The food limit - way too big?

[Emperor Pan I]

I'm better at SC, so I like SC better, I enjoy it when I play it, and even if I lose, it still was a very good match.
But In WC, I don't have fun on it at all (not in customs though). And if I lose, pisses me off so much.

So in my opinion, StarCraft is a better game based on fun.

"fun" is subjective. I have more "fun" playing Warcraft III because of the uniqueness and the variety the game has to offer. It is all relative. A lot of starcraft players just failed to make any adjustment to gameplay style, so when they lose because WCIII plays differently, they think the game sucks.

I still remember asking Cort why he didnt like the game and he replied " I played a game and after awhile I got beaten by an army with a level 10 hero" Obviously he didn't scout or creep or play fast enough, and heroes can't get past level 6 without killing player units. Cort was to slow to react and micro and saw everything from a SC players point of view.

 

[Wing Zero]

wc for me feels like it requires i need to be more active unlike sc where i can relax at times

 

[Laharl]

The heroes system adds 99% of war3's crappiness rating, and makes it not even worth looking it without even touching the god awful mechanics.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

The heroes system adds 99% of war3's crappiness rating, and makes it not even worth looking it without even touching the god awful mechanics.

The Heroes system adds something new to RTS and makes it a hellovalot more fun than other RTS. Warcraft III is the only RTS to even have heroes and not suck balls. Because Warcraft III is simply better than you.

 

[Laharl]

I go by WotC's definition of balance, and heroes clearly defy it. It should easily be possible to win WITHOUT heroes, meaning they should be completely optional for players who wish to use them.

Guess what, fanboy? They aren't.

 

[ChrisH36]

I still remember asking Cort why he didnt like the game and he replied " I played a game and after awhile I got beaten by an army with a level 10 hero" Obviously he didn't scout or creep or play fast enough, and heroes can't get past level 6 without killing player units. Cort was to slow to react and micro and saw everything from a SC players point of view.

Cortalos was never even good at customs either. Level 10 heroes are also killable, you just got to prevent them from getting to level 10.

I go by WotC's definition of balance, and heroes clearly defy it. It should easily be possible to win WITHOUT heroes, meaning they should be completely optional for players who wish to use them.

No offense, but I have told you 500 ****ing times that heroes are still killable. At level 1, they have the HP of a regular run of the mill unit. And even late game, heroes can still be killed by either other heroes or proper use of units. You probably only thought they were cheap in the first place cause you saw them at late game against people who didn't do anything to try and stop them from getting that strong or have no clue how to counter them.

I just treat them as regular units that get stronger as time goes on.

 

[Laharl]

The thing is that a hero, at level 5+ is in every way superior to five supply worth of units. That's unbalanced.

Needing heroes to kill other heroes? That's poor game design.

 

[Arkillo]

How can you honestly be so ignorant.

 

[Laharl]

The hero system, where heroes are required is a sign of ill-balance. It's impossible to win without them.

 

[Ninja_Blue]

No, that is ignorant.
You don't need heroes to win, they just help winning go faster in some cases.
Cause some heroes are just support, with auras and buff spells.

And others are meat shields, you just gotta know what to do against them, surround the meat shields with a ton of ranged units, or surround the mages with a bunch of melee units.

I am just horrible at WC, for some reason, I know what to do, I just fail to acomplish what I want to do on account of variables.

 

[Laharl]

I assure you, they are thoroughly necessary. A person without heroes is a guy about to lose horribly...

 

[Ninja_Blue]

Have you ever considered, that you maybe...just...suck?

 

[Laharl]

I'm amazingly good at Broodwar. And are you telling me that the hero system is entirely optional, and that going without heroes gives you nothing of a disadvantage, but has it's own tactical and strategical pros/cons?

 

[Ninja_Blue]

Well first off, I never said anything about BroodWar, I was saying that there was a possibility that you sucked at WC3, and don't put words in my mouth.

I was stating, it is entirely possible to win without the help of a hero at all, if it was impossible, than why would they have the regular units at all? And not just have your single hero out on the battle field?

Because they are optional, in some cases (the DH) it can substitue for an army with "overpowered" spells/skills. BUT, only when they reazch a certain level, which can be prevented, by your normal units.

 

[Laharl]

All they need to do is creep, their hero becomes easily more powerful than any normal unit can hope to counter. Normal units, in war3, are nothing more than glorified support units. Which is pathetic.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

You're taking the same arguement I am about to take for SC.
That is like saying my enemy has build caster untis for his army, why should I have to build casters or even anti-casters becasue my opponent has one. That is unbalanced becasue I shouldnt have to counter my enemy with something equaly as powerful or a counter to what. he has

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. People build heroes because Heroes are a part of the game. I know for a fact 100% you can build three heroes, and I can build none and my ability in WCIII will make it impossible for even your three heroes to win in a 1v1.
You also fail to realize that one hero never makes it past level 5 in a solo game, unless he/she has already won the game (level 6 is achieved with the exp points that are usually gained by crushing completely an enemy army and part of his base), let alone having three heroes which will only be around level 4-3.

 

[Ninja_Blue]

Thank you Mike for helping shine light apon this child's clouded mind.

 

[Laharl]

It's possible to win without casters. It's possible to win without many units.

You fail at arguing.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

It's possible to win without casters. It's possible to win without many units.

You fail at arguing.

Once again you fail at simple pre-school logic.

If two armies of evenly matched skill go against each other, of course a bloody ****ing hero is going to tip the balance. Whereas an army with a hero goes against an army with strong units, that is up to the players to decide. Same scenario with casters against someone else without casters. or when one side has air and the other doesnt. or any one of thousands examples. Heroes are cheap, they get stronger the more you kill enemies, they are a little less than average than a unit at the tier you are at. You don't know warcraft III, you can't argue against it just because you suck so horribly at video games.\

The game obvously sucks if it forces me to build units to beat other players who build units.

 

[Ninja_Blue]

Soooo....Trevor changes his mind to what we were saying and tries to tell us we fail at arguing?