Pro player says something but i don’t have source, ok
Really sorry that I am not willing to watch 20+ hours of twitch vods just to be able to link that 10 seconds where he said that.
So what about the balancing issues? Did you read that part? Do you have something to say about it?
Believe it or not the point is to not split up the community. There are a lot of people who aren’t actually going to buy reforged because they already own the classic, so by keeping it combined they keep the community together as much as possible.
Yeah I started a thread about this a few weeks back. Had a go with some guy named “Impaction” or something like that about how leet he is or whatever because he likes clunky retro controls.
I just seriously doubt this game will be anything more than it is now unless the controls are improved.
RTS’s are unpopular mainly because they are almost inherently hard to control and very unwieldly, there’s no reason to compound that with outdated UI and unit AI.
It’s sad though, because it’s NOT going to get changed as far I can foresee. The phrase lipstick on a pig comes to mind but that’s a bit strong of a statement as the core of WC3 is actually really good.
However, the barrier to entry and enjoyment of the game means it’s not going anywhere soon.
I think some people will come back and play it but for the most part they will leave and it will likely be a big waste of Blizzard money and dev resources.
Although I think I read they are outsourcing the art development Malaysia or something to that effect…so it’s not even like they are doing that part entirely in house.
I don’t know, but this isn’t the Blizz I used to know.
Thank God Rob Pardo (one of the true original Blizz visionaries) has his own game company (Bonfire Studios).
Lmao… if you think one guy expects the game so because that one guy wants, re-read what many that explain why the current mechanics matter, of course something that a casual who barely touches game modes where that matters cares.
I did say I am not against small adjustments such as friendly to friendly better moving between each other. But you can’t make it SC2 turns, movement and such else you get kiting ,or you want to also change cooldowns of units to prevent kiting in which case you make a mess of the war3 mechanics?
Gotta love when being hated just because I understand something and those snowflakes that dont feel oppressed and harassed for being criticized for things they are not clear about.
Grubby is even more ‘purist’ than I am and this is not being a purist, put these religious terms bullcrap out of such posts, this isnt puritanism, it is what matters for the game, and I repeated like a parrot that many people who play the game ABOVE average will come tell you the same but sure it’s me trying to act badarse to make you snowflakes feel bad…
And when someone thinks that:
You got it wrong,. many dont play RTS cause they dont wanna control more than 1 unit. nothing to do with pathing…
SC2 with new pathing and moving says 'Hello, im the most played RTS game every noob wants to play me ’ /sarcasm. SC2 is harder than war3… especially if you play terran which I do.
Just for the record the word “purist” has nothing to do with religion in general or Puritans specifically. It simply means that you want things to be the same as they were before. Nothing more.
Do you know Grubby’s take on pathing? He said “If they change pathing, I quit wc3”. I don’t have a source for this, but just ask him about it when he is streaming again.
I’m well aware of Grubby’s stance on the issue. I also disagree with him, just like I disagree with others in this forum.
Grubby looks at this with the same all-or-nothing mindset and bias I see here. He has been playing War 3 for over a decade and he’s used to a style of play that he fears will not exist if any changes are made. There’s no reason the game can’t be tweaked to improve pathing, movement, and unit responsiveness without breaking core mechanics such as surrounds or making ranged units unstoppable with kiting.
Grubby doesn’t care if the player base goes up or down because Grubby can play, and will continue to play, against a small group of high-level players who are content to leave the game as it is.
There are others, like myself, who would like to see this game increase in popularity so that we can enjoy more, and better, tournaments, a greater diversity of players, and a more active community. War 3 was a fantastic RTS but it is dated and anyone who tries it out is going to feel how dated it is the moment they start giving commands to units. It won’t matter that the graphics are improved - it will still feel like a clunky, old, game.
If you actually played sc2 in a higher league than platin you wouldn’t even try to compare sc2 to wc3. Sc2 feels different to wc3 in every possible way.
I played SC2 at a high level and attained master league on multiple accounts as a random player. I also played BW at a high level, winning state tournaments and having a very high ICCup ranking. None of this matters though, because my argument stands on its own merit. Your argument, on the other hand, that anyone who disagrees with you must be a n00b who doesn’t understand RTS games, is ridiculous.
Of course I, like everyone here, recognizes that War 3 and SC2 are not the same. The point I was making with SC2 is that it is technically possible to create a game with better pathing while still retaining the mechanics core to War 3 (surrounds were my example). This statement is true whether or not I know how to play SC2 in a “higher league than platin.” [sic].
Improving pathing would completely annihilate balancing in wc3. Pathing and blocking being the way it is punishes players for massing units. It also lowers the effectiveness of melee units in general if you build too many. I know you don’t get that because you must be just another casual 50 apm player if wc3 feels like a clunky mess to you.
Improved pathing doesn’t break the game. The designers of War 3 didn’t create pathing issues to prevent people from massing units - that’s absurd. I’ve seen plenty of games that hit unit cap. Upkeep and cost is the limiting factor for unit massing. The game was designed from the start to have smaller armies than War 1, 2, and BW. Pathing has nothing to do with it. The coding is antiquated, period.
It also lowers the effectiveness of melee units in general if you build too many.
Right, because the pathing is garbage. This was not a design choice, this is a product of bad design. Also note that improving pathing doesn’t mean grunts are going to immediately get on top of rifles. They won’t move faster, they just won’t act like idiots bouncing between allies before they actually start swinging their axe.
I know you don’t get that because you must be just another casual 50 apm player if wc3 feels like a clunky mess to you.
lol. Good argument, Champ.
Can people finally stop arguing about things they have no fking clue about?
Given every point you’ve made here is nonsensical, let’s start with you.
@Mjolnir
Agreed and agreed couldn’t of said it better myself.
I wouldn’t mind, and don’t think it’d hurt anything none, if when making a custom map you had the option to turn off the weird formation mechanics forcing your units into a rectangular pattern.
compared to what game dude, let’s hear it. You think you want Starcraft 2 like movement but in reality it quickly becomes boring. “oh just attack-move everything over there, whatever”
couldn’t OF? OF?! Typical, it’s always these people who are the complainers and want to ruin the game.
Improved pathing doesn’t break the game. The designers of War 3 didn’t create pathing issues to prevent people from massing units - that’s absurd. I’ve seen plenty of games that hit unit cap. Upkeep and cost is the limiting factor for unit massing. The game was designed from the start to have smaller armies than War 1, 2, and BW. Pathing has nothing to do with it. The coding is antiquated, period.
You don’t get it. Of course they didn’t create pathing issues to prevent people from massing units. I never wrote anything like that. However the whole balance of the game has been built on top of those pathing issues. If you improve pathing it will break the balance of the game.
Smoother movement will benefit some units more than others. By making such a huge change to the game you would have to start balancing from scratch. Given the fact that the devs can not even get little changes to the game balanced right now, I don’t even want to imagine what that would look like.
You don’t get it. Of course they didn’t create pathing issues to prevent people from massing units. I never wrote anything like that. However the whole balance of the game has been built on top of those pathing issues. If you improve pathing it will break the balance of the game.
I absolutely “get it.” The point I was illustrating was that when you say players are “punished” for massing units, the implication is that this is by design. I understand your point but think of it this way:
If a player cannot utilize a valid potential strategy that exists within the “rules” of the game because the game is poorly designed, doesn’t that suggest to you that the design ought to be re-worked?
Never mind, I know your answer. Instead, think of it this way:
Your opponent is attacking you with a simplistic strategy using a small number of powerful units that you could easily beat if you overwhelmed them with a larger force composed of weaker units. Only you decide that you can’t employ that strategy because using a large force of weak units is inefficient due to the shortcomings of the game.
That is piss-poor game design. There are complaints going back to 2002 about how bad the pathing is in War 3. It’s a shortcoming of the game and just because people have built strategies around it doesn’t mean it should stay. I know you say that the game was balanced around bad pathing but if you improve pathing for ALL units, how does that negatively effect one unit over another? As I’ve said before, improved pathing doesn’t mean melee will magically appear on top of ranged and start smashing them. I’m not asking for a change that means units can blast past each other, whether allied or enemy, and face no consequences for bad formations. I’m simply asking for a minor change where a unit won’t get stuck trying to figure out how to get to a target for 5 to 10 seconds. Both sides would benefit - and the player benefits from not losing dps to idiotic units walking in circles.
Smoother movement will benefit some units more than others.
Give us some examples that might change our minds.
If you think high-level SC2 is simple “attack move over there” I’m not sure what to say to change your mind.
From the outset the design of SC2 was, as explicitly stated by Blizzard, to focus on massive armies. This is a stark contrast to the aims of Warcraft 3. They’re different games, I’m not sure why people are trying to compare them here in this way. The only reason I brought up SC2 was to illustrate a singular point:
You can have better pathing and still retain the desired mechanics of War 3 tactics (surrounds, body blocking, etc.) since those tactics exist in SC2.
I am all for making patching and movement better. The pros will adapt.
Keeping shoddy/buggy game play because its been the meta standard for years isn’t a excuse to keep it in.
I’m fairly sure that the majority asking for updated pathing want Starcraft 2’s pathing simply cause they can’t adapt, they couldn’t adapt towards SC remastered and they can’t adapt towards WC3 either, in fact wouldn’t surprise me if most didn’t have WC3 before reforged was announced.
While I agree with the sentiment that you can have both, I haven’t seen any evidence of this working without causing changes to how WC3 plays.
I mean… couldn’t this be replicated as a SC2 custom map/mod? We can literally test to see if this is possible without compromising WC3’s gameplay. But as it goes, we can see how SC2/HOTS circular foot prints make a huge difference to how pathing works, and improving pathing has the potential for making WC3 ‘feel’ different.
I think this is something best left alone. If we want better pathing, we have Armies of Azeroth.
Well, the good news for the purists is that it’s almost an absolute certainty that no changes will be made.
Honestly, what drives this sort of reasoning? Is it straight up elitism?
We can’t adapt? What about those of us who played War 1, 2, SC, BW, War 3, SC2 in sequence? We’ve “adapted” to every game over a period of 25+ years.
People complained about War 3 pathing and movement in 2002. Regardless of whether or not you want it changed, it’s quite clear that it isn’t optimal. I’m pretty sure I’ve even seen developer blogs about the problems with square unit boxes and buildings and how that clogs up the pathing.
The conversation is moot. Nothing will change. The game will have a short-term spike in popularity and be right back where it is now in a year or two.
If it is needed for the mechanics and skill depth, little you realize how it is a good reason a lot. However, if they can improve some friendly units pathing (would it be like SC2 to make a unit move through others that make way of it I dunno), while keeping the mechanics, that’s OK.
Btw since some say ‘oh look units just stuck in one another’ time to bring this SC2 pathing clip, what do some think about Naga added now and rifles, since some tell me how bring new races and new pathing will change everything!
xhttps://streamable.com/v74zi
I’ve been with SC2 and still am for the past 8 years and I don’t feel any influence from SC2 and I do not find a problem at all with how the pathing works in war3 now…
There’s already SC:R where players can enjoy playing against the game engine.
So much lost potential in WC3:R, just so the handful of classic players can play with everyone.
Yes… Polish the movement… It has been hidden in plain sight all along. We must invade Poland… FOR THEIR MOVEMENT!