Warcraft 3 is under appreciated compared to SC2, and DOTA is incredibly stupid

[micrometers]

and I should add that tower rushes are far more pervasive and annoyingly effective in SC2 than in War3. Although, it is easier to recover from an early setback in SC2 than War3, due to the fact that only one faction has "tiers" (zerg).

 

[Anteaus]

Warcraft 2 is better than all of those craps.

Warcraft introduced QQ, therefore is full of win. In any case, I'm still more of a Warcraft fan than Starcraft. I miss the glory of WC2 and C&C.

 

[Dumac]

It is laughable that you think there are more things to do in a SC2 battle than in a Warcraft three one... You have already agreed that they are longer. That in itself lends to more commands and more fighting. You know how control groups work... More units does not at all mean more things to control... I have had Warcraft three games where I am fighting the other person almost 90% of the game... I cant think of any Starcraft2 games where this is the case barring a cannon rush...

I dont know man... I like both games but I loved W3... I loved how a battle in W3 would evolve and you would have to use tactics to surround, flank and remove troops... In Starcraft these things happen, but it's not every battle and when it does happen generally it's because one person is overmatched (or because you have to do some crazy stuff to beat MMM ball). In W3 these things happened every single battle.

To me Warcraft three was more about fighting and unit control. SC2 is about map control and resource management. Different strokes for different folks...

You are disgustingly wrong, and obviously know nothing about Starcraft. Putting all your units on one command and then a-moving doesn't count as good playing. You obviously have no clue about the intense, fast-paced micro that competitive Starcraft requires.

In SC2 there are multitudes of units with abilities that you have to control, trigger, and put into formations. I bet you put your stalkers into a single control group and blink them all at once.

 

[Majes]

Well... I've placed in some local tournaments in Starcraft2 and used to make finals each time I played a B-net tourney on W3... I know how to group and micro my units lol... Warcraft three battles require more micro. I thought everyone knew this? Are there really people out there who believe otherwise?

 

[Dumac]

Well... I've placed in some local tournaments in Starcraft2 and used to make finals each time I played a B-net tourney on W3... I know how to group and micro my units lol... Warcraft three battles require more micro. I thought everyone knew this? Are there really people out there who believe otherwise?

It only requires more micro because there is no macro part to it. But saying there is more to do is a total life. If you were a perfect, ideal player, you would be microing your SC2 battles more than WC3 battles, but this just isn't humanly possible with the large number of tasks you have to accomplish in SC2.

You don't micro less in SC2 because there is less to do. No, you micro less because there are more and other things more relevant to do.

 

[DVad3r]

I think sc2 made a big mistake by not incorporating heroes into the game which made wc3 amazing. I thought the sc2 campaign was awesome but I lost interest in the multiplayer.

 

[Majes]

It only requires more micro because there is no macro part to it. But saying there is more to do is a total life. If you were a perfect, ideal player, you would be microing your SC2 battles more than WC3 battles, but this just isn't humanly possible with the large number of tasks you have to accomplish in SC2.

You don't micro less in SC2 because there is less to do. No, you micro less because there are more and other things more relevant to do.

Yes, this sounds right if you are theorycrafting... However, the game doesnt really work that way... It's about what Blizzard decided to stress. There is more value in Starcraft gained from focussing on macro and base mechanics than on individual units. In Warcraft 3 the value is placed more on the units rather than on the base meaning the %time spent on a battle mechanics is higher.

See I think you're falling into the trap of thinking more units == more complexity. Thats not the case... Starcraft units are made to be grouped together in large clumps. Thats almost all Terran is! You arent getting more value out of an army by microing each marine seperately. 3-4 groups? Sure, maybe, but in W3 you gained value from controlling every unit even though the groups were there for you to use.

Blah... I dont know man. If you think that Starcraft2 is a better game in all facets then there isnt really much I can say to change your mind. All I know is that I found the battles in W3 more interesting and challenging. I can theorycraft all day about it but it really comes down to personal preference.

Ill keep having fun playing both 🙂

 

[Matripe4]

I think sc2 made a big mistake by not incorporating heroes into the game which made wc3 amazing. I thought the sc2 campaign was awesome but I lost interest in the multiplayer.

well they had to stay with the original story and version of the game with no heroes and all that stuff; you are not playing a fantasy game like War 3 is after all

 

[Fenixgoon]

I think sc2 made a big mistake by not incorporating heroes into the game which made wc3 amazing. I thought the sc2 campaign was awesome but I lost interest in the multiplayer.

disagree. the heroes/items add another layer of balance that's difficult to achieve. it also puts too much emphasis on a single unit being able to turn the tides of battle, which should not be the case.

 

[SunnyD]

Starcraft 2 is the only e-sport with any commercial value.

By commercial value I take it you mean it's more entertaining to watch commercials rather than the actual content? I agree.

 

[VashHT]

disagree. the heroes/items add another layer of balance that's difficult to achieve. it also puts too much emphasis on a single unit being able to turn the tides of battle, which should not be the case.

Heroes weren't all powerful in WC3, they could turn the tide of a battle if your armies were closely matched but they couldn't beat armies by themselves. Plus they required a lot of micro to be effective, you couldn't just send them in and let them auto-attack.

 

[Red Storm]

Heroes weren't all powerful in WC3, they could turn the tide of a battle if your armies were closely matched but they couldn't beat armies by themselves. Plus they required a lot of micro to be effective, you couldn't just send them in and let them auto-attack.

Nonetheless, myself and many others are quite glad they aren't a part of SC2's multiplayer.

 

[VashHT]

Nonetheless, myself and many others are quite glad they aren't a part of SC2's multiplayer.

Yeah I'm glad blizzard managed to have 2 RTS's that are really similar and different at the same time. I like both games anyway, I'd like to see a WC4 but I'm not sur ethat will ever happen.

 

[micrometers]

Heroes weren't all powerful in WC3, they could turn the tide of a battle if your armies were closely matched but they couldn't beat armies by themselves. Plus they required a lot of micro to be effective, you couldn't just send them in and let them auto-attack.

and as I've said before, there's nothing wrong with them becoming super powerful in the end. Since as they become super powerful, the game draws to a close.

I've played many RTS games that stalemated over like 2 hours. And towards the end all you're doing is pumping out new units and it becomes a race of who can click the most.

 

[micrometers]

Furthermore on heroes:

Most games end with heroes around level 3-4-5. While a level 10 hero can wreck most armies, that is a GOOD thing, because it also ends the game in a timely manner. By the time you get a level 10 hero, you have stalemated like 8 battles with the other guy. Without level 10 heroes, you would have endless stalemates in the game

 

[zinfamous]

wtf is an "e-sport?"

 

[Anteaus]

wtf is an "e-sport?"

Gaming in South Korea is taken very seriously. There are huge tournaments with amateur as well as professional Starcraft/Starcraft II players. I believe that some americans get sponsors and compete over there also.

Can you imagine making a living playing an RTS?

 

[makken]

Why are hero units dumb? I think they're a pretty good idea. the benefits are as follows:

1. makes every unit death count
2. are "capital ships" so to speak. High value unit in an army
3. You can use items making for more unpredictable battles
4. as they level up, they eventually become powerful enough to make for game-ending abilities.

Last point is pretty important IMO. In my time I played a lot of Age of Empires and the games could often last 3 hours long as you just made masses of units and sent them in the direction of the enemy. War3 games on average last 20 minutes which is the perfect length.

most SC2 matches I've seen last around 20 mins. I've never seen an SC2 game last 3 hours, unless you count custom maps. The longest I've heard of was 1hr 40ish mins I think.

And just because long macro style matches are viable in SC2 doesn't mean that that's the only way to play the game. Granted some matches/maps/spawn locations push the game towards macro-heavy, but its the decision of the players to play that way.

For example, here is a 14min TvT (widely regarded as the most macro-heavy matchup) that was pretty much non-stop action from 5 mins to the end. Neither side ever reached 200/200 supply; I don't even think they broke 130 supply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvgxLGLakL4&feature=watch_response

 

[DVad3r]

Meh, SC2 would of been just as big a success with heroes, if not bigger.

 

[Dumac]

Meh, SC2 would of been just as big a success with heroes, if not bigger.

I really doubt that.