Ze Warcraft Question

[Red Angel]

<looks around sheepishly>

Minor question for you people: have any of you tried playing WCIII over a 56k connection? I'd like to buy the game, but I want to know if it'll run decently first.

[Lord Necrodain]

I have DSL now, but back when I had 56k, WCIII ran pretty well, little lag and few disconnects. But, I had most of the detail settings pretty low, if that affects it at all. Still, a 56k should have no problem with WCIII, but you mught want to stick to 1v1, 2v2 and FFA, to be on the safe side. Bigger games ought to run ok, but, when I had 56k, heavy lag and disconnects were much more frequent in those larger games, though still not common.

[Razola]

I worked well enough for me, but don't overdo it on settings. Even with a good video card, you should keep the settings fairly.

You may drop from a game every now and then, but Blizzard pays attention to those with 56ks.

[Red Angel]

Thanks for the feedback, people

Originally posted by Raz
You may drop from a game every now and then, but Blizzard pays attention to those with 56ks.

Yeah... the "Multiplayer Requirements" box list 28.8k O_o; do those connections even exist now?

[Razola]

Originally posted by Red Angel
Yeah... the "Multiplayer Requirements" box list 28.8k O_o; do those connections even exist now?

I can't imagine anyone using a 28.8k modem these days...most people are getting off phone lines all-together and heading for the higher-baud paradise that is broadband.

And that's minimum requirement, the box never said it would play well at that speed. 56k isn't too bad, bit you'll get stopped at speeds lower than that.

[Heald]

PC Gamer listed it as one of the 10 best games that you can play on a 56k modem. Go for it. I can't imagine it puts anymore stress on your connection as Starcraft as they are both the same game engine and both on Battle.net and Starcraft runs great on 56k.

However, don't say that you're 56k in the pregame chat rooms, otherwise the stupid n00b Americans will boot you. It might go something like this:

RedAngel: Hey.
n00bamerican: HI!!!!!111!!!!!!!
RedAngel: I have a 56k connection.
n00bamerican: LOLOLOL!!!!111W00T!!!!UR!!!111SUXOR!!111!!!

You have been booted from the game.

[Razola]

Originally posted by HealdPK
...Starcraft as they are both the same game engine and both on Battle.net and Starcraft runs great on 56k.

Starcraft was made to run on anything. I think I played a game once on a toaster. Warcraft III normally has less units on the screen, but the 3D graphics and effects will slow you down every now and then.

However, don't say that you're 56k in the pregame chat rooms, otherwise the stupid n00b Americans will boot you. It might go something like this:

First off, you can't be booted from a ladder game on B.net unless your lagging for X seconds.

Second, that's better than dealing with the gosu Koreans...

[Heald]

Originally posted by Raz

Starcraft was made to run on anything. I think I played a game once on a toaster. Warcraft III normally has less units on the screen, but the 3D graphics and effects will slow you down every now and then.[/B]

That brings me to two things that annoy me about Warcraft III:

Only 90 units - I liked the days of my fully upgraded 175 Marine Rush. Classic.

Income - Perhaps it adds realism to the game, but why add realism when it is about Orcs and Dragons? Starcraft is still my favourite by far.

I do like the Hero RPG-style system. Very nice addition.

Now all we need is Starcraft II. Keep it the same as it is but just add more units, that RPG-system and maybe another race or two.

[Razola]

Starcraft and Warcraft have been forced into two different camps. Otherwise, Warcraft III would've just be Starcraft II with a fantasy setting.

Warcraft has a lower unit cap and requires more micro. Starcraft focusing on large armies and macro. Whatever you prefer.

The hero aspect would not work in Starcraft unless they lowered the unit camp. Your hero(es) would just be lost in the mix and be fairly worthless as the game pressing on, and armies getting larger.

[Heald]

Originally posted by Raz
Starcraft and Warcraft have been forced into two different camps. Otherwise, Warcraft III would've just be Starcraft II with a fantasy setting.

Good point. Starcraft was effectively Warcraft II in space with the races being radically different. Warcraft II failed in that aspect since the Humans and Orcs were exactly the same, it is just one was green.

Warcraft has a lower unit cap and requires more micro. Starcraft focusing on large armies and macro. Whatever you prefer.

I prefer Starcraft. Thanks to the unit cap, you never get the truly epic battles of Starcraft. It requires more management though.

The hero aspect would not work in Starcraft unless they lowered the unit cap. Your hero(es) would just be lost in the mix and be fairly worthless as the game pressing on, and armies getting larger.

It could work, if applied correctly. First of all, if the hero could be hotkeyed (i.e. F1, F2, F3 as per Warcraft III) then it wouldn't get lost. If you could use formations to put the hero in a certain battle position, that would work too. And if your hero had an aura that would give surrounding friendlies a bonus, that would encourage its use in battle.