Who PLAYS Warcraft III?

[MacAztec]

I play a lot of WarCraft III : Frozen Throne. I was wondering who plays here on MacRumors? My name is DeathBestowYou, and I am on the US West Server.

[LoadRunner]

I use to, but every one I knew couldn't. So I was stuck playing brood wars. IT was just too ahrd to go back in forth between the two games. I might get back into it, but for some reson wc III won't install.

[iAmAzN]

I do! MR used to have a clan but it died due to inactivity of its members :( but i still play... iAmAzN on West and East :D

[QCassidy352]

I play... I'm pretty good. aka zerg (and others :) )on US east.

[bokdol]

i use to play but my comp was a bit slow.,... now that i have a faster graphics card i may go back online.... i played on the east server... bokdol

[Macmaniac]

I play both Warcarft II TFT, and Starcraft fairly regularly, I usually play Starcraft on weekdays, and Warcraft on weekends when I am a my friends who has a better video card. My starcraft name is EatDaSheep, and my Warcraft name is NoobTree. I am the god of Helms Deep in Starcraft I challenge you all! I am on US East only.

[zodiac]

I play warcraft 1, 2 and 3 all the time.

[MacDancer]

I play generally a couple hours a day of WC3:TFT on US West server. My account is Pissed_Drunkard. I'm not great, not terrible, in free for all at least (about 13 experience from level 9), but I'm worse in the other types of game. Of course, I hold free for all levels to be worth about 1.38 regular levels. I blame my computer (500mhz iMac, with 16mb dedicated graphics :(:(:(. G5 at next speed bump though!) and say that micro matters more in solo than in free for all, but I really have no idea how good I would be. Probably around level 15 in random team, since I got to level 12 there once. Anyway, feel free to add me to any of your friends lists, because I don't have many friends who are on-line at the same time as me.

[briankonar]

warcraft 3 is the best computer based game imo (fps are all the same). excellent balance as far as the four races goes (orcs desperately needed bat riders).

if anyone would ever like to 1v1 i'll stomp all over you :D (you can even pick my team).

can anyone help me install Starcraft under Mac OS X? I do not have Classic installed.

[aethier]

I love WC3, but am not that good. My friend however is another story, all you people saying you are good, this guy will beat you in a hart beat, he is truly amazing..

aethier

[MacFan26]

I play WC III ocassionally, but I'm pretty horrible at it. My friends who are die hards laugh when I play. Oh well, it's still fun though, I just don't play online and save myself the humiliation when I lose horribly :D

[briankonar]

I love WC3, but am not that good. My friend however is another story, all you people saying you are good, this guy will beat you in a hart beat, he is truly amazing..

aethier

what's his screen name? i'd like to play him.

[ajhubble]

I'd like to get some opinions from regular Mac users here on the performance of WC3. I myself have an Athlon 2000+ (1.67GHz) with a Geforce Ti4200 (I'm a Mac fan though - so read the post below in this context). I've recently had the opportunity to play WC3 on an iMac G4 1.25GHz with a GeforceFX 5200.

I have to say the iMac was a huge disappointment despite the 1.25GHz and 1GB of memory. I was expecting much better performance for the specs. It was like slightly jerky from the very start, and became virtually unplayable during reasonable-sized battles. You could do little but stare at the screen trying to spot your cursor instead of moving units away from danger, casting spells, microing heroes and the like.

It shouldn't be like this. My Athlon machine is silky smooth even in the most intense of battles. From all the literature I've read on the subject, I got the impression that Apple's graphics drivers for their nVidia cards are the problem. Either that or Apple's OpenGL implementation. A GeforceFX 5200 should be able to run WC3 fairly well, but on the latest iMacs, it just can't seem to perform as well as it should.

I've also heard that users with ATI cards experience less of a performance issue. Any slower performance for these machines would be because of the slower processor as these are more likely to be older machines unless specifically added to a later machine (but obviously not the iMacs).

I wonder if the forced stretching of the WC3 screen to fill up the iMacs wider screen contributes to the performance problems as well. Not only does it look bad (as in very bad as in so bad that I have absolutely no idea how a stupid thing like that could get past Blizzard), I'm sure it also adversely affects performance.

Clearly, both Apple and Blizzard have to get their act together. Apple just doesn't seem to be trying hard enough when it comes to Mac games. There was a Mac games push a few years ago, but that seems to have fallen by the way-side somewhat.

So, opinions from real Mac users here on WC3 performance?

Edit:
BTW: I'm AceAnt on Lordaeron. Say hello on the Battle.Net TFT General Discussion Forum :)

[mudface]

I play quite a bit. I don't play too many ranked games, just a couple nights a week with friends. Good times! Anyone that wants to join us is free to look me up on Battle.net with the same name: mudface.

-m

[Ja Di ksw]

I love WC3. Usually play a game or two as a break from studying, or to calm down. Use the name bicoid online (god I'm a bio geek). However, my com is kinda slow (450 G4, 384 RAM) and, well, I suck at the game. Hard.

[MacFan26]

Clearly, both Apple and Blizzard have to get their act together. Apple just doesn't seem to be trying hard enough when it comes to Mac games. There was a Mac games push a few years ago, but that seems to have fallen by the way-side somewhat.

So, opinions from real Mac users here on WC3 performance?


I first started playing WC3 on my mom's iBook, at 600MHz, and it worked fairly well most of the time. The only problems I had were when it would slow down in major battle scenes. When I got my new PowerBook gameplay was a lot better. I have a 1 GHz 15" PowerBook with 512 MB memory. Since the graphics card was already better, that made a difference. Sometimes it slows during battles, but definitely not as much as the iBook. My dad has an 1 GHz iMac like you, but I haven't tried it on there. And yes, they need to get their act together for the sake of Mac games!

[MacFan26]

Clearly, both Apple and Blizzard have to get their act together. Apple just doesn't seem to be trying hard enough when it comes to Mac games. There was a Mac games push a few years ago, but that seems to have fallen by the way-side somewhat.

So, opinions from real Mac users here on WC3 performance?


I first started playing WC3 on my mom's iBook, at 600MHz, and it worked fairly well most of the time. The only problems I had were when it would slow down in major battle scenes. When I got my new PowerBook gameplay was a lot better. I have a 1 GHz 15" PowerBook with 512 MB memory. Since the graphics card was already better, that made a difference. Sometimes it slows during battles, but definitely not as much as the iBook. My dad has an 1 GHz iMac like you, but I haven't tried it on there. And yes, they need to get their act together for the sake of Mac games!

[haiggy]

Yeah, I play it. I bought it about a year ago (ROC) and I got kind of bored with it, but for some reason I showed my friend it and he fell in love with it so I started playing again. Since then I got TFT and it is much better. I can't stop playing it anymore. lol I'm not that good... but I try. Usually when I play online I don't care if I win or not so my profile isn't too great. The only time I care when I win is when I play my friends because then it is embarassaing. lol :rolleyes:
Username: blake_the_snake

[briankonar]

It shouldn't be like this. My Athlon machine is silky smooth even in the most intense of battles. From all the literature I've read on the subject, I got the impression that Apple's graphics drivers for their nVidia cards are the problem. Either that or Apple's OpenGL implementation. A GeforceFX 5200 should be able to run WC3 fairly well, but on the latest iMacs, it just can't seem to perform as well as it should.


what is the ram type of your athlon as well as the FSB?
G4's use SDRAM (antiquated, my p3 has the same ram, and it's almost 10 years old now). Their FSB is also quite low (100, 133, or 167 depending on it's age). i believe this is the largest graphics issue in g4's currently, and unfortunately is the only one you can't upgrade.

i have a g4+ tower, with 2mb L3. i think the L3 helps out significantly as my measly G4MX is able to keep up with smooth frames at all but the largest battle scenes (random 3v3). i do agree the choppiness is extremely irritating, so much so that it actually affects my performance in game (microing can be a major headache).

Unfortunately the typical attitude is "if you want to play games, get a PC." this attitude carries over to developers, who realize if they want to make any money, they need to sell to people actually willing to buy their games, not a small market of people with underpowered machines. it's your typical catch 22, we complain about lack of performance and selection, but then we tell people that mac's aren't for anyone serious about gaming...THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GRAPHICS MACHINES!!! THEY SHOULD PIMP SLAP A PENTIUM ON GAMING!!

the G5 should eventually cure this shortcoming (vastly improved architechture, twin 1 ghz FSB is amazing) as well as AGP 8x (for the future :D) using much more powerful graphics cards. Can't wait for the next generation.

[QCassidy352]

it ran badly on a 1.25 Ghz imac with a gig of RAM? hmm... that's odd. It runs absolutely flawlessly on both my powerbook (1 Ghz G4, 768 RAM) and my brother's emac (1 Ghz, 640 RAM). I mean, no slowdowns, no jerkiness, always easy to control everything, even in big battles. I don't know what to say.

[QCassidy352]

oh, btw - seems we have quite enough to restart the macrumors clan, if there is any interest. :)

[warcraftmaster]

oh, btw - seems we have quite enough to restart the macrumors clan, if there is any interest. :)
why macrumors? why not a mac clan or a G5 clan or osX clan or iPod clan or a apple clan.not to bee mean i would like to be in a mac clan but i just want a cool name you know we got more then one opions here. o well it all good for me. i think am on the west
http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Lordaeron&PlayerName=paulthebest here you find out i got 100% wins with humans ;) :p

[ajhubble]

it ran badly on a 1.25 Ghz imac with a gig of RAM? hmm... that's odd. It runs absolutely flawlessly on both my powerbook (1 Ghz G4, 768 RAM) and my brother's emac (1 Ghz, 640 RAM). I mean, no slowdowns, no jerkiness, always easy to control everything, even in big battles. I don't know what to say.
I know. I wasn't too happy. There were 2 iMacs next to each other on the LAN. One was a 1.0 GHz one (I think - could have been an 866 Ghz) and the other was the 1.25 GHz one. Both wide screens - one with 17 inch, the other with a 20 inch. Both had OSX (one pre-panther 1.2.x or something, the other had panther). They both had nVidia graphics cards - the lesser model had a Geforce4 MX, the later one had the GeforceFX 5200.

But both ran WC3 poorly. As I said - it was disappointing to see such otherwise fine machines giving such a dastardly performance. There are no problems running any other games.

Do the eMac and Powerbook G4 above have nVidia graphics cards or ATI?

Has anybody tried swapping their graphics cards around - between an nVidia one and a supposedly equivalent ATI one (e.g. an nVidia GeforceFX 5200 v an ATI Radeon 9200)?

[ajhubble]

what is the ram type of your athlon as well as the FSB?
G4's use SDRAM (antiquated, my p3 has the same ram, and it's almost 10 years old now). Their FSB is also quite low (100, 133, or 167 depending on it's age). i believe this is the largest graphics issue in g4's currently, and unfortunately is the only one you can't upgrade.
My Athlon is quite good. It has a 166Mhz FSB doubled to 333Mhz for the DDR memory, and it clearly out performs the iMacs on the specifications, including the processor (1.25 Ghz v 1.67 Ghz), FSB (166 Mhz v 166 x 2), video (GeforceFX 5200 v Geforce4 Ti4200) and sound (built-in v Soundblaster Audigy 2).

But the point is, similarly specced Macs can run WC3 fairly well. I'm just trying to determine if the cause is the nVidia card drivers. ATI has after all had a much longer time and the incentive to optimise their drivers for their own cards. nVidia doesn't even make drivers for the Mac.

[Rincewind42]

can anyone help me install Starcraft under Mac OS X? I do not have Classic installed.

Can't help you on the classic issue - you can get classic back from your system restore disks, I would recommend making a read/write disk image (250MB is so should do) and restoring classic to that. Mount when you need to run classic and your set.

As for installing Starcraft, you need the updated installer (still runs under Classic tho) that you can get here: http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/starcraft/patches/Mac/Starcraft_Installer_1.05-B.sit

And for War3, I'm on USEast & USWest under the same handle I use here :). I'm decent, usually playing tourny on east & arranged team on west.

[QCassidy352]

But both ran WC3 poorly. As I said - it was disappointing to see such otherwise fine machines giving such a dastardly performance. There are no problems running any other games.

Do the eMac and Powerbook G4 above have nVidia graphics cards or ATI?

Has anybody tried swapping their graphics cards around - between an nVidia one and a supposedly equivalent ATI one (e.g. an nVidia GeforceFX 5200 v an ATI Radeon 9200)?

that's just too weird. Especially since they run other games fine. :confused:

The powerbook has an nVidia 5200go with 32 MB VRAM, and the emac has a Radeon 7500. Hardly powerhouse graphics chips!

and on the issue of a clan, I only said a "macrumors clan" because we would recruit all the people here who play... it could be called anything.

[gwuMACaddict]

i play once in a while... but i am usually the guy that everyone beats up on... hehehe :D

[jsw]

So, opinions from real Mac users here on WC3 performance?

I play on a dual-2 G5 with 9600 Pro card. The performance is fine - seems great, even at highest settings, for all but the most intense battles. Yes, with a dual G5 it should be great even then, but, as said before, the ATI drivers aren't so great. Still, in 10.3.3, I have nothing I could reasonably call a problem, even at 1680x1050x32 (Apple 20" specs) - and it doesn't warp for the widescreen for me, it just shows a true 1680x1050 - which it did on my 17" iMac as well [well, 1440x900] (and, yeah, an 800MHz G4 doth suck at WC III). Might be better with a 9800, but I'm waiting for a better nVidia card to come out.

I'm online West occasionally as cannon_fodder. Trust me, the name's appropriate.

[haiggy]

My 933 MHz iBook with 640 MB of RAM runs fine except in big battles, similarily to the iMac. I wish it would run nice and smooth. :D But the good thing is, if I have my settings on high the game play is no different as the settings on low.

[Rincewind42]

I play on a dual-2 G5 with 9600 Pro card. The performance is fine - seems great, even at highest settings, for all but the most intense battles. Yes, with a dual G5 it should be great even then, but, as said before, the ATI drivers aren't so great. Still, in 10.3.3, I have nothing I could reasonably call a problem, even at 1680x1050x32 (Apple 20" specs) - and it doesn't warp for the widescreen for me, it just shows a true 1680x1050 - which it did on my 17" iMac as well [well, 1440x900] (and, yeah, an 800MHz G4 doth suck at WC III). Might be better with a 9800, but I'm waiting for a better nVidia card to come out.

I think the warping issue is that even though it stretches and uses the full resolution of the screen, it also displays with a 4:3 aspect ratio, so if your screen is wider than that, everything is "fat". You can also try putting various settings on medium instead of max for better performance during large battles.

[javabear90]

I would if I could just find the disk!!! :mad:

[ajhubble]

I think the warping issue is that even though it stretches and uses the full resolution of the screen, it also displays with a 4:3 aspect ratio, so if your screen is wider than that, everything is "fat".
Yep, that's correct. Everything is stretched out in the horizontal direction, so your town hall for example looks like a pizza instead of a building and your entire population is infected with an epidemic of beer bellies.

WC3 has the same field of view regardless of the monitor or the resolution. This is so there is no advantage to a player with a bigger and/or wider monitor or higher resolution over a player with a smaller regular sized monitor or playing at a lower resolution.

Unfortunately, Mac WC3 doesn't crop the sides of the screen when the monitor is a wide-screen as is very common if you have an iMac. I would think there will be quite a lot of fat peasants running around in various battle.net games.

[jsw]

I think the warping issue is that even though it stretches and uses the full resolution of the screen, it also displays with a 4:3 aspect ratio, so if your screen is wider than that, everything is "fat". You can also try putting various settings on medium instead of max for better performance during large battles.

Oh...well, no problem. It makes me feel thinner. :)

[Surfernate]

I'm a newbie since i just finally got a PB capable of running WCIII (15" Al 1.25GHZ) and I am still working out some crashing bugs. I also get choppy gameplay on larger maps with a lot of activity. (I'm turning off the bells and whisles one at a time as the maps get larger and more complicated.

I'm sure I pretty much suck compared to experienced players since I'm still learning the strategy and strengths of all the elements involved. I like it a lot because I liked Heroes III but wanted more real time gameplay to keep the time dedication to a game down to a reasonable level.

Right now I'm just getting through the Knight campaign on WCIII and I have had trouble with major slowdowns when there were more than 50 or 60 elements in a battle.

I haven't even tried playing online yet.

[ajhubble]

I'm sure I pretty much suck compared to experienced players since I'm still learning the strategy and strengths of all the elements involved. I like it a lot because I liked Heroes III but wanted more real time gameplay to keep the time dedication to a game down to a reasonable level.
Don't be too sure on the time you need to dedicate. A few games lasting up to 20 minutes or more can easily take up a few hours. You probably need to at least be able to beat one easy computer player before knowing enough to play on battle.net.

[jsw]

Don't be too sure on the time you need to dedicate. A few games lasting up to 20 minutes or more can easily take up a few hours. You probably need to at least be able to beat one easy computer player before knowing enough to play on battle.net.

Good point - and even if you can beat a computer opponent, it's likely nothing like playing online. People do things the computer never would, and it's a lot harder to win. Unless, of course, you play me. Most housepets could beat me....