Is the lack of responsiveness something core of WC3?

General Discussion
134

On top of ms, a few things delay your orders in Warcraft 3.

  1. Reaction Delay is there to add randomization to unit animations. It is a gameplay constant that can be alterred.
    Everything below is individual for each unit, but I can spot no Blend Times that aren’t 0.15.
  2. Blend Time is how long it takes to switch from one animation to another.
  3. Cast/Attack backswing time is the time spent in cast/attack animations.
  4. Cast/Damage points is the time in the backswing animation that the unit casts or an attack deals damage. This is why you want to cancel the Archmage’s casts with his 2.4 sec backswing but 0.3 cast point.

TLDR: The delay is NOT a bug.

2 Likes
135

Did they say that? Is it confirmed that they’ll keep the old pathing? If so I want a source pretty please.

136

Just google interviews with pete stilwells, its like 3 interviews of 40min each sorry brah u gotta search for it manually

137

You have starcraft 2, why do you feel like you need to ruin Warcraft 3 with pathing that all it does is look great, but gameplay is terrible?

3 Likes
138

I don’t believe that it has to be a copy/paste mechanic of SC2. The pathing could just be revised and improved as much as possible without compromising the essence of WC3. It’s 2019 afterall, I’m sure that after 15 years (when there wasn’t even smartphones) we have developed the technology to improve things such as this one.

139

In my opinion, if you do not change the paths of movement of units and other limitations of the engine, new players will not linger in the game, the game will not gain its former popularity.
Perhaps it is worth creating two versions of the game, Warcraft 3 Classic and Warcraft 3.1

140

This is what purists don’t understand. Nostalgia doesn’t even last that long, its a finite feeling which could last anywhere from a few hours to a few months but that’s it. Is it worth to potential sacrifice WC4 and the franchise last hope? Purists think so.

141

What you don’t understand is that purists don’t draw conclusions purely based on nostalgia.
Nostalgia has a little to do with it, sure, but some changes might be rejected by purists purely because they think these changes are an attempt to fix something that’s not broken or to change something for the better while actually changing it for the worse.
You’re being dismisive by attributing all complaints purists have about changes to nostalgia.

1 Like
142

And you do what?? Since it is not anything where pathing matters more…

I dont know where this Nanat guy is from sounds like a name from the far east middle east, whatever Im not going to call him out on the origin… the guy has zero clue why pathing matters.

And the delusion that only a real fool can embrace:

  • If you keep pathing you would scare the sheet out of casuals. But if you made new pathing, they would come RIGHT? SC2 says hello

  • If you kept selection to 12, casuals would be scared off… Really? (By the way I support the idea if they want to increase that a bit more).

But if casuals see that the game is just not for them they will stay because new pathing and new selection. Kappachino

I am just asking people that have no knowledge whatsoever to not try to sound arrogant when they respond to me because at least I talk from experience not from my S like those.

In reality RTS has always been a niche genre and now when more and more easier types like MOBAs FPS exist, it is no wonder people prefer this type.

And to those that say ‘Blizz wants to make a LOT OF MONEY BRING CASUALS’ No with war3 they do not. It’s more like a tribute for old players and for their least updated game.

If they want to add it to Team Mode, gogo but I do not think you can use 2 different types of pathing for Multiplayer and changing the 1 on 1 pathing (unless they can re-create it) is a NO NO

143

I know that what I’m about to say will feed the preconceptions you have about purists, if you are…whatever the opposite of a purist is.
If you change something that stands at the core of what makes Warcraft 3 what it is (such as the pathing) you end up with something that’s NOT Warcraft 3.
And it’s alright to want something that’s not Warcraft 3, but if that’s what you want there’s dozens of games out there that fit that description and I’m only counting RTS games.
Can you blame the purists for wanting Reforged to be as close to an exact copy of the original as possible when if you want Warcraft 3 there is only one place in the whole world you can go to for that experience if we’re not counting Reforged, all the while people who want something that’s not the original WC3 expierience can get it literally anywhere else…how is that fine?
Yes yes I know, people who are new WC3 might not appreciate some of the antequated parts of it, especially if they are kept in deliberately, and they’re more likely to be the ones that will make Reforged a hit rather than a miss as far as sales go but those are facts.
I think it’s mostly feelings that make a puritst take a puritan stance (speaking for myself here, not all purists, though I think it can apply to others). It’s impossible to not have feelings for a game you’ve been playing for 5 , 10 or 15 years.
Even if you don’t get what it’s like to be a purist it’s important to understand how one thinks if you want to persuade them to cross over to your side.
Just saying, I personally don’t like that I’m as enamored as I am with the way WC3 was and the way I think it should be, but all the encouragement I’ve gotten to change my mind on it is basically “get with the times, gramps!” and that just doesn’t help anyone.

1 Like
144

Also I’m pretty sure I directly contradicted this earlier post of mine somewhere in there.

Oh well. Feelings, facts, mixtures of the two playing together in one’s mind. It’s all hard to keep track of, honestly.
But yeah if it were JUST nostalgia keeping me hooked to the old pathing I’d have given up on it up by now. It’s not just nostalgia, 'member? I also happen to think the quircks of the old pathing genuinely make it a better experience than something more streamlined like what SC 2 has going on.

145

(It took me a while to write this one, so some earlier posts mentioned some of my points as well.)

Hey Brass, you can make that argument about any game. I don’t expect Warcraft 3, no matter what is done to it, to be a lasting esport with a huge community for decades to come.

Believe it or not boys, RTS is a niche genre. There is no grand ‘wider audience’ that is just waiting for Warcraft 3 to be more like modern games so they could play it. Most RTS games are buggy, unstable, archaic, and dated. The only one that has truly has clean mechanics is Starcraft 2. That’s it. Here are some examples:

  • Dawn of War. Pathing sucks, balance is out the window, AI is buggy, modding is full of risks, sequel changed game entirely and the standard multiplayer for it was abandoned. Both games are still loved by fans, and while not growing, are still stable.
  • Total War. AI is obvious ai (just following the same formula), gameplay is slow, beginner learning curve is a bit higher, end game content is usually unfulfilling, balance is out the window, game engine is broken. Still beloved and played, even though the later games crash all of the time if your computer ain’t next generation.
  • Any Space Game Ever and Four X Games, including Masters of Orion, Homeworld, Solar Empires, Civilization, ect. All have a point were the game feels hollow and incomplete. The ai falls back to the usual patterns, the diplomacy never makes any sense, there is always too much dlc that should have been in the original product, plenty of exploitative holes in the game that break it, end game content is uninteresting after the first play-through, second and thereafter play-through are always filled with segments which feel more like a chore than a game. Still loved by people, for some reason.
  • Dungeon Keeper. The original games were fun, but by your standards would be archaic and dated. Every game which tries to bring back the DK formula fails. The closest we have is War for the Overworld, but it was a third party development which features a whole nest of bugs and engine problems. I hope the best for them, though.
  • Paradox Games, including Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, and Stellaris. High learning curve, competitive player base, complicated mechanics, and again with a bit too much dlc that should have been in the base game. These games are still considered amazing by anyone who plays them, but they would never gain a large fanbase.

While all these games are buggy and broken, they still have loyal fans. Comparatively, something like Fortnite or Call of Duty get large bases because they are simpler games. DOTA and League of Legends became big because they were simple, not complex like a full on RTS. RTS games will never explode, even after Starcraft II was big on release it began to stagnate after a few years, bested out by the games like the formerly mentioned.

My point is to emphasize that the argument of new players and a ‘wider audience’ is not a strong one, and has proven to be the failure of games in the past. I’ve shown RTS games to many people before. Those who truly enjoy them are willing to play the others. Those who don’t, tend not to like any of them no matter what the reason, it could be the graphics, the feel, the complexity, these are all factors.

Stop acting like ‘purists’ are only protesting out of nostalgia. We like the game and want to show it to others who are willing no play, not appeal to some ‘wider audience’ who are just as likely to drop the game after a month as those you mention would play purely for nostalgia.

2 Likes
146

I don’t think WC3 is defined by its bugs.
I think after 15 years of existing some issues and work arounds that it HAD to have to function are no longer necessary.

Purists are like Impactr, just look at him. Elitist falls short to describe him.
These people are afraid of change and I welcome them to go BACK to WC3 and continue to play it just like they had for 15 frigging years.

Blizzard has sunk in a lot of investments in WC3 and if people respond positively then maybe… we will get a WC4.
But here is the issue.
The purists and super fans are a MINORITY. Any returning player is not even going to remember all the crappy gameplay issues they had to put up with.
When they return to WC3 they will see the buggy gameplay, the delayed response, the unit selection issues and whatever bugs these purists are foaming at mouth for.

What will happen is EXACTLY what would happen with the “AGE OF” series.
What happened? Old players and new players who never experienced the game but heard about it returned.
After one month of Nostalgia sated they left and all that was left were the super fans congratulating themselves for keeping the game pure despite the lobby populated by less than 2 dozen people on average.

Now Blizzard might look at that and tell themselves “well I guess people just don’t like RTS” which is partly true when you look at the current market. But they might not rightly put the blame on the dated game limitations that will only satisfy the super fans.

That would be a sad thing to see.

1 Like
147

Company of Heroes is pretty solid and pathing is fine for everything except for tanks and no one likes the Micro which is exactly the opposite of what some people here are clamoring for.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Broken engine? Lol what? Whats broken about it?
Buggy? uhhh not since Rome 2 has there been any major failures at launch and after release all those games are incredibly stable and look beautiful unless you run the game on a crappy laptop.

148

Listen buddy, I don’t know how do you think companies work but they do not develop games for fun and giggles. They do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and resources to appeal to some small audience, in fact, they will sacrifice you and everything you love without hesitation if they EVEN suspect that they could appeal to “some wider audience”(diablo inmortal fiasco) because at the end of the day $$$ is what moves the world. Devs families can’t eat your fun and giggles, they eat food that they acquire with money.

This game has potential to be an ESPORT, it is not an esport because poor and archaic mechanics and put in top of that when it was released the esport scene was only a little fraction of what it is today. The esport scene nowdays will make any game twitchable as long as it has remotely fair mechanics and its not pay to win.

If you want to continue this discussion refer to my other thread here.

1 Like
149

Okay, okay, I’ll revert back to the topic of the thread. Some people are saying that the responsiveness is a bug. This doesn’t seem to be the case, at least from my experience. The delay in response seems to mostly be due to two features of the gameplay, the first is the mentioned turn rate, and the second is the formations.

If you were to change anything… I could settle with getting rid of formations. For those who may not know, when units in a selected group move in WC3, they will adjust into a formation where melee units are at the front and ranged units and spell casters are in the back. In concept, it’s not bad, and many RTS have done it effectively before (Age of Empires II comes to mind), but with the early 3D engine and collision of WC3, it makes moving units wonky, to say the least.

As a comparison, Starcraft does not do this. In Starcraft, your units move directly to the spot pointed, no matter whose first and what attack types they have. This is why Warcraft 3 seems and, well, is slower.

If we were to ‘fix’ up the unit movement, this would be the thing to improve or maybe scrap all together. To improve would simply be to make it smoother, decreasing collision sizes of units, making tighter formations, and other tricks to lessen the delay of unit response whist everyone is waiting to get in line.

In the case of unit responsiveness, I think the problem is rooted in more than just ‘bugs,’ but actual flaws in the mechanics. The mechanics could be improved, like formations could be smoother and maybe the rotation delay sped up slightly. Tossing them entirely is simply what I don’t want to happen, and that is what I’m defending.

2 Likes
150

The only thing the Purists want is a sort of collision that allows them to keep a formation. At least the ones not abusing it to block and kite.

All I personally, since I can’t speak for the others, want is that when trying to command my troops around I am not forced to put up with a crappy AI that can’t form up properly and keep colliding, getting stuck, making long lines for no reason.

You want to Micro to pick off my units? fine.
You want to Micro to retreat better? fine.

You can achieve those easily without making the AI a complete moron.

151

I agree with this, it is outrageous that they implemented this it would even make SC2 look clunky. For those WC3 players that lack of SC2 concepts, it may seem a shock to you but you also benefit of putting your casters behind and more tankier units in the front you would do this simply by control click each type of unit and making the formation yourself before entering a fight. Why was necessary to lower the skillcap and make the game clunkier its beyond me.

1 Like
152

And some people still think this is a new game and not a paint of coat over a game made back in 1998. Some things are better left in for the sake of keeping it the same, warts and all. Collision in melee is one of those things.

If we’re talking about custom game options to change to circular hitboxes, sure. Otherwise the game itself should be kept as is or else you might as well go play HOTS or SC2.

153

Oh sure I agree. That was kind of my point. Improving unit AI’s and older pathing is fine to an extent. I just think that, despite its age, it should still maintain Warcraft 3’s original mechanics. Updating them is one thing, I just don’t want them scrapped is all.

1 Like