I talk about the differences between SC2 and WC3, hope you enjoy it - though listening back to it, I feel there’s many different areas I didn’t discuss yet. To properly do justice to both games, I’d have to do a one hour video with preparation on it, so I can point out the things I love most about each game. Oh well maybe next time!
Also if you get a chance to read this please do a break down of all the war3 races and the strengths and weaknesses like you did at the end of this one
I'd gladly listen to an hour of professor Grubby covering these difference. I'm an idiot so while I like both of these games a lot of stuff that might appear obvious to Grubby is not to me.
Units are much more expendable and die faster in SC2 than WC3. It's very difficult to one shot units in WC3, even workers. There are only some high level/tech abilities that can one shot units.
For Terran, I think the best way to describe their advantage is that everything is ranged. So, while they can always get an advantageous fight by having preemptively higher range, like said, they're also able to just instantly die to random things if you aren't paying attention.
To me it's the scope. WC3 is about factions in a world, so you have smaller scales battles, and every unit death is meaninful. SC2 is about galaxy war, so the battles are much bigger and individual deaths do not matter so much. That's what I think conects the overall "lore" to the gameplay
I am very excited for you to be uploading SC2 as well grubs. Though WC3 will forever be my favorite game ever, SC2 is a great RTS, and I will always prefer RTS videos over mobas or 4X games
I always enjoyed a nice SC2 macro game, but I prefer WC3 in almost any given case personally, heroes just add so much to the game. Whereas SC2 was pretty much designed to be an e-sport title, WC3 feels a lot more "innocent and fun". It's a testament to both SC and WC that we're still here 25 years later though.
The thing I like about SC2 is that it feels to me it supports more different builds than WC3. In WC3, most of your build decision is what heroes you choose but in terms of army, most players are in about the same ballpark when doing the standard build. Each race then has about one more specialized unit composition (like Ghoul rush as UN). SC2 has a lot of variation in what army compositions are viable. Zerg, for example, can choose to go Ling Bane Muta, Ling Bane Hydra, Roach Ravager, Roach Hydra, Nydus Swarm Host or Hydra Lurker as their mid game army composition and all of them work and result in slightly different play styles.
In WC3, you try to damn best to prevent every single unit from dying. In SC2, you constantly send scores of your units on suicide missions (with the hopeful assumption that they kill a greater value of your opponents units).
It's great that you are introducing us to a new game in your channel. Maybe this means in the future we'll get to see more variety in Grubby's games. That would be nice And I didn't play much SC2 (I'm bad at it) but I enjoy watching it so this is a win/win for me
hmm, in my teens i have played wc3. and last years i have played a fair bit of sc2 and now trying to get back into wc3. wrap up for me: i love how good sc2 feels. the engine, the controls, how you can custimize controls and layouts (for example, i build my own grid layout where every single race, building or unit has its most used command on spacebar. protoss: clicking a probe and hitting double spacebar builds a pylon because space is build menu and space is then pylon. on zerg space is also doing injects for example, spacebar is also used for the most important upgrade in every building) i love the campaign and story and all that stuff in sc2 aswell. however i can only run luke warm with sc2 in multiplayer. watching professional sc2 is fun, especially since i live next door of taketv so i can watch stuff live there too. however PLAYING 1v1 ladder just stresses me out and gives me anxiety that kind of takes all the fun away because you know: if you mess up one thing or the opponent is 20 seconds faster than you, you can pretty much ff because the game is over. it feels like you are playing more against yourself and your own skill (wich if you are more of a casual and you know that you arent that great is really frustrating) and you cant really try out weird stuff because the opponent will just overrun you. also for some reason i kind of cant identify with any of the races, all of the races have stuff about them i dont like, and most of the units i find a little uninteresting. i dont know. overall in MP, i find the way sc2 is structured and the races and stuff a little depressing... it can be fun, but its not really made to make me feel good or enjoy myself or feel nice. on the other hand wc3 does alot of that way better. its slower speed, i can chill more, i dont get punished for 1 mistake or for being 0,5 seconds too slow, and overall you interact with you opponent, rather than fighting your own skill. and also the entire sound design and the quirky derpy graphics and the races and all, i just find the game less depressing to look at and play.
Reflections from the future: Having a constant visible ladder and streamers changes the way a timing-based RTS is played. In the old days they used to be team houses and lots of offline practise where you would get three totally new strategies no one had played against in tournaments. this is what made starcraft so exciting. The beauty of a hero style game like Warcraft is that every game is unique and exciting and you really don't know who is going to win. Heroes and damage types and upkeep provide so much interesting flex in the game as a spectator. It's such a shame that there aren't more heroes and more units in the game. Warcraft 4 with twice as many hero options and twice as many types with twice the army size would be so amazing.
Both games have high skill ceilings for both micro and macro, but WC3 is more micro intensive and SC2 is more macro intensive. As a result, as Grubby mentioned, WC3 is more forgiving because of heroes; but also RNG plays a much bigger role in the game. Overall, SC2 is a more complex game. In terms of game development, SC2 made huge improvements in the interface and control. Personally, I was better at WC3 back in its day. I think primarily because there's just less going on in the game. It focuses more on making decisions in real time and micro'ing your army; due in no small part to the fact that there's just fewer units.
Except SC2 isn't more complex? The fighting in WC3 is designed in such a way that losing a single unit is game changing, thus players are required to have a high degree of skill in order to avoid deaths and deny the opponent any advantage.
regarding adepts. You can use your own adepts to block an opponent adept shade from coming through the gap in the buildings. Simply shade your own adept and put the shade in the opening. Shades collide with shades
For someone that didn't play starcraft but warcraft the transition is pretty brutal and I guess it works both ways. My main problem is which race to play and learning all the units, abilities and upgrades in SC
I find sc2 incredibly discouraging coming from a wc3 background because of that 10 minutes of buildup then 2 seconds of fighting and the game is over thing. It makes you feel like you completely failed and have no idea why. It's reversed from wc3 where you can have interesting fights relatively quickly and the choices and decisions you make during those fights matter incredibly later on. SC2 is more like, you selected X build order and executed it 10 seconds faster than your opponent, therefore you win. You selected Y build order but started production 5 seconds late, so you lose. If you don't have the right mindset it can be incredibly frustrating. Thanks for the video!
SC2 has a much higher skill gap. It requires a lot more mastery and that can be discouraging for new players. Stick with it! Its pretty rewarding to finally understand the game and make decisions based on your knowledge and not build guides.
I always felt that WC3 had the perfect amount of units. The RPG elements and slightly reduced macro elements also spoke to me. SC2 is a great game, but I feel that with HotS it was just too many units and I find it hard to differentiate roles between them. This got worse with LotV ans also the macro elements require such speed that I am not able to keep up.
True that. Besides my everlasting hate for terrans, SC2 just was "too economic" for me. Too many games ended without a big fight, but rather were won five minutes earlier through a neat little drop in the mineral line or something like that. Like the big great fight at the end that should get you excited is just an announcement of the score and the players can't really change anything at that point.
@@ottokarl5427 Yeah what I hate is that infested terrans got removed from the zergs side but Terrans are allowed to have widow mines and ghosts and then still complain about not having op ravens. Its like whenever zerg had a strong unit it gets nerfed or removed and when Terrans have 2 or 3 of them then nothing happens. Like earlier today I played against a Terran trapped him on 1 base as zerg but he just turtles on 1 base with siege tanks and turrets. And then while I'm trying to get a 5 base lead while he is still on 1 base he flies into my base with 7 medevacs full of siege tanks and marines and kills all of my roach ravager ling bane and kills all of my bases. All of this was possible because he turtled.
Well I think It will be interesting watching you play age of empires 2 since it needs a lot of micro and economy management and with your micro skills I think you will perform well
Micro is harder in wc3 if you ask me. The abilities you can use in sc2 are pretty basic in comparison and the units behave smarter + infinite unit stacks. Both are fantastic games though and two of Blizzards greatest masterpieces
The only thing i disagree with is that sc2 doesn't have RNG, I think scouting is so crucial, especially when it comes to proxies, and with fog of war you can get really lucky or unlucky when others scout you or if your unit barely doesn't see the enemy building.
@@FollowGrubby If the outcome of games depend on whether people are lucky or not, I would say that implies games are partly decided on randomness/RNG. I understand what you mean though, there's no misschance/damage-amount/crit-chance etc. decided with an in game calculator so to speak. We probably agree on everything, this is just a semantical disagreement.
Holyshit that stalker micro. I am watching BeastyQT YT and he is ex-pro Terran amd when he will play Protoss his stalker micro doesn't look evem close to something like that.
SC2 has a higher skill ceiling in macro and in micro, more strategic layers and execution, easier to understand for spectators, whereas: WC3 has more stereotypical "fun" elements, more unique interactions and game-specific knowledge, more match-up specifications and randomness.
I would disagree on the "easier to understand"-part, atleast for new spectators. One of the many reasons LoL is so popular, atleast in my mind, is that it is rather easy to understand who is winning. You can count towers, items or simple hero-levels. Obviously there is much more depth, but as someone who is new to the game, it is enough to get the basics. WC3 works similiar like that, because expansions are limited and heroes are a thing. "Oh, that Blademaster is level 6 while that Archmage is just level 4, so I guess the Orc is winning?" SC2 on the other hand, because of its focus on macro and economy, is much more complicated. The pure number of expansions (especially with different races) doesn't mean much. The supply don't mean much. And the action isn't like in WC3, where 99% of the time you can just follow the hero and won't miss anything, while in SC2 action is all over the place.
@@ottokarl5427 i think this is just your own bias honestly. LOL is definitely one of the worst to spectate among popular esports, and a prime example of a game that is really hard to watch but popular because so many people play it. On the flip side, games like Quake, SC2, fighting games (and to a much lesser degree CS) are historically spectator friendly games, where there are way way WAY more people who watch than people who play.
@@PascalSWE Theoretical skill ceiling for micro is infinite for both games, but WC3 micro is only sometimes more "difficult" because of the clunkiness of the game. To get to the competitive level, the SC2 micro level is far higher than WC3 historically and atm. The reason why low level SC2 players can sometimes do well with bad micro is because SC2 also has a higher macro skill ceiling allowing you a way to make it up.
Both games has it's own challenge. SC 2's micro requirements becomes much high higher once you get into the level where most players will try to out-micro their opponents by engaging multiple battles at once, or attacking the opponent's base when there's a battle on the other side of the map. In WC 3, most of the time you only needs to handle one battle, but each battle is more complex than SC2, due to the amount of active abilities, item management, and exp cancel.
Before warcraft 3 I played Command&Conquer when I first played in war3 I thought it is worst game ever coz of selection limit and very weak unit attack and weakness of heros that cannot kill just small creep camp at lo levels. I thought why they are named Heros if they are very weak... Sc2 i never played
I'd have loved if they made improvements to reforged and increased the unit cap in selection, though my main problem when I last played in feb was there was a bug that prevented me from removing certain units from the groups which caused my heros to somehow end up on multiple control groups that I didn't want them on by the end of a game... which could have at least been somewhat mitigated by larger control groups. Also limiting control groups to 12 units effects things like flying machines and gargs far more than other units. And the thing is, changing unit cap selection wouldn't really change 2/3rds of the game when working with smaller groups is better, it would really only make lategame more fun and it overall a bit more tolerable to new and returning players which the game desperately needed.
This is sadly a too radical change to make to the core gameplay of the game. The game is alive because of the Esport scene and hardcore players. It would be like removing the 12 unit cap in Broodwar aswell. Things like that have become a vital part of the core gameplay. You've already mentioned one way how it could change the balancing of existing units, that enough should be an explanation why this change isn't as problem free as you think. Games become interesting because of the limitations they have. Warcraft wouldn't be the same game if you removed the limitations in it. You have to be careful in remakes not to remove the core elements of a game, if you do that you might aswell make a new one.
I'd slightly disagree with how you envision race's micro potential. Zerg - too high micro potential, (almost) nobody even tries to micro this Terran - indeed, high micro potential, and quite some people are successful at it Protoss - least micro potential, still higher than wc3, but also means it's easier to execute unit's potential at its fullest, they're Orc of Starcraft Protoss is easier to play, but Zerg has highest potential. This way, 100 out of 200 top players are Protosses, but the top 1-2-3 are Zergs (Serral, Rogue, Dark).
Zerg micro is basically just trying to sandwich your enemy, sure in late game you can have a nice variety of fairly micro heavy units but microing lings/blings roches mutas and hydras is all very easy tbh. Terran micro is alot harder imo and wc3 micro potential is way above sc2. In wc3 micro wins the game while in sc2 multi tasking is what wins.
@@PascalSWE it is true that in wc3 micro wins the game, but in sc2 micro potential is near infinite, comparing to wc3. It doesn't mean wc3 is a bad game or something, it just has much more limited micro potential than sc2, thus micro is much more important in wc3. I actually like wc3 slightly more, because it has heroes, creeping, items, lvls. Idk I'm not a pro player, and that's just my opinion of a more or less casual player
@@lortoc AoE3 has some fast micro based aggro gameplay similar to W3, with core units like explorers and a lot of 'creeps' that grant you resources and experience. Close to mid game, AoE3 turns so macro-ish with complex composition of units and big battles.
@@moyo2850 first of all bein consistently high diamond with 50 games seems extremely unlikely to me, but to answer your question, skill-level wise there's mountains between diamond and high masters, mountains between high masters and mid gm, mountains between mid gm and high gm, and you guessed it, mountains between high gm and top ten of a region. diamond is really irrelevant, what you're saying is something like, "i know how to execute some openings in chess and can beat some utter noobs, how much better could the top people be?"
Lmao diamond is like the entry-level of SC2 to get decent games. Your journey just started. If your DT rush won't work no more against masters or high end solid diamond players Edit: yes getting diamond with protoss is pretty easy especially if you cheese. Nothing special about that.
I talk about the differences between SC2 and WC3, hope you enjoy it - though listening back to it, I feel there’s many different areas I didn’t discuss yet. To properly do justice to both games, I’d have to do a one hour video with preparation on it, so I can point out the things I love most about each game. Oh well maybe next time!
I can't wait to see the one hour video love your positivity we need more humans like you
Also if you get a chance to read this please do a break down of all the war3 races and the strengths and weaknesses like you did at the end of this one
Please make the one-hour video!
I'd gladly listen to an hour of professor Grubby covering these difference. I'm an idiot so while I like both of these games a lot of stuff that might appear obvious to Grubby is not to me.
I love you Went beyond your comfort. New things bring new Challenges but mostly new opportunities
Units are much more expendable and die faster in SC2 than WC3. It's very difficult to one shot units in WC3, even workers. There are only some high level/tech abilities that can one shot units.
Even though I don't play neither SC2 no WC3 I was listening to Grubby like I wasn't in my Uni.
Thanks for the content.
For Terran, I think the best way to describe their advantage is that everything is ranged. So, while they can always get an advantageous fight by having preemptively higher range, like said, they're also able to just instantly die to random things if you aren't paying attention.
To me it's the scope. WC3 is about factions in a world, so you have smaller scales battles, and every unit death is meaninful.
SC2 is about galaxy war, so the battles are much bigger and individual deaths do not matter so much. That's what I think conects the overall "lore" to the gameplay
I am very excited for you to be uploading SC2 as well grubs. Though WC3 will forever be my favorite game ever, SC2 is a great RTS, and I will always prefer RTS videos over mobas or 4X games
Loving both right now. Gotcha!
I always enjoyed a nice SC2 macro game, but I prefer WC3 in almost any given case personally, heroes just add so much to the game. Whereas SC2 was pretty much designed to be an e-sport title, WC3 feels a lot more "innocent and fun". It's a testament to both SC and WC that we're still here 25 years later though.
As someone who enjoys SC2 and want to buy Reforged i find this super informative- Thank You Grubby!
dont buy reforged just buy classic w3 lol
@@zeorg i want to play online on bnet with my friends
@@Jasiuuu classic one allows you to play bnet and do everything reforged can, apart of reworked campaign and graphic update
@@Wojtek25game "classic one allows you to play bnet" yeah that is false
@@Jasiuuu it's true, I use it this way lol, just add the cd key to bnet
The thing I like about SC2 is that it feels to me it supports more different builds than WC3. In WC3, most of your build decision is what heroes you choose but in terms of army, most players are in about the same ballpark when doing the standard build. Each race then has about one more specialized unit composition (like Ghoul rush as UN). SC2 has a lot of variation in what army compositions are viable. Zerg, for example, can choose to go Ling Bane Muta, Ling Bane Hydra, Roach Ravager, Roach Hydra, Nydus Swarm Host or Hydra Lurker as their mid game army composition and all of them work and result in slightly different play styles.
In WC3, you try to damn best to prevent every single unit from dying. In SC2, you constantly send scores of your units on suicide missions (with the hopeful assumption that they kill a greater value of your opponents units).
That's a good gist of it. But really not an effective way to fight. Do that against a Zerg and your fucked with against their insta remax.
It's great that you are introducing us to a new game in your channel. Maybe this means in the future we'll get to see more variety in Grubby's games. That would be nice
And I didn't play much SC2 (I'm bad at it) but I enjoy watching it so this is a win/win for me
hmm, in my teens i have played wc3. and last years i have played a fair bit of sc2 and now trying to get back into wc3.
wrap up for me:
i love how good sc2 feels. the engine, the controls, how you can custimize controls and layouts (for example, i build my own grid layout where every single race, building or unit has its most used command on spacebar. protoss: clicking a probe and hitting double spacebar builds a pylon because space is build menu and space is then pylon. on zerg space is also doing injects for example, spacebar is also used for the most important upgrade in every building)
i love the campaign and story and all that stuff in sc2 aswell.
however i can only run luke warm with sc2 in multiplayer. watching professional sc2 is fun, especially since i live next door of taketv so i can watch stuff live there too. however PLAYING 1v1 ladder just stresses me out and gives me anxiety that kind of takes all the fun away because you know: if you mess up one thing or the opponent is 20 seconds faster than you, you can pretty much ff because the game is over. it feels like you are playing more against yourself and your own skill (wich if you are more of a casual and you know that you arent that great is really frustrating) and you cant really try out weird stuff because the opponent will just overrun you.
also for some reason i kind of cant identify with any of the races, all of the races have stuff about them i dont like, and most of the units i find a little uninteresting. i dont know.
overall in MP, i find the way sc2 is structured and the races and stuff a little depressing... it can be fun, but its not really made to make me feel good or enjoy myself or feel nice.
on the other hand wc3 does alot of that way better. its slower speed, i can chill more, i dont get punished for 1 mistake or for being 0,5 seconds too slow, and overall you interact with you opponent, rather than fighting your own skill. and also the entire sound design and the quirky derpy graphics and the races and all, i just find the game less depressing to look at and play.
Reflections from the future:
Having a constant visible ladder and streamers changes the way a timing-based RTS is played.
In the old days they used to be team houses and lots of offline practise where you would get three totally new strategies no one had played against in tournaments. this is what made starcraft so exciting.
The beauty of a hero style game like Warcraft is that every game is unique and exciting and you really don't know who is going to win.
Heroes and damage types and upkeep provide so much interesting flex in the game as a spectator. It's such a shame that there aren't more heroes and more units in the game.
Warcraft 4 with twice as many hero options and twice as many types with twice the army size would be so amazing.
Both games have high skill ceilings for both micro and macro, but WC3 is more micro intensive and SC2 is more macro intensive. As a result, as Grubby mentioned, WC3 is more forgiving because of heroes; but also RNG plays a much bigger role in the game. Overall, SC2 is a more complex game. In terms of game development, SC2 made huge improvements in the interface and control. Personally, I was better at WC3 back in its day. I think primarily because there's just less going on in the game. It focuses more on making decisions in real time and micro'ing your army; due in no small part to the fact that there's just fewer units.
Except SC2 isn't more complex? The fighting in WC3 is designed in such a way that losing a single unit is game changing, thus players are required to have a high degree of skill in order to avoid deaths and deny the opponent any advantage.
Wow, I hope you continue the endgame commentary. Much like day[9], the analysis from you guys is my favorite part!
WC3 is more enjoyable to watch
"Zerg has very little splash" -- Baneling says hello. Early.
"Protoss doesn't kill buildings quickly" -- Immortal says hello. Early.
Thank you for being the only person that could explain those diferences
regarding adepts. You can use your own adepts to block an opponent adept shade from coming through the gap in the buildings. Simply shade your own adept and put the shade in the opening. Shades collide with shades
For someone that didn't play starcraft but warcraft the transition is pretty brutal and I guess it works both ways. My main problem is which race to play and learning all the units, abilities and upgrades in SC
One is in medieval fantasy and the other one is in space Pepega
MassCraft II
HeroCraft III
Archons, templar, colossus, Disruptor.
Banelings (+baneling drops), Infestors, Ultralisks, lurkers
Siege tanks, widow mines, Hellion/Hellbats, Thors/Liberators (Air splash), Ghosts (shield splash)
To say Protoss has the most splash is kinda wrong.
I find sc2 incredibly discouraging coming from a wc3 background because of that 10 minutes of buildup then 2 seconds of fighting and the game is over thing. It makes you feel like you completely failed and have no idea why. It's reversed from wc3 where you can have interesting fights relatively quickly and the choices and decisions you make during those fights matter incredibly later on. SC2 is more like, you selected X build order and executed it 10 seconds faster than your opponent, therefore you win. You selected Y build order but started production 5 seconds late, so you lose. If you don't have the right mindset it can be incredibly frustrating. Thanks for the video!
SC2 has a much higher skill gap. It requires a lot more mastery and that can be discouraging for new players. Stick with it! Its pretty rewarding to finally understand the game and make decisions based on your knowledge and not build guides.
Just imagine a Warcraft 4 that has the balance of Starcraft and the battle mechanics of Warhammer 3
I would love to see you try something like Age of Empires (preferably 2) for a few games.
Great video! Loved to hear all the explanations! :)
I always felt that WC3 had the perfect amount of units. The RPG elements and slightly reduced macro elements also spoke to me. SC2 is a great game, but I feel that with HotS it was just too many units and I find it hard to differentiate roles between them. This got worse with LotV ans also the macro elements require such speed that I am not able to keep up.
What app do you use please tell me 😔😔
True that. Besides my everlasting hate for terrans, SC2 just was "too economic" for me. Too many games ended without a big fight, but rather were won five minutes earlier through a neat little drop in the mineral line or something like that. Like the big great fight at the end that should get you excited is just an announcement of the score and the players can't really change anything at that point.
@@ottokarl5427 Yeah what I hate is that infested terrans got removed from the zergs side but Terrans are allowed to have widow mines and ghosts and then still complain about not having op ravens. Its like whenever zerg had a strong unit it gets nerfed or removed and when Terrans have 2 or 3 of them then nothing happens. Like earlier today I played against a Terran trapped him on 1 base as zerg but he just turtles on 1 base with siege tanks and turrets. And then while I'm trying to get a 5 base lead while he is still on 1 base he flies into my base with 7 medevacs full of siege tanks and marines and kills all of my roach ravager ling bane and kills all of my bases. All of this was possible because he turtled.
Grubby on sc2 and protoss?????
Great, cannon rush video please xD
Well I think It will be interesting watching you play age of empires 2 since it needs a lot of micro and economy management and with your micro skills I think you will perform well
Micro is harder in wc3 if you ask me. The abilities you can use in sc2 are pretty basic in comparison and the units behave smarter + infinite unit stacks. Both are fantastic games though and two of Blizzards greatest masterpieces
I have to admit, compared to SC2 with majority of ranged units wc3 has alot of melee and slow attack speeds. Making kiting hard
Grubby could you elaborate on why you choose playing with the Protoss? and do a comparison with the other races as well.
The only thing i disagree with is that sc2 doesn't have RNG, I think scouting is so crucial, especially when it comes to proxies, and with fog of war you can get really lucky or unlucky when others scout you or if your unit barely doesn't see the enemy building.
Thats luck / bad luck though, not randomness
@@FollowGrubby
If the outcome of games depend on whether people are lucky or not, I would say that implies games are partly decided on randomness/RNG.
I understand what you mean though, there's no misschance/damage-amount/crit-chance etc. decided with an in game calculator so to speak. We probably agree on everything, this is just a semantical disagreement.
All in Andy is actually my nickname in the bedroom.
heroes (items, creeps), upkeep
It was pleasure to watch and listen to this video.
I'm waiting for a Starcraft - Universe MMORPG
Thx man! Keep up!
Well actually you could only get 500 unit per group.
Was going to comment that!
Holyshit that stalker micro. I am watching BeastyQT YT and he is ex-pro Terran amd when he will play Protoss his stalker micro doesn't look evem close to something like that.
Because Grubby is a wc3 player, in wc3 micro is everything.
Well, Beasty is a Terran player. Pretty different from toss
06:54 So, basically, Starcraft 2 is like Mozart, while Warcraft 3 is like Miles Davis?
StarCraft is in Space while Warcraft is Mythological Medieval 😅
SC2 has a higher skill ceiling in macro and in micro, more strategic layers and execution, easier to understand for spectators, whereas:
WC3 has more stereotypical "fun" elements, more unique interactions and game-specific knowledge, more match-up specifications and randomness.
Skill ceiling doesnt really apply to micro in well made rts like these two but if it does I think micro in wc3 is harder and more impressive
I would disagree on the "easier to understand"-part, atleast for new spectators.
One of the many reasons LoL is so popular, atleast in my mind, is that it is rather easy to understand who is winning. You can count towers, items or simple hero-levels. Obviously there is much more depth, but as someone who is new to the game, it is enough to get the basics. WC3 works similiar like that, because expansions are limited and heroes are a thing. "Oh, that Blademaster is level 6 while that Archmage is just level 4, so I guess the Orc is winning?"
SC2 on the other hand, because of its focus on macro and economy, is much more complicated. The pure number of expansions (especially with different races) doesn't mean much. The supply don't mean much. And the action isn't like in WC3, where 99% of the time you can just follow the hero and won't miss anything, while in SC2 action is all over the place.
@@ottokarl5427 i think this is just your own bias honestly. LOL is definitely one of the worst to spectate among popular esports, and a prime example of a game that is really hard to watch but popular because so many people play it.
On the flip side, games like Quake, SC2, fighting games (and to a much lesser degree CS) are historically spectator friendly games, where there are way way WAY more people who watch than people who play.
@@PascalSWE Theoretical skill ceiling for micro is infinite for both games, but WC3 micro is only sometimes more "difficult" because of the clunkiness of the game. To get to the competitive level, the SC2 micro level is far higher than WC3 historically and atm.
The reason why low level SC2 players can sometimes do well with bad micro is because SC2 also has a higher macro skill ceiling allowing you a way to make it up.
Both games has it's own challenge.
SC 2's micro requirements becomes much high higher once you get into the level where most players will try to out-micro their opponents by engaging multiple battles at once, or attacking the opponent's base when there's a battle on the other side of the map.
In WC 3, most of the time you only needs to handle one battle, but each battle is more complex than SC2, due to the amount of active abilities, item management, and exp cancel.
Could you make some videos of sc2 coop as well?
Main differences are W vs St
Warhmmer 40k vs starcraft 2
Before warcraft 3 I played Command&Conquer when I first played in war3 I thought it is worst game ever coz of selection limit and very weak unit attack and weakness of heros that cannot kill just small creep camp at lo levels. I thought why they are named Heros if they are very weak...
Sc2 i never played
I want to play this game how play it online????
Just download it, it's free
@@gapinzonr bro i have Warcraft 3 but i don't know how play it online
@@gapinzonrwhat app grubby play with
I'd have loved if they made improvements to reforged and increased the unit cap in selection, though my main problem when I last played in feb was there was a bug that prevented me from removing certain units from the groups which caused my heros to somehow end up on multiple control groups that I didn't want them on by the end of a game... which could have at least been somewhat mitigated by larger control groups. Also limiting control groups to 12 units effects things like flying machines and gargs far more than other units. And the thing is, changing unit cap selection wouldn't really change 2/3rds of the game when working with smaller groups is better, it would really only make lategame more fun and it overall a bit more tolerable to new and returning players which the game desperately needed.
This is sadly a too radical change to make to the core gameplay of the game. The game is alive because of the Esport scene and hardcore players. It would be like removing the 12 unit cap in Broodwar aswell. Things like that have become a vital part of the core gameplay. You've already mentioned one way how it could change the balancing of existing units, that enough should be an explanation why this change isn't as problem free as you think.
Games become interesting because of the limitations they have. Warcraft wouldn't be the same game if you removed the limitations in it. You have to be careful in remakes not to remove the core elements of a game, if you do that you might aswell make a new one.
sc2 = istj 1w9
wc3 = intp 5w6
My basic logic in starcraft
Protoss: overpower
Zerg: overwhelm
Terran: tactics
Terran A move
I'd slightly disagree with how you envision race's micro potential.
Zerg - too high micro potential, (almost) nobody even tries to micro this
Terran - indeed, high micro potential, and quite some people are successful at it
Protoss - least micro potential, still higher than wc3, but also means it's easier to execute unit's potential at its fullest, they're Orc of Starcraft
Protoss is easier to play, but Zerg has highest potential. This way, 100 out of 200 top players are Protosses, but the top 1-2-3 are Zergs (Serral, Rogue, Dark).
Zerg micro is basically just trying to sandwich your enemy, sure in late game you can have a nice variety of fairly micro heavy units but microing lings/blings roches mutas and hydras is all very easy tbh. Terran micro is alot harder imo and wc3 micro potential is way above sc2. In wc3 micro wins the game while in sc2 multi tasking is what wins.
@@PascalSWE it is true that in wc3 micro wins the game, but in sc2 micro potential is near infinite, comparing to wc3. It doesn't mean wc3 is a bad game or something, it just has much more limited micro potential than sc2, thus micro is much more important in wc3. I actually like wc3 slightly more, because it has heroes, creeping, items, lvls. Idk I'm not a pro player, and that's just my opinion of a more or less casual player
More content please!
Heroes. Finished.
Lol wtf never heard anyone say H U D instead of hud lol
Grubby, you should try Age of Empires 3, which is a mix between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2.
how is it a mix between W3 and S2 exactly?
AoE 4 coming soon, maybe he will get into that.
@@lortoc AoE3 has some fast micro based aggro gameplay similar to W3, with core units like explorers and a lot of 'creeps' that grant you resources and experience. Close to mid game, AoE3 turns so macro-ish with complex composition of units and big battles.
@@lortoc Also, civilizations in AoE3 are much more complex and play with different core mechanics.
@@Athielmon a great explanation; I agree with it!
Plz find a different game. Total War?
just wc3
umm i hate to be this guy but i got high ranked diamond in SC2 just going DT rush every game, last year. then i quit. I find it just to easy.
i mean diamond is higher mid tier, not really good.
@@Taunt61 heres what i know, i was actively beating people with 10,000 games after 50 games. how much better could the top people be?
@@moyo2850 first of all bein consistently high diamond with 50 games seems extremely unlikely to me, but to answer your question, skill-level wise there's mountains between diamond and high masters, mountains between high masters and mid gm, mountains between mid gm and high gm, and you guessed it, mountains between high gm and top ten of a region. diamond is really irrelevant, what you're saying is something like, "i know how to execute some openings in chess and can beat some utter noobs, how much better could the top people be?"
@@Taunt61 I looked it up at the time i was in under the top 10% i dont know what these mounters are though.
Lmao diamond is like the entry-level of SC2 to get decent games. Your journey just started. If your DT rush won't work no more against masters or high end solid diamond players
Edit: yes getting diamond with protoss is pretty easy especially if you cheese. Nothing special about that.
Brood war is my favorite, SC2 sucks and is actually imbalanced for years.