WC3 economy rework (upkeep mechanics change or removal)

General Discussion
1

Hi i see blizzard balance team do great job of balancing the game and actual gameplay is getting better and better …

There is a lot more of 2 base play (new strategy’s) and a lot of different heroes and army compositions are viable now then it was in the past…

But there is still room for improving the game and i think that is reworking WC3 economy model (reworking or removing Upkeep mechanics)

Upkeep mechanics were originally designed around low spec PCs and for low unit count on your monitor…So more PC spec can play the game.
As and old school wc3 player from 2000s i know it :stuck_out_tongue: .Right now in 2023 we dont have that problem with high end PCs…

So what are the negatives of Upkeep mechanics :

You are punished for good macro (for producing units above 50 sup) witch make game even more hero centric (dota like) then an RTS

When you expend (2 base) and when its destroyed you are again pushed to go below or to 50 sup army’s because you are on one base.

Its hard for new players in 2023 (its confusing to play) how it works and why are you punished for good macro (producing units in an RTS game).

So what is the positives of Upkeep mechanics :

Early game dota like skirmish (hero vs hero action) low army number count.

It can push you to expend before you reach Low Upkeep …(but when you lose Expo you are again punished if you have above 50 sup armys )

It make game more hero-centric (giving your heroes ability to come back more) because you are around 50 sup. (this can be negative for ppl that like RTS part of wc3)

50 sup become safe to you to play around…

So what is the solution ?

  1. I would like to test it at list on PTR how it feels of removing complitly Upkeep mechanics in mulitplayer gameplay.

2.Second option is reworking it :

First 8 minutes of the game you mine 100% gold
Second from 8 - 12 min you are entering low upkeep 70% gold
Third from 12 -16 min you are entering Hig upkeep 40% gold
Similar to sc2 lotv one base mineral mining.

So in this case you are free to build over 50 sup army till 8 min but around 8 min you should considering expending because after you will get less and less gold.

So you are not punished if you properly macro your army but the longer time you mine from one expo you are punished if you are not expending…

3rd option is implementing SC-BW economy model or some version of it because its the best RTS economy model.

Ty for reading game is going in great direction in terms of balance and gameplay but there is a lot of room to improve to be one if not the best RTS game out there…

2

You can always turn upkeep off on custom maps by adjusting the thresholds in Advanced Gameplay Constants. Just queue up the game with your friends or against the AI.

That’s not quite right. If the goal was to prevent large armies, a lower supply cap would do just fine. Upkeep has a different purpose.
According to Wowpedia https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Upkeep:

Upkeep has been included to improve tactical management for players while fostering a more aggressive style of gameplay. Players are more aggressive and turtle far less in their bases, and it gives players real strategic decisions to make about how many units they wish to control with pros and cons to each. Upkeep is also instituted to focus the game on smaller numbers of units. The more units that are allowed in the game, the less powerful Heroes will be relative to your army. This is simple math. High Upkeep is MEANT to be very punishing. Players should not be in it for long, but Blizzard didn’t want to set the harsh unit cap at 80.

Basically, upkeep forces players to be a lot more aggressive.
Upkeep puts you at an economic disadvantage while you have a larger army, so the best way to prevent the opponent from pulling ahead is to attack with your larger army, before they can gain much of an economic advantage. If you sit and wait on a higher upkeep level, the opponent will pull ahead in resources, and after spending some time accruing those resources, they may be able to pump out or even remax a stronger upgraded army that can overwhelm yours.

Remaining on low upkeep is economically beneficial, but it also carries a high risk you will get overwhelmed and killed by more aggressive opponents.

1 Like
3

I would say these ideas should be applied to a new RTS rather than retroactively patched into a 20 year old game. There’s likely good reason it didn’t make it into SC2 after all. But Warcraft III is just what it is, and it’s fine for it to stay as such.

Well, you’re describing the end results caused by upkeep, but OP is not wrong, see here (timestamped at 19:40): https://youtu.be/J6XHjEzb7-8?t=1180

1 Like
4

Ok basically you are saying that Upkeep is pushing player to all in if he is above 50 sup and dont have expo…(Full NA :smiley: )

And also Upkeep is promoting aggressive gameplay its some way i agree but on other head there is other gold resources (in wc3) other then from your expo and its called creeps (witch give you gold)
And on top of that you have one more resorces its and hero XP witch promote you to kill creeps or oponent units (to be agreesive) to move out and have map control.

Conclusion : So basically if we remove Upkeep mechanics it will not promote turtuling becase you have other resources like EXP (for hero) and Creeps that give you Gold so it will still be aggressive gameplay (its not like SC2 or other RTS)

I agree with that point to but we are getting balance patches that constantly changing game from one base all ins to right now 2 base play that is new (new nerfs buffs and on)
That is also changing the rules how the game is played so why not make game even better…

Second maybe make wc3 classic separate old school game and wc3 R a new game (reforged not remaster of wc3) that will have blizzcon 2018 GFX smother patting new balance and ability s and economy rework…(it can go in that direction to) but i think wc3 and modern games have constantly improving and changing rule set for the best of the game…

1 Like
5

Upkeep is a mechanic that is unique to Wc3 and will never go away, nor should it. If you want to play a game with no upkeep, play Broodwar or SC2.

6

Hmm if something is unique does not meen its good for the game or ist not subjegeted to change.

Example other RTS games or even other genera s are making constant changes to their games from nerfs to buffs to entarly new rule set or mechanics to make them better…

From table top games like warhammer to figting games like street fighter (new mechanics) or even MOBA like LOL that is (bigger hp on heroes map changes and on)

Wc3 from 2002 is not even close to the same game as wc3 from 2023…I know because i played it :smiley: …

From new wc3 balance strategy’s nerfs buffs even new Zoom lvls that make game cleaner easy-er to macro menage and easy-er to control your army’s a lot of new heroes are playable new items and on…

Mamak i cant agree with you brother there is all-ready a lot of changes to wc3 that made game better then there is no reason to at list experiment with other type of changes that could make game better.

But maybe the best solution would be for wc3 classic and wc3 R to be separate games… :stuck_out_tongue:

7

Getting rid of upkeep is not going to make the game better. The majority of players who play the game consistently want the upkeep system. You don’t have to agree, but it is just a fact. None of the high level players want to do away with upkeep. There have been improvements to make the game better, but removing upkeep is not one of them.

8

It’s actually better to build up to just under 80 supply and then attack, since you have the same upkeep that whole way through. Attacking at 50 supply is something you would do if you want to get back under 50 supply. The same is true for that 80-100 margin. If you are above 80, it is best to get close to 100.

Anyway, one of my earlier points is that upkeep can be turned off. If you don’t like it, you are free to make a map without it or modify an existing map to get rid of it. I do that all the time on my own maps.

Attacking creeps isn’t really equivalent to attacking another player. You can creep while building up towers at your bases and avoiding direct conflict with your opponents, which is its own form of turtling.

Fights between players also provide XP to both sides (assuming the heroes aren’t killed first), so that by itself does not encourage aggression either. You may just be feeding your opponent.

Lastly, creep kills grant very little gold. It isn’t nearly comparable to the gold players get from gold mines.

The reason why upkeep promotes aggression against other players is because it creates a scenario where maintaining a large army and refusing to attack the other player puts that player at a disadvantage. There really isn’t another mechanic which does so.

9

What? Upkeep had nothing to do with system performance. It was a balancing mechanic. It’s there so that you don’t sit on a huge army, you have to go out and fight or you lose too much money because it costs money to support a large army.

If it was about performance they would have just set the upper limit on food lower.

2 Likes
10

5min 32sec words from developer its self About Upkeep mechanics and low end PCs…

Sorry you are wrong… :frowning:

11

Sorry, I’m not wrong. Sure, maybe performance did play into it, but it was and is still a balance mechanic.

Even their logic at the time was flawed, because as I said, they could have just made the food limit lower. Why design such a crazy system if the only purpose was to keep performance?

They also could have removed it as PCs got better if the ONLY purpose was because of performance.

2 Likes
12

starcraft 1/2 encourages you to camp until max population/upgrades, while aggressively expanding.

warcraft does this anti-turtle by utilizing upkeep, so that you are encouraged to go fight and level your heroes and creep and clear out expansions.

many units are only usable at the moment just because upkeep exists, keeping the incentive to play with small armies.

as soon as you let players go to max pop without any penalties units that benefit the most from reaching critical mass/numbers (ranged dps) dominates even more and makes other units worse.

2 Likes
13

This. Regardless of the original intentions, ultimately it is a balance factor and affected the way we play the game. The units were balanced with the understanding that this mechanic exists.

1 Like
14

I agree a lot of balancing is to fit around 50 sup army s and re balancing the game would be necessary around bigger army supply’s…

Similar how SC2 Wol was differently balanced then SC2 LOTV (sc2 lotv push for more map control and expending)
But in general it will make game less clunky and more streamlined then it is now…Because game still feels like old game but it could be updated with this tipe of changes to make it more in line of modern RTS…

My main point is right now with Upkeep mechanics fights are around from 30 to 50 sup fights and two base play is around 40 to 80 sup fights…

But with some Upkeep and economy changes we could see bigger one base fights from 40 to 70 sup to two base fights around 70 to 100 sup.

That would be the difference.

15

I’m not sure why bigger fights is a good thing.
(I’m not saying it’s a bad thing either, more that it’s an irrelevant thing)

2 Likes
16

bigger fights = even more ranged units, even less melee units.

considering that melee units are already underperforming due to their axe-range, going for even bigger fights is not a good design.

17

Maybe but i dont think so look at male units like :
Night Elf Bears MGs (bears still do good dps) and MGs do great job of tanking (above 50 sup armys)
Human units like Knights Spellbrakers even filler like Footman s
Undead have sworm (like zerg ghouls) and Abominations do good job of tanking dps

Only Orc low numbers of Grunts and Taurne s (Taurens are under powered need fix buff) but when combined with TC speed aura can close range faster and do their job.

Larger number of units would not make male units bad (we can see male units even now above 50 sup gameplay) but in general there would need some balance adjustments in order to compensate for new economy model that would make wc3 more in line with modern RTS out there …

18

close this damn thread, I’m about to puke from the disgusting nonesense thats written here.

19

I get it we are kind living true cancel culture but i think we should be able to talk discouse about any topic (that is what forums are for) :slight_smile: Even if we agree or disagree…

There is a two camps in terms of where the game is and where it should could go.(basicly ppl that wont a change and ppl that want game to stay the same as it is)

There is even ppl that still think wc3 ROC is the best version of wc3 (or in sc2 community that SC2 Wol is better then SC2Lotv) but most ppl dont agree about that :stuck_out_tongue:
Do we want a admit or not game is way different from 2002 then it is now (game balance skill way it plays and on) even game from 2020 to 2023 is way different that we play today.

So changing economy model to something like i propose (closer to sc2 or modern RTS) it would make different to play but is as any new balance patch.

It would make game smother (not clunky like it was from 2000s) then more in line with new RTS games that we play today.

But in general every change that push game foreword (all E sport game do this) to be batter game we should consider changing.

And there is one more option and that is make WC3 R separate game from WC3 classic so ppl that like nostalgic game-play can still play it but ppl that wont something more modern should switch to wc3R…

20

cancel culture? what? No one’s cancelling anything. Even if they were, the people who use this phrase are using it as a crutch. People complained about getting cancelled but the reality is everyone has the right to decide who is worth giving their time and money to, and the people complaining about “cancel culture” have just as much a right to cancel as anyone else. Ultimately though, whoever or whatever is perceived to be the least desirable thing is what will get “cancelled.”

I don’t believe removing the upkeep mechanics would push the game forward. It affects out strategies and planning in important ways, and despite your initial assertions, it is not purely a performance thing. You’ve quoted them saying such, but upkeep doesn’t in any way prevent performance from falling below acceptable limits- that’s what the food cap is for.

1 Like