3 ms·

I clicked just to see what the op would say about warcraft 3 and the very first point is a clear indication of inadequate understanding of the game at elite lev

I clicked just to see what the op would say about warcraft 3 and the very first point is a clear indication of inadequate understanding of the game at elite level of play. Spacing is important and in fact a big part of the game but not in a Starcrafty kind of way. Different maps allow for different tactics around map control based on race and ability to creep and gain map control. Its not about holding a high ground as a strategy, its more about holding a high ground for a certain type of army composition and while trying to expand for example. And on the subsequent points ,again op just fails completely to understand the game at a higher level or simply has not seen any high level tournament in the last 2 years. Warcraft 3 is a masterful piece and the reason its not popular is it is fucking hard to be even decent at it online. Micro is more important than macro and thats a big deterrent for anyone thats a causal player.

hiq 6y ago
Yes exactly. I would also debate the popularity point: how many games released by 2003 (release year of The Frozen Throne) still have an active pro scene, meaning people whose job is to play this game at tournaments? With the rise of streaming I'd venture that most pro players do not rely solely on tournaments (and their tournament sponsoring) anymore, but the point remains that the game seems to have seen an increase in popularity in the past few years. The Warcraft 3 scene is nothing compared to the biggest names in esport, but it is still remarkably healthy. One reason for this is that Blizzard let the community take the lead unofficially with things like https://www.w3champions.com/ https://www.w3champions.com/ which is basically like Battle.net but better than Battle.net has ever been in many regards. I think it also helps that WC3, as a RTS, can still be relatively enjoyable as a beginner: fewer units to control, fewer resources and buildings to manage, and at the very beginning (say, with 50 APM) focusing mostly on the first hero (meaning a single unit) is clearly the best return on investment to increase one's win rate, which can become apparent after just a few games. Few RTS games are able to both offer such a gentle learning curve and the depth required for people having played the game for more than 17 years to still refine their strategies.
pa7ch 6y ago
Agreed! I think WC3 is massively underappreciated. After being terrible at it in its heyday in middleschool and hearing about Grubby it was a delight many many years later to discover he streams. Watching his stream fully made me appreciate the depth of strategy in WC3. Not the top player when it comes to micro but he often beats the best with brilliant and constantly varied strategies. One thing he is known for is successfully base trading his way to a win that most would have already considered a loss. That grubby does so well despite his "low" APM I think is a testament to WC3's depth of strategy and balance.

hiq 6y ago

Yes exactly. I would also debate the popularity point: how many games released by 2003 (release year of The Frozen Throne) still have an active pro scene, meaning people whose job is to play this game at tournaments? With the rise of streaming I'd venture that most pro players do not rely solely on tournaments (and their tournament sponsoring) anymore, but the point remains that the game seems to have seen an increase in popularity in the past few years. The Warcraft 3 scene is nothing compared to the biggest names in esport, but it is still remarkably healthy. One reason for this is that Blizzard let the community take the lead unofficially with things like https://www.w3champions.com/ https://www.w3champions.com/ which is basically like Battle.net but better than Battle.net has ever been in many regards. I think it also helps that WC3, as a RTS, can still be relatively enjoyable as a beginner: fewer units to control, fewer resources and buildings to manage, and at the very beginning (say, with 50 APM) focusing mostly on the first hero (meaning a single unit) is clearly the best return on investment to increase one's win rate, which can become apparent after just a few games. Few RTS games are able to both offer such a gentle learning curve and the depth required for people having played the game for more than 17 years to still refine their strategies.

pa7ch 6y ago

Agreed! I think WC3 is massively underappreciated. After being terrible at it in its heyday in middleschool and hearing about Grubby it was a delight many many years later to discover he streams. Watching his stream fully made me appreciate the depth of strategy in WC3. Not the top player when it comes to micro but he often beats the best with brilliant and constantly varied strategies. One thing he is known for is successfully base trading his way to a win that most would have already considered a loss. That grubby does so well despite his "low" APM I think is a testament to WC3's depth of strategy and balance.