WC3 specifically, or including DOTA?

dota isn't RTS

I don't even know what DOTA is? I'm not kidding.

I just bought the WC3 battle chest, but haven't opened it yet. That's my debate at the moment. Maybe something better is worth picking up?

Edit: Hmmm just checked Wiki about this MOD. Interesting, but one facet turns me off: no economy. How is it?

Now that I think about it, if I end up tearing the package open are there any other MODs worth a look?

You win gold by killing units in DOTA, so it's important to get the last hit on them (something I think it's a bit stupid).

The game is fun to play for a while, it's obviously easier than plain WC3 or SC. It might be a bit annoying in the beginning without knowing all the items and the scrolls but after a few times you start to understand it better.

actually, imo the last hit thing makes the game quite a lot more skillful. Especially if you count denies (getting last hit on your own units), which hurt the opponent a lot.

It does take a little bit of skill, what I tried to say is that it looks silly the heroes dancing around and killing/denying. But I can't think of a way to change that either.

dragoons moving forward/backward to get rid of spidermines looks silly, too ;)

DOTA works more like a WoW battleground. You control one unit (a hero unit, much like core WC3, but ONLY the hero) and slowly level him up and equip items while pressuring your enemy into their base. DOTA has a bigger community than vanilla WC3, but it's also a very newbie-oriented game. DOTA is played 5v5.

There are tons of RPG DOTA-like maps out there, but DOTA is basically it's own game. It's so popular, in fact, it has sparked it's own stand-alone game, League Of Legends (LOL)

There are a ton of good custom maps for WC3, if not Dota then I think some of them are enough to spark your interest.

all you need to know about DOTA:

"If i lost an arm, I would play w3." -IntoTheWow

total war series, mainly shogun!

The thing I like the least about WC3 is that nothing ever dies. Two armies can attack each other for a minute yet nothing seems to happen, then one gets a bit low and town portals out (mind you, you are invulnerable while you portal for some reason).

If one guy does lose one unit, like an archer, he immediately GGs.
Not fun to play and especially not fun to watch.

Yeah, I actually read that losing units (say, one unit) is actually a much bigger deal in WC3 vs SCBW.

Only the hero carrying the town portal is invulnerable when casted, not the rest of your army. Also a town portal costs 350 gold, which is a lot in wc3, so it's not some cheap trick to get out of trouble for free.

Individual units actually matter in wc3 (and no people do not quit when they lose one archer). It is very much a game about timing and being skilled at managing your army in battle (micro)

Now obviously a untrained and/or biased person will miss 99% of the subtlety involved. but this is true of every game out there.

e.g. when I watch starcraft it's completely unwatchable for me since I hardly know the units, what they do, what counters what or even what a particularly skillful move is given the games user interface, because I have hardly played the game myself.

Now if I was particularly ignorant I could claim that starcraft is a boring game that looks like someone vomited on your monitor where people just mindlessly attack move big lumps of units all over the map without a lot of skill. Or I could recognize it's just the opinion of a individual who isn't very informed on the intricacies of the game.

"...starcraft is a boring game that looks like someone vomited on your monitor"

Good shit. That made me laugh. SCBW is really hard to look at for me.

But let's focus on this:

"...it's just the opinion of a individual who isn't very informed on the intricacies of the game."

By all means, tell me about the intricacies of this game that lesser games don't have. I mean, after all, this is the point of the thread.

I dunno. I haven't really played the other games you mentioned. Maybe casually but not at the same level as wc3.

One thing that probably sets blizzard games apart from others is the care they put into their products. There are still patches being released for wc3 years after it's release. And blizzard usually does a good job listening to the community, trying to fix the latest imbalances that crop up due to ever changing play styles etc.

it's this level of involvement that probably plays a big part in blizzard games being so successful esports wise.

e.g. when I watch starcraft it's completely unwatchable for me since I hardly know the units, what they do, what counters what or even what a particularly skillful move is given the games user interface, because I have hardly played the game myself.

The difference here is that I've actually played WC3 and do know the units. Still, it's extremely boring to watch as nothing seems to happen. It's like chess for example, sure there is a tremendous amount of tactics behind and it's a good game it yet it is uttermost boring to watch as almost nothing really happens.

I'm sure there is a reason behind SC being watched by the general public and WC3 isn't.

Again, the fact that you see nothing happening doesn't mean that nothing is happening. It's just a statement of ignorance. And I don't blame you for it because wc3 is a very complex game and you need a lot of insight to be able to appreciate what is going on.

But your kidding yourself if you think this is any different for starcraft or any other game out there. Also I'm not sure who you mean by "the general public"? Maybe korea distorts your opinion, but e.g. here is the general public watching a wc3 match in germany. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBdP5fYIy-Q

Again, the fact that you see nothing happening doesn't mean that nothing is happening. It's just a statement of ignorance. And I don't blame you for it because wc3 is a very complex game and you need a lot of insight to be able to appreciate what is going on.

I am sure it is, I'm not saying WC3 requires any less skill or is a worse game than the next game, what I am saying is that, just like chess, even though complex it is boring to watch, at least for me.

You're both right really. I played and watched a lot of wc3 replays and I could understand how someone that doesn't know all the details would find it boring. It's slower, they creep and such.

I played some starcraft only when it came out so I didn't really understand the pros at all and it looked like such a spamfest, both players with 15 factories each and all but after you understand it's much better.

Youre deffo a bw player then.

What the typ bw player doesnt get is that losing a unit means MUCH more, not only because of the lower upkeep, but because of the increased price and more importantly experience gained for enemy heroes.

You then have the choice to play aggressive or defensive by choosing to kill the unit yourself, healing it or trying to nuke enemy units/heroes depending on race.

I usually say that WC3 is the micro game and BW is the macro game of blizzard games. (let the flaming begin)

(let the flaming begin)

you said it, really. If it's percent wise then maybe you would be right, but overall, micro isn't any easier in starcraft in any way, and it's no less important. It's also better in almost every aspect and also played in a WAAAY higher level, so the only reason to prefer w3 is either less competition or... just taste.

sure the micro is important, but you dont see the micro in big battles as much as you do in wc3, the positioning is more important in bw at that point.

much higher level? wc3 is(was, dunno some time since ive followed wc3 as much as i did a year back or so) played on as high a level as bw, its just more global and spread out than bw in korea.

sure the micro is important, but you dont see the micro in big battles as much as you do in wc3, the positioning is more important in bw at that point.

...what? You don't follow SC much, I take it.

i do actually, i enjoy both games, bw most lately

most ppl here are ignorant bw elitists tho

Call me: elitist n00b :)

You just said that you don't see micro in big battles, and that it's more about positioning. This couldn't be more wrong if you tried. SC requires not just insane macro ability, but also the ability to micro at the lowest level while you're doing it - and with dozens of units!

This, and saying that WC3 has any sort of build depth, make you look pretty damn clueless.

I am a BW elitist I suppose but I'm not ignorant, I played WC3 from when it came out until a year ago or so and reached up to the top 200 on Northrend at solo, then more recently I got in to SC:BW. It's fine that you like WC3, no one's trying to tell you what you enjoy is wrong but you are missing out on a lot more depth in SC:BW that WC3 lacks (and doesn't compensate for in other areas).

See this is my thing though.

I think WC3 is a good starting ground for me. I have played SC BW in the past but have found it quite difficult, as I have now, while I wait for SC2.

So I figured I'd try something a little easier, get the hang of things and then eventually build up to SC BW.

But maybe this entire idea is a horrible one. Not really sure. I think I trust your judgment. You seemed to have played WC3 for quite a bit. You've obviously spent the time bettering your craft at the game, and in this case those actions shall speak louder than words.

That you have - after achieving a high level - noticed the lacking elements in one game compared to another is worth paying attention to, but a certain level has to have been reached before any of that matters.

So in that regard, I honestly think I'll be enjoying the worse game, even if I can (from a distance) find the design - in some regards - disgusting.

Not that you were saying anything to the contrary... just my two personal cents.

If you're having trouble getting good in SC, just play with the people in #cpm.sc and in the lower brackets of iccup. SC2 might get pushed back to early 2010, so you've still got plenty of time to get into it.

I agree with not getting into SC just yet. Right now, it's extremely difficult to play even mediocre players if you are new, as most of them have a ten years head start. So you won't get too frustrated I think it is wise to wait for SC2, which will be new and have a very healthy population of newbies.

Watching SC games to keep up to date with tactics and playing some other game to keep your apm up is should be enough for SC2, unless you are aiming for high level player.

It's always amazing how people can play games they hate for years.

"I played WC3 from when it came out until a year ago or so"

so thats from 2002 to 2008.... 6 years of playing a game you don't like. Nice one, someone had a gun pointed at your head while doing so or?

Theory A: I liked the game but gradually became disappointed with it over the course of patches as it settled into the same thing every time and then eventually stopped.

Theory B: I hated the game all along and played it because someone pointed a gun at my head.

B is the obvious choice.

theory B must apply to half the CPM community (no hate) who constantly whine and bitch about whatever factor of vq3 they feel necessary while wanking over cypher on gtv.

:<

Hate the game, not the playa.

So it took you 6 years to figure that out? I take it this "settling into the same thing every time" buisiness wasn't very apparent, or your just a little bit slow?

Give the trolling a rest.

in europe wc3 is like the only rts that gets played competitively
btw, props for mentioning armies of exigo, really enjoyed it but it never took off :(

I think armies of exigo definitely had potential, it seemed to be quite focus on the competitive market as well.

However, without severe backing it's almost impossible for a small and unknown company to make a major esports game these days.

WC3 isn't really an RTS, it's a micro game, there is no strategy to speak of.

that's not true, come on. it is very micro-oriented sure but unit build orders, unit selection and race matchups still have a bearing on the result.

i'm glad that they tried something completely different with wc3 (mixing in rpg elements with rts), but i didn't really enjoy playing multiplayer. too much focus on running creeps for items, buying specific items for your heros and saving individual units.

that said, i still enjoy watching the odd replay of top players (such as grubby). and it has been very successful competitively relative to other e-sports.

Unit selection is solved for most matchups. Builds only vary from the standard timing due to damage, WC3 just doesn't have any depth in that area.

what are you on about, there are at least as many builds in wc3 used as in bw.

I was going to reply to your comment above, but seeing this... Man, just get a clue. You don't seem to know anything about starcraft.

zerg rush ?

:)

there is mate, obviously you havent touched wc3

I have played it. And what can I say, at time X you have to have an army that's expected at time X, and if you don't, you lose. That alone pretty much makes all the tricks obsolete.

and how is that different from bw?

lol. You really don't know anything about SCBW. The thing is, if the armies aren't dancing around each other like two blobs on a map, it's not that easy to get to know what kind of an army you opponent has. Also, in SCBW the units are kinda different, you can't just run around with your units and expect to just outmicro him, there's a lot of ways to outsmart your opponent.

and that is why i said that wc3 is the micro game and bw is the macro game.

outsmarting a player in sc can be flanking in the "blob wars" you mention for example or many other situations, while doing some neat harassing at the base. stuff like this translates to wc3 too, a smart player can send wood gathering ghouls to a expansion to sweep up peasents while doing a battle somewhere.

there are a lot more combinations of units in wc3 and heroes adds A LOT too, so a lot happen even before the dancing about, some coiling, buffing of units with spells etc etc.

this is basicly just like vq3 and cpm, theyre different games with focus on different ways of rts.

scbw would be more like cpm?

this is basicly just like vq3 and cpm, theyre different games with focus on different ways of rts.

You have to be kidding me. Orc vs NE for example Orc has one relevant build with maybe 2 minor variations and the timings are always the same. Blademaster and grunts in to raiders and usually Shadow Walkers (that's variation 1, sometimes people just get raiders) and variation 2 is getting a TC or a ShadowHunter.

Now compare that with the meaningful builds in Protoss vs Zerg- 2 gate proxy rush, fast nexus, forge nexus, 2 gate in main, 1 gate tech in to Corsair/DT, FE (fast expand) tech into 4 gate +1 attack speed zeals, FE into 4 gate zeal/archon, FE in to 2 Stargate Corsairs, FE in to 1 Stargate Corsairs with Shuttle/Reaver, FE into Corsair/DTs, FE into mass ranged goon, etc. There are many builds in SC, each with meaningful timing variations based on your opponent's build order as you trade defences (cannons), build speed (hungry build) and probe production to maximize advantage. WC3 has none of that, it's an incredibly repetitive micro-only game.

You also have to be constantly scouting and aware of your zerg opponent's build as you could otherwise instantly lose to a zergling or hydra all in, an early lurker drop or mass mutas. Once scouted or often predicted you have to build the appropriate counter defences and units. In WC3 this never happens, you might scout twice per game vs a Night Elf to find them and then to check if they go Ancient of Wind or Ancient of Lore.

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Like selecting what units you use is the definition of strategy.

Strategy is a combination all the choices you make during the game. Where you move this unit, where and when you build that building, when do you move back, when do you attack, from what direction do you attack, when to harrass when to creep when to expand, when to buy which items, ... etc etc. Selecting what units you use is just one of the million of little choices that make up a strategy in a strategy game.

Or maybe football doesn't contain any strategy either because it always has 22 humans on the pitch? No you dumbass it's the choices they make which defines the strategy.

I dare anyone to watch some of these matches http://www.gomtv.net/gwi/vod/ and come here and tell me that warcraft 3 is not a strategy game. Or you can read what your broodwar buddies think of these matches on the bastion of broodwar elitism teamliquid.net (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=94470)..

Strategy is a combination all the choices you make during the game.

No, strategy is a collection of choices that you have put together for a specific reason. Choices you make during the game as to which strategy you use, or reactions to short term interaction, are tactics.

Where you move this unit, where and when you build that building, when do you move back, when do you attack, from what direction do you attack, when to harrass when to creep when to expand, when to buy which items, ... etc etc. Selecting what units you use is just one of the million of little choices that make up a strategy in a strategy game.

These are examples of tactics. This discussion is clearly out of your league.

Don't waste your time.

Yawn, bringing semantics into this to save your dumbass argument. is totally irrelevant. Your constantly juggling between strategy and tactics in real time all of the time. If you want the real definition from wikipedia:

Strategy is different from tactics. In military terms, tactics is concerned with the conduct of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy.

You are constantly making both types of decisions in warcraft 3 during the game. And it's not like your brain is consciously making a distinction between either. So please explain to me how this makes starcraft more of a strategy game as warcraft 3?

Oh man, we have a graduate from the University of Wikipedia here! I'm amazed that you had to look up the definitions of strategy and tactics, and even more amazed that you didn't know them to begin with. Now, you directly quote Wikipedia, even though it's directly proving how wrong you are.

Are you masochistic, stupid, or just trolling? Even though it's multiple choice, you may pick more than one.

Thankfully for an absolute n00b like myself, I'm sure there is a bit more freedom for strategy vs other n00bs. At high levels, build orders are solved? That's a pity.

Laser Squad Nemesis!!!

DOTA > q3

I enjoy both playing and watching wc3 far more than I enjoy Star Craft.
Nowadays I can't watch either without getting bored though, just takes an minute or two before I'm bored.

and I like the concept of heroes..

Ok fuckers I'm gonna have to reinstall SCBW.

Did that a couple weeks ago. Flip flopping between SCBW, GO, QL. Shortly you can add WC3 and Battle Forge to the list as well as LSN and Darwinia (I think).

See, this is the problem, I can never just play ONE game for more than a few weeks. Def going head first into RTS and will be trying to stay there.

The fun part about SC is that it works equally as a game to play as it does as a game to just watch. =P

This is true. I've been watching more replays this past week than actually playing.

Say vs RET
LuckyFool youtube vids
GOSU replays

I seem to enjoy them more after I play though. I can contrast them with my suckage a little easier after I've been playing for awhile.

so true, i've watched more bw vods over the last week than anything else.

Just did a little search for FREE (or cheap) strategy games.

Darwinia and Laser Squad Nemesis both looked very interesting. I've played LSN but GOD does that game seem slow. I may buy it again though.

I've played the demo to Darwinia, and it seems like a very interesting diversion at the very least.

For free though I stumbled upon:

Warzon 2100
http://wz2100.net/

Wesnoth
http://www.wesnoth.org/

I've also heard of games like Travian etc.

So basically... has anybody played and enjoyed any of these games?

I've played Wesnoth, though just single player. The campaign is pretty poorly made, you have almost all units available at the start which takes out the feeling of progression. I have no idea how it is in multiplayer though. It's like a poor version of Advance Wars in terms of single player.

You may want to consider World in Conflict though, it's a really good RTS both in single- and multi-player.

The best free RTS I know of is Battleforge, http://www.battleforge.com/portal/site/BattleForge/landingpage

It's multiplayer part has an RPG element to it though, not in the actual gameplay but after beating players or beating the computer (in raid-like maps) you get loot cards, which is essentially new units or new abilities for your units.

WIC looks as though you need some super computer to run it. I've got 8800 GTX dual core computer. Won't be upgrading anytime soon as the PCI express is 1.0. This thing BETTER run SC2 btw.

Battleforge looks interesting, but why does everyone think taking out an economy from a game is a good idea? And the game uses cards? I've downloaded the damn thing, will be playing it this weekend.

What's the pop cap though? Anyway it looks like the better overall product compared to Warzone by a mile.

If you really like to plan out every single detail of combat LSN comes highly recommended.

it will run sc2, unless you have 256 MB of RAM or something :)

4 gigs. You just got my hopes up. You better be right!!! :)

It would be a huge disappointment for the hole community if DC 8800 GTX wouldn't be able to run it on medium settings, on minimum it should run it flawlessly.

DC? (Dual Core you mean?)

I only have one 8800.

of course, by DC I mean the processor. No worries man, no worries. I actually have some hopes to run it on my machine (2.5 GB of RAM, 7600GS and 3.06 Ghz P4) on the very minimum settings, but I have to admit that I'm being naive here :)

Can always try the WiC demo to see if it runs alright on your pc.

System requirements for me is really random though. I have a Radeon HD 4850, which is a good graphics card, even by todays standard however I only have the earliest dual core cpu (intel pentium D), which is the slowest possible dual core cpu. So CPU intensive games run really crappy. Prototype gives me like 5 FPS even on lowest possible settings, a poorly graphical strategy game like Anno 1404 gives really crappy fps as well. Can't play Mass Effect either due to the low fps, yet GPU intensive games like Crysis and Fallout 3 runs fine.

So I hope Starcraft 2 is GPU intensive else I'll possibly have to upgrade :(

BattleForge has one of the most shameless compositional ripoffs I've ever heard.

Does this music remind anybody of FFVII introductory action sequence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQxCbi21poM&feature=related

Nevermind, the n00b accidentally added his WMP playlist into the game.

I played travian for some time before. Basically, it's 90% activity and 10% of knowing what to do. I enjoyed still being on beginner protection but already stealing the shit out of my neighbors, but that's all. Later on, there's not enough competition to make it interesting. You either are just sending out resources \ defensive soldiers or sending a hammer and waiting 100hrs or so just to see a note "none of your soldiers returned" (because an offensive army is always going to be smaller then a defensive army, maybe except for the beginning) and wonder how much damage you dealt. I wouldn't hesitate to try it if you are sitting in front of the computer for most of the day, though.

PS. Why not get into starcraft? I could brag a lot about how it's better than any other RTS game and how there's nothing else like it, but it looks like you already know that. So.. why don't you like it?

Wc3 is great for watching demos, pretty boring to play. Especially on the intermediate level it pretty much suck. But if had the time Id still be watching top NE players from time to time.

Dota and Tower Defense are decent ways to spend your time though, although I dont think either prepares you in any way for rts gaming if that was the point of this thread.

Wc3 > starcraft and all other RTS games.

way to bump a 5 year old thread!

:D

preach brother

gotta micro this shit