Warcraft III...

[Noriaki]

Don't like the multiplayer very much.

I find the Leveling Heroes off neutral units annoying. It's kind of irritating when your enemy attacks you with a 4th level hero vs your 1st level when you've never had a combat.

I really enjoyed the Single player campaigns, and it's okay Multiplayer. But WC2 and SC:BW are much more fun in the MP aspect.

If you didn't have neutral units to level heros off, then I wouldn't mind. If I let my opponent level his hero to level 4 off of my units like an idiot and then he slaughtered me wholesale because I was stupid, then it's my own fault.

I just hate the neutral units.

Other than that it's alright. It's nice to have 12 player games though. heh. I was at a LAN party a couple weeks ago with 16 people and we had a mass 12 player game going. That was sweet.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
I really really liekd war2..but that was because I was good at it. I never played starcraft...and as of right now I really hate war3...but thats cuase I really suck at it...my multiplayer team went 0-12 to begin with..we're improving now..went 4-3 the sencond day, and 6-2 the third day. I never played the campaign becuase that doesn't appeal to me...my problem is I don't know any other races but orcs and humans, and I'm not sure how it all fits together, and whats good to use...it seems like all people do in the game is get lots of units and a hero and then triple rush someone. WHereas I remember in war2 there were lots of ways to kill someone, sap rush, grunt rush, ogre rush, rush to dks while dfensing w/ towers...seems like in this games towers aren't enough to hold anyone off if you don't build units. In war2 I used to be able to just build a waleld in tower, walloff my gold, then rush for dks/lust. Thats no the case in this game...there were times when you could go straight dragons and win...all I know is in war3 I keep gettin tripled...it didn't seem people doubled you as much in war2...but then I mostly played customs

If thats the way you play, youre not going to like this. Towers arent invincible anymore, which is a good thing. There is nothing worse than that pain in the ass last player on the team that walls himself in like he has a chance to win, instead he just wastes everyones time.

You arent going to win easily in WC3 by rushing one unit. Mixed forces and unit combos will rule all. Its so funny to wipe out a massive army of one unit with a few of your units, and then hear the bitching and moaning from the other end when they cant understand wtf just happened.

My favorite, for example, is the abomination/necro/meatwagon combo. The abominations go up front to deal melee and be general all around meat shield. The necro's unholy aura beefs up the abominations so they deal some heavy damage, and they have the HP to burn anyway. The meat wagons are blasting away in safety because the abominations are blocking them from being touched. And the finale, the meat wagons drop all of their collected corpses, and the necros 50 skeleton warriors rush your ass. Vampiric aura will keep your troops alive much longer, and if you have it, tossing an infernal behind them will pretty much end them. Give me the Dread Lord, 5 abominations, 3 Necros, and 3 Meat Wagons and youre pretty much a goner.

And as far as getting tripled goes, thats the way to win. Attack together, or die one by one.

I dont understand why people are so resisting to change with WC3. Some people come out and complain its the same game as SC and WC2, and then cant win a game, so they hate it. Others come out and complain its too different, and cant handle the change.

You have a hero, you have to level your hero, you have to expand, and you cant build massive armies. And the same goes for everyone else. Noone is cheating, theyre just better than you. Practice makes perfect. If you dont like it, well, go play starcraft then.

 

[pac1085]

I also really dislike the game. I'm glad I tried before I buy.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Oh please, current and older RTS games were very simple, which is great for the simple folks. Its generally: rush rush rush, or build big army, save big army, attack with big army, and sit back and watch your stuff fight, with maybe concentrating fire once in a while.

The Undead are just like the Zerg. The Dark Elves are just like the Protoss.
Protoss had the most powerful melee units in the game. Elf melee blows, elf is primarily ranged. Zerg needs to sacrifice a drone to create a building, undead doesnt. Zerg can regenerate anywhere, undead can only regenerate on the crap. Zerg are mass, cheap units, undead are not. They have their similarities, but arent exact. I'd say undead is similar to the zerg, but elf and protoss, I dont know where you're coming from.

There's STILL no way to trade/sell resources to get more gold.
Trading/selling resources is the most BS part of any RTS, imo. Who are you going to sell to? Some merchant in the middle of a war gonna buy and haul off 1000 lumber? Those little trade cogs running around in AOE II are quite amusing. Yea, I also think that merchants in war3 are bad, but you live with it.

The gold that IS available is totally limited and all the units/building require too much gold to produce with the limitation of the resource.
That makes units more important. Its unlike in any other RTS game where you build mass units and DONT CARE whether they live or not. In war3, units are VERY expensive in ratio to the resources you get. Thats why you want your guys to survive, and not just build more and more. It also forces you to expand, not turtle like some newbie. But then again, if you're one of the BGH players, I totally understand.

It STILL has the same fvcked up, cheating Computer Player AI.
AI DOESNT cheat. Go watch save some replays against an AI. They have absolutely no idea wtf is going on with you. In fact, one time, our two armies just passed each other. (Out of either of our visible ranges of course). AI definitely has its short comings, but in battle, they are better than most human players.

War3 is too limited for the number of units and you can often win the game with a lot of small units rather than a few good units. It is hard to counter many of the attacks because there aren't clearly defined counter units. Overall war3 feels like a few guys fighting rather than a huge battle.
Tier3 melee rips apart tier1 melee. I dont know where you get the notion that tier1 units can blow apart tier3 units. By ratio of cost, tier3 will always win. It is hard to counter because you have to think on the fly. Its not like in AOE II where you have a little pamphlet telling you which units to build against what. As for the last sentence, I believe that was what Blizzard was aiming at. Some people like big battles, and some like to control every little aspect of a little skirmish.

War3 is almost nothing like starcraft. Starcraft was fun in the beginning, but due to all the massing / mass rushing, it kind of got boring

my thoughts exactly

This game requires skill and some thought that some people don't care to try and use. teamwork is very important in this game. you can own the otherside if they dont have good team work. has far hass ellign stuff. pfft just ask for it.i need ,lumber ok allie gives me lumber no big deal. it is team work, you shouldn't have to sell crap to get some needed resources.

 

[CrazyDe1]

I didn't wall myself in like I had a chance to win...I scouted a peon, and if I saw a rush I'd build a couple extra towers to protect against a rush while I teched up and beat them to lust and dks...
I'm starting to get the hang of it now..all I do is use grunts/shamans for lust. It just sucks having to rely on a team if your team sux...we have it now so that we all hero rush 1 person so the others waste their teleports, then we sit and build up and wait for an attack, all teleport in and help the person beign attacked while the human player builds tanks and goes and rapes their towns whiel they're attacking us. I keep finding myself not knowing how to manage resources properly yet though...either forgetting to build guys, or always being at no gold after my forces die helping an ally, and not being able to buidl anything

 

[zzzz]

Isn't a trade just two tributes combined?

no.
He is referring to the trade as employed in AOK where you can trade your excess wood/stone etc to gold and vice versa. Also you could trade via trading carts to your allies and get a particular amount of gold depending on the distance between two marketplaces.

 

[Coolone]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Oh please, current and older RTS games were very simple, which is great for the simple folks. Its generally: rush rush rush, or build big army, save big army, attack with big army, and sit back and watch your stuff fight, with maybe concentrating fire once in a while.

The Undead are just like the Zerg. The Dark Elves are just like the Protoss.
Protoss had the most powerful melee units in the game. Elf melee blows, elf is primarily ranged. Zerg needs to sacrifice a drone to create a building, undead doesnt. Zerg can regenerate anywhere, undead can only regenerate on the crap. Zerg are mass, cheap units, undead are not. They have their similarities, but arent exact. I'd say undead is similar to the zerg, but elf and protoss, I dont know where you're coming from.

There's STILL no way to trade/sell resources to get more gold.
Trading/selling resources is the most BS part of any RTS, imo. Who are you going to sell to? Some merchant in the middle of a war gonna buy and haul off 1000 lumber? Those little trade cogs running around in AOE II are quite amusing. Yea, I also think that merchants in war3 are bad, but you live with it.

The gold that IS available is totally limited and all the units/building require too much gold to produce with the limitation of the resource.
That makes units more important. Its unlike in any other RTS game where you build mass units and DONT CARE whether they live or not. In war3, units are VERY expensive in ratio to the resources you get. Thats why you want your guys to survive, and not just build more and more. It also forces you to expand, not turtle like some newbie. But then again, if you're one of the BGH players, I totally understand.

It STILL has the same fvcked up, cheating Computer Player AI.
AI DOESNT cheat. Go watch save some replays against an AI. They have absolutely no idea wtf is going on with you. In fact, one time, our two armies just passed each other. (Out of either of our visible ranges of course). AI definitely has its short comings, but in battle, they are better than most human players.

War3 is too limited for the number of units and you can often win the game with a lot of small units rather than a few good units. It is hard to counter many of the attacks because there aren't clearly defined counter units. Overall war3 feels like a few guys fighting rather than a huge battle.
Tier3 melee rips apart tier1 melee. I dont know where you get the notion that tier1 units can blow apart tier3 units. By ratio of cost, tier3 will always win. It is hard to counter because you have to think on the fly. Its not like in AOE II where you have a little pamphlet telling you which units to build against what. As for the last sentence, I believe that was what Blizzard was aiming at. Some people like big battles, and some like to control every little aspect of a little skirmish.

War3 is almost nothing like starcraft. Starcraft was fun in the beginning, but due to all the massing / mass rushing, it kind of got boring

^ Couldnt have said it better myself

 

[CrazyDe1]

I don't understand the game and the units of the other races well enough yet to have figured out that necro/meatwagon/abomination combo yet. I still only use grunts, taurens and shamans on orcs...I'm so newbie...and it pisses me off too...going from awesome at war2 to blowin a d1ck at war3 really annoys me...

 

[BD2003]

Well one thing hugely ignored by a lot of new players is how much more damage ranged attackers do compared to melee. Although on smaller and normal units its not so much, its even MORE compared to larger units. So building a few headhunters aside or instead of a few grunts will definitely help you a lot in the long run. The ranged will usually stay unharmed, while the grunts take all the damage. Besides, trolls cost less, build faster, are easier to target to one unit (ALWAYS target only one unit with ranged!) and even share armor upgrades. And having a single kodo beast doesnt hurt either. Bloodlust is the icing on the cake. Bloodlust owns you. Dont use raiders unless youre going after a town. Raiders do siege damage, basically making them weaklings against units but they can level a building to the ground in seconds.

And in general, you want 1 hero for every pack of units you have. Always get the hero's aura. And try not to get a second hero until the first has their ultimate. Keep the tauren chief and the blademaster with the grunts and taurens, and keep the far seer with the shamans, catapults and trolls. Always use their abilities to the fullest.

Youre not going to win with brute force against a player that knows how to control their units properly.

Go here and learn the damage types and units sizes. Then you will start to kick some major ass.

Remember, as good as your massive force of one unit is, it would be even better with some other units sprinkled in. 1 unit force = 1 easily exploitable weakness.

 

[datalink7]

even after all those years no rts game can come close to Total Ahnihilation

 

[CrazyDe1]

Thats the other thing I didn't understand. The ranged attackers are stronger than the melee ones, so why even build melee ones? Are they faster than the ranged ones, who does more damage in a battle, a group of headhunters or a group of grunts?

 

[BD2003]

Because theyre usually small armor type (aside from crypt fiend), have less hp, and do piercing damage. Piercing damage is only 75% effective vs small units, 35% effective against buildings, and 50% effective against heros. But its 100% against medium (most melee) and 150% against large (knights, tauren, grunts, aboms, and big flyers). So basically a group of archers will own a group of abominations or knights.

But melee attackers do 150% against small, so a bunch of footmen or ghouls (especially with defend) will crush most ranged.

So it depends on what those grunts or trolls are fighting. You also have to consider cost. You can get 3 trolls for every 2 grunts.

But in almost all situations, I'd take 5 grunts and 7 trolls over 12 grunts or 12 trolls. They complement each other. The grunts will keep the other army busy and away from the trolls, while the trolls do some heavy damage. Add a shaman here or there to beef them all up, a kodo beast to give everyone higher attack, and if youre really good, throwing down a healing ward never hurts.

Mix units, and youll win.

 

[shazbot]

lol. . . all of these "concerns" were dealt with in the beta. WC3 is a different game, accept it as such. It takes some time getting used to smaller armies, hero, etc., but its not that hard. Beta testers legit or illegit have such a huge edge on everyone else right now. I played the beta w/ a friend, and he's now lvl 13, and ranked in the 90's, with a ridiculous win/loss record. I just haven't found the time to play. So for any of you thats playing multi out there, and getting your a$$ spanked, give it some time for the skill level to even out.

 

[SCSIfreek]

have you guys played any of the mods for WC3? The Sheep Game, Defense Towers, Heros Arena, Final Fantasy, and Much Much more!!!! If you have not tried any of those mods you're not getting your money worth.

If you say it sucked so bad please send your copy of the game to me I'll even pay for the shipping.

--Scsi

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Electric AmishFor those of you who like it....

Don't you feel cheated after 3+ years of development to get a game with the same re-hashed gameplay?

amish

Edit-

Oh yeah.... As usual, Ensemble Studios will own W3 with Age of Mythology. Ensemble Studios....RTS done right.

Not at all, they took gameplay that works and did it extremely well.
Looking forward to Age of mythology as well

even after all those years no rts game can come close to Total Ahnihilation

W00T! Another vote for TA, it rocks!

 

[LeStEr]

I swear! It's a pattern i've said so many times.

Warcraft 2 fans love Warcraft 3, but dislike Starcraft (or didn't enjoy it)
Starcraft fans disliked Warcraft 2 but kind of like Warcraft 3/

You hit the nair right on the head, exactly how everyone I know feels.

 

[Nefrodite]

War3 is almost nothing like starcraft. Starcraft was fun in the beginning, but due to all the massing / mass rushing, it kind of got boring

its never fun losing... is it

 

[PlatinumGold]

well

i'm getting bored w/ BW lately. mostly just newbies playing it now anyway. my favorite game MythII pretty much died. so i'm looking for a new game. i just ordered WC III hoping it would be it. hmm. not so sure anymore.

oh well. I prefer multi to campaign. but you have to play campaign to get good at multi (to learn units anyway). I always treat campaign as tutorial.

oh well. it should be here by friday or so.