Transition between SC and WC3

[PH0BiA]

Is it easy? I'll still play SC, but WC3 is looking very appealing.

[U-238]

W3 isn't as stratigest as starcraft is. If you don't like all of the possibilities in starcraft then warcraft may be for you. But if you prefer having a perfectly balanced game where the main strats you hear are only the begining to what you can do then you might want to stick to starcraft.

[Cpt.Chronic]

The transition is easy, yet very difficult. It's easy cause it's made by the same company and has the same basic controls. It's difficult cause the game just plain sucks when compared to StarCraft and you will find yourself wanting to play StarCraft the more you play WC3.

If you want my opinion on a good strategy game to switch to, it would definitely be Rome: Total War. That game's single player mode is actually better than StarCraft's single player, but it's multiplayer is not near as good as StarCraft's. Other than that, Dawn of War: 40k is pretty good too, but nowhere near as good as StarCraft or Rome: Total War. WarCraft 3 comes in a distant 4th place to the above mentioned games.

My scores for the games:
StarCraft: BW - 10.0
Rome: Total War - 9.5
Dawn of War 40k - 8.0
WarCraft 3 - 6.0

[Alexisonfire]

u forgot c&c red alert 1 with the boats that can shoot half way across the map rate that rts

[GroG]

I play both; the main differences that you'll either love or hate are:
1)upkeep - at 50-70-90 (I think) population you get less gold per "mine". So instead of 10 gold per trip for a peon, you get 7. Then 5, then 3. I think those are the numbers.
2)creeping - nuetral units you can kill for experience and items, located in key spots and just randomly around the map
3)items - items that are hero-usable, but can benefit the whole army
and of course 4)heroes

If you like the sound of those, try it. If not, don't. Otherwise, it plays almost the exact same, except everything seems a bit slower (units move slower, etc), and the unit response is "better" (just different, when I first started playing I thought it was worse, then realized it's just a bit different timing and such).

GL HF.

[RedRagToAnOrc]

I play both; the main differences that you'll either love or hate are:
1)upkeep - at 50-70-90 (I think) population you get less gold per "mine". So instead of 10 gold per trip for a peon, you get 7. Then 5, then 3. I think those are the numbers.
2)creeping - nuetral units you can kill for experience and items, located in key spots and just randomly around the map
3)items - items that are hero-usable, but can benefit the whole army
and of course 4)heroes

If you like the sound of those, try it. If not, don't. Otherwise, it plays almost the exact same, except everything seems a bit slower (units move slower, etc), and the unit response is "better" (just different, when I first started playing I thought it was worse, then realized it's just a bit different timing and such).

GL HF.

Upkeep changes at 50 food (7 per "mine") and 80 food (4 per "mine"). The limit is 100 instead of SC's 200.

I might also add that micro is so much more important in Warcraft - expansions aren't really required until 10 to 15 minutes in, and even then, they're mainly a bonus. Most of the game is about using the right strategies and then microing your units as effectively as possible.

I started playing SC after playing WC for over a year and found it very difficult, but once I got the build orders and various strategies nailed I became half decent and could at least hold my own against WB members. I can imagine it would be pretty much the same for WC - once you get used to it, it's so much easier than it seemed at the start.

[Ahzz]

warcraft is creeping creeping and creeping. one battle takes about 5 minutes, units are incredibly easy to micro cuz of big size and high hp. People say that it takes alot more micro. well it might be so, but in starcraft the micro takes alot more skill. I bet any good starcraft player can micro almost as good as very good wc3 player, but wc3 player cant do even close to sc. Also, wc3 is just about attacking, creeping, backstabbing with almost no sense of strategy needed. You learn it fairly easily too.

[GroG]

Yeah, there's no strategy in creepjacking your opponent.

I think it's funny how some people can play multiple games and like them, then there are some people, like Ahzz here, who have to compare everything and make it seem the game they play is superior. Kinda pathetic, in my opinion.

I like both games. What exactly does it require to be skilled again? Playing a game for 3244893842902843 hours? I guess I'm not skilled at any game, then (I'm making a point that it's not skill, it's practice; thus, the players at war3 wouldn't lose to sc'ers in war3, and vice versa, they are each good in their own game).

[Gladstone]

Meh I wanted to try out WC3 the other day, and when i saw it in store, it made my mad because WC3 was more expensive than SC.. T_T..

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

The campaign is fairly easy and fun. That's all I got to say about the game, you might like the bonus ingame-cinamatics Blizzard added at the end of the game. The races are a little frustraiting to get used to. Overmassing doesn't work like in StarCraft. All races arn't compleatly balanced. You always have higher tech units beating everything. Make the best use of your heros or your automatically dead. You got more things to worry about, like items, time of day, critters, tax, etc..

It's a fairly cheap game. But, I suggest you should only buy it to blow off some time. The game doesn't have that addiction StarCraft has.

[Cpt.Chronic]

Yeah, there's no strategy in creepjacking your opponent.

I think it's funny how some people can play multiple games and like them, then there are some people, like Ahzz here, who have to compare everything and make it seem the game they play is superior. Kinda pathetic, in my opinion.

I don't see how it's pathetic that he thinks SC is better than WC3. You're just being overly defensive of a videogame that you like, which IMO is what is actually pathetic. So what, he likes SC better, and he even gave his reasons why (i.e. micro is harder/takes more skill, creeping is lame, etc...all valid points). I agree with everything he said, and I also like Rome: TW and Dawn of War better than WC3, so does that make me 3 times as pathetic?

I like both games. What exactly does it require to be skilled again? Playing a game for 3244893842902843 hours? I guess I'm not skilled at any game, then (I'm making a point that it's not skill, it's practice; thus, the players at war3 wouldn't lose to sc'ers in war3, and vice versa, they are each good in their own game).
I think the general consensus is that it's easier to reach a competitive level in WC3 than it is to reach a competetitive level in SC, hence SC takes more skill. A personal example would be when I started playing WC3 it took me about 10-15 games to be able to beat a friend that had been playing online for over a year. With StarCraft, it would take at least 10x (maybe +50x) as many games. So in the end, it takes more practice to become skilled in SC than in WC3, which only reaffirms the point Ahzz was making-- WC3 is easy to learn.

[ShadowFlare]

I have WC3 and TFT; I played the campaign and then only really play scenario maps for multiplayer. For some reason the regular multiplayer modes for WC3 don't really appeal to me.

However, when I play Starcraft, I'll play just about anything, not just UMS maps.

[GroG]

Micro does not take more skill in SC, that's just plain ignorance talking. Both games have the same types of micro, as their unit control set-up is the exact same. Creeping isn't lame, it's a nice transition to getting heroes that little bit of exp to the next level, while still risky enough to have you lose units if creepjacked.

I also play DoW btw. You took my insult of lame the wrong way, as I was clearly making a point of skill being intimately knowing a game and understanding it, not just vaguely understanding how to micro/macro and applying it to any single RTS. You must know timings, items, heroes, etc etc etc. Clearly people who are good at micro/macro start off with an edge vs. other players, but they still must learn the new game itself to be good, and that was my point.

Hey Chronic, do you think that maybe instead of doing your vague analogy of beating some friend in 15 games (by the way, he must have sucked), you might gather some real world data? Like, oh I don't know, actually playing only 15 games and then competing in a league and seeing how you fare? Cause I honestly think you'd lose every game.

Anyways, you guys can continue to live in your "SC reigns supreme!" dream world. I'll just play mutiple different RTS'es now. And I'll wait for you guys who are so good at everything to SC to come to some random new game and just automatically beat my ass because you were so good at SC and it carries over to every game because your skill is sooo high the clouds cover parts of it. /rant

[lammas]

how many games of wc do you need before you can do fine in league?

[MatGeo]

I wanted to start WC3 one day...i'm still playing it once in a while but i only haver RoC since FT wasn't in the store T.T. It's pretty cool i like it that the map editing capabilities are far beter then in SC thus making more fun UMS maps like DotA. :D Other than that i find it annoying that because of low pop limit u can't macro effectively. :( Sc still remains my fav tho... :P

[Cpt.Chronic]

Micro does not take more skill in SC, that's just plain ignorance talking. Both games have the same types of micro, as their unit control set-up is the exact same.
So you're saying it takes the same amount of skill to micro a unit that has 10x as many hit points-- now that's ignorant. The fact that SC has extremely low hp units is what makes it harder to micro. If you don't do it just right (i.e. marines vs. lurks, mutas vs. m-m, lings vs. zealots, etc..) then they will die and you will lose the battle. In WC3, since they have so many hps, it gives you more time to micro, and thus you can make a mistake or two, and still have that unit alive, or not have your hero die and be able to warp him out.

Creeping isn't lame, it's a nice transition to getting heroes that little bit of exp to the next level, while still risky enough to have you lose units if creepjacked.
When I play a multiplayer game I play it because I want to play vs. a human opponent, not computer AI. If I play a multiplayer game and have to kill AI controlled enemies, I consider that quite lame. But according to you, I'm not permitted to hold this opinion.

I also play DoW btw. You took my insult of lame the wrong way, as I was clearly making a point of skill being intimately knowing a game and understanding it, not just vaguely understanding how to micro/macro and applying it to any single RTS. You must know timings, items, heroes, etc etc etc. Clearly people who are good at micro/macro start off with an edge vs. other players, but they still must learn the new game itself to be good, and that was my point.
Yes, and my point was that it takes longer to learn SC than WC3 because the game has more strategic options available and thus takes more skill/practice to be competitive at.

Hey Chronic, do you think that maybe instead of doing your vague analogy of beating some friend in 15 games (by the way, he must have sucked), you might gather some real world data? Like, oh I don't know, actually playing only 15 games and then competing in a league and seeing how you fare? Cause I honestly think you'd lose every game.
Apparently your definition of "real world data" differs from mine. My friend and I must have been playing in the "fake world." Also, that was an example, not an analogy. Someone needs a dictionary. Do I think I could join some competitive league and do good after just 15 games, no of course not, but if I actually liked the game and wanted to improve it wouldn't take near as long as SC to be competitive. I've played about 3,000 or so games of SC on melee maps and I'm still not at a high enough level to join a competitive league, such as WGT Clan Leauge, Fragbet, Sandlot, etc...

Anyways, you guys can continue to live in your "SC reigns supreme!" dream world. I'll just play mutiple different RTS'es now.
You sure are taking us not liking WC3 personal, which is just silly. So what, we like SC more than WC3, and we told you why, now go cry somewhere else. And in case you didn't notice, I too play multiple RTS's (I even ranked Rome:TW's single player above SC). I just don't play WC3 because I think it's garbage

And I'll wait for you guys who are so good at everything to SC to come to some random new game and just automatically beat my ass because you were so good at SC and it carries over to every game because your skill is sooo high the clouds cover parts of it. /rant
LoL, noone even said that :confused: All we said is that WC3 is easier to learn than SC and you had to throw a hissy fit.

[EvilEggCracker]

My, my ignorance here is astounding.

Because we all know that Pros at Starcraft are soo much better than the ones at Warcraft III.

Not to mention that Warcraft III is so much easier than Starcraft, all the stuff that blizzard added to make it more strategic don't matter, because the units in Starcraft have lower HP! </sarcasm>

[blupp74]

Does any of this even matter?

Both are games, liked by different people for different reasons on different levels. I myself found WC3 kind of boring, and thus did not put any effort into getting better at it (ie I never did anything but suck at it).
However, this was way before I even had a good grasp of what SC was, or how it should be played (I was stuck in Fastmap-swamp by then, and knew nothing except massing).

If Chronic thinks WC3 is easier, then that's his opinion based on his experiences of the game (compared to SC). GroG has other experiences, which makes him no more right or wrong than Chronic.

I'll say nothing about the differences in micro between the two games, because the term "Micro" was not known to me in either SC or WC3 when I played it (and as I said, I was sucking at both games then).

So, in short, Chronic (and the people that agree with him) are right, for them, and GroG (and his fellow believers) are right, for them.

And I, having said what I just said, am just plain right :P

[lammas]

No blupp you are missing whole point of this coversation:
Grogs opinion is wrong.

[Cpt.Chronic]

My, my ignorance here is astounding.

Because we all know that Pros at Starcraft are soo much better than the ones at Warcraft III.

Not to mention that Warcraft III is so much easier than Starcraft, all the stuff that blizzard added to make it more strategic don't matter, because the units in Starcraft have lower HP! </sarcasm>
Umm no. They added things to make it less strategic and less balanced, like heroes, items, and enemy AI units in every game. The randomness of the items a hero finds makes the game less strategic (unless you consider luck strategy) and is enough to throw off the balance in any given game.

If you had any level of reading comprehension you would understand that my low HP comment was in reference to how it is harder to micro SC units compared to WC (not about the overall strategic level of either game). Now why don't you take some more things I've said out of context and make yourself look like an even bigger ass.

[blupp74]

No blupp you are missing whole point of this coversation:
Grogs opinion is wrong.

I don't know if you're kidding or not. How can an opinion be wrong?
Facts can be wrong. Opinions can not.
Though the opinion can be based on wrong facts, of course. But some opinions are just based on other opinions. Yeah. You betcha!

[EvilEggCracker]

Okay, jackass, have you even played Warcraft III? Oh, thats right you became as good as a pro after those 15 games.

Heros are actually pretty strategic, but then again you're obviously better than me. I have seen entire games won due to strategic use of Heros.

Creeping is a viable strategy, yes, but its not the only one.

Also, to actually answer the original question: No. If you've played any real strategy game before, then this will come pretty easily (not to mention the campaign rocks).

[Cpt.Chronic]

Okay, jackass, have you even played Warcraft III? Oh, thats right you became as good as a pro after those 15 games.
GJ. Now instead of taking things I've said out of context, you're just completely making up things I've never said. I never said anything of the sort, and in fact said the opposite: "Do I think I could join some competitive league and do good after just 15 games, no of course not, but if I actually liked the game and wanted to improve it wouldn't take near as long as SC to be competitive."

Also, to actually answer the original question: No. If you've played any real strategy game before, then this will come pretty easily (not to mention the campaign rocks).
Wouldn't the answer be "yes" then?

[IrishDutchman]

And, kids, what did we learn from this?

Starcraft players + Warcraft III players = :cuss:

[MatGeo]

I play SC.... I play WC....that means ME= :cuss: ?

Just asking.

[Basan]

And, kids, what did we learn from this?

Starcraft players + Warcraft III players = :cuss:

Not all of'em... get over it. :P

[IrishDutchman]

I play SC.... I play WC....that means ME= :cuss: ?

Just asking.


Notice the plural. PlayerS. AKA, 1 SC player + 1 WC player.