There shouldn’t be a limit on unit selection. Remove the cap.
If the only reason to keep the 12 unit selection cap is “because it’s always been that way”, that’s not a reason and it should be rid of.
7 Likes
You’re right Tempest.
3 Likes
I think they should get rid of food cap too.
Let’s get those graphics cards smokin’!
I have just got an idea full of brilliance - the most commonly-held argument for the food cap is realism - as Warcraft is set in the brutal conditions of the Tolkien-meets-zombie-apocalypse world, the food cap is there to simulate the desperate situation where the more grain you have, the less you are able to protect it from rats, ghouls and necromancers. Night Elves have the constant problem of cleaning their drainage. Even the Scourge Ziggurats require painstaking maintenance and repairs from all the howling and bleeding souls.
Therefore, I suggest adding an option to upgrade your supply buildings to provide 10 more food each - at a hefty cost and with the T3 requirement.
1 Like
I was at first opposed to the cap removal but now I would like to see it changed. It does nothing to high end matches, and even in games like starcraft you will never see pro players attack move all of their units. Removing the cap eases the player into a game without worrying about an archaic system that only rewards selecting different control groups as quickly as possible.
4 Likes
Keep the Upkeep system for Warcraft III: Reforged please. Thank you very much.
3 Likes
My thoughts on 12 unit cap – remove it. WC3 is alot more micro intensive; units last a lot longer than SC2 – so its not simply an A-move and win game.
–Removing the limit would help move your army faster, and you could control group your units for better micro – im all for it.
Increase the food cap to 200. I’m also all for this; its called warcraft for a reason. War means lots of units. Computers dont have the same limitations they did 15 years ago – increase the food cap and upkeep barriers or remove upkeep all together. I want to see larger economies with larger armies.
Keep hero limit to 3, this will make end game composition more important with larger armies (lets face it, the right heroes can walk over army comps regardless with a 100 food cap army). But with 200 food, your heroes would contribute but not overpower the battlefield.
3 Likes
I totally agree about the 12-unit cap. It is not a core feature of the game, and it is no longer necessary nowadays. Pros will quickly get used to it and it won’t change much for them, and the game will be more appealing to new comers. And if Blizzard doesn’t want to remove the cap for melee games, at least they should give an option to remove it in custom games (some custom games require to control very large armies, which is quite painful to do with 12 units at a time)
I’m not sure about this. Personally, I wouldn’t mind. But this change would be too big. It would drastically change the gameplay, and I think this is not what Blizzard is aiming for at the moment.
Note that you can already modify the food limit in custom maps.
2 Likes
200 what? lol why???
2 Likes
Because its WARcraft! ![:skull_and_crossbones:](https://dou48tnq0ocoa.cloudfront.net/en/warcraft3/images/emoji/twitter/skull_and_crossbones.png?v=6" ":skull_and_crossbones:")
If they would separate Ladders: for Classic (12 unit cap, no zoom out ect) and Reforged I would like to see in Reforged macro games, real WAR: food cap 200, Hero cap ~5, increased upkeeps eg no: 0-100, low: 101-170, high: 171-200, easier expansions and more gold mines, bigger maps with sea, back OIL and SHIPS!
Also more DRAGONS!!! Good fantasy must have Dragoons!
I’d prefer to isolate the selection issue from physical changes to the actual gameplay, such as unit caps and hero counts. I really don’t want opponents of UUS lumping these together so they can dismiss UUS by linking it with those. To me it seems most UUS supporters don’t want those other changes.
More units, along with a stretched upkeep, would make expansion more exponential, increasing positive-feedback systems, reducing the odds of comebacks, making battles far more biased toward early-game performance. Obviously there’s an optimal value somewhere, but I’d say for me it feels like it’s actually a bit below 100.
As for more heroes, I’d really oppose this too. This would eat up way too much APM, make balancing far harder, require tavern heroes (unless you want to add new race-specific ones - which should be done in an expo IMHO), and they’re already too important vs units IMHO.
2 Likes
RTS is always based on APM advantages and human mistakes, more APM needed + more posiibilities = more human mistakes so less care about “ideal” balance, look at Brood War.
More Heroes/Units means more possibilities and fights; WCIII is enough slow game to get this.
More possibilities = more complex and interesting gameplay 
This is true; however, the goal of reforging Warcraft III is not to make it a completely different game. The core mechanics are likely to remain untouched, at least in the near future.
Alternative gameplays can still be used in custom maps.
IMHO, the more pressure there is on a player to be constantly performing actions, the less time they have to think and plan. Interesting gameplay usually comes from planning ahead and reacting creatively. With 5 heroes you’ll have around 15-20 cooldowns to manage and monitor.
You also find that the players that rise to the top will simply be those that can keep up with the immense APM requirements, rather than those with great strategy. The more APM-demanding the game is, the more true this becomes (and the more boring the games get as they become cookie-cutter grind-fights with little inventive or reactive play).
Lower the APM requirements, give people more time to think, and you’ll start to see more varied, innovative play - and the players that rise to the top will be smarter strategists on average. Playing will be more fun. Spectating will be more interesting and exciting.
2 Likes
I see absolutely no reason to not have unlimited unit selection in all modes.
I see absolutely no reason to purchase Reforged if there isnt unlimited unit selection, worker rally, shift-queuing commands, or any other quality of life feature that is in Starcraft 2.
I really dont see why reforged is not being made on the Sc2 engine, it was the reason the SC1 remaster was such a crushing disappointment and why modders were able to remake SC1 so much better than blizzard did (Mass Recall Mod).
these quality of life changes such as worker rally, proper pathing and unlimited unit selection also all DRASTICALLY reduce the APM requirement, there is no argument there. having to repeatedly fix pathing mistakes your units make so they are useful and dont die, never having enough control groups so utilize your army (needing usually well over 10 control groups for units) and production well, always grabbing units left behind, recreating a control group every time a unit dies, telling workers to get resources every 10 seconds per base all takes it toll to require MASSIVE apm to be competitive.
SC1 remastered was a very poor reskin that added nothing (except starcraft cartooned which is the only reason to get it) and its better to play the old version, hopefully Warcraft Reforged wont be the same.
Definitely no good reason not to include these features in reforged
Definitely no good reason to remake the game without them.
3 Likes
Kill the cap, but keep upkeep. We will have the same game easier to control.
2 Likes
You have to be SUCH A piano master to handle all these stellar requirements for APM champ, it is a thing only a WCS/WCG player can do darn I feel good thank you, cause none of what you say matters to me. And besides, queue commands and rally workers are already in the game. That just shows how much you know about it.
In the defense of this case, one recently posted that if a necromancer has many skeletons that are harder to put all in controls. That I can agree and I don’t know if they want to increase or increase for summons. Still the game is micro heavy which means it requires you to control better, SC2 is macro heavy and that’s why with the fast pace they need to let you select more units since managing (150-200) units is a lot more.
You don’t need 10 control groups, neither in SC2 nor War3.
As a lighter opinion than the initial I can agree pathing can be improved a bit so long as it does not hurt the ability to block enemy in more or less same level of difficulty. SC2’s is not the answer to it.
Why not SC2 engine’s physics: You want this?
https://streamable.com/v74zi
1 Like
Please remove the 12 unit cap. Its completely unnecessary. It’s time to bring Warcraft 3 into the modern era. I’m all for keeping Warcraft 3 in its original state where it makes sense.
This limitation just doesn’t make sense. Its an old gripe that should be removed.
6 Likes
Agree. Remove the 12-unit selection cap!
This… This is wrong on so many levels. For a start, SCR was a massive success. For a middle, a new engine would destroy the pathing of WC3.
No, they don’t. If they did, I would be against it.
10? The only time you use 10 control groups is in macro maps such as LTA.
1 Like
The game would be better if they had an all combat unit selection option. Doing builds with summons or in the heat of a fight being able to select all would make it a fun mechanic. Having a limiter is an anti-fun mechanic that makes the game a bit more tedious. This unit selection limit really bugs me after having it available in SC2 and other RTS games. Take for example if you have a leaver you can’t micro two or three armies with a limited selection.
3 Likes