initial questions opens up some more and all of them are important and should be considered carefully.
Part 3: Creepcamps
Creepcamps are mini-expansions which let you gather a small amount of gold and various amounts of experience, perhaps some items as well as open some important options:
1) Access to an expansion or a shop 2) Creepjack possibility - which can give you big advantage in combat even if your army is considerably weaker than your opponent's
Primary role for creepcamps is seen in the gather/deny experience meta-game, in which you are trying to gain advantage over your opponent. Creepcamps can only be cleared once so by neglecting this possibility, you keep it open for your enemy.
Clearing a creepcamp also opens up a lot of questions:
1) What kind of force do I need to clear it? 2) What are the odds of enemy creepjacking me? 3) How much time is it going to take? 4) What is the possible gain?
Again, we're entering the cost to benefit ratio with a multitude of variables included.
Part 4: Items
Items are also a big part of the macro game. They're vital to both heroes and units and open up a lot of interesting possibilities. But let's look at them from the macro perspective.
1) You can sell them for gold, which means that if a certain item is not of great benefit to you, you can always sell it for a boost to your income 2) You can buy them, which means you sometimes need to choose between purchasing units/tech/heroes and items. You must carefully consider which would be more advantageous for you in specific situations.
Items tie up to the entire hero and creepcamp thing too, as they can make heroes more effective, chance of getting specific items is higher at certain creepcamps etc.
Part 5: Upkeep
Ahh, one of the most loathed things about WC3, the upkeep which keeps increasing as your army size does. It is actually a big part of the economical warfare in this game. It is a tool that forces you into thinking about your economy and the current global in-game situation. Namely, is my economy better than my opponent's? Is it beneficial for me to enter higher upkeep?
You can play with upkeep in different ways, you can either operate on a small scale and not enter higher upkeep, allowing you for more item and tech purchases or consider one of the 2 things if your economy is good enough:
1) Flood enemy with too many units to counter and thus deal the decisive blow. (If you have better economy than your opponent, especially when it's a lot better) 2) Force enemy to enter higher upkeep in order to keep on par in army strength. (If you have similar economy, ideally when yours is a bit better as the upkeep won't hurt you so much)
Summary
I know that this thread doesn't cover everything thoroughly, I tried to keep it brief. I am also aware that it poses more questions than gives answers, but that's why we call it a discussion forum, don't we? Anyway, feel free to post your thoughts on the matter, discuss them at length or, if you're up to it, expand on the basics I outlined here.
you know, i've played a grand total of like 2 wc3 ladder games, both random, and despite better resource macro and micro always end up losing. now i know why
WC3 is actually more complex game than it seems at first glance. It has a pretty deep meta-game and a lot of tiny details that add up to form a full picture but most people just don't notice them. It takes some experience and getting used to
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 )
Thank you for this post. Alot of hate from Wc3 is unwarranted, it's a great RTS. Shame lots of people can't grasp it because it's different from Starcraft.
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 )
If you get into it, you'll notice that upkeep is a pretty smart and interesting system. Since you can't have really huge armies in WC3 due to low max cap and units taking quite a lot of supply it's a way to make you think about getting expansion which would allow you to operate without hindrance with increased unit count. Without it, you could just max out your population out of 1 base and not give it a second thought.
I agree. Wc3 is very complex, maybe on a level with starcraft. But starcraft (thanks to the korean scene) is far more explored. Competition raises the bar for all.
Maybe if wc3 (I'm just imagining here) would have been released before sc1, things would have been different.
I'm not saying sc1 is in any way underrated or doesn't deserve its status. Sc is a 100% RTS while Wc3 has some RPG elements in it.
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.
Yes, wc<3 is awesome. There is nothing quite like the micro some of the pros pull off to save a hero at 1hp with a zeppelin with 10hp during the middle of some insane battle.
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.
The main reason why wc3 does not have the same fanbase is in my opinion because from a spectator point of view things happen too quickly and if you don't know what to look for it can be confusing to watch. Especially the use of items, which is hugely important, is not visible to a new player and it may all be very confusing.
Startcraft, from a spectator point of view, is more straightforward; you can get a good indication of who is beating who by looking at the food count and the position of the armies on the map.
Starcraft and warcraft are two completely different rts's (which makes sense from blizzards perspective, too; why make 2 games that are the same, right?) and they are both the best in their genre (econ rts, hero rts)
I've played wc3 for years (not on any level worth mentioning though) and love to watch vods of the pros. It truly is an epic game.
I followed wc3 quite a bit. I think the complexity of the resources, especially creeps, also lead to the perceived "stagnation of maps". Since the allocation would be so complex (which race can creep which camps faster than another one, which item drops completely unbalance a certain game stage, etc.), you would rather keep the old, proven ones, instead of introducing new, highly imbalanced ones.
The reason that the map pool stagnated is simply because Blizzard hardly ever offered new maps. In the brief time that wc3 Korean pro leagues existed a great deal of maps were made. Many of those maps were interesting and well balanced, but the pro leagues died and Blizzard only incorporated Goldshire into the map pool. And even that map was only in the 2v2 map pool. Furthermore there were a number of imbalances in the old maps which didn't seem to bother Blizzard. UD vs OC @ Lost Temple for example was absolutely ridiculous.
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.
I think it's complex and wonderful game, but it also had way too many little details for blizzard to balance and control. Matchups occassionally degrade into extremely defensive towering and there are moments with at least seemingly very little dynamic. Hero choises are extremely stagnant in most matchups and lucky item drops have pretty big effect on games.
I mostly think that 4 races, 4 heroes on each and such focus on small gameplay details was just too much of a combination. Blizzard simply couldn't get everything fixed without breaking a dozen other things. On good moments it's a beautiful game, but to balance it out it also has got more than enough bad moments that leave it one step below Starcraft in my books.
Erm your post reads more like a beginner's guide to WC3 macro. >_< If you play WC3 now you will quickly fall into the standard units/heroes/creep patterns and then the macro part of the game quickly becomes simplified.
On September 13 2010 19:15 ArvickHero wrote: I wish there were more things like this, its hard trying to learn WC3 when there's hardly any guides to follow at all, just reps and VODs..
You can play in a style that somewhat resembles macroing in sc:bw in Warcraft3's FFA games. Typically you will need 2-3 production building of each kind (at least) when you transition into late-game and the battles are very quick when almost anything can die in 1 second.
In FFA games the upkeep mechanism also plays a more crucial role; far more important than upkeep in 1v1.
I love WC3, its one of my favorite games of all times. A lot of people dont like the upkeep/hero system but I thought It was a great addition. Not for every RTS, but It forces you to get out of your base to gather that extra resource, XP. It also made a lot of strange strats a lot more viable, which made the game more interesting IMO.
On a side note: I havnt played WC3 since I got the SC2 beta, and I was watching some VODs of WC3 the other day and I was amazed by how slow it seemed next to SC2. Battles in SC2 would have been completely over by the time the first unit died in WC3, but I never felt WC3 was slow at all when I played it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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...