Warcraft 3 Redux

[Anonymous]

Just wondering if people here are playing this on a regular basis? I'm hooked, even though I'm a huge loser. I started ok, going .500 for my first 12 games, but since then I'm batting around .100 (this coincided with me playing 3v3s with orcs rather than humans). Anyway, I feel like I'm slowly getting better, and I'm trying to play with the same style I played Sacrifice: constant and continuous motion. Not really 'twitch' like a FPS (shut it Wumpus), but more like a gardner pruning this wildly growing bush that he can't visually see the whole thing at once so that it must be mentally assessed and adjusted constantly. Like that.

But, beyond the regular RTS thingy, I really like WC3 because its well balanced, looks bootiful, is rock solid on my system, and has enough variety of units and strategies (if the initial rushes don't push one side off the board).

Are Qt3ers playing this, or are they too bored with this year's model of the same old car?

[Anonymous]

I've been playing W3 a lot in the past few weeks. The four races and the units are the biggest draw, I'm having a lot of fun trying differnet combinations and seeing what they can do. Of course, I get crushed on BNet, but once you decide that your record doesn't matter, you can have a lot of fun.

I started playing as Night Elves, but I think so many people have been burned by the huntress rush that when they see NE they do everything they can to crush you right out of the gate. Switching to random gives me a bit of a surprise element and I also have more fun because I'm not always building the same units in the same order.

That said, I have a number of problems with this game:

*The interface blows. Chris Taylor nailed it with Total Annihilation and nobody has come close in five years. I hate how Blizzard puts these artificial limitations in to try and force me to play their way (selecting no more than 12 units at a time, only seeing a small part of the map, shady command queuing [sp?], the list goes on).

*Why do they allow you to create as many accounts as you want? There are a number of people (a large number) who create accounts at will and then do things they would do in their own account because it would ruin their record (attacking teammates, etc).

*I really like the idea of the creeps, but I don't like how they are always in the same places. Also, they don't even move, they just sit there. You can open the maps with the map editor, learn where they are, which some players have done to give them a great advantage.

So in the end, Total Annihilation is still my favorite, but W3 has enough neat things going on to keep me playing (heroes, creeps, and the fantastically diverse and well designed units). Oh yeah, and it's "fun" ;)

[Greg Kasavin]

I play on Battle.net as often as time allows. I play as undead exclusively because I'm trying to stay competitive, though a lot of the players around my level range have gotten really, really good. I'm never at a loss for serious competition. I usually play in 2on2 or even 3on3 arranged team matches with a couple of my colleagues. The arranged team option never ceases to amaze me.

Some balance issues have cropped up that I'm looking forward to seeing addressed in a patch. It's nothing so serious that it lets a player of lower skill beat a superior player, but certainly, I wouldn't mind seeing orc shamans toned down a bit.

I love how matches in this game, even six-player matches, tend to last 23-25 minutes on average. A 30 minute match is about as long as they ever get.

Along with Virtua Fighter 4, this is my game of the year so far.

[Enidigm]

War3 is one of the most well rounded rts games ever released although its actually rather controversial amongst the hardcore RTS gamer crowd, the question as to whether or not the innovations such as heros and upkeep are sops to newbify the game for the masses, and whether or not the game is complex enough to become a competitive RTS along the lines of Starcraft. Personally i think they did a good job overall of recreating the rts idea rather than simply rehashing Starcraft, which any other company would have given their daughters away to have the chance to do. The skirmish AI is the best ever with insanely intelligent micromanagement and tactics - i was watching the AI attacking some towers with mortar teams (long range units) and his Arch-Mage, and while chasing a unit of mine came into the range of my towers. I was really impressed as the AI pulled its units back out of the towers' range just like i would have done. It also micros injured units well and seems to have a good sense about when to attack or when to retreat. How many AIs retreat at all? Its really quite cool. There are some problems in some areas but overall im pleased.

*The interface blows. Chris Taylor nailed it with Total Annihilation and nobody has come close in five years. I hate how Blizzard puts these artificial limitations in to try and force me to play their way (selecting no more than 12 units at a time, only seeing a small part of the map, shady command queuing [sp?], the list goes on).

Part of RTSs has always been unit control and limited 12 unit groups is one of their techniques to detract from 1 unit massing. "Only seeing a small part of the map" doesn't make sense unless you mean increasing resolution - which is obsolete now with 3d rts games and undesirable anyway for a potentially competitive rts (i can see 2x more of the map than u = gg).

*Why do they allow you to create as many accounts as you want? There are a number of people (a large number) who create accounts at will and then do things they would do in their own account because it would ruin their record (attacking teammates, etc).

? Your wanting tighter restrictions because people suck? Their ladder implementation is arguably the best ever for an RTS game, with randomized matchups making it almost impossible to point trade or become a 1 map wonder.

*I really like the idea of the creeps, but I don't like how they are always in the same places. Also, they don't even move, they just sit there. You can open the maps with the map editor, learn where they are, which some players have done to give them a great advantage.

Creeps are a resource, learn where they are and what they do, and use them as such. Creeps give small amounts of gold, good hero items and experience. Again, in a competitive game creeps can't be a random element that just happens to attack player X but leave player y alone, which is what would happen if they moved around. Hardcore rts'ers hate any random elements with a passion because of the luck involved; say getter a better item (say like Goblin land mines) than your opponent and having it tipping the scales. You neither appreciate nor care about the finer points of making a competitive RTS so please refrain from attacking what you don't understand. Now you can attack War3 for other things but creep placement isn't a flaw but a complicated decision.

TA was a good game but it was hardly the most balanced or competitive. It did have the most variety in units to date but turn that formula into swords and slash like TA:K and witness how much it sucks. TAs depth was probably greater than anyone intended; certainly Dungeon Seige isn't the most complicated or intricate game around.

[Jim F.]

The problem is, a 12 unit limit doesn't stop mass building and rushing one bit. Select 12 units, assign to group 1. Select 12 more, assing to group 2, etc...

Then just pick a spot on the map, then just cycle groups to that location. It's actually better doing it that way then, say, selecting 36 units and clicking attack, because you can divide the units into specializations and move them accordingly in the rush. Select group 1, assign to location A for melee attacking, grab group 2, assign to location B for ranged attack, and move group 3 into long range artilery range.

So the ability to assign groups completely negates, in my opinion, any artificial mass attack caused by the 12 unit selection max.

So why bother having it?

[Enidigm]

The problem is, a 12 unit limit doesn't stop mass building and rushing one bit. Select 12 units, assign to group 1. Select 12 more, assing to group 2, etc...
....
So the ability to assign groups completely negates, in my opinion, any artificial mass attack caused by the 12 unit selection max.

So why bother having it?

Basically its like saying 2+2=4 = 1+1+1+1=4 the product is the same but the path to arrive is somewhat different. With 1+1+1+1 you have more chances for player skill differentation, whom can micro their groups the fastest or most efficiently and other similar details. Micro is such a huge part of War3s design philosophy anyway its suprising they didn't reduce the 12 unit limit. Specifically, for ex, you can use healing spells easier within groups than between them. I can use death coil or holy light to heal troops without actually knowing where they are by healing them via their cards in the info window. If the injured unit is in the 2nd group its only possible by clicking on the unit directly.

I'm not keen or against the 12 unit limit in truth and both sides have merit. But the reasons listed above and in the previous post are probably the rationale behind it. Actually this is one of those elements in War3 that some might rightly call unnecessarily proprietary, like Westwood's scrolling bar scheme they're so loathe to depart from, which i think shows a certain unusual inflexibility in their designers' mindsets.

[Anonymous]

Part of RTSs has always been unit control and limited 12 unit groups is one of their techniques to detract from 1 unit massing.

Really? Care to explain the fact that the most popular race on bnet seems to be the Night Elves and that 9 out of 10 of them create two ancients of war and pump huntresses out as quickly as possible? This just leads to people having three groups of the unit they're massing as opposed to one.

And why tweleve units? Is it really helping anyone when I just happen to have 14 units I want to move somewhere? It's just annoying because I have to make 2 groups and issue all of my orders twice.


"Only seeing a small part of the map" doesn't make sense unless you mean increasing resolution - which is obsolete now with 3d rts games and undesirable anyway for a potentially competitive rts (i can see 2x more of the map than u = gg).

OK, I see your point here, but you assume that everyone in the world wants a game that will be played in tournaments, and some of us want to just play a fun game. The viewable area seems very cramped to me. I don't think I'm wrong because of the cometitive potential, but I suppose I'll let that rest.


Your wanting tighter restrictions because people suck? Their ladder implementation is arguably the best ever for an RTS game, with randomized matchups making it almost impossible to point trade or become a 1 map wonder.

Why not? If they can force me to only select twelve units, why not force people to be bastards at the expense of their own record?


Creeps are a resource, learn where they are and what they do, and use them as such. Creeps give small amounts of gold, good hero items and experience. Again, in a competitive game creeps can't be a random element that just happens to attack player X but leave player y alone, which is what would happen if they moved around. Hardcore rts'ers hate any random elements with a passion because of the luck involved; say getter a better item (say like Goblin land mines) than your opponent and having it tipping the scales. You neither appreciate nor care about the finer points of making a competitive RTS so please refrain from attacking what you don't understand. Now you can attack War3 for other things but creep placement isn't a flaw but a complicated decision.

Well I'm glad you weren't so insecure in your opinion that you had to resort to personal attacks.


TA was a good game but it was hardly the most balanced or competitive. It did have the most variety in units to date but turn that formula into swords and slash like TA:K and witness how much it sucks. TAs depth was probably greater than anyone intended; certainly Dungeon Seige isn't the most complicated or intricate game around.

Of all the games I've ever played, I probably spent the most time with TA. I agree that it wasn't the most balanced, but it was extremely fun to play, mostly because the interface would allow you to do whatever you wanted to do pretty easily. I guess I'd like a game that combined the best elements of TA and W3. This probably wouldn't be a "competitve" RTS, but that doesn't mean that it would be a bad game or that I'm wrong.

[Jason McCullough]

This is the problem with The Goddamn Warcraft school of game design: half the game is the interface. I so do not want to play an interface.

[Enidigm]

Well I'm glad you weren't so insecure in your opinion that you had to resort to personal attacks.
:) Oh thats just the standard rts gamers' retort when dealing with balance issues, although more politely put. Usually it goes "you don't know wtf your talking about n00b so stfu" However there really is some truth in that but its getting people to accept this thats the problem, thus its much easier to just say "stfu n00b" and be done with it. Sorry if it came off too strong though im not trying to argue or be uncivil. Its just that if you don't know about high level gaming in a genre its best not to argue over specifics like that. Like if i said i thought the Colt was underpowered or that de_inferno was biased towards the CTs id more than likely get a "stfu n00b" tossed at me, and with good reason since i don't play Counterstrike except occasionally and casually.


Of all the games I've ever played, I probably spent the most time with TA. I agree that it wasn't the most balanced, but it was extremely fun to play, mostly because the interface would allow you to do whatever you wanted to do pretty easily. I guess I'd like a game that combined the best elements of TA and W3. This probably wouldn't be a "competitve" RTS, but that doesn't mean that it would be a bad game or that I'm wrong.

TA was a great game in many ways; in some better than any before. But not being a 'competitive' rts means the game sucks because it lacks depth. Deep games become competitive, shallow games wallow in the bargin bin. Games like Red Alert 2 or Battle Realms were solid 2nd tier games that for different reasons lacked enough depth to overcome other more competitive rts games at the time. I think the idea of a sleeper RTS is something of a red herring; Kohan was perhaps the closest thing to it and id argue it really wasn't an RTS in the popular sense. I agree with many of TA's improvements such as intelligent build queues and wonder why they haven't trickled down into more popular games. I think in Blizzard's case their 'style' of competitive RTS has become the de facto standard and so even they have difficulty breaking out of those norms to which theyve become accustomed.

Well im off for the weekend adios.

[Rob O'Boston]

Hmm..., I was really hoping this thread would generate some fun stories about people enjoying WC3. Boy, was I wrong.

[Jason McCullough]

Well I'm glad you weren't so insecure in your opinion that you had to resort to personal attacks.
:) Oh thats just the standard rts gamers' retort when dealing with balance issues, although more politely put. Usually it goes "you don't know wtf your talking about n00b so stfu" However there really is some truth in that but its getting people to accept this thats the problem, thus its much easier to just say "stfu n00b" and be done with it. Sorry if it came off too strong though im not trying to argue or be uncivil. Its just that if you don't know about high level gaming in a genre its best not to argue over specifics like that. Like if i said i thought the Colt was underpowered or that de_inferno was biased towards the CTs id more than likely get a "stfu n00b" tossed at me, and with good reason since i don't play Counterstrike except occasionally and casually.


Of all the games I've ever played, I probably spent the most time with TA. I agree that it wasn't the most balanced, but it was extremely fun to play, mostly because the interface would allow you to do whatever you wanted to do pretty easily. I guess I'd like a game that combined the best elements of TA and W3. This probably wouldn't be a "competitve" RTS, but that doesn't mean that it would be a bad game or that I'm wrong.

TA was a great game in many ways; in some better than any before. But not being a 'competitive' rts means the game sucks because it lacks depth. Deep games become competitive, shallow games wallow in the bargin bin. Games like Red Alert 2 or Battle Realms were solid 2nd tier games that for different reasons lacked enough depth to overcome other more competitive rts games at the time. I think the idea of a sleeper RTS is something of a red herring; Kohan was perhaps the closest thing to it and id argue it really wasn't an RTS in the popular sense. I agree with many of TA's improvements such as intelligent build queues and wonder why they haven't trickled down into more popular games. I think in Blizzard's case their 'style' of competitive RTS has become the de facto standard and so even they have difficulty breaking out of those norms to which theyve become accustomed.

Well im off for the weekend adios.

Blizzard sells tons of copies because of the flash they cram in their games. That, combined with the passable-to-good gameplay, is why they've become "the standard."

It certainly isn't gameplay alone.

[leedim]

Here's my most funnest story about WC3 (note: I still suck at this game, but I don't care :P )

I was playing as humans against another human player last night. My main problem in this game is that I really have no strategy mid-game. I just kind of build units and can never figure out a good way to hurt the guy without destroying my own army. Oh well, guess I'll figure that out in time. So I'm just kind of sitting there and decided to pump out some steam tanks, since I hadn't really used them yet. Got sidetracked by an attack at my expansion, and when I got back my ArchMage was up to level 7 and there were five tanks waiting for me. I had a sorceress cast invisible on one of my knights, sent him into the back of the other guy's main base, and used mass-teleport to bring the five steam tanks. Not only did they take out every building in the area, they also wiped out all three of his expansions (the gold mine in one had collapsed).

If you're wondering why it took him so long to get the tanks, just as I teleported out, he had taken his forces in to my base. I guess he figured it would be better to take me out and get the tanks later. After all of that we were each down to one expansion but he had more units, and eventually found me and won the game.

Of course, I realize that neither of us are getting ranked any time soon, but it was amazing how much of a beating those things took before they finally went down. And, uh, it was fun :)

[Tyjenks]

I think the idea of a sleeper RTS is something of a red herring; Kohan was perhaps the closest thing to it and id argue it really wasn't an RTS in the popular sense.

I am not sure I see what you mean. It was definitely heavier on the Strategy than WC and others of it's ilk, but still very much Real Time. I certainly hope your statement was not based on the fact that most "popular sense" RTS's force you to grab all those resources while Kohan was more of strategic management of it's collections.

[Murph]

For the record, you don't have to issue all your orders twice if you have two groups of units that you're moving. (I know, this is going way back in the discussion.)

If you have a group selected, and right-click on one of the units in the other group, they'll follow that unit until he dies or they're given other orders.

It helps me a lot of select group 2, right-click on somebody, and then select group 1 and just give me orders, knowing that group 2 is right behind.

[wumpus]

I started playing as Night Elves, but I think so many people have been burned by the huntress rush that when they see NE they do everything they can to crush you right out of the gate. Switching to random gives me a bit of a surprise element and I also have more fun because I'm not always building the same units in the same order.
I thought that too, until I got to about level 7 in battle.net (I am now level 10). The huntress thing only works in the early game. And the Elves are particularly weak in the early game; their buildings have very little armor. Anyway, here's the trick: level 3 melee units-- of which the Night Elves have NONE, I might add-- eat huntresses for breakfast. I'm talking about Knights, Taurens, and Abominations. Three of those can easily clobber 8 huntresses, assuming hero support.

That said, the only other criticism that is definitely valid is the whole account creation issue. You can create as many online accounts as you want, and they all start out as level 1-- even if you've played 200+ games. That's total bullshit.

Why bullshit? Because the super-keen auto-matching is done by "level". Imagine the poor guy who really is level 1, and has played only 1 or 2 games, getting matched against the above 200+ game guy! He'll get crushed. How much fun is that? It completely and utterly defeats the point of the auto-matching: to always play against players of similar skill levels. And boy howdy, do you ever. Barring getting paired with a randomly totally crappy teammate (it happens), you'll be fighting tooth and nail all the way.

I'm not against users creating new accounts, but these new accounts should be at a level (or a percentage thereof) of the XP associated with that CDKEY. If they want to get another CDKEY to create a truly "fresh" level 1 account, then do it. I know I've been tempted to regress back to level 1 with a random account so I can have a string of uninterrupted wins, and that should not be an option. It completely negates the skill matching, which is critical to new people enjoying the online game.

Also. The formula for calculating how much XP you gain (or lose) for winning games is here.

http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/rules.shtml

The rankings themselves can be viewed here

http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/

Here's my profile

http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/data/PlayerProfile.aspx?PlayerName=wumpus&Gateway=Azeroth

The rules are actually very complex, and the whole process seems to be well thought out. With that one glaring exception. Level (or at least a percentage thereof) should be associated with CDKEY, not account name.

[wumpus]

Personally i think they did a good job overall of recreating the rts idea rather than simply rehashing Starcraft, which any other company would have given their daughters away to have the chance to do.
Yes, this is the amazing thing about WC3. It completely avoids all the pitfalls I was so sure that Blizzard would fall right into. Yep. I was wrong. Examples:

- rushing doesn't always work
- climbing up the tech tree instead of massing low-level units is a must
- intelligent use of a few units can turn the tide of battle
- players can come back from near death and win games.
- defenses can turn the tide of battle for you (assuming you defend near them)
- specialized units (air, mortar) can also win games for you if used strategically

These are tremendous accomplishments.

The one criticism I do have is that team games are frequently (guesstimate, 2/3rds of the time) decided by the first large engagement. It's all about massed attacks. If the opposing team can't muster enough forces for whatever reason, and their army is destroyed while the attackers still have a significant force.. it's almost always game over. There is almost no value in 2-3 units, but 12 units together are almost unstoppable, barring very good (eg, costly) defenses. One of the most effective strategies is divide and conquer. For example, if you can play a 2vs2 and either coerce or convince a foolish player to engage you with a single army, while you have both player's armies.. or to engage 1 army versus another in front of a couple towers.. It's simply a numbers game. Don't engage unless you have at LEAST the same force, preferably more (accounting for levels of units and composition, etc). There's no point, most of the time, in counter attacking with a few units. You're better off waiting and massing 12 units.

Sadly, I've fallen for this myself too many times. You get caught up in the micromanagement of the skirmish without realizing that you have no chance and should just run away either to a teammate or to your towers.

And before we start deifiying Kohan, WC3 is far more strategic than Kohan ever could be. Imagine WC3 if the enemy's town converted to your side after you attacked the town hall to 10% damage. That wouldn't be a game; it'd be a fucking bloodbath.

[wumpus]

I forgot to add

- Having lots of resources doesn't guarantee you a win

One of the most bitterly painful losses was against a random team of two level 12 and 13 players. We managed to take one guy out early with a rush (barely), and we noticed the other guy didn't help much with his defense. He sent his hero, and a few units, but that was it. Odd. We totally controlled the map-- we both had two mines, and sent scouts to all the other mines to prevent his expansion. We thought we had the game in the bag. My ally built siege units, I built taurens and shamans.

And then that fucker manages to turn around a produce around 16 shamans with 4-5 tauren. We literally COULD. NOT. STOP. THEM. It was like an excruciating Godzilla movie, starring me. Maybe that would have been a good time to record Sparky's screams.

Yes, it's our fault for (groan) not attacking together, so he was able to engage our forces individually instead of as a massed attack (our timing was off). I will grant you that. I never plan to do that again if I can help it. But who knew that bastard could own both of us with a single mine?

[Chris Johnson]

Had the chance to play WC3 a couple of times with friends and am very happy to have passed on purchasing the game. We've already hashed through WC3's serious RTS limitations in other threads. It may stand up as a campaign game and most people that I know who enjoy WC3 praise that portion of it. But it just doesn't stand up to comparisons as far as a skirmish or multiplayer game goes. Won't even get into the interface. I've never been a big Blizzard RTS-fan, so your mileage may vary :) .

[Murph]

My best friend and I are just having a blast over the LAN. Can't wait to get a couple more guys into it.

If they'd just get a difficulty slider for skirmish maps, I'd be a happy camper. It's been said before, but...Man, that's tough!

[wumpus]

I revisited the skirmish mode with 100+ b.net games under my belt.

I'll definitely say this: if you can win a 2vs2 game in skirmish (single computer teammate, against two computer opponents) on a 4-6 player map, you are very likely to do well on battle.net.

Make sure you build two barracks; you'll need them. The computer has perfect teamwork and likes to .. well, I don't want to say rush, because it's not quite a rush. But he does tend to attack with a large combined force fairly early. The CPU likes to "creep", or attack the ambient enemies on the map, too.

It is a bit frustrating to have an AI teammate who won't communicate with you, and particularly one who will totally ignore a combined attack on your base. Any non-braindead human opponent will always town portal in to help you when your base is under attack. No such luck with the computer teammate! So watch your back.. you might want to follow his hero because he does a crappy job of sticking with you. Don't take this lightly. If his forces get decimated, you're both likely to lose. So swallow your pride and let the CPU take the lead. Follow, unless he does something retarded.

One useful trick is to set the deploy point for both barracks to your hero. Just select them, then right click your hero. This works for a lot of objects in the game btw.

Remember-- you can save your game. Build a core base / hero / small force, then save, so you can go back if necessary without the tedious 3 minute buildup phase.

Note: this is not quite representative of the current strategies I'm seeing on battle.net. usually you want to tech up to level 3 as quickly as possible. Still, if you can beat the computer in this 2vs2 scenario, you are definitely worthy.

[Anonymous]

Blizzard sells tons of copies because of the flash they cram in their games. That, combined with the passable-to-good gameplay, is why they've become "the standard."

It certainly isn't gameplay alone.

Do you really mean that games like Diablo 2, Warcraft 2 and Starcraft has sold millions of copies because of "flash", Jason? In that case things are looking VERY good for Doom 3. But I agree, it's not gameplay alone.

[Anonymous]

Oh thats just the standard rts gamers' retort when dealing with balance issues, although more politely put. Usually it goes "you don't know wtf your talking about n00b so stfu" However there really is some truth in that but its getting people to accept this thats the problem, thus its much easier to just say "stfu n00b" and be done with it. Sorry if it came off too strong though im not trying to argue or be uncivil. Its just that if you don't know about high level gaming in a genre its best not to argue over specifics like that.

"High level gaming"? Do I have to take DiffEq before signing up for a conversation about RTS games? My biggest problem with this game (that was me as Guest earlier), as far as balance goes, is that the same creeps are always in the same places. If you want to claim that creeps are just a resource, maybe they should be visible through fog of war like all of the other resources? (no, I'm not serious)

Randomizing the location of the creeps (or even which creeps show up in which location) would make a big difference, because it forces you to scout a little and see what's there, instead of memorizing the order you take them out. If there are other creatures on the map, you shouldn't have some kind of magical knowledge as to where every one of them is going to be. Is this so ridiculous?

Having the creeps move is suggestion, and I didn't even mean free range over the map. Even moving around in a small area that doesn't overlap your base would be better than just sitting there waiting to be attacked. But instead of trying to present an actual opinion, or even understand my suggestion, I'm glad you decided to call me a n00b.


TA was a great game in many ways; in some better than any before. But not being a 'competitive' rts means the game sucks because it lacks depth. Deep games become competitive, shallow games wallow in the bargin bin.

Get out of your own little world. There are plenty of us out here who want to play a good RTS and don't care about how competitive it is. Just because you think that's the most important aspect of an RTS doesn't mean it is so, and it doesn't invalidate the opinion of everyone else. TA was fun because it let you play the way you wanted to play, and there was a wide variety of units. Yes, you could be Flash rushed, so maybe it wasn't perfectly balanced, but for the casual TA player (not necessarily a casual gamer) it was a lot of fun. And I always thought that the large unit cap made for some extremely long games that went back and forth before a winner emerged. In a LAN party, it's great.

I've spent plenty of time watching replays of top 25 players in W3, and more often than not they win with a tower rush or by massing a tier one unit. There are exceptions, Alucard and Pussinboots have played some amazing games (one against each other that was hilarious) and I've learned a few things watching them. But if your idea of a "competitive" RTS is one where a guy like Legato can get into first (now third because he's stopped playing) with Orc tower rushes, no thanks.

I don't care about tournaments, and I don't care about what tournament RTS players think, because for the most part I don't respect their "skills" as a strategy player, only their skills at being good with a mouse and memorizing build orders. I know this makes me sound like a whiny brat who is just mad that he keeps losing, but I'm not. I have total confidence that I could have a great record if I wanted to do that stuff, but I just don't. Send a bunch of huntresses at me real early and you'll probably win, but I've played a few fun games on BNet and that's what I'm there for.

All of that said I have to repeat that I really do like W3, but there are a few things that I'd like to see. In the end, I'd like the only difference between the best and merely good players to be that the best players know the units better and know how to use and combine them. Randomizing creep locations would go a long way towards doing that because it forces some scouting and levels the playing field a bit.

If you'd like to respond, at least tell me why my ideas are stupid (I can handle it), don't just tell me that I "don't understand it" :roll:

[leedim]

Dammit, forgot to log in again. That was me...

[Jason Becker]

"I don't care about what tournament RTS players think, because for the most part I don't respect their "skills" as a strategy player, only their skills at being good with a mouse and memorizing build orders."


Anybody who thinks its just fast clicking it just plain clueless. Its good tactics and fast managing of units. If a player just isn't good at both then fine. Everybody is better at some things than others, but whining about it and making excuses all the time just gets old.

[Anonymous]

"I don't care about what tournament RTS players think, because for the most part I don't respect their "skills" as a strategy player, only their skills at being good with a mouse and memorizing build orders."


Anybody who thinks its just fast clicking it just plain clueless. Its good tactics and fast managing of units. If a player just isn't good at both then fine. Everybody is better at some things than others, but whining about it and making excuses all the time just gets old.


Yeah, maybe, I'm extra cynical today. Just wrote a check for twice what's in my account. I was probably overreacting becaues of Selfish's dismissal of my opinion solely because I'm not an obsessive strategy player. You don't have to play 60 hours a week to have a valid opinion on the games is what I'm saying.

There are a number of top players that amaze me, but there are just as many who rack up win after win with the exact same strat (and yes, I'm watching the replays, not just making that up). You could say that it makes them good because they can win in the game, but sometimes I think it says more about the game than the player.

[Rob O'Boston]

I too have no real middle game, and it is because I'm not teching up properly (as Wumpus points out is important). I've gotten to the point where I can create a rushing-repelling force in the first 5 minutes, and if I'm on a team I know that I have to link those forces up immediately and go on the offensive, or at least counter the other side's rush. Ok, great. Usually it seems like both sides survive this part of the game. Its at that point where I get a litte hazy on what to do. I guess I know the answer now though: tech up.

One thing I like about the units and the strategies I've read about people using, is that there are lots of interesting higher level unit combos: Shamans with Stasis Powers and Wyverns shooting over the stasis wall, roaming bands of Raiders, or Taurans backed by Kodo Beasts beating war drums. And thats just a couple from orc side. It may be that some day everyone will find the one perfect combo, and the game will loose some freshness, but at this point it seems like there are great combos that you can try.

As for me, well I have to learn how to stick to one higher level unit combo and become proficient at it. I figure if I can learn one then I'll be able to improvise later. Personally though, I think its a great game.

Oh, and as for the matching service issue of being able to create new user IDs which creates the problem of matching up too many noobs with leets, out of the 10,000+ people playing WC3 at any one time, is this really going to be an issue? I doubt it based on the sheer volume of players. There are probably 1000 newbies playing a night, and how many great players are starting new accounts every night just to torture the uninitiated? Gosh I hope its not that many.

[my number of players playing each night is a complete guess]

[wumpus]

One thing I like about the units and the strategies I've read about people using, is that there are lots of interesting higher level unit combos: Shamans with Stasis Powers and Wyverns shooting over the stasis wall, roaming bands of Raiders, or Taurans backed by Kodo Beasts beating war drums. And thats just a couple from orc side. It may be that some day everyone will find the one perfect combo, and the game will loose some freshness, but at this point it seems like there are great combos that you can try.
I agree. I am not seeing one uber-strategy other than the general theme of "mass a bigger army than the other guy", and that's endemic to the genre. The balance feels fine to me, so far. You might be able to argue that necromancers and shamans are too powerful, though.

Lately air has become interesting. In the 3vs3 games, if one player goes all-air, it can be devastating. Probably tougher to do in 2vs2.

[leedim]

I too have no real middle game, and it is because I'm not teching up properly (as Wumpus points out is important). I've gotten to the point where I can create a rushing-repelling force in the first 5 minutes, and if I'm on a team I know that I have to link those forces up immediately and go on the offensive, or at least counter the other side's rush. Ok, great. Usually it seems like both sides survive this part of the game. Its at that point where I get a litte hazy on what to do. I guess I know the answer now though: tech up.

One thing I like about the units and the strategies I've read about people using, is that there are lots of interesting higher level unit combos: Shamans with Stasis Powers and Wyverns shooting over the stasis wall, roaming bands of Raiders, or Taurans backed by Kodo Beasts beating war drums. And thats just a couple from orc side. It may be that some day everyone will find the one perfect combo, and the game will loose some freshness, but at this point it seems like there are great combos that you can try.

As for me, well I have to learn how to stick to one higher level unit combo and become proficient at it. I figure if I can learn one then I'll be able to improvise later. Personally though, I think its a great game.

Oh, and as for the matching service issue of being able to create new user IDs which creates the problem of matching up too many noobs with leets, out of the 10,000+ people playing WC3 at any one time, is this really going to be an issue? I doubt it based on the sheer volume of players. There are probably 1000 newbies playing a night, and how many great players are starting new accounts every night just to torture the uninitiated? Gosh I hope its not that many.

[my number of players playing each night is a complete guess]


I'm picking up a lot of mid-game ideas watching replays. You have to watch PussinBoots (http://www.iratenet.com/gaming/index.shtml), ranked 17th. He plays as human, but sometimes it's amazing how long he can last with just a few units. The games vs Cena[r]ius and star_of_west show off some cool things. His opponents aren't always great, but you can pick up a lot watching him. He's got another one vs Alucard that is phenomenal. He goes 15 minutes into the game before building a barracks. Another great replay site is here (http://www.progamer.ru/war3/replays.html).

The units, their abilities, and the combinations of them really make this game. Damn, have to stop typing now (tendonitis). Check out some replays, though, and have fun.

[Jason Becker]

"There are a number of top players that amaze me, but there are just as many who rack up win after win with the exact same strat (and yes, I'm watching the replays, not just making that up). "

Of course. There are players that just hook on to the latest "uber" strategy to win. They do it while it lasts, but its a temporary fix. If their tactic doesn't work then they don't know what to do and just sort of flounder around. Their like playing the computer. If their pre-designed tactics work great but if you adapt and change then they can't and its usually a loss for them(or they act like pussys and disconnect).

My point was about people pigeon holing the game into just being about certain types rushes or a clickfest. Thats being plain shortsighted.

[Mark Asher]

Penny Arcade on WC3. A classic.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-26

[wumpus]

Heh. That is a good one, Mark.

I still say the matching needs to be better. There are way too many player sandbagging by creating new level 1 accounts.

I do sympathize, because once you get to a certain level, every game is close and therefore stressful. I guess you have to stop caring about your won/loss record, but since they're tracking it, it's always in the back of your mind. And the whole "I may lose XP if I lose this match!" concern..

[leedim]

That PA strip is the best. I had it open at my desk at work all week.

Last night my roommate ended up in a 3v3 where one team was all level nine and the other team (his) was all level 4. Of course, the level 4's won the game, but still...

[Rob O'Boston]

Last night my roommate ended up in a 3v3 where one team was all level nine and the other team (his) was all level 4. Of course, the level 4's won the game, but still...

You're kidding right? If not, then that replay sounds pretty educational, send it my way.

[Rob O'Boston]

I just had a good moment in WC3. In 3v3, my ally went belly up after the first rush. I'm not sure if he died because he wasn't prepared or because our other ally didn't help me bail him out. But, so he's dead, and I've done well as the orcs to set up an efficient 2nd tier base. I tech up to third and build 3 shamans and 3 taurons, and the shamans have bloodlust. As I think Wumpus mentioned, this is a winning combo. I have a tower and a manned orc bunker, and here come 3 armies into my base. I have 8 grunts waiting behind my line of defense, but my hero with the taurs and shamans are waiting outside around the corner. As the armies bunch up against my grunts and tower, I swoop in and cream an undead army. Then I'm duking it out against a second army, and my remaining ally shows up to take out the third. It was great. An actual 2 vs 3 victory. But what was even better was that it happened again! I rebuilt and rearmed and we threw a second attack back.

Yes, we lost, but thats what I do so far in WC3. Still, I took it as a big moral victory to hold on for 51 minutes after one ally died 10 minutes in. And, we were facing levels 4, 4, and 8, against our 4, 4, and 2 (I"m the 2). I like games where you can have a memorable battle or two.

[Lurker]

Last night my roommate ended up in a 3v3 where one team was all level nine and the other team (his) was all level 4. Of course, the level 4's won the game, but still...

The matchmaking's much smarter than that - they weren't really lvl 4 players. The number next to each player's name when the game is loading is really not indicative of the player's real "level".

Eg. you can play a solo game lvl 2 vs. lvl 7, but it turns out the lvl 2 guy is a lvl 10 in random 2v2 games. So he's obviously a good player - unproven in solo matches, but far from a lvl 2 skill.

[Sean Tudor]

Just wondering if people here are playing this on a regular basis?

I have yet to buy this title. I might wait till it comes out as a Game Of The Year edition with included expansion pack.

I have no doubt that I will eventually play it but the online component just doesn't appeal to me. I have never been a strong online RTS gamer as I prefer to take my time and build up my base and technologies. This is probably the same reason I did not enjoy StarCraft online and I played that game 100% in single play.

Unfortunately that is not the way most people play online. And since the skirmish mode is very hard there really isn't any value in buying WC3 at its current full price.

[Anonymous]

The matchmaking's much smarter than that - they weren't really lvl 4 players. The number next to each player's name when the game is loading is really not indicative of the player's real "level".

Eg. you can play a solo game lvl 2 vs. lvl 7, but it turns out the lvl 2 guy is a lvl 10 in random 2v2 games. So he's obviously a good player - unproven in solo matches, but far from a lvl 2 skill.

Weird, I thought the level it showed was always the highest level you had attained in the various modes of play. Anyway, my roommate was an actual lvl 4 player, both in 1v1 and random teams, but I guess it's possible that the other 4's weren't.

[Bub, Andrew]

And since the skirmish mode is very hard there really isn't any value in buying WC3 at its current full price.

Thankfully not true.
I'm loving the single player campaigns. For some reason it's rising above the typical ho-hum vibe I usually get from RTS games. Effective storytelling and really interesting/diverse mission goals. In fact, I haven't come across a clunker/throwaway mission yet and I'm mid-way through the end game (Night Elves missions).

Really good stuff!
And they'll patch the skirmish mode eventually (I hope). Anyway, I say it's worth picking up Sean.

[wumpus]

The matchmaking's much smarter than that - they weren't really lvl 4 players. The number next to each player's name when the game is loading is really not indicative of the player's real "level".

Eg. you can play a solo game lvl 2 vs. lvl 7, but it turns out the lvl 2 guy is a lvl 10 in random 2v2 games. So he's obviously a good player - unproven in solo matches, but far from a lvl 2 skill.
I am almost positive this is not true. I can't find any indication of this on the ladder FAQ.

You are tracked in a three (+) different categories:
random team
one vs. one
arranged team (as many as you have)

Example on the arranged team thing. If Tom and I were to play as one side of a 2vs2, we would be level 1. If Mark and I have played a dozen games together as one side of a 2vs2, we might be level 5.

Random team is tough because.. well, it's random. Sometimes you get good allies, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you get opponents that work together flawlessly, sometimes you don't. It can be a little frustrating. I've bounced between "nearly losing level 10" and "nearly gaining level 11" for the last week. I don't mind losing, but I dislike losing because my teammates were doing something blatantly stupid like attacking on their own without support.

Anyway. All of the three level counters (1vs1, random team, arranged team) are completely independent of the other. That's sort of another problem, beyond the "create a new account" sandbagging that I suspect goes on quite a bit. People get emotionally invested in winning, particularly when it's tracked at this level. Losing XP.. ouch. You also lose XP every week you don't play. That's considered a loss to a player one level below you.

Here's a specific example to refute your theory. I've only played a single one-on-one game. I was around level 8 or 9 at the time in random team. I was considered "level 1" in 1-on-1, and naturally I played another level 1 guy. I crushed him, and I felt really guilty about it.

Anyway, here's the relevant excerpt from the official FAQ

http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/ladderfaq.shtml


The number to the left of a player's name indicates that player's highest level. Each player has two levels, one from One vs. One play and another from Random Team play.

Every player of Warcraft III starts as a level 1 player. As players win games of Warcraft III they gain XP, and if the player has obtained enough XP they gain a new level. Each successive level requires more XP to obtain. Players can see how much XP they have earned, and the amount of experience required to gain a new level by examining their player profile.

When Battle.net matches players or teams together into games, it attempts to match participants of similar level together. The levels of the participants also determine the amount of XP gained from a win or lost from a loss. Higher level players gain less XP from winning games against lower level players, while the lower level players lose less XP if they lose a game.

For more specific information about levels, experience, and the ladder system the official Ladder Rules are located here

http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/rules.shtml


It's a remarkably well thought out system, with the sole exception of the sandbagging. That is a fucking doozy, because the whole system was orchestrated to present opponents of similar skill levels to each other. When you see a lot of complaints (as we are) about "I get killed online every single game", that system, however well intentioned, has failed the users. And that's truly a shame.

I hope Blizzard does something about it.

[wumpus]

Unfortunately that is not the way most people play online. And since the skirmish mode is very hard there really isn't any value in buying WC3 at its current full price.
Yeah, but it's only $37 at http://www.gogamer.com as well as a bunch of other places.. that's not exactly full price.

I agree they need to have a difficulty slider on the skirmish. Not everyone wants to train for online play. That is a valid knock on the game.

[Lurker]

Here's a specific example to refute your theory. I've only played a single one-on-one game.

My theory is based on having played a good mix of solo and random 2v2 games. Since the ladder FAQ doesn't prove or disprove the issue, I think you need to play a good amount more solo games and do a /stats on your opponents to recognize the obvious trend.

Players have one overall XP stat built from ALL game played, and that's what guides the matchmaking - not the level attributed to the specific type of game being played.

Or instead of arguing further, we can wait till someone can actually be bothered to contact Blizzard for verification. Maybe the official strategy guide has answers?

[wumpus]

Players have one overall XP stat built from ALL game played, and that's what guides the matchmaking - not the level attributed to the specific type of game being played.
There is just no way the guy I played in that single 1vs1 game was anywhere close to my combined XP. I felt sorry for the guy. I rolled into his base with 5 tauren, two heroes, 4 shamans and bloodlust. He quit about 1 minute into my attack.

I dunno, 1vs1 doesn't really interest me. Team games are much more exciting-- the number of variables is larger and therefore the gambling factor is higher.