On the topic of Quility-of-life changes, and all the hype around Wc3R hype, this is the Q-o-L improvement that I would like to see the most even though there is some argument for this change affecting play, this would most remarkably make controlling your army way less challenging as the game progresses, especially for those that have not put in thousands of hours (Although I would welcome it a lot even as someone that has put in thousands of hours in this game <3)
11 Likes
I think one of the coolest things about WC3 is that it focuses on fewer, more powerful units. In starcraft you can run a wave of zerg into a line of siege tanks, have 40 units instantly die and still win the battle if you have a proper follow up.
WC3 is all about long, drawn out engagements between only a few hands full of units. It was a very unique approach for an RTS at the time and still sort of is the only one i can think of that did it this way.
I wouldn’t change a thing regarding upkeep, unit group maximums, etc…
Except (of course) in custom matches for people that want to goof around.
6 Likes
despite being right at first thats not an excuse for not adding this.
its old mechanic there because game was old… we should get rid of it
Personally I wouldn’t like them to remove the 12 unit cap, even for control groups.
They’re trying to capture the heart and soul of WC3, and in that is the skill and technique needed to control your army with only 12 units at a time. I think removing that would be a nice quality of live change, but would be a disservice to the memory of the game.
That said in customs I figure you could go hog wild.
1 Like
controling 12 units is not skill… its a chore
lifting 200 candles 1 by 1 to shell doesnt require skill… it makes you put more effort instead of putting them into a box and carrying them at the same time
chore doesnt mean skill
I mean let players do it when needed.
We could probably debate day and night about now 12 units cap is skill or a chore, so lets move on to another point.
How would this affect balance?
This game was built and balanced around being able to control 12 units in each control group at a time. Would increasing that dramatically change the overall balance of the game?
1 Like
you can allways make units follow your hero… now 48 footman following paladin hero … did I just break meta?
Following is very different from spellcasting or microing. For macromechanics I can see why larger group sizes would be convenient, but as for the nitty gritty micro needed in combat larger group sizes could in fact affect balance, positively or negatively.
I wonder how many new players attracted and kept, Starcraft 1 remastered with the
let’s keep the game unchanged philosophy.
1 Like
This would be an interesting topic to follow up on. As someone who purchased SC:R and plays in on ladder frequently I can say I enjoyed the lack of changes, but I wouldn’t mind hearing from someone new that picked it up.
But that does beg the question, is the game for newer players or is it just to pick off of nostalgia?
1 Like
how did you notice they changed starcraft 1 so little? 
it sounds like you were one of core players too so… you are not someone new added to player pool
also its too easy to notice you are tring to avoid discussion 
I would think a new player would be more put off by the terrible unit pathing and AI behavior as opposed to 12 unit caps on control groups. Especially considering that most of the time you have small armies to begin with so the 12 unit limit is not much of a hindrance.
1 Like
I’m not avoiding discussion, I’ve avoiding unnecessary conflict and flaming. We’re both passionate about the game, we’re just coming from different points of view.
One way or another larger control groups would change in battle micro, which would affect balance. I’m simply wondering if that would be an overall negative or positive change.
as one who bought SC1 Remastered out of nostalgia I can’t tell you that I never played it since last summer (launch summer), controls felt too outdated for an RTS, I know that game was a gift for the Ko community most of all, but Warcraft 3 is another thing.
2 Likes
then lets put question in this way
giving more optional strategy to player can harm the game?
we are not discussing pathing here go on and create your own threat pls
“But that does beg the question, is the game for newer players or is it just to pick off of nostalgia?”
I was responding to a question about the new player perspective and my comment that if a new player was to avoid reforged for mechanical reasons it is more likely they would avoid it for more frustrating aspects like pathing and AI then 12 capped control groups. This was relevant to the discussion.
3 Likes
In the long run I don’t believe that it would harm the game itself, it would just necessitate more balance changes and adjustments that could lead to old players that would have played the game for years (think people like Grubby) getting put off an leaving the game, yet could appeal to a more casual audience.
So I think it boils down to if Blizzard wants to cater the game to diehard fans that crave nostalgia or to a potential new audience.
Fine I supporting pathing happy? ![:slight_smile:](https://dou48tnq0ocoa.cloudfront.net/en/warcraft3/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")
wanna continue this discussion?
(yes I trapped you by the way. now go on and try to claim “see this is what I was meant to prove” thing of yours.)
its someting I would like to see but its not “must be there” thing for me ok? So yes I would support it but not so needed
I would love to hear Grubby’s input on this. I know SC1 was said to be balanced around the selection size, but I can wrap my head around this being true for WC3, he he can point out what would break then I would be a lot less eager to change this.
1 Like