Advertisement
 

Membership

 

Advertisement

 

Search

 
Forums \ General forum \ Micro wc3/Sc
 1, 2, 3, 4 

2 months ago
#41

JollYRoGeR

   9
#36 on the other hand, in wc3 you don't have to look away.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#42

PRYDA

   3
2008-09-03 20:16:30, Lord_of_Chaos wrote:
None is harder ofc. What is hard for you will be as hard for your opponent, what is easy for you will be as easy for your opponent. You still need to have a higher skill than your opponent to win. So none is harder.

Anyone believe that the other is harder than the other is just trying to make a case for the game they prefer. You will always have to put more effort in to practising micro than your opponent to win over him, in both games. It's all about the competition you face in each game.


I think you lost the point. Even though you are right in your statements, they seem irrelevant to the question. In Sc/Bw you have to micro more units wich also die alot faster like a previous writer explained. Wich makes it harder. It's also harder to keep up with the micro since you need to keep your macro at a different level than of wc3.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#43

Snotty

   4
Wc3 is far more micro-intensive, since there's almost/no macro involved. dota games are all about microing a single or few units and that's all you do.

but as already stated micro in sc is much harder because of 2 reasons: units have less hp and tend to die rly fast and at the same time you have to keep macroing
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#44

ETBrooD

   2
People who say that WC3 micro is harder don't know anything about SC.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#45

funNtwo

   1
okey, might be harder but gotta accept: with less micro in sc u can still be very good ;) in wc3 good macro won't get you anywhere ;))
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#46

KnekteN

   1
Let's just look away from macro for a little bit, and JUST focus on the battles... If we do that, the answer will be clear; WC3 is the harder game, purely microwise. If StarCraft had as little macro as WC3 has, the game would be ridiculously easy, and if WC3 had the same amount of macro as SC has, the game would be ridiculously hard. The question was:

2008-09-03 20:08:34, sirgling wrote:
Which of these games have the most and hardest micro involved?


MICRO, people. At this point we're discussing "which game is harder?" because some idiot involved macro into the discussion. StarCraft is harder overall, because you have to micro (TO SOME DEGREE) all over the map, and keep your macro up.

In WC3, when you're microing, you're really doing it. StarCraft players get 300 apm mostly from macroing etc, how much of that do you think comes from micro? In WC3 however, nearly ALL of the apm (which can get up to 250+ easily) comes from micro.

As people have stated, WC3 battles CAN be up to 10 minutes long. And you have to keep nuking the enemy, summoning units, moving your units back, dispell etc all the way.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#47

xiaof

   1
diffinetly WC3 is harder because, our units are more valuable. in sc it doesnt matter much when u lose a few zergling or marine. but in WC, whenu lose a unit, u lose not only ur economy but also helping ur opponent gettin stronger. there yes sc has more macro but i think true skills comes from micro period..
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#48

NigNigBot

   1
jajajajaja. no one asked which game was harder. #46, you said it. Sure i maybe a wc player but i'm not saying this to help the game i prefer more, becuz i could care less about games in general now. the question was on whether MICRO was harder and not the overall game. Sure macro is more important in starcraft and i wont disagree with that, but why would u say that micro is harder in starcraft? All you starcraft players are saying that units die in matter of seconds, wheres the micro? Basically, you dont really micro for that long, so you cant tell anyone that sc requires more micro than wc.

lets just say that sc requires about 30% micro and 70% macro whereas wc requires about 80% micro and 20% macro. This doesn't mean that wc is a better game, it just means that micro is harder in wc than sc.

Now we're gonna talk about this autocasting business are we? Sure casters dont automatically cast their spells on enemies or allies, but you do realize that ur opponent's units cant autocast as well? Just as in wc, just as one's units can autocast, the other's may also autocast. So which player has it easier? None. Autocasting is basically something that was added in wc becuz blizzard realized this became a rather big problem in sc.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#49

iG.Valio

   8
2008-09-03 20:16:30, Lord_of_Chaos wrote:
None is harder ofc. What is hard for you will be as hard for your opponent, what is easy for you will be as easy for your opponent. You still need to have a higher skill than your opponent to win. So none is harder.

Anyone believe that the other is harder than the other is just trying to make a case for the game they prefer. You will always have to put more effort in to practising micro than your opponent to win over him, in both games. It's all about the competition you face in each game.


Tho i logged on to TFT after looooong time and I played some micro vs oldschool wc3 finnish players and I had no problems winning them on a micro map.

EDIT: WC3 is not even nearly as much macro oriented as SC:BW. And stranglely i don't even think it is as micro oriented as SC, but it is more important in wc3 to know how to micro than how to macro cuz macro is just child's play in wc3.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#50

ETBrooD

   2
lololololol #46 and #47 no offense but you don't know SC :D
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#51

Genie

 (WarCraft Editor)   13
The armies are bigger in bw... yeah, so?

I close to never see anything doing one unit micro, backing of with a zealot so it doesn't die and go back again (cause the opponents units are automatically attacking another unit).

But BW is alot faster, so it's really hard to micro, but in another way. But LoC has the truth.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#52

Genie

 (WarCraft Editor)   13
And btw, I'm tired of having these "BW IS BETTER!", "NO WARCRAFT IS BETTER!!!!!" discussions, cause they lead to nowhere and everyone is obviously biased and have their favorite game.

It's two different games, they work very differently and you have to micro/macro and everything else differently, so it cannot really be compared.

Also, it's like some of the starcraft people think that you can go take a piss or make some coffee in the middle of a warcraft match. Come on... -.-
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#53

nK)Nightwish

   4
My opinion:

Only because WC3 does focus more on micro doesn´t mean there is more or better micro needed to win the game.
If you look at any game played you will find many micro faults even at top levels... that´s quite normal as it is in SC.
I think that proves the fact that focussing on micro does not automatically means there is better micro.

On the other hand it is right to say, that if a unit of you dies the opponent in WC3 gets experience add to the one unit less of you. And that could mean in SC it is not as bad to lose a unit.
But when do you lose a single unit in SC? By scouting perhaps.
If you think of reavers and reaver drop then think the micro put into this. If you lose the early reaver, you may lose the whole game. If you lose a fiend or an archer your oponnent has some more xp.
I don´t want to say its harder to lose a unit in SC, I just want to make clear that it´s a relative thing to say losing a unit is bad in WC3 an not as bad in SC.
Add to this if you don´t lose a single unit one single move can make you lose all your units in SC. Running with M&M over hold lurker. Or getting Maelstrom over stacked Mutas and then Psi over it. One single move can make you lose the game. Although you cannot focus all the time on your units and mirco. That makes it very difficult to spend the right amount of time to micro while macroing.
I think thats one of the things that makes not the micro more difficult but the game.
Though WC3 consists more of micro, the perfect micro in SC can never be reached, even if the game would have no macro at all. So there is a much greater capability to be superior if you micro even better than before. Just look at the Muta micro with which the zergs had once their time to dominate the other races.
Because it is more easy to focus on microing it is more difficult to become superior to your opponents in WC3. That means in SC the difficulty is to micro as good as you can while doing all the necessary things to don´t lose because of microing while you should macroing, in WC3 it is hard to micro the point over an "i" better than your opponent to win the game.

I don´t want to say the SC micro is more difficult. For me WC3 is way more difficult to micro than SC. It´s a different kind of micro that doesn´t fit me.
I think all the WC3 Pros are skilled and very good in what they do.
But if I see how perfect the micro and macro in SC is add to all the other things you have to do, I must admit that I have deep respect for the pro gamers in korea.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#54

Get.Yourgun

   9
I like Stacraft more and I don't know if it is harder, maybe bit faster? Like Lord_of_chaos said, specially first part:

2008-09-03 20:16:30, Lord_of_Chaos wrote:
None is harder ofc. What is hard for you will be as hard for your opponent, what is easy for you will be as easy for your opponent. You still need to have a higher skill than your opponent to win. So none is harder.

Anyone believe that the other is harder than the other is just trying to make a case for the game they prefer. You will always have to put more effort in to practising micro than your opponent to win over him, in both games. It's all about the competition you face in each game.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#55

ETBrooD

   2
2008-09-05 13:33:43, Genie wrote:
I close to never see anything doing one unit micro, backing of with a zealot so it doesn't die and go back again (cause the opponents units are automatically attacking another unit).


If there's a tree falling but nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#56

champignones

   3
sc has better micro ill tell you why, they say if a unit does die it doesnt matter , that is wrong cause if for example your z oponent do a low eco play you have to keep your marines alives so when the mutalisk comes youll be prepared, and at the same time, he will mass lings so you have to have medics soon and bats a few of them plus scvs to defeat them and loosing a single marine can be devastating speccially because mutas quantity + mutas micro and you have to not let your marines die cause if you do you will die pretty soon.
you shouldnt confuse a "micro orientated game" to "which game has harder micro " and if you say that in sc units die fast and there is no micro, that is wrong and correct cause thats the point you dont have time to think : " i should micro" you have to do it so fast and your response have to be so fast that sometimes if you fail that micro you loose your entire army, like dancing hydras vs ht + zealots, a little mistake in storming or a little mistake in hydra dance and you can loose everything. in wc3 u cant do hit and run so effectively , i have tried it and after playing WC3 and sc UMS "Random Micro Arena" i feel more overwhelmed after playin the ums than in wc3.
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#57

lungo

   4
1 marine vs 1 lurker > 1 archer vs 1 fiend xD (lol this cant even be compared) but anyway, LoC is right, but i also feel that WC3 games arent as intense as SC games, i feel alot more intense when microing in SC, but my level in WC3 is also very low compared to my SC level
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#58

champignones

   3
jaedong in a VOD , he spent 5 minutes muta microing against a T. i mean a few seconds shows you are good but 5 minutes nonstop and the T player couldnt stop it, that is more harder micro than you can see in a WC3 game and i had saw Moon, grubby, sky games and they arent as attractive as a sc VOD, i even saw sc VODs drinking beer ( i think i am getting crazy @_@)
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#59

Genie

 (WarCraft Editor)   13
2008-09-05 14:47:33, ETBrooD wrote:
If there's a tree falling but nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Was that a dodge from my point, saying that I never watch starcraft?
Top of the page   Quote  

2 months ago
#60

ETBrooD

   2
2008-09-05 21:07:16, Genie wrote:
2008-09-05 14:47:33, ETBrooD wrote:
If there's a tree falling but nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Was that a dodge from my point, saying that I never watch starcraft?


It was a hint that you don't watch close enough. Are you saying just because you don't see something happen then it doesn't happen? Do you really want to say that what you see with your eyes is the whole truth? How can you tell from a VOD if certain units get microed individually in an army fight or not? Is it that you see the commands? Or do you sit behind the progamer?
Just think about it.
Top of the page   Quote  

 1, 2, 3, 4 

Forum post
  • Do to others what you would have them do to you.
  • Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
    » Read posting rules in detail

    Reminder: IP-addresses for each comment is saved. Offensive posts will be censored. Repeated offense will result in a warning and/or a temporal lockdown of the account.
    • Micro wc3/Sc \ Reply
    To submit a post, you have to be a registred member. Register an account below the title 'Membership' in the left menu.

    » Top of the page