Upkeep

[Kralic]

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!

[Michael]

Prepare for QQ replies.

[Ignorance]

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!
It would also make expansions worthless.
No.

[Rebelfist]

You're right, there's not enough rushing in the game.

[Noobrosi]

Upkeep is dumb.

/topic

[Rizaun]

No

[Dakarian]

If you're able to sit around massing up without doing anything then you need to face better people. One-base mass ups is just asking to be contained and starved to death or outexpanded and overwhelmed since you were too busy massing up to take down those expansions.

[Anon]

Upkeep was probably even worse then heroes.

[Artem]

I don't wanna pay my slave labor marines an honest wage.

[Emini]

No thanks, Upkeep is what ruined Warcraft III for me.

[Aryxymaraki]

Upkeep is dumb.

/topic

[Mindless]

Or make workers take up 2 population!

[Darkness]

No thanks, Upkeep is what ruined Warcraft III for me.

Upkeep management was actually what made War3 FFA so popular for its time. Risk sitting at 50 food hoarding gold, but having little army, or pushing to 80 food.

But for solo/RT, I agree that upkeep is a pain.

[Minos]

Upkeep is dumb.

/topic

Yeah i agree. I understand the purpose they were trying to have it serve, but the bottom line was it was stupid and annoying.

[Nori]

Upkeep was probably even worse then heroes.

qft

[Nephrahim]

I never minded Upkeep in War III (It just meant get off your ass and use your army) but I don't see any reason to put it in SC. If you are getting beat by defensive turtles you are doing it wrong. No matter how good a player is, if you stop him from expanding, you should be able to whittle away his money.

[leland]

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!

No.

[Therasquatch]

Upkeep was something that helped make War 3 a micro focused game along with the Heroes. Starcraft is a Macro focused game and adding in upkeep would diminish that greatly.

[Zaq]

A horrible way to solve an imaginary problem.

[Suicidemech]

A horrible way to solve an imaginary problem.

this

[Deadtomato]

A horrible way to solve an imaginary problem.

Kind of like the latency "fixes" all the HoN people are suggesting.

[Chaosdragoon]

No, upkeep made Warcraft 3 painful it punished you for having an army, how stupid is that? It's bad enough the game only allowed a 90 population cap (now 100 with TFT) and spending more time messing around with heroes than your actual army but now It's a bad idea to try and get more units at 50? No thanks.

[Kralic]

No, upkeep made Warcraft 3 painful it punished you for having an army, how stupid is that? It's bad enough the game only allowed a 90 population cap (now 100 with TFT) and spending more time messing around with heroes than your actual army but now It's a bad idea to try and get more units at 50? No thanks.

Not @ 50, more like 100-125 for the first level. It is just something to toss out there and get the generic view of it. Massing an army could also be sitting around guarding your expansions as you take them. Or add in a toggle like the Xel'Naga watch towers that takes this away thus making map control worth while, to those who do not see it being worth while.

[Rivfader]

I want to play STARcraft not WARcraft.

[Chaosdragoon]

Not @ 50, more like 100-125 for the first level. It is just something to toss out there and get the generic view of it. Massing an army could also be sitting around guarding your expansions as you take them. Or add in a toggle like the Xel'Naga watch towers that takes this away thus making map control worth while, to those who do not see it being worth while.

Not sure if you're aware but the forums are filled to the brim with people who complain about rushes and 5-10 minute games I don't think we need any more incentives for going on the offense because in this game if you even think about trying to go defensive you're going to be falling behind the other guy so It's almost never a good idea doing that so I don't think we need a "fix" at all.

[Comtrav]

I HATED upkeep in wc3, it really minimized the value of expanding and macro. It also made it very hard to 1v2 someone in a team game; in sc and sc2, you can expand a lot and get an army as big as two opponents, which is almost impossible to do in wc3.

[Uriel]

A horrible way to solve an imaginary problem.

Better than an imaginary way to solve a horrible problem!

[Winge]

No thanks, Upkeep is what ruined Warcraft III for me.

/agree

I hated upkeep in WC3. It's an 'interesting' mechanic...until you realize that it's just another way that the game is forcing you to keep the same 12 units alive for the whole game.

Upkeep in Sins of a Solar Empire was a bit more tolerable because 1) resources are theoretically infinite, ie limited only by your ability to acquire them and 2) you could have around 4x as many units for a comparable upkeep in WC3. A 70% upkeep in WC3 happened at 80 food, a 75% upkeep in Sins happens when you are able to support 2000 supply (the rough equivalent of 500 food in WC3). Unfortunately, upkeep in that game was based off of your maximum supply, which was lame.

The only reason I play WC3 these days is either to play campaign or DoTA. The only reason I'm not playing SC1 is because someone borrowed my CDs and never returned them =*(

The only mechanic that should be (and is) copied from WC3 is autocast on certain abilities.

Better than an imaginary way to solve a horrible problem!

The problem being that large battles between a lot of units is fun, right?

[Chaosdragoon]

The problem being that large battles between a lot of units is fun, right?

When I got Warcraft 3 years ago I thought the 90 food cap was in place for people that had slower computers because up until then I was used to big food caps from Warcraft 2 and Starcraft I was really disappointed when I could only make 40 footman max.

[Ilmari]

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!

War3 sucked. If that game was so great, go play it.

SC2 > War3.

[Bundles]

Despite what you all think, upkeep needed to belong in wc3 because of the way the meta game works out.

Most of you probably stopped playing wc3 after roc and never got to play tft, well Roc was a horrible game and tft was leagues different and better, at a higher level wc3 is almost perfectly balanced right now and the way certain matchups turn out is partially due to the economy, specifically upkeep.

Sure you might have had more gold and an extra expansion over the other guy, but his tech was higher and he had higher heroes, and it all balanced out in the end when someone either micro'd better or had superior positioning in a battle.

[Chaosdragoon]

at a higher level wc3 is almost perfectly balanced right now and the way certain matchups turn out is partially due to the economy, specifically upkeep.


The people on the Warcraft 3 forums want to have a word with you.

[Zasz]

I HATED upkeep in wc3, it really minimized the value of expanding and macro. It also made it very hard to 1v2 someone in a team game; in sc and sc2, you can expand a lot and get an army as big as two opponents, which is almost impossible to do in wc3.

No you could just have a ridiculous hero that 1v2'd people.

[Namhcir]

Upkeep was something that helped make War 3 a micro focused game along with the Heroes. Starcraft is a Macro focused game and adding in upkeep would diminish that greatly.

agreed. upkeep is what kept warcraft 3 a competitive game, getting an FE off didnt you mean you instantly won as human (w/o upkeep i dont think any human or elf would ever lose to one of the other races..)

and it would be a horrible feature in a macro based game like starcraft, but dont forget there is still alot of micro in this game, even ifi its nowhere near as important as in warcraft 3 its still an integral part of the game

[Darkness]

No you could just have a ridiculous hero that 1v2'd people.

What hero is that? No single hero can 1v2 people unless leveled up significantly

[Pwn]

Originally posted by Kralic.nfc

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!

Massing armies without prior infiltration is rare.

Never happens to me because I'm always going to offend early. Then I'll offend again. I'll keep harassing you until I'm either breaking through and winning, or losing.

[Stuff]

Upkeep forces gameplay.. the game dictates it's own pace rather than the players dictating the pace.

Upkeep was a bad idea in War3 (IMO) and would absolutely destroy SC2 simply on those grounds alone.

[Stratosspear]

I find that upkeep would make this game a bit more offensive than sitting around and massing an army and waiting for someone to make the first move. Upkeep would make it so you had to expend your forces if you wanted to get the next tier of tech units in game and not have the penalties. War3 did an excellent job on this!

Absolutely nothing from WC3 would work well in SC2. They are complete opposite ends of the RTS spectrum.

People, STOP GIVING SUGGESTIONS THAT WOULD MAKE SC2 MORE LIKE WC3.

[Lampanator]

Upkeep was probably even worse then heroes.

qft.

[Dreyo]

at a higher level wc3 is almost perfectly balanced right now and the way certain matchups turn out is partially due to the economy, specifically upkeep..

Explain to me how nightelves are supposed to beat dk+fiends. I'll be playing a real RTS while you go figure it out.

[Zaphrous]

Upkeep penalizes more powerful armies.
Plus its just silly, you can work around it.

At a lan party i went NE farmer. My friends went UD, UD. As the game progresses my friends killed off workers, one masses crypt lords, the other ice dragons. While i farmed gold + wood (without penalty), and entangled enemy heroes.
Crypt lords net everything flying, dragons freeze buildings + kill everything.

we killed all 9 other people at the lan.
Nobody wanted to play another game :(

[Pandemonium]

Haha... Oh wait, you were serious, ahem.. No.

[Inoob]

Not @ 50, more like 100-125 for the first level. It is just something to toss out there and get the generic view of it. Massing an army could also be sitting around guarding your expansions as you take them. Or add in a toggle like the Xel'Naga watch towers that takes this away thus making map control worth while, to those who do not see it being worth while. most games ive seen in 1v1 never reach the 100 food count.

but... if there was upkeep it would make 2v2 more interesting for sure. some players play the back and forth game... but most just turtle. for the ones that do turtle, a high food upkeep would be nice. like starting around 125 food, and at 150 go to high upkeep. it would give them some incentive to move out a bit.

there should be a penalty to bad gameplay, and massing 200 units is usually reserved for bad players.

most top players never reach tier 3 units, let alone get anywhere near 120.

[Johnson]

upkeep is one of the worst 2 ideas ever though of for an rts. the other is BFME1.

[Darkness]

Explain to me how nightelves are supposed to beat dk+fiends. I'll be playing a real RTS while you go figure it out.

God, just look at a high level replay if you really wanna know, it sounds like you have been out of the loop for many years. Bears/dryads with good micro destroys fiends. But no decent undead would go fiends when ghoul/garg is superior vs elf.

[Inoob]

God, just look at a high level replay if you really wanna know, it sounds like you have been out of the loop for many years. Bears/dryads with good micro destroys fiends. But no decent undead would go fiends when ghoul/garg is superior vs elf.

unfortunately most people here never learned how to play war3 it seems beyond seeing a few strategies and perhaps abusing them like M+M+M in sc2. let alone getting to know TFT, which was an awesome game, and entirely different from ROC.

[Zallklos]

This is Starcraft, not Warcraft in space.

[Payback]

Warcraft 3 is fun to play to just screw around, but too frustrating to play competitively. PLEASE blizzard leave as many elements from that game out of SC2 as you can.

[Divine]

I'm a strong believer that when I clicked this thread and then the page loaded to confirm my suspicion that this thread may be a troll.

On a more serious note regarding upkeep: No