I would recommend playing without heroes and instead using a general (it is in WBC III) so it's faction vs faction instead of hero vs hero. There's a sweet spot of lvl 15 or so where you can have a fun multiplayer game but if heroes are more powerful then that then it becomes too herocentric like WarCraft III (though the heroes are more in line there.) The really bad things with the game though are: I believe Wood Elf Merchants are also quite powerful. F.i, a Minotaur Pyromancer is said to be the best hero in the game. Warriors had one, Priests had another one and Necromancers yet another one.īut with such a great amount of races and heroes there are bound to be overpowered combinations. Minotaur heroes had another one and Humans had yet another one.Įvery herotype also had their own skillchart. Undead had a set of skills they could "buy" with lvlup points. It had a really deep hero skillchart (correct word?) where every race and class were unique. I tried WBC II and it was fun in campaign mode for its time but with WarCraft III coming out 4 months later its fate was sealed. If you don't the units will be invisible since the game uses a primitive DirectX or graphicsdriver or something like that. You have to use compatibility mode though. I sank a few thousand hours into the series by the time WBC3 came around, and I was late to the party. Some of the old bunch does still play them, but nothing like it was eight years ago. If there was a healthy online crowd still, the WBC series would be one of the best purchases you could possibly make. I miss getting my ass kicked too, but I was dangerous back then so it was a rare treat to consistently lose 1vs1 games against someone. Of course, he got caught with hacked stats later, but his penguin post and week long rants every time I showed up were absolutely hilarious. I'm even a little famous for winning the worst possible match ups in WBC2 against what was the best player at the time. Matches so bad that the top players dreaded losing to newbies that couldn't more than halfway play the game. The balance is bad, this isn't Zerg rush cheese, we're talking literally impossible matches. Even if you use low level temp heroes, you'll still get some nearly impossible matches when you go random. If you're looking for the perfectly balanced competitive gamer crapfest, go play Starcraft. The drawback, that awesome comes at a serious hit to balance. You can play temp hero games where you build a set level hero on the fly to avoid level differences, items, and retinue units that can give an advantage to one player. You can do everything from no heroes at all to massive, army smashing titans or resource whoring merchants of death carrying an entire empire around in their pockets. Of course, I'm in the "should have stopped at WBC2" camp, but the new sides don't detract from the scope of the game on the whole. Not just 16 races, but 16 different races, with only a few sides having similar attributes, and none of them playing alike on the whole. In a Blizzard game, you have two or three races. They have a dungeon crawler quality item system on par with games like Diablo 2, spell casts on strike, special abilities, stat modifications, the works. There are 28 classes, each with their own set of skills to level up, in combination with the heroes racial skills. They're RPG quality, persistent badassery, that you can level up from one game to the next. When you think of RTS games with command units, you think TA or WC3, the heroes in WBC3 are on an entirely different level. Why WBC3 is awesome is because it's not a basic RTS, not even slightly. There were some improvements though, like in game hero leveling. This isn't to say WBC3 is a bad game, it's fucking fantastic too, it just really bit the dust on some mechanics that were superior in the previous iteration. WBC3 sucks monkey nuts in comparison to it's predecessor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |