[Altered Melee] If WC3 Had A Second Expansion?

Level 5
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
115
TFT added various units, researches, heroes, and other things, as well as a few stat-related changes (such as adding magic and hero attack types) to basic melee games. My question is, if another expansion had happened, what do you think would be new for melee maps?

Would we see a 5th hero, maybe filling a hero-type one is missing for each faction (AGI Human, STR NE)?
What kind of new units do you think could be seen?
Perhaps a new mechanic? (Like say making it so you can get a lore character for your 3rd hero)
I think you get the idea.
 
Level 20
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,757
More Naga units.

A lower-tier healing spell for the Horde.

A better distinction for Magic damage (Archmage throwing fireballs isn't Magic, but Chimeras spitting lightning is, except when Lizards do so in which case it's Piercing).

Maybe some kind of faction-based units (Forsaken/Scourge, Maeiv/Tyrande, etc.)
 
Level 5
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
115
I'm not sure how Naga could fit in to a faction unless a new one was made for them (Naga themselves, Illidari, or Old God).

For damage type I intended to make them more consistent unless something would be OP as hell.

I had an older map where I sort of offered masteries where you would pick one at the start of the game which would effect tech/unit paths and strength of certain units, but it felt like it deviated too much from "expansion" and became more of a "melee redesign". So for example the Horde was Darkspear Mastery (Buffs troll units and opens up certain researches/abilities), Orc Mastery (Same, but for Orc units), and Brute Mastery which allowed the recruitment of Ogres and buffed Tauren. The other factions had a similar story.

I suppose I could work on another melee redesign map, but for now I am thinking more of "enhancing" current factions. Also if you could, elaborate on the Horde healing thing, I never found it to be that huge of an issue personally, but I would like to hear more on the issue.
 
Level 20
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,757
^ You mean like the SC2 games? Same mechanics (compared to WC2 -> WC3), more units?

I'm not sure how Naga could fit in to a faction unless a new one was made for them

That's what I meant: maybe some of the unfinished/not-quite balanced races encountered in TFT (naga, Akama's draenai, fel orcs / demon-worshipping orcs, satyrs) would have had some balancing out and new units and spells.

Lorewise, I don't play WOW but I imagine they could have gotten a lot of mileage out of the quests and worldbuilding done there (given the quality of custom campaigns that do exactly that).
 
Level 5
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
115
"Blizzard has moved away from the expansion model for its RTS games."

That's not what I was talking about, I was talking about a "what if" kind of scenario.

As for the orc healing, I suppose I could give shamans something, a new spell slot(s) is open due to Ogre Magi getting Bloodlust (I always found it unfitting for Thrall's shamans, and Ogre Magi had it in WC2). What kind of thing would work best? A healing salve style spell? Or maybe a toned down chain heal? (I am not fond of copying hero abilities and toning them down, but I am open to if needed) or something else completely?
 
Level 21
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
2,196
"Blizzard has moved away from the expansion model for its RTS games."

That's not what I was talking about, I was talking about a "what if" kind of scenario.

As for the orc healing, I suppose I could give shamans something, a new spell slot(s) is open due to Ogre Magi getting Bloodlust (I always found it unfitting for Thrall's shamans, and Ogre Magi had it in WC2). What kind of thing would work best? A healing salve style spell? Or maybe a toned down chain heal? (I am not fond of copying hero abilities and toning them down, but I am open to if needed) or something else completely?

Why would you need another healing for the orcs? They already have the witch doctor's healing totem and the shadow hunter's healing Wave : /
 
Level 5
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
115
Why would you need another healing for the orcs? They already have the witch doctor's healing totem and the shadow hunter's healing Wave : /

It was in reference to someone else expressing in the orc's healing unit being 3rd tier, while the other factions have one available at 2 (Besides of course, heros and items). I haven't done anything yet, so I'm open to any ideas people have whether it be countering others or not.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 35
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,718
I love this idea/topic. Even if it's impossible ( @Dr Super Good ), it's fun to think about.

Even if it's not very Warcraft-y/too hard to balance, I'm a big fan of picking, like, a sub-faction or discipline at the beginning & having it affect your game. Whether as simple as Red Alert 2 (pick a Nation; you get over special unit associated with that Nation), or as complex as Age of Mythology (pick a major God & (@ each tier) pick a minor God; all of which unlocks different buildings, upgrades, units, spells, etc) , I love it. Kinda wanna design that myself, in fact.

However, re: Orc healing; you can't just ignore Heroes. The Shadow Hunter's Healing Wave is kinda the whole point; Orcs were missing healing so they got it in TFT.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 35
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,718
Ah dannae. I don't play enough to know the balance of the game, but perhaps that was intentional? Perhaps the Horde (& and/or the Blademaster) are just that powerful?

Also are Healing Salves not used competitively? They are a T1 item, and pretty strong outside of combat IIRC.
 

Deleted member 219079

D

Deleted member 219079

Healing salves suffice imo.

Faster matchmaking, even if it compromises skill level similarity.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 39
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,471
I'm not sure how Naga could fit in to a faction unless a new one was made for them (Naga themselves, Illidari, or Old God).

For damage type I intended to make them more consistent unless something would be OP as hell.
Illidari or Demons would be in good position to be factions themselves. And yes, Naga units need a nerf overall; compare the Couatl to the Wind Rider, for example; more damage at a faster rate for 40 less gold and only 2 food, and +3 armor.

Heals normally suffice in any melee game. The most worrisome is actually the Undead, who can rely only on blight to heal its units early on unless you get a Death Knight. Getting a non-undead tavern hero also means you don't get heal until Halls of the Dead. Orc is quite well in comparison ;)
 
Level 21
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
2,196
Illidari or Demons would be in good position to be factions themselves. And yes, Naga units need a nerf overall; compare the Couatl to the Wind Rider, for example; more damage at a faster rate for 40 less gold and only 2 food, and +3 armor.

Heals normally suffice in any melee game. The most worrisome is actually the Undead, who can rely only on blight to heal its units early on unless you get a Death Knight. Getting a non-undead tavern hero also means you don't get heal until Halls of the Dead. Orc is quite well in comparison ;)
And the Obsidian Statues? : /
 
Level 32
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
11,408
If one skip DK (e.g went Lich), they're screwed in recovery.

This puts Undead in a big disadvantage in solo when the enemy has healing edge over them if they didn't pick DK. Effectively, this diminishes tactical choice for Undead (forced DK on first hero for actual edge).
Cannbalize minimize the problem, but... corpse?

A fix would be adding some sort of early recovery, though that might make them OP in late game...
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 35
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,718
If one skip DK (e.g went Lich), they're screwed in recovery.

This puts Undead in a big disadvantage in solo when the enemy has healing edge over them if they didn't pick DK. Effectively, this diminishes tactical choice for Undead (forced DK on first hero for actual edge).
Cannbalize minimize the problem, but... corpse?

A fix would be adding some sort of early recovery, though that might make them OP in late game...
I'm not gonna claim that Blizzard is perfect/Wc3 is a paragon of balance... But something like 'healing' seems like they would have thought of it.

And, after a little perusal of Mojo Stormstout guide, I would argue yeah, they kinda did.

For one, don't knock the Blight-only Regen; it's an astronomical 2.00HP/sec (double the next highest rate (1.00HP/sec for Night Elves (night only) & quadruple the other two (0.25HP/sec for Humans & Orcs); even my custom Jungle Trolls, with vaunted regeneration, only have 1.50HP/sec).

For two, all three Tier1 units have a method of ultra-fast regeneration. The Gargoyle's *Stone Form* gives them 8.00HP/sec, the Crypt Fiend's *Burrow* gives them 5.00HP/sec, and while *Cannibalizing* a Ghoul gets 10.00HP/sec. (Which, with a T1 Graveyard structure & early creeping factored in, is not hard to get).
((And that's not even counting Vampiric Aura))
Make that 10/7/12 respectively if done while on Blight.

So yeah, I'm no expert but I would argue they didn't intend for the DK to be "required".
 
Level 32
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
11,408
Gargoyle is T2, requires HotD.

Pretty sure they didn't mean to, but from the looks of it, unintentionally it happens (most people tend to go DK first for Coil from what I'm aware). Blight regen sure is powerful, but in a combat where the damage is around 10-30 per second, it will get negated quite fast. It's also pretty slow to recover from an after battle than Scroll (Human) or Salve (Orc). I'm more into Burrow than Cannibalize, but unsure if it was a T2 material or T1 material.

I might need to check some melee games. Been quite a while.
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
117
Well, the first thing to consider for a second campaign, from a gameplay perspective, is to find the various mechanical issues in the game that seriously impact balance at mid and low levels of competitive play, causing races/reasonable strategies to be over or under powered. Then fix them with new units and/or upgrades that counter overpowered strategies and boost underpowered ones, with the high level seeing lower impact due to workarounds in pre-existing strategies that fundamentally don't work at lower levels of play due to execution requirements, such as siege rushes.

As an example, Undead have issues caused by having significantly larger out of combat recovery times. The solution Blizzard did for The Frozen Throne was to introduce the Obsidian Statue, which offered an acceleration to health and mana regeneration but still not in a proper combat timescale. In a second expansion, it could be an additional summoner, a proper combat healer or a recycler to recover resources from losses caused by the deficient healing.
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
117
The undead are "supposed" to lose troops though, what with the necromancy shtick.
I know, but offsetting the disadvantage of unit losses incurred is fairly important at several levels of play, and the Undead somewhat need to take advantage of degenerate usage of their corpse use. Making a number of extra Graveyards to provide for Cannibalize, using Meat Wagons purely to preserve and transport bodies instead of their intended siege role, massing Necromancers and Obsidian Statues to generate large groups of disposable units and making Banshees to steal enemy units primarily to cover the Undead's own weakness in unit value by either stealing a healer or snagging a beefy unit to run cost-positive with the Banshee in question with a good complexity to value ratio.

The corpse usage is a problem for lower-skill players, as it traps them into FOO strategies that don't scale upwards without unreasonable jumps in skill (such as massed Meat Wagons and Necromancers with Obsidian Statues sprinkled in, which needs immense micromanagement to pull off, or yet more build order complexity to add Crypt Fiends or Gargoyles). Adding a new corpse generator, or a proper combat healer, helps with the lower end of play to form better habits as you go up the ladder. This is the exact issue with the campaign, as it doesn't actually present the gameplay incentives that you need for PvP success, leading to segregation in gameplay. It's such a severe issue that Blizzard flat out gave up and made co-op in Starcraft 2 to offer the campaign's incentive structure in a multiplayer setting. This is a big problem for the bar to entry into competitive play.

Actually, speaking of the bad incentives, the actual campaign missions could be used as a true tutorial to the game, giving you scenarios where you have to enact skills needed for competitive play. Higher difficulties could do more than merely alter resources and unit stats on the enemy to instead offer actual changes to test higher-level skill, such as adjusting enemy behavior to force you to micromanage two or three combat fronts at once, a skill that has proven extremely important at the highest level of competitive play because it allows for pressuring an opponent's multitasking skill, something that few people are particularly good at.

Instead of the ubiquitous defense missions of holding out until reinforcements arrive, the goal should be to destroy the enemy before their reinforcements show up so that you can accomplish the in-story objective without much opposition. "Defense" actions in-story could transition to actually breaking down the enemy's army instead of just holding the line, working to eliminate the threat directly instead of just preserve resources. The only case where a "hold the line" mission should happen is if a PvP viable turtle strategy is intended, so that the mission's lesson on how to handle a situation carries over directly to PvP play. Even then, a limit to losses or resources should be included so that the needed skills to do it are enforced by the mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rui
Level 5
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
115
Well UD got cannibalize for ghouls at least, but it kind of sucks for every other unit. Should I make a new tier 1 healing item for UD?
 

Rui

Rui

Level 39
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,471
If one skip DK (e.g went Lich), they're screwed in recovery.
Yes, precisely, this was my point. This is why DK is often the safest choice.

I've had a few solo games in which I opt for Crypt Lord first, but in those games I was fighting a Night Elf and doing early aggression with many melee units, including beetles. In this setting, it's harder to aim the Crypt Lord, which is already a sturdy hero with his Spiked Carapace passive. Other Undead and Tavern heroes are too squishy and/or have a hard time regaining HP.

Doesn't vampiric aura count as healing for UD too?
Barely. Percentages got increased by +5% at all levels this patch, but it is still too low, and is melee-only.

Furthermore, to heal from Vampiric Aura, you have to attack. Suppose you are creeping. Your wounded units regenerate next to nothing at 2 hp/attack, and your healthy ones take damage. What if you get attacked?

The thing with the Death Knight is that he's a tanky hero who heals everyone else. He can either get targeted and make it out of the fire in time, or heal some other unit being targeted. That's flexibility players feel the most comfortable with. This, of course, on top of being the only viable heal early on. Too much advantage to throw away.
 
Last edited:
Level 5
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
117
Okay, I'll revive the topic to overview the degree of new things TFT added, so that we know what we need to be roughly equivalent to in added core content:

1 new Hero for each faction, which mitigated some flaw in the faction. Some commonalities of all the new Heroes is that all of them have some form of movement reduction and all of them have a self-supporting ability, and all of them have a summon. The Blood Mage has Banish's 50% slow and Magic damage amplification, as well as Siphon Mana's "refueling", the Shadow Hunter's Healing Wave improves his own durability and Hex reduces movement speed to 100, the Crypt Lord's Impale stuns for a notable duration and his Spiked Carapace improves his longevity quite significantly, and the Warden's Shadow Strike again halves movement speed, while Blink offers much-needed positioning to capitalize on Fan of Knives.

Every faction got two new units, with a new land unit and a new flyer, of which one is an anti-caster and the other a siege unit. The Humans got the anti-casting Spellbreaker and the disabling Dragonhawk Rider, the Orcs got the dispelling Spirit Walker and the volatile Bat Rider, the Undead got the blessed recovery tool of the Obsidian Statue and the magic-eating Destroyer, while the Night Elves got the hardy Mountain Giant and the annoying Faerie Dragon.

Every faction got three significant upgrades that significantly change, usually by purely improving, how you make use of what is upgraded. Humans get to make Siege Tanks anti-air, Flying Machines anti-structure and Mortar Teams anti-Light, while Orcs turn Headhunters into slightly glassier, but much faster-attacking, ranged units, give a DoT to their catapults and make their buildings significantly more durable. Undead get to improve health regen and ambushing with Crypt Fiends, add a mobile corpse-generator effect to Meat Wagons and prolong the duration of their skeletons. Night Elves get an upgrade for each Druid to cast a spell while in animal form, and a boost to Moonwells.

Every faction got a new structure. The Shop. The Shop is a techtree prerequisite for the two non-Hero units added in TFT and offers a selection of useful items, with the major differences being Orbs that enable anti-flying attacks and damage mitigation method. Associated with this is the addition of an upgrade to allow some units to carry, but not use, items and the addition of the Marketplace, which draws items from the loot tables of the map every 30 seconds past the first two minutes. Humans and Undead also added to their defensive structure options with Arcane Towers and Nerubian Ziggurrats, which are broadly anti-caster and anti-melee, while the Night Elves and Orcs have one of their new upgrades significantly help their defensive capabilities.

Two major things were added: Neutral Heroes and useful aquatic capabilities. Each Neutral Hero provides a relatively generically useful capability, often being specialized in a task not all factions have good access to. The Goblin Alchemist, for instance, offers efficient group healing, something Humans and Night Elves need to wait pretty significantly for, the Orcs are stuck with the less-efficient Shadow Hunters, and the Undead pretty much lack it entirely. The Beastmaster is a center of meatshield creation, a very significant bonus to the Undead's otherwise corpse-reliant or costly meatshields.

In total, there's four upgrades, two non-Hero units, a Hero and a new structure that handles a previously-Neutral-exclusive task that unlocks the non-Hero units.

---

Going over this, it looks like TFT's melee content was focused heavily on expanding the counterplay around spells with more directly relevant abilities, expanding complexity into an area with relatively little of it (I think the only consistent example in RoC was the Banshee's Antimagic Shell). A second expansion would ideally do the same thing, with more counterplay around something that's currently relatively shallow. I personally would prefer this to be base-building, as the play surrounding bases is almost absolutely one-sided. The most you get from the base (unless you're Night Elves) is choosing targets for defensive structures, once you've made the structures. While decent counterplay surrounding structures would likely cause turtle strategies to become vastly improved, I see that as a very good thing, because making sieges an actual part of the game makes an almost entirely absent mode of play practical (almost because there's nutters that'll press a militia rush so hard they not only build archer towers inside the enemy base, but the tech buildings to enable more advanced towers)

Given the goal of making bases themselves a source of serious counterplay choices beyond just targetting enemies to attack and positioning, my suggested forms of additions are upgrades going to improving counterplay around structures, a field engineer and defensive siege unit, a Hero with structure-supporting abilities (if an added Hero is included) and a structure that offers transportation (whether as an upgrade, making a transport unit that fills one of the other two slots, or being teleportation infrastructure). Additionally, a Neutral structure for purchasing neutral workers, letting you play with tileset-specific race fragments that offer similar gap-filling to the Neutral Heroes and/or hire a broader range of improved collectors like the Shredder that just build defensive structures like walls and towers. Could well be one and the same. Not sure about specifics, though.

Anyone got other ideas for central goals/themes the new things go towards? Or details for this siege-based expansion focus?
 
Level 20
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,757
nutters that'll press a militia rush so hard they not only build archer towers inside the enemy base

I've done that, although only against the AI.

Maybe some factional units where the faction gets improved-stats versions of standard units (as in Wings of Liberty's campaign), or as units with different abilities but the same combat role (as in Legacy of the Void's). Case in point: Horde vs. Fel Horde, Scourge vs. Forsaken.

If there's one mechanic I'd have liked to see, it's the ability to have multiple autocasts at once (looking at you, Priests).
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
117
Maybe some factional units where the faction gets improved-stats versions of standard units (as in Wings of Liberty's campaign), or as units with different abilities but the same combat role (as in Legacy of the Void's). Case in point: Horde vs. Fel Horde, Scourge vs. Forsaken.
The issue that arises with subfactions is that Blizzard has literally never made a race selection that's conductive to it (heck, WC3's still hardcoded to no more than four races, at least as far as the map editor is concerned). Also, the races as they exist in game are extremely particular results of canon, with different sources of units being vital to the faction's mechanical identity. You can't have an actual Sentinels subrace for Night Elves because all the Druids aren't actually part of the Sentinels, and any Orc subrace that's based on any group that never went to Kalimdor has to replace two Heroes, two of three casters, both air units, the Kodo Rider and the Tauren. Pretty much half the race outright. If you nix shamanistic practices, you also need to replace the Far Seer and Shaman, so a proper, lore-accurate Fel Horde "subrace" is more new units than it is the original Orc race.

Blizzard's never done subraces in the way you're thinking of, and their race lineup for WC3 isn't conductive to making them because they're pretty extensive groupings. While they have a startlingly prominent habit of using variants on factions, those variants are very frequently missing chunks of the techtree and often rely on inflated numbers. The mechanics end is constructed solely to pose a challenge in a campaign mission, whether by making you adapt to a different toolkit, work out the toolkit you need or deal with something similar to, but distinct from, what you've fought before to trip you up with different abilities and larger numbers. Kane's Wrath (the C&C 3 expansion) got away with it by hyperfocusing on variations of existing units, rather than truly new units, and being a game where the factions are largely differentiated by equipment differences, rather than very specific history and ethnic (for lack of a better term) makeups.
 
Level 20
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,757
Fair enough, so maybe something like mechanically different units rather than entire subfactions. For example, the standard siege unit is high damage with low attack speed, the alternative unit fires a bunch of low-damage attacks at once (and has an equally-long reload time). And of course spellcaster variations.
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
117
Fair enough, so maybe something like mechanically different units rather than entire subfactions. For example, the standard siege unit is high damage with low attack speed, the alternative unit fires a bunch of low-damage attacks at once (and has an equally-long reload time). And of course spellcaster variations.
Why are you fixating on subraces, anyways? They're a clunky mechanic that causes balance headaches because it's splitting a race between multiple subsets for little to no reason. And Blizzard expansions generally follow a pattern of only a handful of new units and one new system, sometimes. With Starcraft 2, all we ever got melee side was new units. As the thread's question is what would happen if Blizzard actually went and made a second expansion, their tendencies with expansions are to be recognized as meaningful limits on what can happen.

Rather than a system that's a massive nightmare to balance because it literally adds more races to the game, except they directly share units with other races and as such buffs and nerfs are forcefully tied together (although Forsaken as a human variant race would be interesting...), I'd prefer stuff that opens up large amounts of possiblity space for user-made maps and tournaments, like proper multiplayer campaign support that directly offers the ability to make multi-map competitive games, something that'd be nice to have for the rather stale Blizzard competitive RTS scene.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
Hero choice affecting more than heroes.
Paladin brings crusaders into the mix and some upgrades for Priests, Mountain King replaces Footmen with Footdorfs, etc.

Mercenary/Tavern factions (Naga, Draenei, Bandits, Furbolg, whatever)
You hire them from special neutral camps, but you can also hire their builders and build a few buildings (upgrade buildings, towers, etc)
So you for instance hire a Mur'gul Slave, build a redux Temple of the Tides, upgrade naga weapons and then hire a lot of nagas from neutral camp, who are now more effective than your enemy's.
 
Level 1
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
42
I toyed with the idea of making a Tier 4 for each race, but it might be too punishing to lose a t4+ building as it would take forever to start building again.

It could make the late game more interesting adding units/upgrades that you wouldn't see in every game.

None of that requires an expansion though, if the expansion is just to add things that can be made in the editor its a bit pointless.

It would have to add features to the game that didn't exist before (proper support for a 3rd resource for example).
 
Level 6
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
178
better and diverse naval combat. It's a big part of actual warfare and somewhat neglected in wc3 at the moment. Shipyard and the ships always felt really underwhelming and the goblin barrage is ridicoulously more usefull than a transport vessel. But this also requires something against itemsinking.
 
Level 11
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
506
TFT added various units, researches, heroes, and other things, as well as a few stat-related changes (such as adding magic and hero attack types) to basic melee games. My question is, if another expansion had happened, what do you think would be new for melee maps?

Would we see a 5th hero, maybe filling a hero-type one is missing for each faction (AGI Human, STR NE)?
What kind of new units do you think could be seen?
Perhaps a new mechanic? (Like say making it so you can get a lore character for your 3rd hero)
I think you get the idea.

That would be really interesting, although I don't think its likely to happen.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 57
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,426
better and diverse naval combat. It's a big part of actual warfare and somewhat neglected in wc3 at the moment. Shipyard and the ships always felt really underwhelming and the goblin barrage is ridicoulously more usefull than a transport vessel. But this also requires something against itemsinking.
I suspect naval combat was considered for TFT which is why the Naga race was being developed. However I am guessing it did not mechanically feel too good which is why the idea was dropped and the Naga race was left banished to the campaign.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
I suspect naval combat was considered for TFT which is why the Naga race was being developed. However I am guessing it did not mechanically feel too good which is why the idea was dropped and the Naga race was left banished to the campaign.
That's pretty obvious, considering they added ship and shipyard models for all races.
I suspect they just couldn't figure out how to translate some faction mechanics into naval warfare (raising ships from the dead? melee ships? etc), plus they had either not introduce Oil, which would be kinda lame, or justify Night Elves using it, which is likewise lame.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 57
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,426
I suspect they just couldn't figure out how to translate some faction mechanics into naval warfare (raising ships from the dead? melee ships? etc), plus they had either not introduce Oil, which would be kinda lame, or justify Night Elves using it, which is likewise lame.
The problem probably was that they wanted to keep the entire creeping and land based gameplay but adding meaningful water based gameplay would result in some maps where one might as well not even have heroes and focus almost entirely on ships. Heroes are core to the Warcraft III melee and hence not something they wanted to see banished only to some maps.
 
Level 6
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
178
so what about the possibility to treat ships like transportable landmasses? Is this even doable in the WCIII engine?

As soon as a hero enters a ship he gets shrunk to like 10 times smaller a size and you can walk them on the deck. Sails are 95% transparent. the ship can still travel north while the hero can walk from starboard to port. So a shockwave type spell can still be cast in all directions depending on where the heroes head is facing?

Man i'd see ample opportunities to play around with currents that speed up and slow down your ships. And turn rate choices as well as change-able winddirections could actually make it very interesting. It might not be as straightforward as a terrain advantage but on the seas there's also different types of terrain winds and currents to abuse in naval combat which can be translated into warcraft III melee warfare. Perhaps even being able to play around with currents on top of the close to land type of combat where deep and shallow waters and rocks can be used to an advantage and disadvantage. And ships being used a sea buildings for bit as well in terms of projectile tanking with ships lying in the harbor.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
The problem probably was that they wanted to keep the entire creeping and land based gameplay but adding meaningful water based gameplay would result in some maps where one might as well not even have heroes and focus almost entirely on ships. Heroes are core to the Warcraft III melee and hence not something they wanted to see banished only to some maps.
Well, no, you still need ground forces to wipe out enemy bases and win the game. And ground forces are crippled without heroes. And ships still need gold to build, so you still gotta capture islands with mines.
Plus they could easily give heroes ship versions - i.e. a hero morphs into a naval unit which retains its spells and stuff. Kinda how naval combat works in Age of Wonders 3.

so what about the possibility to treat ships like transportable landmasses? Is this even doable in the WCIII engine?

Early WoW had big troubles with that (not sure about modern), and it used heavily upgraded Warcraft 3 engine. So I'd say Warcraft 3 can't even dream about that.
All you can do is:
1) have separate ship "islands" outside main map (behind black mask), that all embarked units are teleported on. There they can fight boarding parties, and whenever ship takes damage, a random explosion happens on respective ship map bit.
OR
2) do it the Age of Wonder 3 way.
 
Level 6
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
178
do you have an idea what the main resource-hogger is in that system? Which would make it so troublesome?

since i'd think you might be able to try it like this. Remodel the ships to have a more clear deck, and remove the visible masts in alpha layer texturing to very low visibility. Every ship gets an anchor dummy unit. All units that board said ship are tethered to that dummy unit and become flying units but without the flying vision(only the ship provides vision) collision size decreased to 1 as well. Rotation axis of the ship should be linked to the dummy unit's orientation axis.

When the ship sinks they will drop death in the water and take dmg overtime untill they die unless picked up by another ship. or maybe some more extensive shoreline type of code that drags them with a current until they reach land.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 57
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,426
Well, no, you still need ground forces to wipe out enemy bases and win the game.
Yes except suddenly with >50% of the map filled with water there is no room for creeps, and heroes like the Blademaster cannot perform at all well hence a big part of gameplay disappears.
Plus they could easily give heroes ship versions - i.e. a hero morphs into a naval unit which retains its spells and stuff. Kinda how naval combat works in Age of Wonders 3.
Complete change to game dynamics. Probably not something that felt good.
Early WoW had big troubles with that (not sure about modern), and it used heavily upgraded Warcraft 3 engine.
I am pretty sure WoW engine has always been as good as entirely different from Warcraft III. Sure it reused some components, but so has every Blizzard game from Diablo II to Overwatch.
1) have separate ship "islands" outside main map (behind black mask), that all embarked units are teleported on. There they can fight boarding parties, and whenever ship takes damage, a random explosion happens on respective ship map bit.
OR
2) do it the Age of Wonder 3 way.
Or do what Warcraft III TFT did and not bother with naval combat to instead focus on refining and balancing the existing mechanics.
do you have an idea what the main resource-hogger is in that system? Which would make it so troublesome?
Getting the dynamics to feel good in melee play would likely be the biggest problem. Such mechanics work great for turn based games or RPGs but with RTS games it can become clunky and annoying very quickly.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
Yes except suddenly with >50% of the map filled with water there is no room for creeps, and heroes like the Blademaster cannot perform at all well hence a big part of gameplay disappears.
Creeps must guard something. Something must stand on land. There's a tiny island near waterborne creeps. Make them mostly melee, and so Blademaster can disembark on island and play out last fight from Dragon Soul.

I am pretty sure WoW engine has always been as good as entirely different from Warcraft III. Sure it reused some components, but so has every Blizzard game from Diablo II to Overwatch.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Vanilla Alpha ran on a bit tweaked Warcraft 3 engine (probably a branch from Warcraft 3 Alpha engine, I guess), and Vanilla engine was built on that, not replaced.

do not bother with new features to instead focus on refining and balancing the existing mechanics.
What a horrible philosophy.
Outside competitive scene balance is entirely inferior to juiciness.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 57
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,426
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Vanilla Alpha ran on a bit tweaked Warcraft 3 engine (probably a branch from Warcraft 3 Alpha engine, I guess), and Vanilla engine was built on that, not replaced.
They would have reused parts of it, like some of the graphic code and such, however the core of the engine is totally different. For example Warcraft III does not support the client server model used by WoW at all, instead using lock step. You are probably referring to such an early time in development that in comparison StarCraft was still using the Warcraft 2 engine.
Outside competitive scene balance is entirely inferior to juiciness.
Juiciness does not bring in money, competitive does.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
They would have reused parts of it, like some of the graphic code and such, however the core of the engine is totally different. For example Warcraft III does not support the client server model used by WoW at all, instead using lock step. You are probably referring to such an early time in development that in comparison StarCraft was still using the Warcraft 2 engine.
Good point.
But the "unit on moving platform casting spells" is probably part of the reused bits. So its safe to assume that it wouldn't work in Warcraft 3.

Juiciness does not bring in money, competitive does.
1) Well, no. Fun attracts more people and if you're talking cybersport, then cybersportsmen play what's popular, even if its unbalanced (e.g. League of Legends). If you want a game to sell, you make it juicy. If you want to be noticed in the industry, you make juicy stuff and add interesting and original features. Chances that someone will hire a number-cruncher with zero fantasy are really low. Chances that someone will buy a game because its, like, REALLY well balanced are likewise low.
2) We're talking about custom maps which bring zero moneys. Fun is the only thing keeping us all here.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 57
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,426
1) Well, no. Fun attracts more people and if you're talking cybersport, then cybersportsmen play what's popular, even if its unbalanced (e.g. League of Legends). If you want a game to sell, you make it juicy. If you want to be noticed in the industry, you make juicy stuff and add interesting and original features. Chances that someone will hire a number-cruncher with zero fantasy are really low. Chances that someone will buy a game because its, like, REALLY well balanced are likewise low.
The joke is StarCraft probably brought in more money for Blizzard than Warcraft III did, at least if one excludes DotA Allstars tournaments. I believe part of the recent patches are to try and turn this around and encourage at least some competitive play as allegedly they are consulting various Asian pro WC3 scenes to help with the balance changes. This would also explain why the balance changes are pretty crazy.
 
Level 8
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
345
The joke is StarCraft probably brought in more money for Blizzard than Warcraft III did, at least if one excludes DotA Allstars tournaments. I believe part of the recent patches are to try and turn this around and encourage at least some competitive play as allegedly they are consulting various Asian pro WC3 scenes to help with the balance changes. This would also explain why the balance changes are pretty crazy.
Heh, Starcraft is a unique example. Few video games can boast being a whole nation's basically religion.
And its popularity was not due to balance, but due to
a) awesome setting (at the time at least) - i.e. juice, and
b) crazy number of tactics and strategies in unit combinations - i.e. various new features, which you advised against, for some reason. By the "balance what you have, don't invent" philosophy Blizzard should've stuck with Warcraft I&II model, where factions were basically identical in gameplay, instead of inventing Creep, Pylons, and basically everything that an RTS needs.

I don't think Blizzard have a master plan regarding Warcraft III. I think they just accidentally assigned a Warcraft 3 enthusiast to the Classic team, and now just don't want to lose face when the bus got rolling.
 
Top