What do you HATE about Warcraft 3?

[StoPCampinGn00b]

No praising. If someone does I will just say "no praising damn it!"

What is one thing you really don't like about this game? For me, it's how you can only control 12 units per group with no WE option to make it more in a custom map.

I mean, how am I supposed move 300 units in a risk map without pressing 1-9 unit groups one by one D:<

 

[Zaramorus]

Blademaster, because of overpowered wind walk and Paladin, because of overpowered divine shield.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

It was a good upgrade for Windwalk make damage. However, I think Blizzard made mistake by allowing the hero walk through units.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

I never understood why blizzard would do that either. It's basically a free escape even if your enemy worked hard and strategically to trap you somewhere.

 

[Garodar]

I hate Wc3 because of 8MB limitation.

 

[Heinvers]

What I hate about it are: The buggy movement system, only 12 units selectable at one time, buggy rendering of environment when using e.g a 1st person camera and limited 6 items inventory, etc.

 

[Eagle XI]

Pink elves.

 

[Hantoo]

the error in warcraft 3 model
(wrong bone, holes, stuff, bugged animation, model wrapping give me more work to do )

 

[Vinz]

The un-scalable UI.

 

[Ralle]

Server splits.

 

[BloodDrunk]

Not able to modify damage and armor directily through trigger actions.

 

[Hantoo]

no male NE Archer

 

[LordDz]

Leaks, protection of maps crashes the world editor when opened, hosting bots killed the talk between players when in a lobby.

 

[Justicebringer]

Doesnt tracks position of the mouse,
and trackables are useless and incomplete.

Cant detect keyboard events other than
esc, and arrows.

8mb limit.

Bugged spells, problems with the object editor.

Poor usage of tiles.

Standard tree models. Blizzard cliffs... facepalm

Not supporting ogg files.

 

[Deleted member 238589]

Mostly that tricky movement system.

 

[Vinz]

Very limited options. Be it the OE (almost all spells inerrupt orders), TE (GUI with no shit included), Import Manager (no autopath), etc.

 

[Footman16]

The problems for Mac users.

 

[Ralle]

The problems for Mac users.

Hear, hear!

It is not working on Mac anymore .

 

[Kazeon]

When released (11 years ago) Warcraft III was a GREATEST game of all. IIRC, it has already got it's mighty World Editor that time. If you want a better engine, so probably you should move to Sc2 instead of complaining about limitations of this old game

 

[Dr Super Good]

1. Hosting robots meaning that you have a maxed-out list of empty lobbies with no way to tell if they actually contain players.
2. Leaks. It is so easy to leaks stuff in WC3, especially if you are new to GUI. The result is many maps performing far worse than they would if the game just did not leak.
3. Non-deterministic save-load process. Yes the load result is deterministic however it is not deterministic with the results immediately after the save. Array index 8191 and periodic timers are lost after loading as an example.
4. JASS execution performance. Although some bytecode is used to increase parse speed of the program structure, it still interprets every name you mention at run-time by looking the string literal up in a hashtable. The names are constant to so a direct reference could be resolved once and used which would be orders of magnitude faster.
5. Game engine not fully deterministic. Terrain deformations and walk-able models can produce different results between systems.
6. Movement restriction and control group sizes. Although one should not ever own thousands of units, you still should be easily able to order 100 odd around.

 

[Hantoo]

Arthas not Handsome Enough

 

[ShadowShaman.mn]

The story is left unfinished!

(I don't count the WoW story as a decent story)

 

[Chen]

^Nope. WoW continued an epic story...

What I hate? The PotM face. They have a chance improving it with the texture but...

 

[Tal'Rarity]

User/Player Intelligence

 

[Boris_Spider]

User/Player Intelligence

Seconded.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Vinz]

How it died...

 

[Ushnar]

The fact that undead don't have a problem about building things one by one. I also hate that night elf have transforming units and have a lot of ranged units which give them an advantage. Yes, I also don't like the 12 troop limit in controlling units.

 

[Chaosy]

game wise: the Graphics.
mod wise: no lists in jass/vjass

 

[Tal'Rarity]

game wise: the Graphics.
mod wise: no lists in jass/vjass

Graphics are all the same boring stuff nowadays, nothing original or unique. Wc3 and older games have the best graphics.

 

[VeljkoM]

I hate Gargoyles, they lack usefulness for me.

...everything else has been cowered by now anyway.

 

[Chaosy]

Graphics are all the same boring stuff nowadays, nothing original or unique. Wc3 and older games have the best graphics.

It could still use a texture update and some smoother models.

 

[Dr Super Good]

It could still use a texture update and some smoother models.

And real-time shadows instead of blobs, and better shaders for emissive and normal. Oh wait SC2 already has all that stuff.

 

[Chaosy]

And real-time shadows instead of blobs, and better shaders for emissive and normal. Oh wait SC2 already has all that stuff.

Too bad the SC theme isn't as great in my opinion

 

[E.M.C]

Wc3 would still be a very competitive game today if Blizzard cared at all. Unfortunately its age is showing. My biggest pet peeve EVER is that once you're TKO'd out of the game via a disconnect for example, there's no coming back baby. I had a lovely situation like this yesterday: wait for an hour to get people to join the game, then play for an hour doing preparations and tech before finally making a base (it's a custom map). And THEN, boom, disconnected, sayonara. Hasta la vista. Adios muchachos. Because fuck you, that's why. /rant

Seriously though, why can't it be like what old Diablo 2 used to have? You create a game, and even if there are no more players in it it still lasts for 1 more minute before it disappears, so you can join in case you were disconnected. That's just an example but you get the picture.

Then, there's the outdated user interface itself. Like, you can't search the game names in the game list at all, which is kind of stupid, yet simple and easy to fix. The UI hasn't changed since the game hit the shelves, so what does that tell ya? The main problem is that wc3 is on a life-support, and as long as Blizz is racking up mad money from WoW, it will remain so.

 

[E.M.C]

I hate Gargoyles, they lack usefulness for me.

...everything else has been cowered by now anyway.

Gargoyles are anti-air shock unit, saying they're useless is preposterous given that they even outperform hippogryphs, whose sole purpose is to attack air units. So if anything, they are OP.

 

[VeljkoM]

Gargoyles are anti-air shock unit, saying they're useless is preposterous given that they even outperform hippogryphs, whose sole purpose is to attack air units. So if anything, they are OP.

Gargoyle has high normal attack and that is where advantage ends. Crypt Fiend on the other hand has high pierce attack so while numbers seem lower, the attack gets effectiveness against the most typical air unit (2x) light armor or (1.5%) no armor. Crypt Fiend also has medium armor that is more durable than the unarmored gargoyle against the typical air unit attacks pierce and magic. And yes Gargoyle does have stone form but crypt fiend has burrow that preforms similar function. And the worst part is that crypt fiends have web which helps land units but makes gargoyle switch to rather low ground attack. If you didn't have Crypt Fiend then I would consider using Gargoyle since right now it is just cheep fast AA for tier 2.

As for hippogryph it is actually weaker than gargoyle but it is saved since the alternative AA unit for night elves would be archer ( and maybe Druid of the Claw in raven form but I have never used him like that). Archers and hipporgyphs can actually work together and benefit each other unlike crypt fiend and gargoyle who contradict each other. Also Chimera is helpless without Hippogryphs while Frost Wyrms can fight air units.

 

[Dr Super Good]

My biggest pet peeve EVER is that once you're TKO'd out of the game via a disconnect for example, there's no coming back baby. I had a lovely situation like this yesterday: wait for an hour to get people to join the game, then play for an hour doing preparations and tech before finally making a base (it's a custom map). And THEN, boom, disconnected, sayonara. Hasta la vista. Adios muchachos. Because fuck you, that's why. /rant

The game state is so complex that it would take you another hour to re-join as several hundred megabytes are transferred peer to peer to you.

The reason you were disconnected is either of the following.
1. Your internet failed so you really disconnected. Complain to your ISP.
2. A deterministic error in the game meant that you went out of synchronization with the rest of the players. Now this is what Blizzard should really have fixed.

Seriously though, why can't it be like what old Diablo 2 used to have? You create a game, and even if there are no more players in it it still lasts for 1 more minute before it disappears, so you can join in case you were disconnected. That's just an example but you get the picture.

Because it is not possible with RTS games in the same way.
Games like Diablo II, Diablo III, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty etc all use state streaming. The actual deterministic state is computed by the server (owned by the game company usually like in the case of Diablo II/III and World of Warcraft). All you see as a client is an approximation of part of that state synchronized from the server. Rejoining is as simple as re-synchronizing the approximation as the server has the deterministic state to send you at all times.

This is (or was?) not possible with RTS games due to the size and complexity of the state. Where as a single computer can run >32 Diablo II servers reasonably well, it will struggle to run even 4 Warcraft III games well. Obviously with cloud computing this can all change but many people do not want it as it forces an over dependence on reliable servers that are out of your control.

Warcraft III uses the classic RTS synchronization approach of parallel deterministic states for each client with a server coordinator. The server coordinator is responsible for controlling the advance of the deterministic state and synchronizing any external influences on it (player orders etc). The server can generate replay files using this information but it does not know the game state at any given time. This means that the server is very light weight but the clients are very heavy as they are running in parallel.

Gargoyles are anti-air shock unit, saying they're useless is preposterous given that they even outperform hippogryphs, whose sole purpose is to attack air units. So if anything, they are OP.

They are fragile however and very vulnerable to certain damage sources.

If you didn't have Crypt Fiend then I would consider using Gargoyle since right now it is just cheep fast AA for tier 2.

Problem is crypt fiends are slow land units leaving you vulnerable to air raids (if WC3 has them? I know SC2 has them...) Gargoyles on the other hand can hit said raiders quite effectively.

Frost Wyrms can fight air units.

Poorly... They use their alternative attack on air which deals less damage. If you are depending on Frost Wyrms for air superiority you are might as well give up. Their magic air damage might be good against some targets however.

Gargoyles deal approximately 4 times (or more) the AA damage as Frost Wyrms per unit cost as they hit over twice as fast and cost about half as much.

It is hard to compare the two as it is like comparing a single corruptor against a battle cruiser. The battle cruiser will obviously win yet corruptors are a highly effective counter to battle cruisers due to lower cost and high damage against battle cruisers.

 

[VeljkoM]

Problem is crypt fiends are slow land units leaving you vulnerable to air raids (if WC3 has them? I know SC2 has them...) Gargoyles on the other hand can hit said raiders quite effectively.

Wc3 population is too limited in my opinion to separate army like that but yeah it is possible. In Starcraft games where you have 200 pop and units generally use less space it is viable strategy but Wc3 encourages you to use your hero and small army. But should remember that web drags the unit towards Crypt Fiend if it is above location where it can't land which is almost always, specially air raid units that try to use trees or water as a barrier.

I would only really prefer Gargoyles against night elves because of Chimeras who with siege attack are more then capable of air raids. Though if you allowed your enemy to reach tier 3, upgrade them and spam them I don't think you were playing well that game.

 

[E.M.C]

Gargoyle has high normal attack and that is where advantage ends. Crypt Fiend on the other hand has high pierce attack so while numbers seem lower, the attack gets effectiveness against the most typical air unit (2x) light armor or (1.5%) no armor. Crypt Fiend also has medium armor that is more durable than the unarmored gargoyle against the typical air unit attacks pierce and magic. And yes Gargoyle does have stone form but crypt fiend has burrow that preforms similar function. And the worst part is that crypt fiends have web which helps land units but makes gargoyle switch to rather low ground attack. If you didn't have Crypt Fiend then I would consider using Gargoyle since right now it is just cheep fast AA for tier 2.

As for hippogryph it is actually weaker than gargoyle but it is saved since the alternative AA unit for night elves would be archer ( and maybe Druid of the Claw in raven form but I have never used him like that). Archers and hipporgyphs can actually work together and benefit each other unlike crypt fiend and gargoyle who contradict each other. Also Chimera is helpless without Hippogryphs while Frost Wyrms can fight air units.

I agree that crypt fiend is a better unit overall, but there is a use for ever unit, and gargoyle is no exception. Basically, you'd only make gargoyles if your opponent is focusing almost exclusively on heavy air units like griffons, chimeras and wyrms, since they're not meant to be effective versus ground attackers. Since gargs use melee damage to slay air units, they can also reap certain benefits that fiends cannot, such as vampiric aura. Finally, they're faster and cheaper than fiends, which is also something to take into consideration, but your choice eventually depends entirely on your play style.

 

[E.M.C]

The reason you were disconnected is either of the following.
1. Your internet failed so you really disconnected. Complain to your ISP.
2. A deterministic error in the game meant that you went out of synchronization with the rest of the players. Now this is what Blizzard should really have fixed.

The fault was on my end (or on my ISP to be precise), but it doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I'm aware that they're two very different games, but it was only a suggestion. I'm also absolutely certain wc3 wouldn't be the first RTS game to implement something like that, so it definitely can be done. I would propose something like a small temporary file bestowed upon all players of one game, and then they have it as long as they play, and if one of them leaves, it lasts for one more minute. While they are absent, they (and only them) have the opportunity to rejoin the game for that window of time. When the game ends, the file is gone. Besides, doesn't the save/load system work in a similar fashion?

That's my basic rudimentary idea from a layman's point of view, but if we can send a man on the moon, I'm fairly certain we can also create rejoinable games for an RTS.

 

[VeljkoM]

I agree that crypt fiend is a better unit overall, but there is a use for ever unit, and gargoyle is no exception. Basically, you'd only make gargoyles if your opponent is focusing almost exclusively on heavy air units like griffons, chimeras and wyrms, since they're not meant to be effective versus ground attackers. Since gargs use melee damage to slay air units, they can also reap certain benefits that fiends cannot, such as vampiric auras. Finally, they're faster and cheaper than fiends, which is also something to take into consideration, but eventually depends entirely on your play style.

Exactly, versatility vs crippling overspecialization. While each unit does have a role I find some units to be unorthodox for common use and serve more as surprise factor (Would you really use often Bat Riders and Gyrocopters?). In game with very limited army I myself prefer units that can handle different situations and gargoyles can't do that. Cheep and fast yeah but unless you invest a lot in them to actually outnumber enemy air units you won't see good results even against units they are supposed to counter as griffins and frost wyrms splash high damage. Vampire aura would be actually more useful on Gargoyles than any other unit actually since vamp aura has really low % to be useful by other units, but still paper thin armor can't survive concentrated attacks. I will take back that they are useless but I still find them less desirable choice in undead arsenal.

 

[E.M.C]

Exactly, versatility vs crippling overspecialization. While each unit does have a role I find some units to be unorthodox for common use and serve more as surprise factor (Would you really use often Bat Riders and Gyrocopters?). In game with very limited army I myself prefer units that can handle different situations and gargoyles can't do that. Cheep and fast yeah but unless you invest a lot in them to actually outnumber enemy air units you won't see good results even against units they are supposed to counter as griffins and frost wyrms splash high damage. Vampire aura would be actually more useful on Gargoyles than any other unit actually since vamp aura has really low % to be useful by other units, but still paper thin armor can't survive concentrated attacks. I will take back that they are useless but I still find them less desirable choice in undead arsenal.

I get where you're coming from. Personally, I think gargs work best when they cover wyrms as a support against other air units. And yes, they do work very well with vampiric aura, there's even a strategy of massing only ghouls and gargs with the dreadlord and to rush someone with it.

I'd just like to point out something given that you've mentioned batriders. Batrider is an amazing unit, and I use it all the time. Not only is it a terrific anti air, it is also an amazing destroyer of buildings (something which gets lost on a lot of people). Siege damage + liquid fire + focused fire = gg. When I'm bored, I often own noobs by making only blademaster, towering myself in, and then massing batriders for a sudden strike. They easily kill the main building, and they will do a number on someone's base in a very quick time if you let them.

 

[VeljkoM]

I get where you're coming from. Personally, I think gargs work best when they cover wyrms as a support against other air units. And yes, they do work very well with vampiric aura, there's even a strategy of massing only ghouls and gargs with the dreadlord and to rush someone with it.

I'd just like to point out something given that you've mentioned batriders. Batrider is an amazing unit, and I use it all the time. Not only is it a terrific anti air, it is also an amazing destroyer of buildings (something which gets lost on a lot of people). Siege damage + liquid fire + focused fire = gg. When I'm bored, I often own noobs by making only blademaster, towering myself in, and then massing batriders for a sudden strike. They easily kill the main building, and they will do a number on someone's base in a very quick time if you let them.

Hm I think problem with me is that I prefer ground armies more with heavy air as support at least with undead and orcs. Gargs as cannon fodder to guard the Frost Wyrms from Air units has certain flare I like if I would go for air superiority since spamming just frost wyrms would be bad.

Yeah I have biased view against suicide units in any game. Unless it is C&C game where you can make fast transport early and suicide infantry and target the economy. But anyway I would prefer more Demolishers as they have insane damage, AoE splash and long range to snipe casters and focus on heroes. I guess option is rider too but somehow I expect bat rider to have better results both anti building and anti air. Suddenly interested to try Batrider as anti casters too... still wind riders are cheep enough and have pierce attack so they are reasonably good against air and trolls are cheep too but bit to fragile for my taste. And ugh blademaster soloing I honestly find that rather annoying, since it feels like that is all orc players do.

 

[Rui]

After having played StarCraft II melee for one or two years, I understand why people think Wc3 is worse as a strategy game. SC has a lot of strategy built into it, with its raids, expanding pressure, positioning most of all... Whilst WC3 is so centered around the hero. When it dies, it's like you lost the reason to keep playing.

Techtrees may differ, you may have Grunts and Headhunters on one side and Archers and Huntresses on the other, with different armor types, sure, but they still appear so similar. It's nothing like having Zerglings and Marines.

I believe the largest challenge for a future Warcraft RTS would be to try and keep heroes, perhaps reducing their importance, but make it as strategically intense as StarCraft. Someone may say «nah, they're suis generis». I say that's giving up on making a good game and reaching a new level, which is what Blizzard did with StarCraft 1.

Blademaster, because of overpowered wind walk and Paladin, because of overpowered divine shield.

It was a good upgrade for Windwalk make damage. However, I think Blizzard made mistake by allowing the hero walk through units.

I never understood why blizzard would do that either. It's basically a free escape even if your enemy worked hard and strategically to trap you somewhere.

Having played WC3 for quite some time, I've always thought Blademaster was excessively powerful. He won't win games if you or your team aren't producing units, but he is no doubt the most hard to catch hero and the largest edge in the game. The way Wind Walk's bonus movement speed and duration scale up is quite overpowered as well. On the other hand, I have yet to see someone picking Mirror Image at early levels (it's so expensive mana-wise anyway). This kind of hero, which always lacks reasons or circumstances in which skilling differently would be better, is what I consider failed hero design.


About the gargoyle discussion. I don't like gargoyles either and consider them to be next to useless. What's most irritating about them is when you have an enemy force composed of 10 air units and 1 ground unit, they'll prefer targeting the ground unit, even if the air units are things like Hippogryphs. That's just so silly for a unit whose primary focus is anti-air. Consequently, you need to control them at all times. Consequently, people don't use them because they'll rather be controlling their heroes.

In all these years playing wc3, I've seen gargoyles being any good just once: they were fully upgraded and it was pure air-to-air. If Blizzard made this small change of making them prioritize air over ground, I could guarantee they'd be used a lot more.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Pathing, graphics, UI, unpopularity, JASS/GUI inefficiency/insufficiency, pinging system (it should be like in LoL: Normal/Danger/On my way/Ask for assistance/Enemies missing), battle.net ancientness (can't browse channels when searching for game etc.), unit control group tinyness, insufficient stats (movement/atk speed should show accurate number etc.), ded gaem (no more patches/updates), no out-game systems which affect gameplay (e.g. LoL's champion store), graphic bugs, cheating AI, shallow enjoyment (I'd 99% more likely play LoL), slow game speed, snowballing, no leaving penalty, no range indicators, no leagues, no official game modes apart from "kill your enemies", can't select what kind of build AI'll do, AI doesn't react to pings (afaik), no post-game report/honor player system, replays don't save camera/selections, can't watch replays with friends, can't spectate games (with delay ofc), too few heroes and too small focus on heroes, no actual ganking (bushes etc.), dull summon spells, lack of DoT heroes, insufficient profile details (finished campaign/hours played/graphical win loss stats etc.), server delay/lag, no pre-game lobby in which you could decide roles/races, unattractive maps, no rewards for playing a lot (apart from a number), no match history, blademaster (he's imbalanced).

 

[Vinz]

Gotta love that LoL viewpoint.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Moba is the way to go, it's nice that Blizz FINALLY has realized they need to get to the moba market, with their Heroes of the Storm - game.

 

[E.M.C]

If Blizzard made this small change of making them prioritize air over ground, I could guarantee they'd be used a lot more.

I think that's a fair remark, and I agree.

 

[Footman16]

Moba is the way to go,

Why are you playing an RTS then?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Why are you playing an RTS then?

I play it sometimes, but as I said, I'd 99% more likely play LoL.

If blizz fixed the stuff I pointed out, I'd start playing wc3 more often.