>player a attacks player b
>player b attacks player a's base in response
>player a has to tp back to defend
>player b tps out to avoid a fight
>repeat until someone gets bored and leaves or does a cheesey all in/base race
>player a attacks player b. >player b attacks player a's base in response
Warcraft 3 is for custom games and campaigns
Sounds like a fun time actually. Wish I could invite my friends to play online
tp phase ends once creeps camps are cleared, which is pretty fast most of the time.
post your elo
my elo is four, like the last digit of this post, checkem
The whole game wasn't really designed well for multiplayer. Its meant mostly for single player gameplay, where you surprise surprise don't get many TPs. They should have taken heros out of the game for multiplayer, or made them drastically weaker and more situational and removed hero levels. Also made towers stronger and put walls back into the game and made the maps more strategic and tactically oriented.
Creeping was figured out, tedious, and didn't really belong in multiplayer.
>but what would prevent a player from expanding to unprotected gold mines?
The other player. If they can't do something about a greedy, reckless player they don't understand RTS.
Also raise supply to 2 or 3 hundred at least for 1v1 and maybe team games too IDK. And make the maps bigger and more interesting.
You just sound like a homosexual.
>THE GAME NEEDS TO LET ME TURTLE AND DO NOTHING ALL GAME UNTIL I CAN BUILD THE BIGGEST ARMY AND A MOVE TO WIN
The maps are strategic, you fight for control of neutral buildings that give you an advantage and creeps help level up your hero early and let you build his abilities. The hero system is WC3s greatest strength were it not for the fact that they refuse to buff the dreadlord.
The hero system was fun but it reduced the strategic depth of the game a lot. Heros should have been little more than a bit stronger normal units with maybe an ability or two that didn't require mana. Single use or cooldown or aura or RNG depending on what it is. The creep system was a race more than map control because of how figured out the game was at the high end. Creep was so messy sometimes, players would creep the same spot and sort of shuffle around each other and the creeps trying to either kill the opponent or get the killing hit on the creeps and the item. It was really silly.
Mercenary camps weren't viable most of the game, there were a few windows where mercs were good and then they became liabilities for enemy experience. There was usually more than one shop on the map, so they weren't really an exclusive resource. Plus the game was so figured out you couldn't really strategically spend at the shops to deny the other player items or whatever. Same with the goblin stations. The marketplace was the one neutral building that was pretty strategic, since it was kind of randomized and usually only one on the map.
But yeah the dreadlord should have been buffed. The carrion swarm should have had a status effect or something or higher damage but over time.
Why do people keep saying that he did nothing wrong?
TPs are a good mechanic, them making shit invulnerable for free retreats though is incredibly questionable
>Anon learns about Distraction, Counter Strike and Raiding as a military strategy.
>player A clicks on player B units
>player B clicks on player A units
>repeat until someone gets bored and leaves
woooow great fricking genre.
WC3 has an enormous amount of strategic options.
Most other RTS games do not give you as much.
But many don't work well enough to overpower the strategies that most people use. For instance, I just got done watching pro Human vs Undead finals recently. There was little to no variation across all the games by each side. Deathknight, lich, and usually dark archer with fiends and destroyers for the undead. MK, paladin, knights, and tanks for the human. Maybe a pitlord or a dreadlord for a game or two and some gargoyles. The human built dragonhawks once. Lich first. There is nothing like strategic hero picking based on what the other player is doing. No punishing of fiends every game. Scouting was non-existant every game, because the maps are so figured out they just walk straight into the other player creeping. I think there was one game where the undead used shades to scout the tanks, on a map that had four starting locations no surprise.
The game changing things like unit stats is a step in the right direction. But things are going to remain pretty limited tactically and strategically as long as the maps don't change and as long as many units and heros remain like they are now. And I don't mean add in maps that are just variations of previous maps. I mean drastically different maps which play much different. I would even add in some mid game and late game mercenaries that are unavailable until tier 2 and tier 3 main buildings are built to bring mercenary camps back into play after the early game.
Promotion mechanics for units would be interesting. As well special promotion research for unique production buildings (aka you could have one single powerful altar that's better than generic altars and confers unique bonuses to heroes. A unique super barracks that confers bonuses to footies rifles or knights)
I don't think you realize how limited other games are compared to WC3.
WC3 lets you do 1 hero games. Rushes with 4 different factions. Tower rushes with 4 different factions. Neutral shop units, kamikadze strats, only siege strats etc.
Just check grubby/witi warcraft/annoying warcraft. These people can do amazing things and it's rarely limited to 1 hero.
Yeah well, WC3 being one of the better RTS games was also released shortly after RTS crapped the bed in general. So it benefited from many things that were already in place in RTS. Many new things it tried weren't very RTS. The hero system, for example. The heros are more like a fighting game with some light RPG mechanics. When is the last time you made a strategic decision to get a hero based on what is happening in the game. And don't say panda or something, I mean regular, different choices for heros every game. Strategy just isn't present in many areas of the game.
The four faction system just doesn't work. They're too different and changing the game to be more RTS doesn't work. Look at Demon Hunter + bears. Little to nothing has changed for that strat since the game was released. Because they can't change it. For bears they even nerfed the damage a bit, and then put the damage right back where it was a few years later. A player making 5 tier one units and then jumping right into late game tech immediately regardless of what the opponent is doing is not strategy.
You can't tell me a game where a human player can decide before the game begins to expand and creep and ignore their opponent all game and never a single time change strategies based on what the opponent is doing while making the same units they make every time they play this match up is a good strategy game.
Spoken like a pleb tier.
I take precautions to hide what im building and teching and go out of my way to scout my enemies. I play undead for this reason, their ability to keep eyes on everything while having difficult to assault or harass bases makes them superior to the other three for intelligence.
Everyone serious has a default build strat they open with unless they know their opponent, usually meant to put pressure on an enemy by being a threat that must be answered with a generic response. You will lose 80% of your games, if not all of them, if you dont attempt to put pressure on an opponent in war 3 at all. Once the opening phase is done, now you adapt to an opponents strat and skill. Suddenly knowing what there building allows you to counter effectively.
Stupid simple but your win rate will hit over 80%.
I know how to play the game, and I play random. I recently revisited the game twice after playing other RTS and other strategy games since 2008 or 9 to see if WC3 has changed since reforged was released. The same maps are in the map pool that I played when I was 12 or something. The same strats are being used. The unit stats are pretty much the same. The big opportunity to change the game with reforged is gone, the game won't change and there hasn't been a lot of strategy going on with the game since it was figured out in the mid 2000s.
>the game begins to expand and creep and ignore their opponent all game and never a single time change strategies
What ? At a higher level early expands are punished very fast and very hard.
It depends on the race match up and map. In a small 1v1 map it's certainly true, but even then not always. In a 2v2 map like turtle rock or lost temple or twisted meadows you probably counter harass, creep heavily or expand yourself
>The game changing things like unit stats is a step in the right direction.
Changing stats arbitrarily because you don't like stagnation is because you have creative sterility. Stagnation is simply the natural result of old players settling on what they are comfortable with. Old tactics will change or be abandoned by the old guard when new blood comes in and settles on to the scene.
these threads are getting old
every time a war3 thread finally dies due to disinterest homosexual op reposts it with a "controversial opinion" fishing for replies.
Frick off, people dont like reforged. The meta is stale. Items that encourage intense micro over strategic gameplay like the teleport staff and scroll of teleportation are used universally, and have never been nerfed or modified. Every homosexual goes Demon Hunter + Siren and micros down units one by one, or goes blademaster + shaman and picks off units instead.
I hate every game i have to play into these combos. I win, but it is a l w a y s a fricking slog and I always get the same "i aint seen that before" then surrender because its not a fricking strategy game its a asiatic clicker. Just let the threads die and be done with it.
so what's your "aint never seen before" strat?
I use a teleport staff and teleport scrolls to never lose any units while killing my enemies units.
How's that ain't never seen before? Are you taking the piss?
I think in the beginning town portal scroll made the hero invincible, so you could do riskier stuff. At some point they made the invuln go away so people had to TP out sooner which lead to safer and more boring play.
Mind you, the entire game devolved into cheesing mercenaries so you could stay in low upkeep as long as possible. The game needed a heavy rework to encourage actual fighting, but it never got that. The tavern was also a massive mistake. Neutral heroes should have been implemented in another way or not at all. Tavern was just awful.
specify what exactly is wrong about tavern.
You can counterpick your hero since it's instant buy. You can buy back heroes, which trivializes combat often. I would argue the free availability of the neutral heroes waters down the different races as you are less likely to pick your race's heroes now. Heroes like tinker make the merc army or summon army to stay in low upkeep even worse. Tavern should have been a tier 2 building so you can't have the neutrals as your first hero or something.
>you can counterpick your hero
You mean that you can accidentally counterpick yourself and not having the possibility to cancel it in time or that you can counterpick the opponents hero? I will have to let you know the former is a bigger issue, cause for first heros at the very least, spawning time and start of creeping matters a lot. Like seriously a lot.
Buying back heroes puts them in a potentially more risky situation, out and about, with half life and no mana for high cost to boot. It is by no means free or cheap.
Tinker isnt a generally top tier pick by any means in most 1v1 or even 2v2 maps.
Tavern also allows for certain build orders that werent really realistic otherwise (opening graveyard, mill or blacksmith for fast ranged units)
I just enjoyed the game considerably more before the tavern and neutrals were added. While there were already favored first heroes for most factions(DH, AM, DK), you still had a bunch of variety with second heroes. After neutrals are added you almost never see potm, keeper, TC. Dreadlord and lich appear less often, paladin is still an okay third hero but more rare. I dunno, I enjoyed the game most when it was about teching up or fast-expanding, building a racial unit comp and then engaging with an army of 15-20 units. The neutral heroes are just too omnipresent for me and I find mercs annoying and unfun to watch/play too.
I think if the game had launched with tavern and neutrals I'd be more kay with them, but I prefered the game before they were added so they will always seem like a mistake or step back to me.
Human can open a wide array of heroes, undead a bit less, nelf a bit less, and realistically speaking orc has the least variance (in terms of first hero anyway)
I've seen orcs rush mill and dr for skell+headhunters rush vs humans and undeads
>Neutral heroes omnipresent
Outside of panda/siren for nelf, they arent that common in the most tryhard 1v1 settings
>you almost never see tc keeper dreadlord lich
Meds asap. You dont play the game
A lot of balance changes happened, it wasnt that neutrals just dropped out of the sky and nothing changed for nearly 20 years.
Keeper is still one of top pick heroes vs orc, Tc 2nd or 3rd is still very common (and not extremely rare as first hero in large team games or ffas) lich is most picked 2nd hero for undead and sometimes even 1st, dreadlord expand is used for certain maps
Potm was never really that good when archers got nerfed to theground and other balance changes. It can work in a large team game if other players help you powerlvl her
You literally just confirmed what I said. All those heroes are the rarest of their faction and mostly used in niche and rare strategies. Thanks for posting I guess?
>heroes arent picked exactly 25percent each as first therefore....
Do you actually have a point? And btw, mercs are mostly used by humans, though nelf with staff does use the mauler and the early priest
Do you have a real formulated complaint about neutral heroes anon?
Try making an army that can destroy building fast
Only time I’ve played ladder I would pick undead and just use the necro rush strat, it worked over half the time and when it didn’t I would just lose and quit. I remember when Dota first became a thing and anyone who didn’t play it hated it cause it hogged up all the custom game bots. The custom map scene was great otherwise and any game that releases in the future with custom mapping will wipe the floor in the genre.
>when it didn’t I would just lose and quit
Should've went with the Death Knight+Spider rush
anyone else just build as many t1 ranged comps as possible every time?
It's a pet build of mine to rush mill/grave/smith for those races and go tavern hero first for fast expand
it's a 20 years old game, ofc people have figured out the optimal strats
blizz did some balance changes since reshitted like that healing rod on undead and crypt lord scrabs but I don't know what do you expect, especially from pros
still one of the best RTS games, both campaign and competitively