The food limit - way too big?

[Emperor Pan I]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Blue

I'm better at SC, so I like SC better, I enjoy it when I play it, and even if I lose, it still was a very good match.
But In WC, I don't have fun on it at all (not in customs though). And if I lose, pisses me off so much.

So in my opinion, StarCraft is a better game based on fun.

"fun" is subjective. I have more "fun" playing Warcraft III because of the uniqueness and the variety the game has to offer. It is all relative. A lot of starcraft players just failed to make any adjustment to gameplay style, so when they lose because WCIII plays differently, they think the game sucks.

I still remember asking Cort why he didnt like the game and he replied " I played a game and after awhile I got beaten by an army with a level 10 hero" Obviously he didn't scout or creep or play fast enough, and heroes can't get past level 6 without killing player units. Cort was to slow to react and micro and saw everything from a SC players point of view.

[Wing Zero]

wc for me feels like it requires i need to be more active unlike sc where i can relax at times

The heroes system adds 99% of war3's crappiness rating, and makes it not even worth looking it without even touching the god awful mechanics.

[Emperor Pan I]

Originally Posted by Magical Trevor

The heroes system adds 99% of war3's crappiness rating, and makes it not even worth looking it without even touching the god awful mechanics.

The Heroes system adds something new to RTS and makes it a hellovalot more fun than other RTS. Warcraft III is the only RTS to even have heroes and not suck balls. Because Warcraft III is simply better than you.

I go by WotC's definition of balance, and heroes clearly defy it. It should easily be possible to win WITHOUT heroes, meaning they should be completely optional for players who wish to use them.

Guess what, fanboy? They aren't.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Mike

I still remember asking Cort why he didnt like the game and he replied " I played a game and after awhile I got beaten by an army with a level 10 hero" Obviously he didn't scout or creep or play fast enough, and heroes can't get past level 6 without killing player units. Cort was to slow to react and micro and saw everything from a SC players point of view.

Cortalos was never even good at customs either. Level 10 heroes are also killable, you just got to prevent them from getting to level 10.

Originally Posted by MT

I go by WotC's definition of balance, and heroes clearly defy it. It should easily be possible to win WITHOUT heroes, meaning they should be completely optional for players who wish to use them.

No offense, but I have told you 500 ****ing times that heroes are still killable. At level 1, they have the HP of a regular run of the mill unit. And even late game, heroes can still be killed by either other heroes or proper use of units. You probably only thought they were cheap in the first place cause you saw them at late game against people who didn't do anything to try and stop them from getting that strong or have no clue how to counter them.

I just treat them as regular units that get stronger as time goes on.

The thing is that a hero, at level 5+ is in every way superior to five supply worth of units. That's unbalanced.

Needing heroes to kill other heroes? That's poor game design.

[SouLess]

How can you honestly be so ignorant.

The hero system, where heroes are required is a sign of ill-balance. It's impossible to win without them.

[Ninja_Blue]

No, that is ignorant.
You don't need heroes to win, they just help winning go faster in some cases.
Cause some heroes are just support, with auras and buff spells.

And others are meat shields, you just gotta know what to do against them, surround the meat shields with a ton of ranged units, or surround the mages with a bunch of melee units.

I am just horrible at WC, for some reason, I know what to do, I just fail to acomplish what I want to do on account of variables.