StarDestroyer.Net BBS

By fail I don't mean come out as a crappy vid game, I mean came out as a good game, but not a warcraft quality game, living up to the standards of Warcraft II. Talking with friends I started a short list, but I want to know what you guys think of the below.

Too few Races, or too many races-I flip on this every so often. Sometimes I think it should have been another Orc Vs. Human, other times I think it should have followed the original plan and gone with a eight races game.

No Navy- Alright, I loved the Navy in WCII in the multi-player games with my friends I always was the one with the huge navy that crushed all others, and it sucked for me to see in the Beta that there was no Navy to play with anymore.

Too RPG- This was the big one. Heroes are a good Idea. Making them the centerpiece of your army, where without one you're royally screwed, and making it so you had to manage their spells, items, and keep them alive while dealing with your other spell casters was not.

Bad Animation- Actually it was good animation, just unrealistic. I personally prefered WCII animation above the new style in WCIII.


Any Thoughts?

I pretty much pin it on that it's mostly create a strong hero...a guard around said hero...wash rinse repeat.

Very little deviation from that.

It's like a squad-based Diablo, with really inefficient controls.

There's a point to where it becomes humanly impractical to balance the races... and I think 8 races would have really pushed it. No, I think 4 races was a fine concept.

Naval forces seem to be an unpopular choice among RTS developers... Starcraft, Tiberian Sun, Warcraft 3, Generals... all of these have lacked naval units. Other implementations of navies have been generally skeletal (RA2, Earth 2150). I'm not sure what it is but the devs don't seem to be putting them in. I'm as disappointed as you are; I love a solid Navy to play with.

Frankly, the heroes are why I never really got into Warcraft 3; they epitomize the fascination and concentration on micromanagement that Blizzard seems to have developed. I loathe the concept of wandering around in Final Fantasy games, looking for random battles purely for the purporse of leveling up; Blizzard more or less implemented this into the multiplayer games (with those creatures hanging around the damn place) and so I never really took to the whole Hero idea.

And finally, in some areas the animation did seem almost comical at times, although that was really a non-issue for me. Just seemed weird sometimes.

You know what really bummed me off too was that if they took out the roaming creatures bit, and the heroes. They would have a pretty solid game to make better by fixing animation (I mean the Knight's Icon was just SHIT) and adding a couple more units.

I hated the heroes in WC3. The game mechanics leading from this core design element crappified everything.

Example of bad hero-RTS:

WC3

Example of good hero-RTS:

Warlords Battlecry 2

JediNeophyte wrote:I hated the heroes in WC3. The game mechanics leading from this core design element crappified everything.

Example of bad hero-RTS:

WC3

Example of good hero-RTS:

Warlords Battlecry 2

I got Darklords Rising and I agree, it is a sweet game and they managed to balance the hero thing out fairly well.

I love the hero system in wc3. It wasn't supposed to be like SC, or WCII.
It's a different type of RTS. Some people like it (me), some people hate it with passion (JediNeophyte).

Without heroes there wouldn't be a Pandaren Brewmaster, and I would cry.

FOR PANDARIA!!

lux wrote:I love the hero system in wc3. It wasn't supposed to be like SC, or WCII.
It's a different type of RTS. Some people like it (me), some people hate it with passion (JediNeophyte).

Without heroes there wouldn't be a Pandaren Brewmaster, and I would cry.

FOR PANDARIA!!

I don't hate hero-centered RTSs, though I think they're a bit overdone and unoriginal at this point. I love WLBC2, it has a very solid hero system. WC3 does not.

I love WCIII. TFT is icing on the cake IMO. Since I'm a fan of RPG's and RTS's, WCIII is "kewl" for me.

W3 would feel more organic if ALL troops could get experience/levels and use items, instead of that being an ability reserved solely to the heroes, I think.

Iceberg wrote:W3 would feel more organic if ALL troops could get experience/levels and use items, instead of that being an ability reserved solely to the heroes, I think.

Yeah, like in WLBC2

I suggested that in Beta, but no one liked it.

That would just make it even more easy for micro Gods to pwn you in 1-6 minutes now that I think about it.

lux wrote:I suggested that in Beta, but no one liked it.

That would just make it even more easy for micro Gods to pwn you in 1-6 minutes now that I think about it.

Because of the deeper flaws in the design. Now don't get me wrong, I've always liked the WC series and loved WC2. But they built the hero system wrong, made it way too centralized and annoyingly complex (as opposed to interestingly complex) and as such they made the entire damn focus of the game on a set of limited and restrictive NPCs that you can micromanage around to min-max them best. This in turn destroyed what little semblance of tactics and established gameplay fundamentals existed in the RTS element.

Kohan OWNZ J00

Yes...Kohan is perfect. It is the perfect hero-based RTS. Period.

Never played any of the WC games so I can't say.

I wouldn't really call it a failure, especially since TFT has greatly helped the balance and greatly reduced the emphasis on creeping.
The main problem is the limitations of the small scale which basically force you to have one army that does everything, rather than being able to split up your forces and still have them be useful, and the (relative) lack of emphasis on map control/expansion, and to a lesser extent, the slow-paced combat/lack of "swingy" units (though the latter seems to have improved in TFT).

gravity wrote:I wouldn't really call it a failure, especially since TFT has greatly helped the balance and greatly reduced the emphasis on creeping.
The main problem is the limitations of the small scale which basically force you to have one army that does everything, rather than being able to split up your forces and still have them be useful, and the (relative) lack of emphasis on map control/expansion, and to a lesser extent, the slow-paced combat/lack of "swingy" units (though the latter seems to have improved in TFT).

Slightly OT, but this reminds of one of the few things C&C: Generals improves upon its predecessors, map control. My friend and I usually play no-superweapon games, so turtling is not really an option. With supply stashes and tech buildings, quick and decisive map control is a huge factor for victory.

JediNeophyte wrote:
Slightly OT, but this reminds of one of the few things C&C: Generals improves upon its predecessors, map control. My friend and I usually play no-superweapon games, so turtling is not really an option. With supply stashes and tech buildings, quick and decisive map control is a huge factor for victory.

Which is why you pwn me at C&C Generals, and I pwn you at WC3.

lux wrote:I love the hero system in wc3. It wasn't supposed to be like SC, or WCII.
It's a different type of RTS. Some people like it (me), some people hate it with passion (JediNeophyte).

Without heroes there wouldn't be a Pandaren Brewmaster, and I would cry.

FOR PANDARIA!!

They added Pandaria? You know that may just be reason enough for me to buy the game...

The low unit limit made heroes to important in WarIII. There are also too many spells to effectively mange and most games still are dominated by single unit type hoards. The lack of naval units was annoying, but Frozen Throne has added some back in.

Iceberg wrote:W3 would feel more organic if ALL troops could get experience/levels and use items, instead of that being an ability reserved solely to the heroes, I think.

With the low unit level that might not work too well, if someone leveled up their army sufficiently they'd be completely impossible to stop.

JediNeophyte wrote:Slightly OT, but this reminds of one of the few things C&C: Generals improves upon its predecessors, map control. My friend and I usually play no-superweapon games, so turtling is not really an option. With supply stashes and tech buildings, quick and decisive map control is a huge factor for victory.

Yeah, but the maps themselves are kinda dull. Symmetry is fine for, say, tournament maps or something like that, but they get really old.

Uraniun235 wrote:

JediNeophyte wrote:Slightly OT, but this reminds of one of the few things C&C: Generals improves upon its predecessors, map control. My friend and I usually play no-superweapon games, so turtling is not really an option. With supply stashes and tech buildings, quick and decisive map control is a huge factor for victory.

Yeah, but the maps themselves are kinda dull. Symmetry is fine for, say, tournament maps or something like that, but they get really old.

!? There's a bunch of asymmetrical maps! I haven't played in awhile, one is a 1v1 night map "Silent River" IIRC. Try downloading the bonus jungle map too.