Is Warcraft III similar to Star Craft?

[ucdbiendog]

wd3 is harder but very similar to starcraft. the hero thing is wayyy better. the unit cap set to 90 is cool because it makes you manage your forces a lot more (its 100 now from the expansion right?)

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Tsaico
aside from game detail and stuff like that, I would say that I edge the win to WCIII, only because I like the fact a well led army with a hero will beat out the same opposing team with a weaker leader. There is also more emphasis on actual strategy, where as SC no matter what race you are, mass units of any sort piled together will win out. The only time I like to play SC is if there is limited resource. Those unlimited resource maps just take strategy out of the game. But I still have both games, and play both regularly.

nah, zergling rushes *can* get massaccred.

trust me. i've had it happen.

so true. the massed unit arguement is bullhocky. it pretends the other guy can't mass unit too. what would happen, perfectly canceling each other out? no! its strategy.

mass zerglings against a chokepoint with a few canons and reavers and some zealot fodder or carriers... its not unstoppable at all.

 

[kami333]

That's cause zerling rushes only work early in the game or once you have used other units to sufficiently take down the enemies defenses. I usually use a few guardians to take down their defenses, then send in the zerlings. Or just hydralisk rush them, very costly but usually works against newbies.

I just love it when I manage to sneak a few dark templar into a enemies base and they can't do anything because they have no detector units.

God I haven't played in a while. I know where the case is but I can't find the cd so I can't install it. Maybe I'll go buy another copy.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea rush tactics ussually only work against newbies. guardiens and whatever only work if you have air superiority🙂 and well hydralisks, by the time u get enough to cause damage to a non noob, a non noob would have enough units to kill them.

and yea, sneaking darktemps is fun against n00bs🙂 with zerk u gotta drop something like a reaver though.

 

[Aftermath]

I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

i think the graphics sux on WC3. it feels like it's 3d just for the sake of being 3d.

as to micromanage etc.

you can still do all that, just get past the initial rush and prepare for it. not that difficult. then if you can indeed micromanage well, then you should be able to win.

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
StarCraft is more similar to WC II than it is to WC III

Yeah, what he said. WC3 they changed the whole feel of the game and made it more 3D and things with Captain guys and such. I never got into it but still love StarCraft.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

i think the graphics sux on WC3. it feels like it's 3d just for the sake of being 3d.

as to micromanage etc.

you can still do all that, just get past the initial rush and prepare for it. not that difficult. then if you can indeed micromanage well, then you should be able to win.

Jeez, you are a noob who can't micromanage. Its the ones who can't micro that lose against the zergy rush.

What I can't stand is how the word "rush" has changed. It used to mean like a 4-5 drone then zergy rush or 1-3 units with other races then attack. Now, anything under like 5 minutes is called a rush.

 

[Electric Amish]

Yes.

IMO it a 3-year re-write of Starcraft. :|

 

[KhoiFather]

WC and SC has nothing on Total Annihilation Core Contingency. I recommend you try out that game =D

 

[amoeba]

all you fans of starcraft, post your bnet names, eager to see if the ATOT starcraft greats really can micro/macro as well as they say they can.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm a big fan of WC3 .. I love the Hero aspect, extremely enjoyable to me because it adds a bit of an RPG feel.. a BIT. But I really like it, although SC is fantastic as a classic RTS. I still play both.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

i think the graphics sux on WC3. it feels like it's 3d just for the sake of being 3d.

as to micromanage etc.

you can still do all that, just get past the initial rush and prepare for it. not that difficult. then if you can indeed micromanage well, then you should be able to win.

Jeez, you are a noob who can't micromanage. Its the ones who can't micro that lose against the zergy rush.

What I can't stand is how the word "rush" has changed. It used to mean like a 4-5 drone then zergy rush or 1-3 units with other races then attack. Now, anything under like 5 minutes is called a rush.

i always thought a rush meant i dropped 80 zerglings in your base.

 

[phreakah]

i bought wc3 FT but never installed it... 🙁

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

i think the graphics sux on WC3. it feels like it's 3d just for the sake of being 3d.

as to micromanage etc.

you can still do all that, just get past the initial rush and prepare for it. not that difficult. then if you can indeed micromanage well, then you should be able to win.

Jeez, you are a noob who can't micromanage. Its the ones who can't micro that lose against the zergy rush.

What I can't stand is how the word "rush" has changed. It used to mean like a 4-5 drone then zergy rush or 1-3 units with other races then attack. Now, anything under like 5 minutes is called a rush.

i always thought a rush meant i dropped 80 zerglings in your base.

I always thought of rush as something quick and well, rushed.

 

[amoeba]

I define a rush as any attack that happens before 15 supply. anything later is a mere attack.

I prefer starcraft to warcraft 3 due to the faster pace of game and deeper indepth economic management. There are inherent tradeoffs one must consider as to whether to increase economy or build a large army.
while in warcraft3, this is nonexistent due to the standard 4 to 5 peons on gold, adequate wood income. most of the time in warcraft is spent in micromanagement. Macromanagement takes a big backseat.

many people argue that starcraft lacks strategy because its all about massing. Massing takes skill. It is not easy to mass in a short amount of time, especially when under pressure from enemy attacks. massing also takes resources, thus forcing you to acquire expansions and protect those expansions.

There is no doubt in my mind that starcraft is the most strategic RTS game on the market today. Its still popular 6 years after its conception and it is the most lucrative game for proffesional players, especially in south korea where a skilled player makes 6 figures US annually and has the status of a rockstar or star athelete.

For some starcraft artistry go to sclegacy and look at the pimpest plays 2002/pimpest plays 2003.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: Walleye

i always thought a rush meant i dropped 80 zerglings in your base.

No man, that's a push. A rush is when you attack within minutes of starting the game.

StarCraft is still my most favourite game ever. I bought WC3 and the exp but I have yet to really get into it. What a waste of money...

Starcraft > WC3

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: KhoiFather
WC and SC has nothing on Total Annihilation Core Contingency. I recommend you try out that game =D

2nd best RTS i've ever played, the first one being Rise of Nations.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Aftermath
I stopped playing StarCraft after I beat BW, and tried my hand at some random online matches.

Yup, about 20 straight losses to 3 - 6 zergling rushes. Of course, any attempt at a defense resulted in:
"OMG just die newb, stop wasting my time."
"Any newb can defend against a zling rush, idiot newb"
"Go back to newb school newbing idiot newb."

I was such a retard for learning how to micromanage and build up a properly defended base instead of learning how to fend off three worker bees or zerglings.

Even if SC/BW had a better story, my nod will always go to WC3 for superior graphics, and lots of gameplay fixes. (Such as rush defenses and auto spell casting.)

Freaking newb!!

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: Walleye

i always thought a rush meant i dropped 80 zerglings in your base.

No man, that's a push. A rush is when you attack within minutes of starting the game.

StarCraft is still my most favourite game ever. I bought WC3 and the exp but I have yet to really get into it. What a waste of money...

Starcraft > WC3

push is a slow attack using tanks or lurkers usually using a leapfrog movement in which the front ranks burrow/siege, back ranks unburrow/unsiege and move up in front of the front rank and repeats itself.

 

[Dragnov]

Ah the good ol' SC/WC3 debate.

They're quite different games and different people will like certain aspects of each game since it appeals to them. Me, I like WC3 better but I play SC instead. Why? WC3 is so incredibly brutal and intensive. Just drains the life/energy out of me.

 

[amoeba]

anybody go to that link I posted up top yet?

here is one of my favorites : trail of tears

 

[akodi]

I love starcraft, but warcraft III is good in it's own right. WIII is more about micromanagement, you can't just let your battle cruisers destroy everything without watching like in SC, you have to take your hero around who you have to protect.

 

[dfi]

I own wc3 vanilla but I could never get into it. Last time I played wc3 was around the beta/initial FT release. As far as I can tell, the game revolves around leveling your hero faster and getting good items/drops. Microing in that game involves mostly running your hero because most players are targetting it right off the bat. The races/armies built seem pretty much the same. Get your meat shield and spellcasters, use multi-hit hero spells on their spellcasters, target their heroes, and run your own. And then there are things like early hero harassment which I'm not sure is entirely fair. Maybe I'll play it again later, but I bet the game is pretty much the same.

dfi

 

[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 intensity of WC. 😎