On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
Ugh I was starting to think this thread might actually stay relatively free of people who think they know something and start posting out of their ass.
In the video I posted you can see an undead ghoul creeping while fight a battle which is very difficult because you can lose units on two different places on the map, creeping that camp with 5-7 ghouls would be hard enough by itself.
All races can benefit greatly by harassing with their first hero while creeping with their second hero/army in the midgame.
There is a TON of solo hero harassment in the game... and that means potentially doing it AND defending it while also creeping with your 2nd hero and army.
There is also something called single screen multitasking.. there are a ton of things to do at the same time every battle and knowing what to do when and what to do it to depending on positioning is very difficult.
Also unit pulls make for a lot of different things that need you attentions, you have to refocus units that are targeting a unit that has enough life to run away while making sure you are running away your own high life units etc etc etc... I could go on
Starcraft is a better and more difficult game but you shouldn't post things you know nothing about.
EDIT: I just compared the building times quickly because I thought you were full of shit and the average of building times is like 10 seconds apart at most.
I do remember MadFrog began creeping while doing herassment, but this still dosent remotely compare to what kind of multitasking is required in BW. Let me elaborate:
There is an infite difference between attacking creeps that is controlled by the ai or attack some human controlled units. The creeps are stupid; what you are required to do, is to pull damaged ghouls back and then the creep will attack your other gouls and whatnot.
In BW everything you do is against another human. This means that if you attack on a front for diversion and simultaniously doing (lets just say one herassment for simplicity) doing a drop on his mineral line with some templars, your opponent will react cleverly and try to escape his workers, intercept your shuttle and kill your templars. So for you to benefit from the drop, you will have to calculate where his workers are going while doing the front attack and if you want to escape with your shuttle and templars it required even more micro. And a templar drop is really one of the easy herassments compared to e.g. muta herass and reaver.
just the perfect control of your heroes is enough... it`s not like u tell them to attack and leave them, u need to have lightning-reflexes to counter a spell and stuff like that...it`s just that the smart casting and auto-cast helps u. but yes, controlling two groups of mutas at the same time is the shit
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
As other people have already pointed out, a lot of that just isn't true at all. Generally speaking you're right that an army should be together most of the time, but there are many, many times where lots of multi-tasking is required. Just not in the same way as StarCraft. And that's a key thing to remember, because if you don't then you'll keep comparing the game to StarCraft and miss a lot of important things.
The last part of the first paragraph I can't really comment on much just because it's so off based on a previous assumption, but the second part of your post is completely wrong as well because if you've ever watched games with Grubby vs an Undead, Sky and many other humans vs any Night Elf, or really anyone who knows how to effectively creep and harass efficiently at the same time, then you've seen everything that you just said wasn't in the game. The only thing that I agree you may not see too much are multiple drops, just because you can't build your own zeppelins and have to buy them at certain times at a neutral shop.
Not that this means the macro is anywhere close to StarCraft's level, because it's not, but it is very different and difficult in it's own way. I think Ixion made a pretty good example to illustrate this some in his example about towers and destroyers. You can't just mindlessly macro and make stuff, you have to know how to effectively time things and build just the right amount and when you need them. In that sense the macro can be very difficult for players because most players just flat out don't know how to recognize these things, whereas in StarCraft it's a bit more obvious as to what you need to do.
EDIT: Here's Ixion's post to illustrate his example that I referred to...
On January 19 2009 00:07 ixion wrote: Warcraft 3 and Starcraft have different kinds of macro, in wc3 when you play human if you make too many towers vs a destro push you WILL lose and if you make too few you WILL lose. In starcraft you need to mass produce, expand and keep ur economy low and unit count high basically. In wc3 it's not the same at all. The macro in warcraft is all about how many and when. Warcraft 3 macro takes more thinking then SC macro while SC macro requires insane speed which is a lot harder then wc3 macro. But after all Wc3 is a micro based game and it's all about micro in the end.
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
On January 16 2009 05:54 Purind wrote: I remember watching the micro in Weryeery's post before and thinking "holy crap that's insane" but didn't appreciate the impact it had on the game until I read about it. It was some insane micro, but nothing died, so to someone like me that doesn't know much about the game, it seems like an empty move that doesn't accomplish anything
That's a good point that brings up an issue that I've noticed for a really long time about WarCraft 3. So much of what goes on inside the game is subtle (much more so than in StarCraft), and a lot of times it's hard for people who aren't really, really good at the game to fully grasp what happened and why it was done or why it was so important. Even pretty good players that consider themselves very skilled often times miss many of these subtle details and misunderstand the importance of vital concepts such as timing, because concepts such as these aren't always visible.
So when you show a game like this to people who really don't know anything about the game, and even StarCraft players are included in this category (because while StarCraft is probably one of the closest things out there to WarCraft 3 and they should understand the concepts better than most, it is still a very, VERY different game and these players aren't trained to pick up on the subtle intricacies of the game), so many things just seem boring or pointless, and as many have echoed here, extremely easy. While relatively speaking some of that may or may not be true, there is far far more to the game than meets the eye, and it's difficult for someone who doesn't understand the game very well to appreciate much of what is going on.
I think that's one of the big flaws with WarCraft 3 in terms of its interest towards spectators. You really need to know the game to enjoy watching it, or you'll find yourself very unimpressed or bored.
With that in mind, I think it's great that the OP provided such detailed explanations, as I think that really helps people with limited knowledge about the game understand why these different things are something to respect.
I played WC3 for about 2.5 years in high school before switching back to SC. (It was watching pimpest plays that made me switch).
I think part of the reason that warcraft 3 is more confusing is that the a lot of the spells are buffs or debuffs. Example: bloodlust is a game changing spell, greatly increasing attack speed, but as a spectator, you might not notice the increase in attack speed. Yes, the units grow bigger and there's a graphical change, but in a big battle with flashy spells flying everywhere, the spectator might not understand the importance of +40% attack speed.
Whereas in StarCraft, a game changing spell might be a storm, and that's just hard to miss; with the explosions and blood erupting underneath the storm, the spectator KNOWS that something powerful just happened.
Another thing is that WC3 concentrates a lot on saving units because of the importance of heroes and XP. Though to a skilled player, watching a player run a wisp time a detonate against a coil is a demonstration of skill, to a the spectator it's not nearly as entertaining as watching a 100 food army of TvP smash into each other. Yes, in StarCraft, people pick off units and do things on a smaller level too, especially late late game (when the map is mined out) and early game (where every unit matters) but it's not like losing a unit will lose you the game (except in ZvZ -_-) whereas losing a hero is a huge setback.
Yeah those are also good points as to why it can be difficult to watch. You really need to know the game well to be able to follow everything and appreciate what's going on.
On January 19 2009 05:21 Frits wrote: From experience I know that playing wc3 is a lot harder than it looks but damn, that sure as hell doesn't make it entertaining for me to watch, I KNOW the micro in the video in the OP is really good, it just doesn't change anything for me, whenever I watch a wc3 vod I get sleepy as hell. Maybe it's the lack of units, the time it takes for units to die or the fantasy setting, I don't know.
Good effort making the OP though, Im sure there are people here who havent played wc3 yet and do like it.
I think a lot of people are similar, even when they really enjoy the game. Back when I played StarCraft seriously, I could watch tons and tons of replays without any problem. But in WarCraft 3, it's difficult to even watch more than a few because it will often times get boring and sometimes even make me feel sleepy, even though I really like the game and am able to follow what's going on.
I think a good part of it may have to do with creeping, and also the battles can drag out sometimes, but I also think that part of it is that there are so many subtleties to the game that watching it just makes everything seem less important than when you're actually playing. I'm not sure exactly, but I definitely agree that it's not as exciting to watch as a game like StarCraft.
Nowadays the only time I ever really watch WarCraft 3 matches is when it's a Chinese tournament, because I can listen to the shoutcasters (and they stream matches at a pretty good time for me). Other than that I don't really find it interesting to watch replays or other streams anymore, although it has been a long time since I played the game seriously at all.
People might ask then why play the game if so many people feel this way. For me at least, the game was just more fun to play than StarCraft was. Maybe I had just gotten burned out on StarCraft at the time, maybe it was all of the new tournaments, maybe it was because of real-life influences, or maybe the game really is more fun to play. I don't know, but I've had a lot of fun playing the game over the years and I've never regretted it at all. You should play what you enjoy playing, that's the bottom line.
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Some people are saying they get sleepy when watching wc3 vods.. if you get sleeping watching high level play with good commentators then idk what planet ur from
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
On January 21 2009 05:59 ixion wrote: Some people are saying they get sleepy when watching wc3 vods.. if you get sleeping watching high level play with good commentators then idk what planet ur from
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh wow... at least admit when you're wrong, it wasn't an illusion nor were you trying to be entertaining. I'm sick of your arrogance. (in before 10 paragraphs from you belittling me)
someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
On January 27 2009 23:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote: someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
No one mentioned the destroyer push as proof of why WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, or even that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's at all. This leads me to believe that you didn't read the thread at all and only skimmed it.
Had you read, you wouldn't have posted this because in fact in one of my very own references to the example that you're referring to I made a very clear point of saying that it doesn't mean WarCraft 3's macro is even close to StarCraft's level. The only other person referring to this example was Ixion who made similar comments.
Not to sound like a dick, but not reading thoroughly and then posting what you did is really doing much more harm than good and risks starting another senseless argument =[ (although I realize that even giving attention to this comment is a bad thing, I think clarification does more good than harm, hopefully)
Just to clarify once more: no one is saying that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, and the destroyer push example was ONLY used to illustrate that there is a deeper level to WarCraft 3's macro than most are aware of, and was most definitely NOT used to imply that WarCraft 3's level of macro is even close to StarCraft's. No such implications exist.
I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
EPT
