It shouldn’t be that hard. Static vs dynamic array code perhaps. But even if you wanted to keep it static you could easily allow say 32 players x 16 groups x 2048 units/group x 4 byte unit ID = 4MB.
The bulk of the workload will be designing, coding, and arting the needed UI changes.
dont worry guys we have been heard abut the 12 unit limit Xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI10a1GR_jM&feature=youtu.be&t=1201
remove the X from the https link but y the last question was the unit limit
they are thinking 2 sepreated ladders with it so nostalgia experience and new experience probly have to put this link in some of the other 12 unit limit topics =P
Yes i think the UI changes make up the bulk of the change and it is not simple to solve. A change like that probably does not affect performance aspects at all. One detail which you overlooked is the replay format. Also not that hard, but one additional topic.
The majority are in favour of unlimited, so they should at least have it in the beta for testing.
I remain very sceptical that this will in anyway impact competitive match play. However, until we try it no one really knows.
Agreed, I doubt it will have any major impact, but I shouldn’t made the bet I did on Reddit lol. If they put it on beta and remove it in the final version I own a prick a copy of Reforged.
WC3 has its history but it’s not even close to SC and the reasons why we couldn’t mess with that game. This is a necessary change for the game to be successful and fun. Most of us barely even remember playing the original WC2 or WC3/FT… I think the majority of the community will appreciate this improvement.
IMO 24 units is the magic number (3 rows, 8 columns) and I would agree that having ‘pages’ is a bad idea for a game that generally doesn’t have more than 50 units at a time anyways. (and relies heavily on clicking specific units in the command card)
Another problem with unlimited is the ‘formation’ option, where units remain in a basic formation (ranged units traveling in the rear, and fast units slowing down to match the speed of slower ones) this really falls apart with larger group sizes
They could potentially change it to ‘slow down the front of the line’ and ‘make sure the units up front are melee fighters’ type AI
Redoing the 12 unit cap would be great. If they made it a toggle option in the menu for you to choose would be nice
as to be told they are thinking abut seperated ladder so 12 unit limit plays with 12 unit limit why do we have to say everything again and again people are not even reading check all unit limit related discussion
Interesstingly here is the half for deleting the limit while in the Survey at Warcraft III: Reforged Basic Survey whith nearly a third of the voters the votes for, deleting, keeping and increasing the limit are nearly a third each.
most likly becus the title is not easy to guess what it is abut while saying stuff like 12 unit selection people wuld understand what the discussion is abut faster!
the title needs to be simple to understand sometimes
24 is too few for the Gyros. and too few for custom maps. And would look weird without paging (18 is better if you want to increase but retain the cap).
Dividing the population on such a trivial issue would be disastrous.
I had the same thought when I heard the possibility of a Legacy Ladder.
While I’m all for the change of the 12 Units selection limit, I would rather keep it than having two separate queues for competitive play.
The more players there are in the ladder, the easier is for the matchmaking to create balanced matches.
Make Control Group 1 GREAT again! <3
@24 is too few for the Gyros. and too few for custom maps. And would look weird without paging (18 is better if you want to increase but retain the cap).
why is 18 better? and how would you lay out the grid? 2 rows of 9? Looking back on the fact that 95-99% of people probably play on 16:9 I would say that even 2x12 would work just fine. maybe even 3x12 for 36 units total.
@gyros; if 24 doesnt solve for gyros/custom then how would 18? also I wouldnt consider gyro play a huge issue, because you are still cutting the control groups in half from 12.
@custom games; absolutely. I would say optional tabs (as designated by the map developer) would be the way to go here.
Might I suggest an alternative/supplement:
enhancements to the follow command. As you know units can already be ordered to follow a target. however when that target dies, they dont try to attack the same target, and they simply stop if the target they are following dies.
If they allowed you to QUE follow orders via shift (follow this hero till he dies, then follow this hero, then follow this knight, then this knight) and order followed units to attack the leaders target IF he is specifically targeted, rather than just attack-moved on the ground.
Make it like in Starcraft II where you can control as many as you can. This is the present-future age, like it should be.
Thing should be advanced also for another reason: for new spells and abilities development where these abilities would make army control more difficult intentionally somehow.
Really weird decision on making 2 separate ladders just for nothing. Hope Blizzard will end up with one rational decision.
Keep it ofc… the heck u talking about?
In custom games we could expand it for sure when controlling big armies, but for ladder play… keep it.
No. Expand it like in Starcraft II. Thanks.
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.