• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Warcraft III similar to Star Craft?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Vortex22
WC3 requires fast thinking, fast reflexes and the ability to alter your strategy a lot mid game.
Starcraft is mass units, sit in base, attack with one big battle.

Both are fun but WC3 is more in depth. Everyone says SC is better because they can't handle the fast pace of WC. 😎
Click to expand...

please read my post above. WC3 is not more in depth and if anything plays much slower than starcraft. This is due to units having a much larger amount of hitpoints thus lengthening the time of each battle. There is hardly as many economic decisions in wc3. You can conceivably win with 1 expansion, where as this is pretty much impossible task on starcraft should 2 players be of equal caliber.

the only time where you have massing units, sitting in base, and attacking with one big battle in Starcraft is if both participants are newbs and are playing on mucho mineral/gas maps. I guarrantee you that at a median to advanced level of play, every single zergling, marine, zealot matters in starcraft and that things you do 30 seconds in to the game will make or break your endgame.
 
If you mean slower as in less units will die in a certain amount of time, then you are correct. There are many more small skirmishes and you are always on the move in WC3.. whether it be creeping, scouting or whatever whereas in SC you either sit in your base and wait for your opponent to make a move or you attack them with everything you have.

I find WC3 to be more fun and involved because resource mining has been purposely made easy to let the players focus more on the details of the battle. You no doubt have to spend more time managing resources in SC, but I dont see that as a fun activity, and I wasn't talking about that when I said WC was more in depth. I know that it is important to individually command units to move/attack various targets in SC, but in WC almost every unit has some special abilities or spells other than "attack" so you have to really work to micro your army. Not to mention heros and their various spells and items that they carry.

SC is more base oriented and WC is more army oriented, and I like spending more time managing my army than I do my resources/base.
 
Originally posted by: Vortex22
If you mean slower as in less units will die in a certain amount of time, then you are correct. There are many more small skirmishes and you are always on the move in WC3.. whether it be creeping, scouting or whatever whereas in SC you either sit in your base and wait for your opponent to make a move or you attack them with everything you have.

I find WC3 to be more fun and involved because resource mining has been purposely made easy to let the players focus more on the details of the battle. You no doubt have to spend more time managing resources in SC, but I dont see that as a fun activity, and I wasn't talking about that when I said WC was more in depth. I know that it is important to individually command units to move/attack various targets in SC, but in WC almost every unit has some special abilities or spells other than "attack" so you have to really work to micro your army. Not to mention heros and their various spells and items that they carry.

SC is more base oriented and WC is more army oriented, and I like spending more time managing my army than I do my resources/base.
Click to expand...

Hrm if by base oriented you mean protecting your own base and attacking your enemy's base then I totally agree. If by army oriented you mean creeping, buying items, and leveling then I agree once again.

I wouldn't really say you manage resources in SC so much as attacking/protecting them. Which often times will involve taking down the entire expansion. Compare that with WC hero harrassment... do you really consider it more fun to run your wood peons away from wolves or watching your accolytes die to entangle while not mining, and seeing the enemy's XP go up?

Seriously, WC3 is less micro intensive. I don't know why people keep saying otherwise. The fact that the words "auto-cast" even exist in the game should be a hint. Or that if you select a group of spellcasters and cast a spell, only 1 unit will use up mana (instead of the entire group wasting it which is actually the logical assumption). In SC you actually had to keep track of which unit in the group still had mana, and to make sure you don't make them all blow their mana at once.

Also, unit life really is a factor to "intensive" micro, imho. The faster your units die, the more you have to do at once, and thus it is more intense since every split second you waste is costing you lots. If your units live for much longer, the more time you have to do things, and thus it is less intense.

And you know how you might micro out of blizzard vs a mage in WC3 by moving your units away? Now imagine moving your hydras out of 3 almost simultaneous psi storms and tell me how that's easier micro. With the mage you at least know there is a slight cooldown.

dfi
 
Originally posted by: screw3d
Whoa.. starcraft is still this popular.. considering it's already about 5 yrs old
Click to expand...

Starcraft and Total Annihilation are my favorite strategy games.


Sysadmin
 
it still amazes me that pro starcraft players in korea have hot groupies following them and matches air on 2 channels on tv. That shows the popularity of the game. No other game that I know of has groupies.
 
Very interesting to see how ppl that dont even know how to play SC are saying "its slow", " its just mass game". Wait, nevermind, that is to be expected from unexperienced players.

SC is far superior to WC3 because of depth of strategy.

Zergling rush? heh, if you are as good as the person rushing you, you will always defeat rush, because they have to travel to your base and that takes more time for u to build. and it goes to ALL 3 races.

amoeba, do you watch those korean players? have any idea what they are doing in beginning of the game? most players press so many keys in begging of the game. I never figured out what it is for. I know in middle of the game many (if not most) pro players assign keys to each group and locations but Im not sure what they are doing in the beginning.

 
I would say its different.

Wc3 has alot more micro-management involved.
Hero being important with upkeep of 100

Starcraft has a different style of play with a chance of recovery after the first major battle.
For Warcraft,
if you lose all your units on the first major battle.
the game is as good as gone.
90% u'll lose the game.

 
Originally posted by: MustangSVT
Very interesting to see how ppl that dont even know how to play SC are saying "its slow", " its just mass game". Wait, nevermind, that is to be expected from unexperienced players.

SC is far superior to WC3 because of depth of strategy.

Zergling rush? heh, if you are as good as the person rushing you, you will always defeat rush, because they have to travel to your base and that takes more time for u to build. and it goes to ALL 3 races.

amoeba, do you watch those korean players? have any idea what they are doing in beginning of the game? most players press so many keys in begging of the game. I never figured out what it is for. I know in middle of the game many (if not most) pro players assign keys to each group and locations but Im not sure what they are doing in the beginning.
Click to expand...


I see that you have watched pro replay/vod before. The reason that they click seemingly randomly so fast in the beginning is to essentially warm up their fingers/hands. pro players are often known for their fast APM or ( actions per minute). There are actually tools which record your APM during a game. They can be downloaded from bwchart.com or something like that. pro gamers usually have APM of 200+. In order to achieve accuracy with such a fast level of play and also to get their fingers/eyes used to the fast clicking they will about to experience, they click workers/nexus, cc, hatchery waypoints multiple times at the beginning to get them in the zone, so to speak. Its a warm up excercise.




 
The idea of heroes is actually pretty good, it's just that implementation isn't perfect.

StarCraft with real heroes (i.e. proximity bonuses for other units + misc stuff) would r0x0r.
 
Originally posted by: amoeba
Originally posted by: MustangSVT
Very interesting to see how ppl that dont even know how to play SC are saying "its slow", " its just mass game". Wait, nevermind, that is to be expected from unexperienced players.

SC is far superior to WC3 because of depth of strategy.

Zergling rush? heh, if you are as good as the person rushing you, you will always defeat rush, because they have to travel to your base and that takes more time for u to build. and it goes to ALL 3 races.

amoeba, do you watch those korean players? have any idea what they are doing in beginning of the game? most players press so many keys in begging of the game. I never figured out what it is for. I know in middle of the game many (if not most) pro players assign keys to each group and locations but Im not sure what they are doing in the beginning.
Click to expand...


I see that you have watched pro replay/vod before. The reason that they click seemingly randomly so fast in the beginning is to essentially warm up their fingers/hands. pro players are often known for their fast APM or ( actions per minute). There are actually tools which record your APM during a game. They can be downloaded from bwchart.com or something like that. pro gamers usually have APM of 200+. In order to achieve accuracy with such a fast level of play and also to get their fingers/eyes used to the fast clicking they will about to experience, they click workers/nexus, cc, hatchery waypoints multiple times at the beginning to get them in the zone, so to speak. Its a warm up excercise.
Click to expand...

a kid i know was telling me about pro players and how they can get up to 300 APM, that's just ludicrous.

the whole thing has inspired me, i'll probably reinstall SC and try to get that fast. it's amazing what they can do.
 
Yes it is pretty amazing. Although I have seen pros with 100APM beat ones with 300APM. I am more impressed with the indepth strategic thinking of the pros. Go to
sclegacy or teamliquid

for some really good replays and also watch the pimpest plays on sclegacy. quite amazing.
 
Originally posted by: Howard
The idea of heroes is actually pretty good, it's just that implementation isn't perfect.

StarCraft with real heroes (i.e. proximity bonuses for other units + misc stuff) would r0x0r.
Click to expand...

I think heroes in SC might be cool too. But hero more in the sense of the campaign heroes (but not as powerful). Units could get hero status from number of kills they have, giving them bonus attack etc.

dfi
 
Bah, you all are all fake.

I'm a blizzard fan, particularly of their RTS's

I like starcraft, I feel it is more basic than Warcraft 3, but it is still interesting because it's a whole nother Genre of units...

Starcraft is to star wars
as
Warcraft 3 is to Lord of the Rings

Personally I prefer WC3... for the mere fact that Battles aren't won or lost with a single battle, and the amount of units
incorportated in a battle don't nessecarily determine a win or loss. The tide of a battle can be easily changed through
good management of your hero. You don't have a hero in Starcraft. You can always climb out of a tight situation in WC3
as long as you have your hero... not true in Starcraft.
 
The problem I find with war3 is that most of the skill is in micromanagement. If I can't micro, I lose. Whereas, in starcraft you are more able to capitalize on an opponent's lack of detection or lack of tech or lack of expansion.
 
I think war3 would be better if the hero wasn't absolutely neccesary. It would be much better if a win without building a single hero was possible. This would change the dynamics of the game and add an additional level of strategy, forcing players to make the decision between a hero and more tier 1 units or fast expansion/tech.
I'm not sure about the balancing issue, but I think war3 would be a much better game if the first hero wasn't free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top