Imagine if Warcraft 3 was standard RTS without this hero bullcrap, what could have been.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Imagine if Warcraft 3 was standard RTS without this hero bullcrap, what could have been.
It would be Warcraft 2, which honestly wasn't as good as even C&C 1. The hero stuff was where Blizzard added complexity to compansate for W2's meh gameplay.
The only reason Warcraft 3 is memorable at all is because of the heroes
because game was built around hero jerk off, if they designed it like normal rts like SC not some 10 unit creeping sim with upkeep mechanic encouraging low supply (lol) it would have been much better
What's the point of discussing some completely hypothetical game about which we can never know anything
"It would have been", there's nothing to discuss
im sorry its not another thread about parawieners game mod with hypothetical scenerio where communism won and theres a pony involved.
jesus christ, what the frick is wrong with you moronic Black folk
WC3 was made to be an RPG before becoming an RTS
i prefer Age of Mythology heroes approach than the bullshit they are in wc3, its also a proper RTS unlike wc3 which is mostly 10 unit creep wank with barely any macro, borderline moba.
Know what was truly amazing about WC3, OP? You can fire up the editor and make the heroless mode out of any map you like in like 20 mins.
Don't let your dreams be dreams, OP!
honestly that game is just not designed for a "old fashioned" rts gameplay, upkeep mechanic, low POP limit, too zoomed in, the way unit collision works etc make it too incompatible. I like to think a standard rts wc3 would be closer to stacraft 2 in fantasy world of warcraft.
The Warcraft 2 campaigns have hero units too. Also WC3 wouldn't have had such a good story if they didn't include the heroes.
You can remove the upkeep cost of units in the editor.
>upkeep mechanic
you can remove it via editor
>low pop limit
you can increase it in editor or make units not cost pop at all
>too zoomed in
you can change that too
>the way unit collision works
you can also change that in editor
anyway the game is way too simple to be played without heroes anyway unless you modify all the units to have extra skills or something and even then it just turns into glorified rock, paper scissors or spamming the best units to win
Yeah, the WC3 editor is easily robust enough to make your dream WC3 with all the changes you want and more. There isn't much demand for it, though. Brood War didn't go anywhere, and SC2 exists for people that just wanted a streamlined Starcraft game. In my opinion, WC3 is the greatest RTS game made from an all-around perspective, and I think heroes were a -- no exaggeration -- genius design concept.
I do think that hero units themselves are about 25% stronger than they should be, but that's a small concern compared to how many things WC3 absolutely nailed.
I was in that thread when that happened...Those were the good old days.
>the good old days
>2015
That was 8 years ago, anon....
Correct
>2015
>good old days
Anon... 2015 was 12 years ago, some posters here are younger than that
Who are you and how you writting in a 2023 thread in 2027?
a boring generic c&c like fantasy game? no thanks, I love warcraft 3 the way it is
if you really want then go and play armies of exigo
>c&c like fantasy game
saying that shows you are not a RTS player if you consider every rts boring if they do not no hero homosexualry.
do not have*
stop assuming, I just think c&c, starcraft and the likes are archaic and boring to play, the hero mechanic has nothing to do with it
my fav rts are rise of nations, war3, dow2, aom, zero-k and supcom. BAR is also getting on the list but it's pretty much just the TA line like the latter two
> c&c, starcraft and the likes are archaic and boring to play,
you just outed yourself as moron who doesnt like playing RTS, go back to your MOBA gay
>only westwood/blizzard crap is TRVE rts
kek
thats rich coming from a mongoloid who thinks dow2 and rise of nations are true rts and rest are outdated and archaic lmao
true that dow2 is closer to the tactical genre but you are honestly legitimately moronic if this
>who thinks dow2 and rise of nations are true rts and rest are outdated and archaic
is what you understood from those posts
thats literally all you wrote you moron
no, thank you, I had my fill of MOBAs around ten years ago, they aren't as fun or entertaining as a classic RTS games
even seeing you sperging out this much because someone dared to tell you that they don't like your beloved franchise with it's outdated mechanics and systems is more entertaining than MOBA games
>dow2
Unfiltered, undilluted shit taste.
>rise of nations
Honestly, barely above being mediocre. Same tier of game as Empires: Dawn of the Modern world and EE1 played locked to 3-4 ages.
>aom
Half cooked, even if I like it.
The C&C series and starcraft 1 are better than all games you listed, with an astrix on 0K and BAR as I have not played those, but TA clones tend to be meh, so I would not be shocked if they were also that.
>The C&C series and starcraft 1 are better than all games you listed
According to (You). Not that it matters anyway, I only added those to show that I enjoy RTS without the "hero homosexualry" mechanic that OP is so fixated on.
>W3 without heroes
>MOBA never gets born
>Strategy games never die
VGH what could have been
It is crystal clear to me that not many of you Black folk have played WC3 MP.
>10 unit creeping sim with upkeep mechanic encouraging low supply (lol)
You can boom and go all the way up to supply cap in wc3, it's a legit strat. Also exp as a resource is a genius concept with many unique interactions and a big reason why FFA works so well in Warcraft 3 compared to other RTS games.
>the way unit collision works etc make it too incompatible
Unit collision is required because time to kill is very high.
>meme picks (paladin / keeper)
Paladin is a great 2nd hero pick. Keeper was good enough to get nerfed not that long ago.
Before DotA there was Aeon of Strife, a Starcraft map. Kids don't remember but Starcraft 1/BW campaigns had hero units, imagine that.
>it's a "dilettante spergs out because someone doesn't like his entry level popular franchises" thread
do something better with your time, such as sucking down a 12 gauge
I've been playing Warcraft 2 recently and it's a fun game, but WC3 still plays better in just about every aspect.
>comparing game from 1995 when RTS genre was still in an infancy to 2002
its not fair, even starcraft broodwar which was released 3 years later was a massive improvement in pretty much every aspect.
Wrong, sound and sprites are way better
What are the odds I can get some games with people from threads like this one? I started playing wc3 again today and I'm really enjoying it. Is finding low-skill level games impossible these days?
Very low, I am low-skill. I don't feel like playing WC3 at the moment, and I am never posting accounts on Ganker, or joining a Ganker related group.
I hate heroes too. Only gays defend it. They’ll worship any wiener that gives them the time of day.
man can't stop thinking about wiener, massing ogres and spamming bloodlust in wc2 is far worse than supporting heroes
Just beat reign of chaos and frozen throne on hard after last having played it maybe 10 years or so years ago and man the campaign maps are way too fricking detailed and full of secrets and shit, i genuinely wish we get an RTS game in the future with this autistic level of detail put into it.
Also Maiev best girl, Kelthuzad and Anub-Arab best bros.
I'm one mission from the end of RoC on hard, and I agree. Lots of attention to detail. Kel'thuzad is the shit, although I do remember Anub'arak being pretty boss as well. Good undead characters.
I hate how fragile most units are in 90% of RTS games unlike WC3 which is one of the main reasons I'm not too big on SC2.
skill issue
Posts like these are why your games are dead.
>I do think that hero units themselves are about 25% stronger than they should be, but that's a small concern compared to how many things WC3 absolutely nailed.
Eh that's debatable, a lot of heroes remain meme picks (paladin / keeper), while others I'd agree could be toned down (blademaster), but the hero mechanic in in of itself had proven to be a fantastic idea, less so for the base game and more for thousands of custom games birthing whole new genres based on the simple 3-stat + exp hero system.
Both keepers are currently top tier for their respective races and rifle pally renders UD completely useless
I don't mind heroes and people who hate them are clearly shitters, but I do feel like what WC3 was trying to do has been out down by modern RTS games. It's onky plus side is what said in that units don't instantly die.
warcraft 2 would be fun if mage units weren't unfathomably broken bs
Shitty game overly complicated just for pushing rpg mechanics in a time where jrpg and hacknslash games were popular... Theres nothing strategy in leveling up a character, magics, items and all of that crap. W2 and SC are more RTS (timing, map control, worker distribution, units with clearer use and readibility than shitty 3d w3.
I don't think you've ever played WC2 at all, and SC has magic in everything but name.
Yeah "magic" in w2 or sc is a tactical option to help you dealing with an front problem. Isnt about "look all my special abilities" or "look my rainbow gay neon colors around my hero". Theres no op magic but a powerspike option like bloodlust or psy storm. No buffs or debuffs, several types of damages and armor, items, shops, mana, creeps or anything like dat.
>Theres no op magic
You've never played WC2.
>filtered by a mass-market video game
The experience and items are a third resource, which would be painfully obvious if you had any exposure to WC3 multiplayer at all. Just like competing for minerals/gas in SC, you have to claim neutral unit camps to obtain their experience and item drops while they're still available, before your opponent can.
It adds a huge amount of strategic depth. Do you spend your time hunting neutral units? Preventing your opponent from doing the same while teching up? Risk trying for a tougher camp with better loot at the cost of greater damage to your army and the chance of being ambushed in the middle of it by your opponent?
This guy, however, has experience with WC3. Saying Keeper is a meme pick is ridiculous when he's a common first-pick at the highest levels of play. He's ranged, has a summon, and a spell that is a long-term disable that ALSO does damage. Of course he's a good hero.
Bloodlust isn't OP?
It's a great powerspike but micro intensive, remember the selection limit on w2 of 9. So that means you can't have 20 ogres on blood lust. Bloodlust also have a limited duration and a sound thru fog of war. A Mage with slow and 3-4 demolition squad deals great with them. Griffons and dragons also. No need for heroes with levels, items, anything like that. Good old streamline counter strats. Get up your eco running and use the simple tools for war. Maybe i'm getting wrong w3 heroes and all of that but to me is RPG with a tiny layer of RTS.
>So that means you can't have 20 ogres on blood lust.
Are you moronic? Have you heard of control groups?
Maybe i am but good luck on bloodlusting 20 ogres one by one and send all to attack. When you reach the 15
bloodlust unit the first group wears off the effect. And if the enemy hears the spell be ready for losing all to blizzards.
>A Mage with slow and 3-4 demolition squad
wtf am i reading
WC2 magic, where the only reason half the spells aren't considered busted is that the other half are even better
It's like red alert Tanya or Mammoths and Chrono or nuke. They're strong but not game deciding. A powerspike that has a time and a use and has a easy understandably counter play. Good luck yall on your mobas and wow "rts"
Haste and bloodlust are absolutely game deciding and WC2 MP generally devolves into spamming bloodlusted ogres.
>what could have been.
It's called Starcraft.
>complaining about heroes
why the frick would blizzard make two RTSs that play exactly the same... why the frick do you want two RTSs that play exactly the same. Glad your genre is dead, hippy.
>that mission where you have to slaughter a bunch of peasants
Listen, if WC3 hadn't had heroes, we would have lost out on the entire moba genre, which would have been like wearing a condom for the greatest game in modern gaming, Valorant.
Real big question time - should WarCraft 4 bring back Oil as a resource?
Nah, navies in WC2 are awful.
What if they somehow pull a RA3 in that regard?
yeah, navies in wc2 were great
Oil is unecessary, just make the ships from wood and gold like the rest of things. All it does is add unecessary downtime to naval combar
No, also make hi-tier siege units reguire it too
A shitpile with way worse custom games
Boring. I like the heroes even if you could cheese them by feeding them tomes that would turn them into the single most powerful units in the game.
Imagine if RTS never innovated again, oh wait we're there I don't have to imagine it.
>He says, two days before the release of an expansion adding eco auras, monk-infantry, and mobile drop-off sites to AoE2.
>to AoE2
rather making his point. also none of those things are new to RTS.
I hate sea battles in any rts, logistics to transport units is way too annoying, land + air is enough for me.
any game that has worse transport unit UI than supcom is kusoge. ferry point a, ferry point b, assign transports to route, that's all the player should need to care about
>Sea battles in Rise of Nations
All transport vessels carrying archers should allow them to shoot on the move just like C&C:Generals' Humvees
What if every unit could move over water but only water and amphibious units could attack/use abilities while in water?
Starcraft introduced the hero units (although you receive a game over if you lose them) before Warcraft 3 even came out.
WC2 also had named heroes in campaign.
Warcraft 2 is pretty boring to play compared to SC1 or WC3. The heroes were a good decision to make the game unique and have special supporting characters for your army.
It's pretty crazy going back and playing SC and Brood War and realizing they came out 25 years ago. The voice acting and mission variety is great.
Reading this thread I'm just interestedhow differently people played WC3 from me.
My WC3 was mostly finding/making a chokepoint with turrets and half my army, while the other half was bumming around the map, searching for and fighting stuff, ususally ready to be called back if one of the AI's visited. Then after I'm build and geared out, going to AI that either sent it's forces, or was visited by another AI's forces recently.
It wasn't peak of strategic thinking, but it was very fun for the young me.
The other half of my time was spent playing custom campaings dl'd from the net (I very distinctly remember on that I tried to play, that was the recreation of DBZ with movies, but the only "custom" sprite was goku. I remember how WTF? I was when I first seen it.)
wc3 is one of those games not even the worst normie out there should blame for anything. it is perfection as it is
>cartooney aesthetics
>orcs dindu nuffin
>half of orcish campaign
>most of nelf campaign
Lot of "big, bigger, biggest" tropes too. It's a great game but on replay as an adult it's a bit overrated
>cartooney aesthetics
Black person what does the image in the OP look like to you? Warcraft was always cartoony.
>>half of orcish campaign
>>most of nelf campaign
Both great, especially the chaos orcs segment and the final night elf mission
Also calling something overrated as some sort of criticism is homosexual shit, if it's a great game like you say then it isn't overrated when someone calls it great.
While I like Warcraft 2, Blizz would be kind of a rut if they just made Warcraft 2: 2.
They tried that with their first attempt at Starcraft, and were rightfully ridiculed for it. We got Starcraft as know and love out of it, so a happy ending all around.
Blizard RTS just gives abilities to units so you have hotkeys for Koreans to mash as fast as they can. Generally, their strategy games don't have much depth to them so they have to have heroes and overpowered unit abilities because your strategic choices are limited.
Abilities and their interactions adds depth
for me, it's warlords battlecry
>what could have been
a worse game with a worse campaign